How much longer can we let the DSS think they are above the law?

This week, this question really hit me, as I acted as an advocate for someone being unfairly treated by the DSS. How many people in this country claim benefit fraudulently? And who does the DSS decide to treat as the fraudulent ones who aren’t entitled to benefit? Yes, that’s right, the ones who actually need it!!

First, they send a compliance officer to your door with not even a week’s notice. You comply and wait in for two hours, then you sit there while they ask you every sort of degrading question you can imagine. This goes on for three hours, and when the questioning is over, they say that the form is too messy and that they want to copy it out again and come back in three hours. So you wait there, until they come back and read out what they have written, never are you given the opportunity to read the form, simply told it will take too much time. They make you sign the form, and then leave.

You hear nothing for a month, and then your benefit just doesn’t arrive. You phone up and they tell you it’s been suspended, and that you have to claim another benefit. You get the form and fill it in, then phone them up again and they tell you that, actually, the benefit will be restarted instantly. You receive the giro in one day.

Then another month down the line, and you receive a letter saying that you are living with your carer as if in a civil partnership, when said carer does not even have the same address. You phone up to find out about fighting the decision and they send you an appeal form. You fill this in and send it back.

Another month, and your money, again, doesn’t arrive. You phone up, and are told that you HAVE to write a letter asking for a reconsideration, and send it to them. Once they receive it, they will send it to their main office, which will take three days, then they will be able to make a decision and resume benefit payment. You send a letter.

A week later, you telephone the office, to try and find out what is going on and are told that the reconsideration happens automatically once an appeal form is received. They then go on to tell you that your benefit payment will not be made until at least three weeks time, and this is the earliest case scenario.

This is what happened to the person I am an advocate for. This person is very fragile emotionally, is disabled and has severe mental health difficulties. She is in genuine need of state benefit, as employment is simply not an option for her, but the DSS decide to pursue her, rather than some of the people who claim benefit and run a full time job on the quiet.

It is about time that someone told the DSS that they are not above the law, and that they should not just stop someone’s benefits with no prior warning, without clear proof of a person’s situation. The decision makers would not consider it at all appropriate for their money to be suddenly stopped, with no other income, and no way of paying their bills, for “at least three weeks”.

I would like to see how they would manage that situation. I can hardly imagine that they would cope very well, and yet, they expect someone with serious illnesses to deal with it. The government need to stop protecting the guilty, and start looking after the ones who are in genuine need!

“I’m no where near ready 4 contact”

Said the foster child to her mother. She was not abused, nor was she neglected, in fact, she was loved, cared for and well looked after, but one day, she decided she wanted to be in care, and would rather walk the streets in the dead of night, alone, than tidy her room. This is when she was taken into care. She lied. She lied to her friends, to her parents, to her school, social workers and to her foster family. She slowly fed them so many lies that they began to believe the “I’m poor and deprived” act. Well, all but her parent’s did. They knew the truth about her slovenly ways, and her lies, and had seen first hand the simply cruel and malicious attempts to gain revenge on other people, when they hadn't done what she wanted them to do. She now lives in a foster home, receives a clothing allowance, £10 a week pocket money, gets as much freedom as she wishes, and has the state paying for her to have riding lessons twice a week at £30 each. I think you will agree with me, this is a fairly cushy life. A few months ago, she decided that she would tell the foster parents and social workers that she was scared to go home, even on visits. She then refused contact with her mother. Six months later, she throws her mother a bone and agrees to a contact agreement of one text per fortnight. She then uses this text to beg and pester her mother for permission to have her nose pierced, and I'm not talking about a normal piercing, I'm talking about a nose bone. She's 15 years old, still in school, and there was no way this was going to happen. Her mother refused, and a fortnight later, texts as she has been told to. Her daughter's news is that she may have her hair dyed next week, so her mother says that it would be nice to see it. This is where the title of this post comes in. This was her response. Her mother responded stating that she did not understand, and the daughter's response to this was "I sorted out contact and that was going well but you pushed it and now I don't want to have any contact with you".

A 15 year old should not be able to treat or speak to a person in this way, and it only shows how far society has fallen when children can speak to their elders with so little respect. This is the reason that so many young people turn to crime. There is a serious lack of discipline, and this is reflected in the attitudes of so many youngsters towards parents, teachers and authority figures.

Something I heard earlier emphasised my opinion of this. How many times have children as young as 12 committed horrific crimes, yet been excused from prosecution as they have not the capability to reason. Yet today, I learnt of a law that had been passed, crediting the children with the ability to reason, and therefore the entitlement to make certain decisions, which were previously credited to their parents, including the right to obtain the contraceptive pill, to dye their hair, to have complete medical confidentiality, and to have any piercings they want.

