More anti-cyclist discrimination.

Doug said the following on 07/02/2008 07:18:

Quoted message said:

A disabled father whose twins have leukaemia made an epic journey and
completed a charity bike ride in excruciating pain, only to have his
benefits taken away.

It took Danny Johnson-Green four days to finish the 200-mile trip to
raise funds for a cancer charity.

[censored] - he's paralysed down one side, yet he averaged 50 miles a
day for four days. I suspect that the vast majority of supposedly
able-bodied people couldn't do that.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:18:18 -0800 (PST), Doug <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Does it also apply to, 'If you are able to drive a car you are able to
work'? Have they not heard of bicycles as mobility aids yet?

"Disabled father has benefits cut after agonising charity bike ride
for cancer-stricken sons

A disabled father whose twins have leukaemia made an epic journey and
completed a charity bike ride in excruciating pain, only to have his
benefits taken away.

It took Danny Johnson-Green four days to finish the 200-mile trip to
raise funds for a cancer charity.

But when the authorities were alerted to his heroic story in the local
newspaper they did not take a charitable view of his fundraising
efforts, and have decreed that if he is able to ride a bike, he is
able to work..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512648&in_page_id=1770

Why do you still hold a drivers licence?

--
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

"PeterT" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:18:18 -0800 (PST), Doug <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Does it also apply to, 'If you are able to drive a car you are able to
work'? Have they not heard of bicycles as mobility aids yet?

"Disabled father has benefits cut after agonising charity bike ride
for cancer-stricken sons

A disabled father whose twins have leukaemia made an epic journey and
completed a charity bike ride in excruciating pain, only to have his
benefits taken away.

It took Danny Johnson-Green four days to finish the 200-mile trip to
raise funds for a cancer charity.

But when the authorities were alerted to his heroic story in the local
newspaper they did not take a charitable view of his fundraising
efforts, and have decreed that if he is able to ride a bike, he is
able to work..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512648&in_page_id=1770

Why do you still hold a drivers licence?

Are you sure this newsgroup is an appropriate forum for major philosphical
questions such as this?

"Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does it also apply to, 'If you are able to drive a car you are able to
work'? Have they not heard of bicycles as mobility aids yet?

"Disabled father has benefits cut after agonising charity bike ride
for cancer-stricken sons

Well done Doug. You've manged to twist yet another episode to your
victimhood.

Where's your report into Vince's house move?

In message <[email hidden]>, Brimstone
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Doug" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does it also apply to, 'If you are able to drive a car you are able to
work'? Have they not heard of bicycles as mobility aids yet?

"Disabled father has benefits cut after agonising charity bike ride
for cancer-stricken sons

Well done Doug. You've manged to twist yet another episode to your
victimhood.

Where's your report into Vince's house move?

And do you still sell KJ Interface Kits with PCBs for £11.50 each
(including full documentation)?

--
Ed Banger

Doug said:

Does it also apply to, 'If you are able to drive a car you are able to
work'? Have they not heard of bicycles as mobility aids yet?

"Disabled father has benefits cut after agonising charity bike ride
for cancer-stricken sons

A disabled father whose twins have leukaemia made an epic journey and
completed a charity bike ride in excruciating pain, only to have his
benefits taken away.

It took Danny Johnson-Green four days to finish the 200-mile trip to
raise funds for a cancer charity.

But when the authorities were alerted to his heroic story in the local
newspaper they did not take a charitable view of his fundraising
efforts, and have decreed that if he is able to ride a bike, he is
able to work..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512648&in_page_id=1770

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

What on earth is "anti-cyclist" about that? He's proved that he has a
level of fitness others could be envious of, except they're too idle to
get on a bike in the first place.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Doug typed:

Quoted message said:

Does it also apply to, 'If you are able to drive a car you are able to
work'?

Yes, in my familys experience. Bro-in-law was told this. He has only one
leg [1] and can't use one of his arms, but because he has an adapted
mobility car and doesn't need crutches to get about on, he was told that he
must get work for his disability benefits to continue.

[1] Accident at work, someone demolishing a house next to the one he was
bulding knocked the gable end the wrong way .... he took the brunt of it.

--
Dogpoop

Stand by me.
http://www.glass-uk.org/

Dogpoop ("Dogpoop" <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does it also apply to, 'If you are able to drive a car you are able to
work'?

Quoted message said:

Yes, in my familys experience. Bro-in-law was told this. He has only
one leg [1] and can't use one of his arms, but because he has an adapted
mobility car and doesn't need crutches to get about on, he was told that
he must get work for his disability benefits to continue.

Why would only having the use of one arm and leg _prevent_ him from
working? Sure, it might restrict the choice of occupations open to him,
but not totally.

Adrian said:

Dogpoop ("Dogpoop" <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does it also apply to, 'If you are able to drive a car you are able
to work'?

Quoted message said:

Yes, in my familys experience. Bro-in-law was told this. He has
only one leg [1] and can't use one of his arms, but because he has
an adapted mobility car and doesn't need crutches to get about on,
he was told that he must get work for his disability benefits to
continue.

Why would only having the use of one arm and leg _prevent_ him from
working? Sure, it might restrict the choice of occupations open to
him, but not totally.

It doesn't necessarily prevent him from carrying out a useful job.

However, if two people apply for a vacancy, one fully able and the other
not, how many employers will take the easy option and take on the fully fit
person rather than spend time and money altering things to suite the
disabled person especially if the disabled person has no experience of the
job concerned (i.e. former builder now confined to office jobs)?

You may have some time to think about it.

Brimstone ("Brimstone" <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Does it also apply to, 'If you are able to drive a car you are able
> to work'?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, in my familys experience. Bro-in-law was told this. He has only
one leg [1] and can't use one of his arms, but because he has an
adapted mobility car and doesn't need crutches to get about on, he was
told that he must get work for his disability benefits to continue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why would only having the use of one arm and leg _prevent_ him from
working? Sure, it might restrict the choice of occupations open to him,
but not totally.

Quoted message said:

It doesn't necessarily prevent him from carrying out a useful job.

*ding*

Quoted message said:

However, if two people apply for a vacancy, one fully able and the other
not, how many employers will take the easy option and take on the fully
fit person rather than spend time and money altering things to suite the
disabled person

ITYF that's explicitly illegal...

Quoted message said:

especially if the disabled person has no experience of the job
concerned (i.e. former builder now confined to office jobs)?

Oh, absolutely - it's _always_ difficult to retrain, more so for the
disabled - but that doesn't mean they _can't_ work - which is what
disability benefit is there for. It means they don't have a job, which is
what unemployment benefit - and the various retraining and employment-
finding schemes - are there for.

Anyway, don't building firms have office jobs which require site skills
and experience?

Adrian said:

Brimstone ("Brimstone" <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Does it also apply to, 'If you are able to drive a car you are
>> able to work'?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Yes, in my familys experience. Bro-in-law was told this. He has
> only one leg [1] and can't use one of his arms, but because he has
> an adapted mobility car and doesn't need crutches to get about on,
> he was told that he must get work for his disability benefits to
> continue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why would only having the use of one arm and leg _prevent_ him from
working? Sure, it might restrict the choice of occupations open to
him, but not totally.

Quoted message said:

It doesn't necessarily prevent him from carrying out a useful job.

*ding*

Quoted message said:

However, if two people apply for a vacancy, one fully able and the
other not, how many employers will take the easy option and take on
the fully fit person rather than spend time and money altering
things to suite the disabled person

ITYF that's explicitly illegal...

Quite true. Now come out of your cave.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

especially if the disabled person has no experience of the job
concerned (i.e. former builder now confined to office jobs)?

Oh, absolutely - it's _always_ difficult to retrain, more so for the
disabled - but that doesn't mean they _can't_ work - which is what
disability benefit is there for. It means they don't have a job,
which is what unemployment benefit - and the various retraining and
employment- finding schemes - are there for.

Wrong. You need to do some research.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, don't building firms have office jobs which require site
skills and experience?

And if you've got two people, etc etc ....

Adrian said the following on 07/02/2008 11:06:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, if two people apply for a vacancy, one fully able and the other
not, how many employers will take the easy option and take on the fully
fit person rather than spend time and money altering things to suite the
disabled person

ITYF that's explicitly illegal...

It might well be, but it's what happens.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Brimstone ("Brimstone" <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, if two people apply for a vacancy, one fully able and the
other not, how many employers will take the easy option and take on
the fully fit person rather than spend time and money altering things
to suite the disabled person

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ITYF that's explicitly illegal...

Quoted message said:

Quite true. Now come out of your cave.

Heh. I didn't say it happened in the real world - but it should, and
there's plenty of legislation enforcement out there to ensure it does.

I've worked alongside people with more serious disabilities than this
chap.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

especially if the disabled person has no experience of the job
concerned (i.e. former builder now confined to office jobs)?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, absolutely - it's _always_ difficult to retrain, more so for the
disabled - but that doesn't mean they _can't_ work - which is what
disability benefit is there for. It means they don't have a job, which
is what unemployment benefit - and the various retraining and
employment- finding schemes - are there for.

Quoted message said:

Wrong. You need to do some research.

So you're saying that there's research demonstrating that somebody with
retraining issues should be on disability benefit? Bollocks. Plenty of
people out there need to retrain to find jobs for plenty of other reasons
- like the industry they used to work in no longer exists.

Somebody who _can_ work should not be on disability benefit. If they
can't find a job, then that's a different matter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway, don't building firms have office jobs which require site skills
and experience?

