Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Gang Abuse Of Individuals. Shame On Britain.

with 17 comments

Lord Freud

Lord Freud

This Time It’s Politicians, The Media AND The Twitterati.

It is like bees to honey, more like flies to a corpse. A reasonable proposal, taken out of context, not really even a slip of the tongue, just deliberate distortion by a nasty side of Britain that sickens me.

Lord Freud Has Nothing To Apologise For.

It is reasonable, intelligent and compassionate to suggest that disabled people might benefit from work in which they could not justify payment of the minimum wage but which the state could top-up to that level.

The abuse levelled at this man by attention-seeking politicians, opportunistic disability rights campaigners and other parasites is disgusting.  It seems any excuse is good enough now to target individuals.

Jim Davidson, Dave Lee Travis, Brooks Newmark, Lord Freud – all far from perfect, unlike those who criticise them of course.  All undeserving of such focused abuse.

This is an aggressive, spiteful side of Britain in 2014 which I really don’t like.

Advertisements

Written by Peter Reynolds

October 15, 2014 at 10:05 pm

17 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You need to understand power issues. A powerful person can’t really complain about powerless people having a pop.

    I’d also recommend having a read about discrimination law.

    Andy( NCCLols)

    October 16, 2014 at 12:08 am

    • Well you clearly understand nothing about disability law or human nature.

      Peter Reynolds

      October 17, 2014 at 6:56 am

  2. Whilst it may be a way of securing work for those that the employment market will not otherwise employ, that misses the point. It is NOT the fault of the disabled person that an employer won’t employ them. To suggest that they should accept a wage less than a third of the minimum for everyone else is demeaning towards disabled people; it says strongly that these people are not even worth a third of the average person. You cannot convince me or anybody else who thought Lord Freud’s comments were outrageously offensive of otherwise. Help disabled people into work yes, but not by telling them they are worthless to society!

    If this had been suggested by a man on the street, yes there would have been offence at the comments. The difference here is that Lord Freud is the driving force behind this governments welfare reforms which have disadvantaged so many disabled people as well as other groups and increased the abject poverty for the working poor as well as those out of work. THAT is why so many are calling for his head; finally now we have the proof of what we always suspected: that Lord Freud has contempt for the poor and disabled, and that is what motivates the policies he champions.

    Elliott Stephenson

    October 16, 2014 at 6:46 am

    • It is not demeaning to give them something when in reality they would have nothing and never be seen at all. Being reasonable, why should an employer pay a disabled person the same wage as an able bodied person for the same job when they can only do 1/3rd as much work?

      This sounds like the same ridiculous argument behind the wage gap myth and feminism. All of them toxic to the greater good.

      Trevor

      October 16, 2014 at 5:12 pm

    • A quite ridiculous distortion of Lord Freud’s words. Clearly, if someone is incapable of doing the same amount, type or quality of work as the next person then their worth to the employer is less. To twist that into suggesting they are accused of being “worthless” is disgusting, shameful and you are guilty of far more offensive behaviour than Lord Freud.

      You then compound your snide abuse by alleging that your misinterpretation divines some deeper meaning about the man’s motivation. Who the hell do you think you are?

      Peter Reynolds

      October 17, 2014 at 6:55 am

      • It is perfectly reasonable to make that example, if someone is doing 30% of the same work of someone doing 100% of theirs, why should they get the same as the person doing 100%? That’s perfectly equitable to me.

        Trevor

        October 17, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    • Many families of severely disabled people have defended Lord Freud because they saw the reality of what he said (not very well worded I admit). Instead of a severely disabled person being at home all day, or in care somewhere, they could move into the workplace and contribute to society. The employer would need to help & support them & pay a small wage The government would top it up to the minimum wage. So the disabled person’s welfare benefit would be spent much more productively, because from going out to do a job, the benefit to the disabled person would be immense. It would socialise them, improve their self esteem, in fact it would transform their lives.
      What a pity that so many people have used this as a political stick with which to beat their opponents or support their own selfish political view.

      Linda Murray

      October 19, 2014 at 11:25 am

  3. A lot of disabled people were doing meaningful and productive work on a full wage… then the Conservatives, with the help of the Liberal conservatives, closed the Remploy factories saying the, alleged, subsidy was to much and put all of them back on either JSA or ESA… and you have the gall to say Fraud was taken out of context.

    He made no suggestion of using the benefit system to subsidise low paid work, his whole thought process, spoken openly, in response to the other conservatives MP’s comments about his disabled constituents with mental acuity problems (his words were far more derogatory) not being worth employing at the minimum wage was to suggest paying them a derisory 2 quid an hour.

    Had Freud suggested subsidising the work, which he did not, then why close factories geared up to supporting people with disabilities and helping them to work.