 

This, to me seems ludicrous. It’s not that I’m anti children taking care of themselves, but if we give them responsibility on one level, why not on all levels. What we are doing is essentially, giving them permission to disrespect all types of authority figures, and the law. They now feel untouchable as we have given them that power. They are now able to break the law, but are not capable of the reason to do so according to the law, but they can do all of the above mentioned things, and that is perfectly legal. It is a simple case of having one’s cake and eating it too.

Children are classically ego-centric. They may have the ability to reason, but only in relation to what they feel is right and want at that particular millisecond. Why are we allowing the “I want” generation all the power afforded to adults, with no consequences?

In going back to my previous example of the child in care, she is one of these children, that has planned for friends of hers to attack her ‘best friend’ while she watched. She accused a boy of bullying her, which resulted in his suspension, and yet, though there are proof of both events, she has not been punished for them.

 

She is now in a system, which protects the child at all costs. She has complete control over everything that happens in her life, and over who is in her life, completely reversing the power roles. She now has an attitude of “If I don’t like what you say, I won’t listen to you, and will find a way to make you pay”. Surely I’m not the only person who can see the problem here. Here we have an egocentric child, who is able to control her entire environment. While she is able to do this now, when she has to leave the care system, she will have a huge shock, and then what happens. Mr Policeman asks her kindly not to be so drunk and rowdy, and she doesn’t like what he says, she hits him and ends up in a police cell.

This is how a lot of youths are now brought up. Foster children confer on ways to get the most out of the system, from tutoring, riding lessons, gym membership etc. The policy of social services is to give a child the sort of life and privileges they would have if living at home. I do not know of one working class family who could afford to give their child extra tuition, and two riding lessons a week, on top of sending them on every school trip they wanted to go on.

 

The question is, why are we letting these children play the system, while so many genuinely needy children fall through the net. While so many children are beaten, raped, starved and damaged emotionally for life. These are the ones who suffer in silence. It is ridiculous that we have become a society where ‘he who shouts loudest gets help’, leaving the quiet and genuinely needy children out in the cold.

Tragic Heroes?

The recent deaths of both Michael Jackson and Jade Goody have sparked both national and international outpourings of grief, with the press at the centre of the hysteria. At this time, who is going to what a lot of us are thinking? Parkinson tried, and was slated for it, but let's face it, he only said what a lot of us were thinking.

These two did die prematurely, and they were robbed of life. They should have lived many more years, but they didn't. This does not make them into saints. Starting with Jade Goody. She died a horrible death at the hands of cancer, and did manage to raise awareness of cervical cancer, but I believe this was a by product of hers and her publicist's attempt to raise money for her children. I don't begrudge her or her children the money, but for people, especially the press to say that she did it purely selflessly in order to save others only is a fallacy. She did, as Parkinson said, represent the bad side of Britain, and up until a few months before her death, was featured in various newspapers as "The most hated woman in Britain", and "The Stupidest woman in Britain". She was labelled a racist, and some of her more idiotic comments were given pride of place in a newspaper column. She gained fame for sitting around in a house, doing nothing. Then when she became ill, the papers quickly changed directions, immediately declaring their love for this dying 'celebrity'. On the same week of Jade Goody's death, Wendy Richard died after a long battle with breast cancer, but was this reported and given the same acclaim? No. Wendy Richard kept her illness relatively private, and due to this lack of parading her illness around in front of the public, she faded into the background, even though her contribution to the world was far greater than that of Jade Goody.

Now, more recently, we have the shocking death of Michael Jackson, who was undoubtedly the King of Pop. From the minute he became ill, the press were outside his residence. When he passed away, the press were there, and now, they insist on dredging up old interviews with him for our entertainment, without any thought for his family, who will be grieving. He is undoubtedly a huge loss to the music industry and to his family, friends, and fans, but surely now, we should let him rest in peace and allow the family to grieve in peace and in private. This will never happen, however, as the press do not give in. They will carry on with this bandwagon, until it has been well and truly run off the road and upturned.

It seems ludicrous to me, that one man, however popular, can overtake all headlines, including those that should have been reserved for the just as untimely, and far more selfless deaths of our troops in Afghanistan etc. These soldiers do, literally give up their lives and put them at risk on a daily basis for us. So that we can live in a free country. Where we can practice whatever faith we wish, wear whatever we wish, and live as we wish, without fear of persecution, prosecution, and judgement. I am not saying that I agree with war, quite the contrary, but that is an issue with the government's way of leading our country. I strongly believe that the true tragic heroes are not Jade Goody, and Michael Jackson, or even Wendy Richard. I believe our true tragic heroes are the ones on the front line, the ones who protect our country, and it is not their fault that the government have made the decision to go to war. If they did not fight for us, then the government would simply call on all adult males in the country, and force them to enter the army, which is just as disagreeable.

We as a nation should support our troops, and should have the courage of our convictions to stand up for what we believe in, (as Michael Parkinson did), no matter how unpopular this may or may not make us.