A slice of life

Who cares for carers??

dippydebzy — Sun, 24 May 2009 15:50:56 +0000

As a disabled person who has also been an informal carer, the short answer is nobody! Carers good nature is taken full advantage of by the statutory services. They offer support granted, but if you dare to say you actually want whats on offer it suddenly disappears, Suggest for one second that you are stressed, can’t cope, or shock horror, feel badly done by, then the whole system goes into meltdown. You can’t possibly stop doing the caring you are told, your caree needs you, well they do but usually this is at least in part because the services they get to meet their needs, often fall short of what they really need, if indeed they get any help at all. Informal carers have to make good the shortfall, or the person they care for suffers. Given that many informal carers are related to the person they help, few will abandon them, so the system not the service user usually wins.

This weekend there is again talk of help for carers who fall short of the current rules for financial help. There may in the future be help for those who currently don’t care for the 35 hour limit, or who have earnings above the limit, or get benefits that exclude them from being supported as carers. That’s good news, or will be, if its done properly at levels that make a real difference. Current rules mean that even those that qualify often struggle to make ends meet.

I’m disabled, and was a carer, I’m not unique, many carers are, or become disabled, and many disabled people help other disabled people. Not only do carers need financial help, they need real, and practical support to care, and the people they care for, need packages, that recognise and flexibly meet their needs, and also recognise the needs of carers, and the limitations the caring role puts on their lives. Benefits alone, however they are changed, are not enough, the social support system needs changing radically, so that it is controlled by, and responsive to those who use it.

Palace Security drive, not so safe!

dippydebzy — Sun, 24 May 2009 14:52:20 +0000

A royal chauffeur has been allegedly giving unofficial tours to undercover journalists, without carrying out security checks. For the princely sum of £1,000, the journalists had unprecedented access to royal cars. With fears of terrorist attacks you would expect Britain’s first family to be protected right? Seemingly though it is frighteningly easy to get close to them, and their property. From intruders in the bedroom to batman on the palace roof, and other scares in between you would think they had learnt their lesson, but no they seem instead, in my opinion to be waiting for and courting a disaster. They were only journalists, but they could so easily have been terrorists, and the royal family could have been wiped out. They are shadowed by security everywhere they go, yet they don’t seem to have the same level of protection behind their own front door. Perhaps they have become too expensive to protect, and a security risk we as a country can no longer afford to take?

Pay by click

dippydebzy — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:17:14 +0000

It seems we may soon have to pay to use news websites, or at least thats the story in several papers this week. If it becomes reality, then will it spread to other types of information sites, and will it make surfing a luxury we just can’t afford? Will we be charged for browsing when we shop online? I can see the argument to a point if you want a newspaper you pay, so why should Internet versions be different? Traditionally however the Internet has been, largely a free form of information, I know some more specialist sites charge, but most sites are freely in the public domain, perhaps you may need to register but not pay to use them. After all most people pay for internet access anyway, and nobody is forcing newspapers to have or maintain websites, they could just close their site. It may also be that the website is a form of advertising, see the site, so choose to buy the paper, that they would lose if they started charging. Far from increasing their revenus, they may decrease it, people may not buy their paper anymore, or may choose either the site or the paper. If people have to pay twice, for both interenet access, and access to specific sites, then this is likely to seriously limit use of the net. This could have a knock on effect on many aspects of people’s lives, many become computer literate because they use the net, that will be lost. Children will no longer have the benefits of using the net to easily find information for study, and the self taught computer using wotkforce may be a thing of the past. Charging if it spreads could become an expensive option not just for the computer using public, but for organisations who benefit from computer use.

Expenses could be expensive

dippydebzy — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:42:47 +0000

From a male MP buying tampax, to claims for kitkat, ‘flipping’ to trouser presses, the process of expenses claims is now well and truly in the public domain, as it should be, it is after all public money. I have the feeling this could be the political hot potato that breaks the oven, one mistake too far. This appears to have done what welfare reform, and the Guarkas fight to stay couldn’t, it has shaken the govenment to its roots, and served as a reminder they answer to us, the public, we put them there, and we can remove them. This time though, it may be public opinion, rather than the cross on the ballot paper that makes the difference. For once they seem to be sitting up and taking notice. I only hope though that this is not a storm in a tea cup but the beginning of a new era, of open and honest government, responsive to popular view, not just at election time, but on each and every issue. Now may be a very good time for rights organisations to take the bull by the political horns and fight on the issues that matter, a vunerable enemy will put up less of a fight! I cannot see this being anything but the end of the present Government, lets hope it is also a change in attitude.

My solution to this mess would be straightforward and transparent, receipts for every single expenditure, a list of what can and cannot be claimed, and item, and overall claim limits. The rules need changing and fast. They must be unabiguous, and set on realistic amounts as limits, and never over what is actually spent. Only those claims directly as a consequence of being an MP should be included, living a reasonable lifestyle. It must no longer be seen as an excuse to supplement their already generous, and self set salaries. They must be independantly checked to ensure the rules are kept to the letter. At a time of recession we cannot see public figures living the life of Riley at public expense.

