Court finds for council against person needing home carer

[singlecoil]

The Supreme court has upheld Kensington and Chelsea's decision not to provide £22,000's worth of overnight carer for a former ballerina who can't go to the toilet unaided.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-140420...

I expect there will be a number of similar cases as councils cut back.

[Kaelic]

She wanted a carer to stop her having to use incontinence pads at night.

Feck sake so she wont wear a nappy and expects the tax payer to stump up for the costs

[TankRizzo]

I'm in two minds about this case. On the one hand, the care is extremely expensive. But on the other hand, if I had gone from being a fit, agile person to having to suffer the ignominy of pissing my own pants in bed because I couldn't get out without a bit of help - and then having to lie in that piss until my daytime help turned up - then I might well be looking for some night-time aid.

A sad state of affairs, I feel very sorry for her.

[carmonk]

Far better that all the money goes on sponging immigrants and lazy chavs with the rest being wasted due to incompetance or sent abroad. That was actually a close-run thing, helping a British national with a genuine disability could set a dangerous precedent.

[KrazyIvan]

carmonk said:

Far better that all the money goes on sponging immigrants and lazy chavs with the rest being wasted due to incompetance or sent abroad. That was actually a close-run thing, helping a British national with a genuine disability could set a dangerous precedent.

I think the point is that there may well be other options, but that is not what SHE wants. If the council cave in to whatever every old person wants then there would be no money for scrounging imigrants, lazy feck tards, other disabled people, people who no fault of there own find there out of work ect ect.

If she cant look after herself, and has no family willing to help her, then she should be in a home where a £22K a year member of staff can look after her and 15 - 20 other people who need the help.

[JagLover]

There is a big difference between what it would be nice for the state to provide and what it can afford to provide.

During the Labour years the public sector acted like there was a limitless pool of money, but now reality has struck.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Quite. & I dunno about you but I rarely st or piss in the night, even after a good session & curry for supper......

[carmonk]

KrazyIvan said:

carmonk said:

Far better that all the money goes on sponging immigrants and lazy chavs with the rest being wasted due to incompetance or sent abroad. That was actually a close-run thing, helping a British national with a genuine disability could set a dangerous precedent.

I think the point is that there may well be other options, but that is not what SHE wants. If the council cave in to whatever every old person wants then there would be no money for scrounging imigrants, lazy feck tards

Exactly, you've got it. Allowing this elderly disabled woman the dignity of not stting in her pants is far, far ahead of the needs of every single scrounging immigrant, every lazy-ass chav, every stupid piece of modern art, every gaggle of pointless consultants and every one of the other thousand ways that billions of our tax money is pissed away on a daily basis.

KrazyIvan said:

If she cant look after herself, and has no family willing to help her, then she should be in a home where a £22K a year member of staff can look after her and 15 - 20 other people who need the help.

If the government and the councils priorities correctly and there was no money left at the end of that I would agree. Until that point, I do not.

[Sheets Tabuer]

JagLover said:

There is a big difference between what it would be nice for the state to provide and what it can afford to provide.

During the Labour years the public sector acted like there was a limitless pool of money, but now reality has struck.

In my experience the local councils provide the sum of SFA and are using the cuts to target the most needy and vulnerable in an effort to show how nasty and bad the current government is.

I'm currently having one hell of a fight trying to get a non means tested grant that comes from central government but I'm hitting a brick wall with the council who are claiming the nasty government have cut all the councils money.

They might as well be saying vote the government out and we'll give you the cash.

In my opinion of course.

[KrazyIvan]

carmonk said:

Exactly, you've got it. Allowing this elderly disabled woman the dignity of not stting in her pants is far, far ahead of the needs of every single .... stupid piece of modern art, .... every one of the other thousand ways that billions of our tax money is pissed away on a daily basis.

.

I wonder how much money her "Art" got from the goverment in her time, and I also wonder how much time and effort she put into providing for her old age while she was prancing arond on the stage.

It is all well and good to say, its not fair that we dont spend £40K a year on every old person while we spend money on other people, but the fact remains, that paying for one person to look after one other person, is not a sensible way to spend OUR tax money.

If you think it is such and in justice put your money where your mouth is and offer to help (not just her but any old folks in your area). Me and My wife spent the first 9 years of our married life looking after her grandmother (who ended up living with us), while her parenst looked after her other grandparents. And I hope Ia m instilling enough values in to my children that they might do the same for me when I become to old to look after myself (on top of the moeny I am paying in to pension and mortgage), rather then expecting some one else to do it.

[carmonk]

KrazyIvan said:

carmonk said:

Exactly, you've got it. Allowing this elderly disabled woman the dignity of not stting in her pants is far, far ahead of the needs of every single .... stupid piece of modern art, .... every one of the other thousand ways that billions of our tax money is pissed away on a daily basis.

.

I wonder how much money her "Art" got from the goverment in her time, and I also wonder how much time and effort she put into providing for her old age while she was prancing arond on the stage.

What a weird thing to say. I can't even start to imagine the relevance of either so I won't bother commenting further on the obvious bias and insinuation.

KrazyIvan said:

It is all well and good to say, its not fair that we dont spend £40K a year on every old person while we spend money on other people, but the fact remains, that paying for one person to look after one other person, is not a sensible way to spend OUR tax money.

Yes it is. I am hard-pressed to think up any better way to spend OUR tax money.

KrazyIvan said:

If you think it is such and in justice put your money where your mouth is and offer to help (not just her but any old folks in your area). Me and My wife spent the first 9 years of our married life looking after her grandmother (who ended up living with us), while her parenst looked after her other grandparents. And I hope Ia m instilling enough values in to my children that they might do the same for me when I become to old to look after myself (on top of the moeny I am paying in to pension and mortgage), rather then expecting some one else to do it.

I don't know what you're talking about, it has no relevance whatsoever to the point in hand, that being whilst billions are wasted on scroungers and immigrants, people in genuine need are being sidelined and their needs being ignored or ridiculed.

[dudleybloke]

whats wrong with a piss-pot?

[Cupramax]

Kaelic said:

She wanted a carer to stop her having to use incontinence pads at night.

Feck sake so she wont wear a nappy and expects the tax payer to stump up for the costs

I'm guessing your sympathy might change somewhat should you be in the afformentioned predicament...

[Sticks.]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

For a p? Nightly, when you're older. And she may have reduced control, if she's had a stroke.

Seems like this news item is, as usual, incomplete, and raises more questions than answers. In the absence of all the facts (like why she thought a carer was the only possible option) it's probably not worth getting hot under the colalr about.

[blindswelledrat]

carmonk said:

Allowing this elderly disabled woman the dignity of not stting in her pants is far, far ahead of the needs of every single scrounging immigrant, every lazy-ass chav, every stupid piece of modern art, every gaggle of pointless consultants and every one of the other thousand ways that billions of our tax money is pissed away on a daily basis.
.

Carmonk, You are aware that they haven't taken £22k from this woman and given it to immigrants aren't you?

[Cupramax]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sometimes they NEED to drink a lot, not through choice for instance, with kidney problems/failure...

[Corsair7]

I'm a bit of a leftie (some might of noticed) and I usually do think people deserve a little more state help....

But....


She feels an afront to her dignity in having to wear incontenance pants IN CASE she needs to pee in the night>?

FFS there are elderly people lying in their own mess for hours and hours in our hospitals and care centres!!! People litterally starving to death because they cant feed themselves, and people dying, literally dying of thirst because they cant ask for a drink and no one will pass it to them. And this lady (god bless her) feels an affront IN CASE she needs to be able to wet herself????

[Justayellowbadge]

Corsair7 said:

I'm a bit of a leftie (some might of noticed) and I usually do think people deserve a little more state help....

But....


She feels an afront to her dignity in having to wear incontenance pants IN CASE she needs to pee in the night>?

FFS there are elderly people lying in their own mess for hours and hours in our hospitals and care centres!!! People litterally starving to death because they cant feed themselves, and people dying, literally dying of thirst because they cant ask for a drink and no one will pass it to them. And this lady (god bless her) feels an affront IN CASE she needs to be able to wet herself????

As a lot of posters are stating that if she can't cope she should go into precisely the environment you describe, you can begin to see why she's so keen not to.

[carmonk]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm not going to speculate on the details of her disability and I'm going on the report that she has the option of stting and pissing in her pants or going to live in an old people's home. The first is a huge affront to dignity and sense of wellbeing and the second is all that plus a massive upheaval, especially for someone old and disabled. Are there more needy people out there? Yes, quite a few. Are there less needy people out there getting more money and more help? For sure, millions of them, often not even born in this country. Why is it that foreign criminals and scroungers and their families can be given their own house and financially supported by the state, otherwise their human rights would be breached, whereas a disabled British pensioner appears to have no such protection. You know what, even if she had no disability and wanted a bit of help in the evenings I'd still be happy for my tax money to be spent on that, way ahead of any spending on the aforementioned groups.

blindswelledrat said:

carmonk said:

Allowing this elderly disabled woman the dignity of not stting in her pants is far, far ahead of the needs of every single scrounging immigrant, every lazy-ass chav, every stupid piece of modern art, every gaggle of pointless consultants and every one of the other thousand ways that billions of our tax money is pissed away on a daily basis.
.

Carmonk, You are aware that they haven't taken £22k from this woman and given it to immigrants aren't you?

Yes. Thanks.

[princeperch]

hardly surprising lady hale went the other way - she is about as left wing as it can get.