Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:17 am  

VerbalKint wrote:

But hey if your happy with hundreds of thousands claiming benefits they are not entitled too while our taxes continue to rise to pay for them then good luck to you.

You've managed to completely misunderstand me.

I wasn't necessarily arguing against your point, only that your last statement was you taking a figure, and then adding your assumption and reporting it as a fact. Which is a nonsense way of having a debate - we might as well all just go buy a copy of the Daily Mail.

FWIW, I wholly agree both with the need for the benefits system, and for those who need to be helped, been helped, and I also agree that we should have robust systems in place to make sure the system is not been abused.

I believe that there are people that are abusing the system; certainly, I also believe there are many people out there who just assume that anybody that is on benefits is work-shy. Martin Gleeson's case is the perfect example, there have been some ridiculous statements made on here made completely without fact.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:05 am  

Bal wrote:

You've managed to completely misunderstand me.

I wasn't necessarily arguing against your point, only that your last statement was you taking a figure, and then adding your assumption and reporting it as a fact. Which is a nonsense way of having a debate - we might as well all just go buy a copy of the Daily Mail.

FWIW, I wholly agree both with the need for the benefits system, and for those who need to be helped, been helped, and I also agree that we should have robust systems in place to make sure the system is not been abused.
I believe that there are people that are abusing the system; certainly, I also believe there are many people out there who just assume that anybody that is on benefits is work-shy. Martin Gleeson's case is the perfect example, there have been some ridiculous statements made on here made completely without fact.

Sorry, sent this thread on a bit of a tangent, i do agree that those who genuinly need help get it but there has being such a huge rise in people claiming incapacity benefit in the last 15-20 years that something needed to be done, take this as an example, my old next door neighbour was on incapacity benefit, car , rent everything payed for, the only thing wrong with her was that she was clinicly obese! now i am sorry but anyone who claims because they cannot stop shoving pies into their mouth should not be eligible. it is a problem effecting the whole of the Western world, people are getting fatter, lazier and more workshy and the system has helped them do this, its gotta stop.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:14 am  

Standee wrote:

it appears to me (and many, many others) that Gleeson's issues are, by and large, self inflicted from decisions he made,

That may be the case (although we have absolutely no evidence either way), but that wouldn't make his illness any less real. If you were a business person and you made a wrong/foolish decision (or several) that lead to the demise of your business you might become depressed about the matter. If you contributed to the break down of your marriage you could quite rightly say that it was, at least partly, self inflicted. It's still perfectly possible to become depressed about it.

The same goes for physical injuries. If you're rock climbing and break your back, you would still deserve the same consideration as a person who had broken their back any other way, wouldn't you?

Standee wrote:

As I have said before, I hope he is getting all the support he needs, but if he is "well" enough to go to the rugby and out on the beer then he is "well" enough to be attending the club training sessions, doing work in schools and the wider community.

This is, of course, rubbish. There is a massive difference between relaxing with friends and being at work. Depression manifests itself in a variety of different ways and it's simply ridiculous to suggest that sufferers should either stay at home all day or get themselves back to work.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:30 am  

Rock God X wrote:

That may be the case (although we have absolutely no evidence either way), but that wouldn't make his illness any less real. If you were a business person and you made a wrong/foolish decision (or several) that lead to the demise of your business you might become depressed about the matter. If you contributed to the break down of your marriage you could quite rightly say that it was, at least partly, self inflicted. It's still perfectly possible to become depressed about it.

The same goes for physical injuries. If you're rock climbing and break your back, you would still deserve the same consideration as a person who had broken their back any other way, wouldn't you?

This is, of course, rubbish. There is a massive difference between relaxing with friends and being at work. Depression manifests itself in a variety of different ways and it's simply ridiculous to suggest that sufferers should either stay at home all day or get themselves back to work.

in your opinion, which is fine, I don't share it, if you were signed off sick and then seen at the cinema with friends, I'd imagine your emploter would have words.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:36 am  

Standee wrote:

in your opinion, which is fine, I don't share it, if you were signed off sick and then seen at the cinema with friends, I'd imagine your emploter would have words.

Not if you are off sick with mental health....Once a mental health nurse becomes involved various holistic approaches are used in care plans, this may well involve going to the cinema etc with friends.

[Kosh]

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:14 am  

VerbalKint wrote:

Sorry, sent this thread on a bit of a tangent, i do agree that those who genuinly need help get it but there has being such a huge rise in people claiming incapacity benefit in the last 15-20 years that something needed to be done

A large chunk of that increase has been down to successive governments massaging the unemployment figures by moving people from the Dole/JSA to Incapacity Benefit where they no longer count on the total. A large proportion of the claimants being removed from IB and put back onto JSA will fall into that category rather than being deliberate benefit fiddlers or the work-shy.

[Kosh]

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:18 am  

Standee wrote:

in your opinion, which is fine, I don't share it, if you were signed off sick and then seen at the cinema with friends, I'd imagine your emploter would have words.

That would depend on a number of factors, including what activities your job entailed and what illness/injury you were signed off with. For example, my wife has managed to break both her ankles in the last 6 years (not both at the same time, fortunately). On both occasions she was signed off work for several weeks. She was not expected to stay at home 100% of the time.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:44 am  

Standee wrote:

in your opinion, which is fine, I don't share it,

It's not an opinion, it's fact. The best treatment for depression isn't sitting at home all day. The pressures of being in the workplace can quite easily exacerbate a mental health problem, whereas a trip to the cinema (and other similar activities) might actually help in its treatment.

Standee wrote:

if you were signed off sick and then seen at the cinema with friends, I'd imagine your emploter would have words.

For a start, he wouldn't - my employer is me. Secondly, see Kosh's answer.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:49 pm  

Marfa Manu wrote:

Not if you are off sick with mental health....Once a mental health nurse becomes involved various holistic approaches are used in care plans, this may well involve going to the cinema etc with friends.

I just don't get what part of his job barring public appearances (Playing/signing autographs etc) would be seen as causing further problems towards a stress based illness.

Re: Gleeson : Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:42 pm  

I think we should have a capital punishment discussion next to see who would re-introduce the death penalty