Quoted message said:

And if you've got two people, etc etc ....

See above...

Dogpoop said the following on 07/02/2008 10:28:

Quoted message said:

Yes, in my familys experience. Bro-in-law was told this. He has only one
leg [1] and can't use one of his arms, but because he has an adapted
mobility car and doesn't need crutches to get about on, he was told that he
must get work for his disability benefits to continue.

We had a guy at work once who asked what must rate as one of the oddest
questions in a job interview - "Do you mind if I take my leg off whilst
I'm at work?" He didn't consider himself to be disabled, just lucky to
be alive. We did have to stop him hopping though - I kid you not -
because of the risks of hopping around a working shop floor.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Brimstone said:

Adrian wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway, don't building firms have office jobs which require site
skills and experience?

And if you've got two people, etc etc ....

Additional:-

You'll finds that people have very narrow views when it comes to skills, the
concept of transferable skills is unknown to the vast majority. Here's an
example from my personal history.

Several years ago I applied to a large well known underground railway
operating company in London (I won't mention them by name as they might take
it as libellous etc.) for a Press Office job.

When I asked the moron in Human Remains why I hadn't been successful the
reply was that it was because I didn't have any experience organising
conferences. When I pointed out that I had experience organising and
implementing other events I was told that it wasn't the same.

I also raised the point that I had worked for this company previously and
had maintained my interest as well as expanding it so that I had knowledge
and understanding not only of the practicalities but of the company's place
in society, the politics surrounding it etc the response was that "that can
be learnt".

A couple of years later the vacancy came up again and I spoke to one of the
PO managers, He couldn't see the connection between organising other events
and a conference.

So, the problem isn't necessarily with the disabled person, most want to get
out and do something useful, you need to look at the small mindedness of
other people, in this instance employers.

Adrian said:

Brimstone ("Brimstone" <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> However, if two people apply for a vacancy, one fully able and the
> other not, how many employers will take the easy option and take on
> the fully fit person rather than spend time and money altering
> things to suite the disabled person

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ITYF that's explicitly illegal...

Quoted message said:

Quite true. Now come out of your cave.

Heh. I didn't say it happened in the real world - but it should, and
there's plenty of legislation enforcement out there to ensure it does.

I've worked alongside people with more serious disabilities than this
chap.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> especially if the disabled person has no experience of the job
> concerned (i.e. former builder now confined to office jobs)?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, absolutely - it's _always_ difficult to retrain, more so for the
disabled - but that doesn't mean they _can't_ work - which is what
disability benefit is there for. It means they don't have a job,
which is what unemployment benefit - and the various retraining and
employment- finding schemes - are there for.

Quoted message said:

Wrong. You need to do some research.

So you're saying that there's research demonstrating that somebody
with retraining issues should be on disability benefit? Bollocks.

Quite true it's bollocks because that's not what I said.

Quoted message said:

Plenty of people out there need to retrain to find jobs for plenty of
other reasons - like the industry they used to work in no longer
exists.

Quite true.

Quoted message said:

Somebody who _can_ work should not be on disability benefit. If they
can't find a job, then that's a different matter.

You're confusing disability benefits and unemployment benefits. They're not
the same and they paid for different reasons.

If you had done some basic research you'd know this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway, don't building firms have office jobs which require site
skills and experience?

Quoted message said:

And if you've got two people, etc etc ....

See above...

Exactly.

"Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dogpoop said the following on 07/02/2008 10:28:

Quoted message said:

Yes, in my familys experience. Bro-in-law was told this. He has only one
leg [1] and can't use one of his arms, but because he has an adapted
mobility car and doesn't need crutches to get about on, he was told that
he must get work for his disability benefits to continue.

We had a guy at work once who asked what must rate as one of the oddest
questions in a job interview - "Do you mind if I take my leg off whilst I'm
at work?"

So long as he stores it safely I can't see why it would be a problem.

Quoted message said:

We did have to stop him hopping though - I kid you not - because of the
risks of hopping around a working shop floor.

The HSE have rules for everything. 😉

In article <[email hidden]>,

Adrian said:

Anyway, don't building firms have office jobs which require site skills
and experience?

I'd guess so---same as disabled police and forces can often be found office
jobs where their former experience is useful. On the other hand, it's a
benefit that's hard to quantify, and therefore will tend not to be quantified,
and therefore doesn't show up in the beancounters' spreadsheets anywhere.
--
SAm.

Brimstone ("Brimstone" <[email hidden]>😉 gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Somebody who _can_ work should not be on disability benefit. If they
can't find a job, then that's a different matter.

Quoted message said:

You're confusing disability benefits and unemployment benefits. They're
not the same and they paid for different reasons.

No, I'm not. I _know_ they're not the same - and if you go back a couple
of posts, you'll find that's the point I'm actually making...