Local seems so far away

dippydebzy — Sun, 10 May 2009 18:04:51 +0000

This article mourning the loss of local ITV news struck a cord because where I live has become a victim to the policy. Living in what is still seen as a ‘sleepy’ part of the south west, we don’t get the big stories happening here, so can’t compete with ares like Gloucester, and Bristol for a big enough chunk of news time. it now seems like little happens here, when in fact its a busy thriving area, with plenty going on. They used to easily fill a full news programme. Our only ‘crime’ is that its a predominately rural area, so life in bigger, busier places is seen as more interesting and newsworthy.

This is an area with a strong and unique identity, this shone through the news programmes. Keeping everybody up to date with what was happening at ‘home’. In the digital age it also means that those further away who still call this home, and there are many, could still maintain a link with the area, as local programming is acailable nationwide on some services.. This is now gone, and we are lucky if we hear one truly local story a day. I don’t need to know the local news from hundreds of miles away, I’m interested in what happens on my patch, among my people. The weather and traffic updates also forget us, blink and you miss what is the briefest of mentions.

Bring back local programming for local people, keep communities informed and in touch.

I love my computer cos my friends live there

dippydebzy — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:14:25 +0000

If this article is true then its extreme, but I see nothing wrong with a new way of providing baby news to the world. The article worries we have forgotten ‘real’ friendships in favour of, presumably, fake cyberspace ones. I think the opposite is true in general terms computers can make friendships easier. You can email or leave notes for people in a way you can’t otherwise. Facebook, and similar, are real time mediums, but the person you are messaging doesn’t have to be physically in a set place, as they do with phonecalls, or face to face visits. You can ‘chat’ without being together. It makes it easier to fit friendships into increasing busy lives. For some people ‘remote’ frendships can make the difference between human contact, and social islolation. Disabled people, elderly people, those with heavy family responsibilities, and peope who live in isolated areas are just some who may find traditional friendships difficult to maintain. Why shouldn’t they, and others use the tools available to them to have a fuller life?

Perhaps those people with hundreds of ‘friends’ on networking sites may have a problem if they think they are all real in the every day sense. However having hundreds of contacts, only some of whom may be traditional friends does not make you a social misfit. Away from cyberspace people with have varying relationships with people they know, this is accepted, why can that not be transferred and accepted of social network contacts.

Computers tell more secrets.

dippydebzy — Sat, 09 May 2009 11:17:02 +0000

Yet again sensitive infomation has been found on computers, defence details, NHS and bank records, all available to those with computing skills. Information that could be used to threaten national security, invade provacy, and perhaps steal identities. From the type of information its highly likely these were used for official purposes, by government and other organisations who would usually have employees well capable of cleaning hard drives, so that it could not be readily accessed. Do those with the power to change procedures not see how vital this is or just how frightening a prospect it is that anyone could see and use information that is meant to be projected by strict security and confidentiality policies. Do they not realise that there are good reasons for these, and they should not just apply when the computers sit in an office, if indeed they adhere to such policies even then. Too many leaks suggest that official organisations are far too careless with sensitive information. Makes me feel like nobody can be trusted anymore!

More heartache, leave them alone

dippydebzy — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:14:49 +0000

Jade Goody’s beloved sons face more heartache, as Dad Jeff Brazier splits from his longterm girlfriend. Its very sad, and I really feel for them, three family tragedies in such a short time would be difficult for an adult to deal with, and must be near impossible for two little boys. Nobody will forget Jade and the way she ’went public’ to make money for her children, and to promote the cervical cancer cause. For that she deserves no less than admiration, and her little boys can be proud of their brave mummy. My question is do we really need to know every, or even any detail of the children’s lives? Isn’t it time they were allowed to grieve, and grow up in private, and for Jade to rest in peace?

Maybe they need to look closer to home

dippydebzy — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:58:58 +0000

As an ex benefits adviser I abhor benefit fraud. I have seen many genuine claimants stuggle to claim, and live in fear, completely unfounded, that they will be accused of fraud. The lives of those fully entitled to claim is made more difficult by the relative few who do so falsely. I have also seen the effect a false accusation can have. Yes there needs to be investigation, there is an obligation to protect public money. In some cases however, possibly encouraged by adverts for the ‘Cheat Line’ accusations are made, that are clearly false, yet still have far reaching consequences for the health and wellbeing of the claimant concerned. There is also a generalised attitude that fraud is high amongst those claiming incapacity or disability based benefits, possibly because of a few sensationalised cases, that are in fact rare. Fraud for these benefits is among the lowest. In the case of Disability Living Allowance in reality many people underclaim. There are some stories which suggest that perhaps DWP need to look only in its own backyard to find fraud. It is that if she loses her job, and claims benefit, the same public money she stole will be paid to her as benefit.

Bith control may become a man thing

dippydebzy — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:22:01 +0000

The male pill, or this time, more precisely, contraceptive injections for men, are being researched and trialled again. It sounds promising this time, only 1% failure rate during trials. A real boost to contraceptive choices, if it becomes reality, and probably of most use where female equivelants are unsuitable. Personally though I would still prefer to be the one with the responsibility, or to use a method where non compliance, if it happens is obvious. Men don’t have the same motivation to prevent pregancy, they don’t have to spend 9 months pregnant, or personally face any possible associated health risks. Women also traditionally take on the role of promary carer, including situations where relations break down. therefore its likely that they will be more affected by any unplanned pregnancy. In addition there is ‘real man’s’ reluctance to take responsibility for his health, how many of them will simply forget to go for a top up, or not follow any instructions? If they do then they will not face the same consequences as a woman would.