Monday, February 19, 2018

Tagged under: ,

Between Shit And Syphilis

Mick Hall contends that:


It's not a mistake or oversight when disabled and economically disadvantaged people attempt to get help from the State and it ends in tears. That is how the process is designed to work. 

Heidi, it's you and the government you support who have left so many families cupboards empty.

When I witnessed Tory MP Heidi Allen weep over a starving family in one of the richest nations in the world I wondered what planet she lived on. She is not a casual observer of this crime, she is a perpetrator, she voted for the very policies which were deliberately designed to impoverish this man, his family and millions like them.

For her to express sympathy is between shit and syphilis in my dictionary. What did she believe would happen when the government she supports cuts welfare benefits to the bone, how did she supposed people on low incomes would survive when her government makes them wait 5 to 6 weeks before they receive their first Universal Credit benefit payment?

Who did she think they could turn to for help, advice and support when local council funding was cut to the bone by the Lib Dem Tory coalition? And then the current Tory government making it extremely difficult for councils to fund the case work of local CAB's and the work of other welfare rights advisors.

Did she truly believe hypocrites like her would help fill that gaping hole with charitable donations? A couple of bags of pasta and beans dropped off at her local food bank and her conscience is wiped clean.

No of course not, she new only to well without expert advice some of the most disadvantaged families and individuals in the UK would be thrown on the wayside as if they were human garbage.

Lives would be shattered, families smashed, homes lost and children ending up in care, by hey Heidi Allen Tory MP can cry crocodile tears in public for the very folk whose lives she has helped ruin.

Shame shame shame!


Mick Hall blogs @ Organized Rage.

Follow Mick Hall on Twitter @organizedrage


3 comments :

DaithiD said...

What about those who demonise (in the literal sense) others who question the effect of adding an average of 500,000 people a year to the population that will compete for the same dwindling resources? It’s surely no longer good enough to claim that also pursuing a more redistributive tax policy etc balances it out, to those effected most by this.

Our primary responsibility should be to those already living and suffering in this country, and until they are helped , we shouldn’t be ashamed to disincentivise economic migrants outside of our borders from coming. And no explanations about ‘divide and rule’ class warfare are needed by intersectionalists who have fractured society into many sub groups, in some ‘supposed’ oppression based hierarchy.

marty said...

Ken Loaches superb true to life film I Daniel Blake has shown how far down successive con govts have driven the people, New Labour are as every bit as bad ,the immigration issue is I reckon a major problem but a convenient one for those bastards , they also get not only a scape goat , wonder where they learnt that one , but unregulated cheap labour and hey we are back in 1918 instead of 2018 , young people now have little chance of ever owing a home ,older people will have to sell theirs to pay for their care even though they spent a lifetime contributing to the NHS, everybody on social benefits may beg borrow or steal these bastards don't give a fuck ,when that bastard Thatcher smashed the miners she destroyed the unity of the working class ,we need another Jarrow crusade ,we need a new leadership in the unions ,we need a national strike , or a bloody revolution , I know which I,d choose ,

DaithiD said...

Marty if scapegoating immigrants was desirable by Western States, why are social media groups deplatforming those who would even indirectly advance such a message,as Merkel was caught on mic requesting from Zuckerberg?

Academics like Gad Saad, polemicists like Pat Condell are included in this vast censorial sweep. I have yet to note open borders advocates receiving the same, so which side of the debate is being restricted, and which is being pushed (directly or indirectly)? For example, have you heard of the #MeToo movement? Have you heard of the #120db one too?

Despite all the misrepresentation of the arguments, I still detect the opposition to immigration is not yet the same as opposition to the immigrant. Restricting the opportunities for some sort of catharsis in the digital sphere mean it may not be this way indefinately.