    Jonathan Wilson

    October 16, 2014 at 9:04 am

    • Freud did suggest exactly that – topping up the wage that it was economical for employers to pay with a state subsidy.

      What is with people who choose, as you have, to misrepresent what someone has said to support your own, empty argument?

      Peter Reynolds

      October 17, 2014 at 6:51 am

  4. Once again you and me agree.

    I am so glad i have now stepped outside of the looking glass and soon enough, can sit back and watch the end of days on my own terms. How richly those shouting over the temporary will have deserved it.

    Trevor

    October 16, 2014 at 2:28 pm

  5. Yet again we see Disabled Human Beings classed as less then second class citizens! Why, money of course! If he were disabled, would he not be up to the pay of an MP or the payments available to his Lordship? Ridiculous, every human being has a value, none more or less than any other, to say any different is a disgrace! Yes by the way I’m disabled, an ex firefighter who had to leave a job I loved through no fault of my own or anyone else’s, just an accident! Why should I or any other disabled person be made to feel that it’s ok to pay them less than anyone else to do the same work or any work for that matter! We taxpayers in this Country already subsidise millions of workers on poor pay through the Working Tax Credit System!
    Why should any business get away with this and then go on to treat Disabled People even worse than they already treat their present employees? This Government and the likes of this person have already made hundreds of thousands of disabled people pay for the Financial Disaster caused not by them or any other ordinary worker in the UK but by Greedy Bankers and poor Financial Service Providers! I have yet to see a single one of them be treated anywhere near as badly as this Governments has treated Disabled people! We have sadly lost our way in the UK were we used to have a very proud system of looking after those in Poverty and the Disabled! Now they’re to blame for all the ills of the sick financial system we have in the UK! Just remember everyone and anyone can become disabled at any time through accident or illness, not their fault but then you may realise just how fortunate you were to be able bodied and fit and healthy but by then it will be too late, you will have joined the great unwashed, the feckless, the useless, the drain on our society! Go figure!

    Des Byrne

    October 16, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    • What utter tosh!

      No one has suggested any such thing and certainly not Lord Freud.

      I wrote this piece specifically to challenge the sort of pious victimhood that you are so eager to promote.
      Disabled people I know don’t want pity, they want opportunity and that is exactly what Lord Freud was discussing.

      I am glad to see that after the initial and predictable ‘outrage’, the commentariat is now coming round to the view I have expressed. The sickening attacks and persecution of individuals based on their choice of words is disabling our entire society and no one, particularly not disabled people. benefits from it.

      Peter Reynolds

      October 17, 2014 at 6:49 am

  6. The gang abuse of individuals you should be commenting on are the paedophile rings operating in this country’ that is real gang abuse carried out by your fellow disgusting vermin politicians.That is something that should sicken you.

    Paul Mcpike

    October 17, 2014 at 12:19 am

    • Thanks for telling me what I “should” do and think.

      Peter Reynolds

      October 17, 2014 at 6:57 am

  7. Why Lord Freud Was Right to Question the Minimum Wage for Disabled People

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-lord-freud-was-right-question-minimum-wage-disabled-people-1470202

    Peter Reynolds

    October 17, 2014 at 7:27 am

  8. You are aware disabled workers already have their wages topped up? The most severe disabled get around 6 grand on top of 16 hours work. Your suggesting the state should pay even more?

    If you do the maths your realize that these severe disabled people will have 90% of their income paid by the state and 10% of their income paid by their employer. That is Crony Capitalism.

    This just goes to show that the Tories are for Socialism for the rich and Austerity for the poor.
    They closed down Remploy because there was no benefit to the private sector from tax payers. Are you ware of this? Remploy was subsidized a lot but so is this £2 NMW policy.
    And because its for the private sector it is automatically good? Tories are hypocrites.

    I fully read your article and you compare disability rights campaigners as parasites. So that would include ex servicemen, police officers, firefighters and paramedics.

    You are bias as hell.

    I’m glad I can see though your rhetoric.

    Sam Donald

    October 18, 2014 at 1:04 am

    • It was the Labour government which started the closure of Remploy factories in 2008.

      Liz Sayce, chief executive of Disability Rights UK, recommended closing the rest in 2011, saying that each of the 2,800 Remploy factory workers was subsidised by an average £25,000 a year that could be better spent.

      So don’t make palpably false, party-political accusations. You just revealed yourself as an hypocrite.

      You, like others who are whining about the perfectly reasonable, generous and humane idea put forward by Lord Freud, are just out to score cheap points, maximise division and you don’t give a damn how you distort the truth to do it.

      I hold no brief for a Tory minister, particularly not one who is a colleague of the demon Duncan Smith himself but Lord Freud said nothing wrong.

      Peter Reynolds

      October 18, 2014 at 9:31 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: