Homo economicus’ Weblog

My brother reached 7 stone while in a care home in his early 20s – and the placement was becoming untenable due to my mother trying to hold them to account. At a meeting I attended with assorted professionals, I got the doctor to state publicly that he needed 4,000 to 4,500 calories daily (almost twice the daily recommended average). Eventually someone arrived on Mum’s door step with my brother saying there was no where to take him. She took him back, as any loving mother would.

The young man that he is today bears no comparison to the shadow that he was 6 years ago. Traumatised running round the house crying, malnourished, terrified of baths (covering his head) refusing showers. His bubbly personality came back; social interaction and expression of what he wants (and does not want). I cannot ever show my gratitude for what my mother stubbornly achieved.

So when talking to her and finding out that, as she headed towards her mid 60s, it was becoming too much, I decided to move back to the family home 12 years after having moved out. I had been proven wrong about how my brother would be looked after in residential care, and did not want to make the same mistake again.

Panorama does not surprise me on it’s report of care home abuse in Bristol; but I hope the shocking degrading images will bring to ahead what words from families like ours can testify too. That unless complaints and concerns raised by staff and relatives are listened too and investigated properly these things will happen. That we need a system that holds people to account. This was what was happening in Bristol:

One care worker was secretly filmed poking a patient in the eye; another repeatedly slapped a patient in the face; one patient was dragged out of bed and along the floor into a corridor; another was pinned beneath a chair while a second care worker wrapped a blanket round her head and another put her in a headlock

For those that missed the programme you can still catch up with it on BBCiPlayer here for the next 6 days. Four people have been arrested as a result of the investigation. BBC journalism alone justifies the licence fee.

You can tell a bureaucrat ranked them as not very funny. Apparently these are reasons given by scammers when confronted by UK authorities.

The ‘Silliest’ Excuses Used By Benefit Cheats

Last Updated 11:46 29/05/2011
A list of the top ten most “ridiculous” excuses used by benefit cheats has been published by ministers.
 
They range from the “I wasn’t using the ladders to clean windows, I carried them for therapy for my bad back”, to “It wasn’t me claiming benefits, it was my identical twin”.

Others include “We don’t live together, he just comes each morning to fill up his flask”.

Ministers say they are not amused, pointing out fraudulent benefit claims cost taxpayers £1.6bn a year.

“Benefit fraud is no joke, and yet our investigators are routinely dealing with bare-faced cheek and ridiculous excuses for stealing money from the taxpayer,” said welfare reform minister David Freud.

He added: “Universal Credit (to come into effect in two years’ time) will simplify and automate the benefits system. This will make it much easier to catch people who make false claims.”

However, the chief executive of disability charity Scope warned against pigeon-holing people without jobs as benefits cheats.

“Stereotyping people who claim incapacity benefit won’t help them find work,” said Richard Hawkes.

“The Government really has to stop over-simplifying the debate on welfare and using unusual fraud cases to support changes which could have a serious and negative impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled people.”

Here is the full list of the most ridiculous excuses used by benefit cheats:

:: “We don’t live together he just comes each morning to fill up his flask”.
:: “I wasn’t using the ladders to clean windows, I carried them for therapy for my bad back.”
:: “I had no idea my wife was working! I never noticed her leaving the house twice a day in a fluorescent jacket and a Stop Children sign.”
:: “My wallet was stolen so someone must have been using my identity, I haven’t been working”.
:: “I didn’t know I was still on benefit.”
:: “I didn’t declare my savings because I didn’t save them, they were given to me.”
:: “He lives in a caravan in the drive, we’re not together.”
:: “He does come here every night and leave in the morning and although he has
no other address I don’t regard him as living here.”
:: “It wasn’t me working, it was my identical twin.
:: “I wasn’t aware my wife was working because her hours of work coincided with the times I spent in the garden shed.”

You would hope that before banning anyone from an Internet video account due to user comments, they would investigate first. Justin TV did not and when Ashley (better known on the web as healthyaddict) tried to find out why, a challenge even for a time lord to find out, it was to do with a video of some Dr Who memorabilia:

Please watch Dr Who if only that you do not get the wrong idea of British popular culture! It’s also a family fun show.

I don’t care that Ryan Giggs (Welsh international and Manchester United footballer) had an affair with Imogen Thomas (reality TV, miss beauty), and understand that he may have wanted privacy not least because she may have been trying to get more money by visiting hotels he stayed at after the affair ended. There is the claim that she tried to get him to pay more then the tabloids were offering.

True or not what I care about as an Englishman is that my fellow British Citizens in Scotland can legally publish and discuss as they have a separate legal system from England. So four hours drive I would not have broken the law.

Citizens in a country (the United Kingdom) cannot have different degrees of free speech. This is against justice, and the rights of citizens. It is an issue which goes beyond any right to privacy Giggs may have. I hope his wife already knew and he was thinking of their dignity in applying for the injunction.

The Sunday Hearld in Scotland published the photo of Giggs, which I recognised. Google his name and injunction confirmed what thousands already knew.

The law can be mocked when made by a horse’s ass. My liberty equal with other citizens of this island nation means I am joining those breaking the law.

UPDATE:

MP shames Giggs

The judicial review decided Birmingham Council decision in making cuts was made unlawfully. Not necessarily the implementation; it means that the provision of vital services could be removed. The issue is how it was addressed not whether the cuts would be legal. This is by no means over.

From BBC News below:

Page last updated at 18:38 GMT+01:00, Thursday, 19 May 2011
Social care cuts plan is unlawful

Birmingham City Council acted unlawfully over a decision to reduce its provision of care for disabled people, High Court judges have said.

The judgement has implications for local authorities in England and Wales.

Thursday’s ruling said local councils must abide by existing disability laws to eliminate discrimination.

It said councils must take account of people’s disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than others.

‘Climate of cuts’

Across the UK there are 122 councils, as well as Birmingham, that currently only provide care to people with either substantial or critical care needs.

The judges said all public bodies had a duty to follow the disability discrimination law, while acknowledging that placed “significant and onerous” obligations on local authorities.

The families of four severely disabled people fought Birmingham council’s spending cuts decision and took legal action against the authority.

Solicitor Karen Ashton represented the families and welcomed the High Court ruling in London saying it gave disabled people a voice in law.

‘No new money’

She said the council’s proposed policy would have had “devastating” results.

“With consequences of this kind, then councils must look if savings can be made elsewhere,” she added.

Birmingham City Council said it welcomed the greater clarity of its duties with regard to the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.

Peter Hay, the council’s strategic director of adults and communities, said: “The original dilemma between reducing services in different areas remains.

“There is no new money as a result of the judgement and hard choices about meeting growing needs with fewer resources will have to be made by local authorities.”

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat run authority had proposed the cuts as part of a plan to save £212m.

In April a court sitting in Birmingham made an interim judgement that the council had acted unlawfully and this latest ruling is the full finding.

‘Strong message’

In a statement Unison said: “The council should rightly be condemned for defending the indefensible. Thousands of vulnerable people in the city would have been put at risk if it were not for the intervention of the courts.”

Deafblind charity Sense said the ruling should be a warning to all authorities.

Its head of legal services Kari Gerstheimer said other councils in England and Wales may be considering making similar cuts to social care.

“We hope that this judgement sends a very strong message to those councils, that we are in a climate of cuts.

“But even in a climate of cuts there are choices to be made and a civilised society does not choose to cut services to people with the greatest need – that’s disabled people.”

Previously the council said it had identified £118m worth of cuts by 2014-15 from its adult and communities directorate and needed to save £308m in total in the next four years due to the central government cuts outlined in the Spending Review.

It said only people whose needs were judged to be “critical” would qualify for council-funded care. Following the Adult social care judicial review on Thursday, the council said it would revise its plans and re-run the public consultation.

A council spokesman added: “It is important to point out that Mr Justice Walker has said that we were considerate and thoughtful of disabled people, in making our new offer, that our consultation was extensive but that it needed to be fully informed by impact assessment.”

BBC © 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-13455068

On my way out of the post office today I heard a woman shout “Stop him!” and as I ran to exit saw a man with a lavender handbag, which didn’t suit him, running past. 

Turning out I saw a man grab him and pin him to a shop window. When I arrived the thief stopped squirming. We were  soon joined  by the cafe owner where the theft took place.

The bag’s owner that I met was clearly shaken and in her 70s. The thief claimed that begging had not got him any money to get a fare to Plymouth 25 miles away. The thought of walking/hitchhiking had not occurred to him let alone what the stress could do to an elderly person.

Oscar Wilde once said that the man that robes from a rich man’s property was less contemptible than one who begged to survive. Even if we take the thief’s story at face value his life did not depend on travelling 25 miles and there was a distraught visibly shaken victim.

Times are hard and I cannot imagine what living on the streets is like. But I saw the panic in two pairs of eyes and know where my sympathy is. Had it not occurred to him that the old lady might take a turn for the worse or did his needs avoid any consideration but his own?

Social ills need social solutions. But our sympathy always needs to be with the ones who cry for help. 

I thought I was busy tomorrow with health and social services but they have just cancelled the meeting 30 minutes ago for the 17 May. So the reports I have done could have been done over a two week period rather than a bank holiday weekend.

Though because I’m organised only a few hours as already guessed they would need various reports on my brother from finances, food diary, fluid intake, weight, medication, etc. This I have been doing on a daily basis, so only needed collating. Basically this is a new assessment of my brothers needs now I am his primary carer.

So many hoops, jumping at the beck and call of others. I’m still awaiting clarification on certain things such as whether my brother really needs two to one outside the house as the care plan suggests. I imagine this could be important if I take him to the local store and something happened. Or whether it depends where I take him, which it also suggests could be one to one depending on unspecified, unmentioned criteria.

It gets stranger – my mother in her 60s has taken my brother out for years on her own and his needs have not changed. But no one wants to say it is fine in case something happens. So if it does the responsibility will fall on me.

You can bet I’m saving my e mail correspondence.

So I am taking my brother out and we are having fun. Someone has to make a decision and if he wants to go out I get my hat.

Busy with financial reports and meetings regarding caring for my brother. I guess it is good that someone verifies when you consider he is incapable to scrutinise or understand finances. However, when it comes to his welfare, you feel that social services think you are a devil that has to prove your innocence.

Rather depressing. An example is I had to justify his navel hair being cut. I had to point out no one had but he has very little growth above the belly button. A small glimpse into what amounts to a good idea open to petty remarks that eat into my very limited time.

C’est la vie.

In financial hard times, a means of reducing expenditure and charity is to be more discriminating in your provision. The trick is to make the case: either resorting to demonising a sub group, or making the case that too many will suffer with over stretched resources. The last that you do not have responsibility for them.

So we turn to Oxford where “homeless tourists” are attracted to the beauty and splendour of the city. Help will be offered to those with a personal link to the city; others will be given a one way single train ticket out save if they would face violence on their return.

My first instinct is to be alarmed where rights are diminshed for any group, and I will know the cause that takes their rights away for fear that my rights may too be taken, and that my rights are worth less when the rights of my fellow citizens are diminished.

Those without property or fixed abode may be ordered out of a city. Shall we deem that a local authority has an arbitray power to exile people from their boundaries because their personal history is not linked to the town?

By this logic local authorities can evict “home tourists” who buy holiday property, denying locals accommodation and increasing the price of housing. Residents without personal links to the city could be asked to leave.

The right to live where you will are not dependent on your ability to own property. Oxford are stating that homless citizens have less rights then the population because of this, and that being local has a quasi privledge for a citizen.

That idea needs challenging – the rights of people are not subject to local considerations. The birthright of a citizen is to live and reside where he can. Being homeless is not a crime that makes these rights less; it is a national scandel that any response is anything less than solving this social problem, but to say here is your fare, on your way.

Nationally we need to tackle the issue of homlessness. We have a civic responsibilty not to condone our citizens living in cardboard boxes. A moral responsibility not to send them on their way.

Down the pub waiting for a free BBQ before heading off to the Skeptics Social at another pub, the Swan and Rushes in Leicester.

It could be the second pint of Boddingtons but I thought I saw AC Grayling in the pub a few minutes ago. This may well be a good time to grab some food.

One comment on my last blog mentioned that belief in god was not rational. While I sympathize, to be honest I have moved on. Like Sam Harris I really think there is a more important conversation that can leave religion, like the Republican Party, out in the cold.

So I am resolved to write a little less, save where there is a big story. The last blog was in some ways a fair well to arms in poking faith.

At all times I hope it has been clear it is the idea and not the person that I will counter. If only because that road is one I have travelled on this journey of life.

Below is Jamie the chef at Time doing the BBQ on a cold December evening.