State benefits in the UK

I've been following Diary of a Benefit Scrounger for a while now.  It's a campaigning site focusing on the proposed cuts to welfare benefits in the UK.  There's a few posts I think people should read.

The Very Definitions of Irony -the writer of the blog has severe Chron's disease, osteroporisis and malnutrition.  She takes chemo shots every 2 weeks, has had major seizures and a stroke.  Her application for Disability Living Allowance has been turned down.
3 Claimants die after being found for fit for work
An open letter to Iain Duncan Smith
Did you know this about your ESA50 form - Given how strict we are about data protection, why do royal mail sorting officers open the ESA50 applications, and sort them in the post office?  What's it to do with them?

Who is the most deserving? - Since 2008 75% of applicants got gurned down for Employment Support Allowance.  Apparently they weren't sick or disabled enough.
We all know someone who could work but doesn't - don't we? - Hidden, secret disabilities and illnesses.

Where stuff that gets made public reveals a nasty side

Having joined up on twitter recently I have been following various people.  Some are famous, for example Gail Simone.

Following Gail Simone has increased my respect for her a thousandfold.  Her tweets are funny, and she's so far exhibited only decent-person ideas.  Today (Tuesday 8th June) she has been talking about The Killing Joke, y'know, that comic where Barbara Gordon, then Batgirl, got shot in the spine by the Joker and paralysed.

When editorial approval was sought for this particular plot, the editor (Len Wein) reportedly yelled down the hall:

'Cripple the bitch'

Isn't that hateful?  Isn't it venemous?  Granted, I do not know the tone in which it was said, but the words are ugly.  What struck me after asborbing this bit of (old) news, was the way in which feminist are accused of treating characters like real people.  Isn't that just what this editor is doing?  Why ascribe the word 'bitch' to a fictional character, in that context, if they are not in some way real to you?

And if Barbara Gordon is indeed real to you what does this say about your attitude to real flesh and blood women and wheelchair users?

Which is why I find the statement 'Cripple the Bitch' quite disturbing.  It's along the same lines as Bill Wilingham saying:

"I wanted to gun down those girls who kept asking about the memorial case"

at the recent heroes con (reported on here).

I am someone who believes words are important.  I think those sort of casual throwaway line regarding violence usually betrays some feeling of anger, hate or violence within a person.  Or at the very least some sort of detachment towards others.  You certainly can't fully appreciate and support the full meaning of those phrases without being a very malevolent person.*

So this leaves me kind of sickened.  And this is exactly the sort of thing that says women (and people with disabilities) are not welcome.  It's the same mentality that puts rape scenes into comics (or any popular culture medium).  It's the sort of shit that makes me very wary about the types of internet sites I inhabit and makes me distrustful of any new people I meet (men and women, because these views permeate all genders).

*I am not in any way stating that using a wheelchair is a negative thing.  But I believe that the editor who uttered those words thinks that it is a punishment of some sort.

More on those expense claims

The Guardian had a pretty good article in it's G2 section yesterday which was an interview the journalist who has been working for five years to uncover the detail behind the expenses claims.
Interesting reading. The journalist, Heather Brook, put in several Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to find out what the MPs spend their money on. Several times her request was turned down. Her efforts to get the information were thwarted at every step:

• In 2004, after finding someone who knew what an FOI request was (despite the the FOI act having been in place since 2000) she was told that expenses would be published in October 2004' - this turned out to be bulk figures in categories like travel, staff, second homes.
• A request for travel information was refused.
• A request for names and salaries of staff was refused by the then Speaker of the House.A request for info on second homes was rejected
• A request sent to the Information commissioner sat in his in tray for a year - FOI requests should be dealt with within 20 days.
• In June 2007 the Information commissioner decided that the expenses could be broken down into further categories, but the actual receipts could not be published - actually creating more work for staff and still hiding the information.
  

When the case finally got to court the following reasons were given for now allowing the public to see the receipts:

"MPs should be allowed to carry on their duties free from interference ..." Not if it they are spending the tax payer's money this inappropiately.

"Public confidence is not the overriding concern per se ..." Well it fucking well should be.

"Transparency will damage democracy." HOW?

"What you are doing is preparing a peephole into the private lives of a member, which will either distract them or lead them into additional questions which they feel they have to defend themselves." It's not a private matter if it's public money. If it distracts them from their duties they are probably doing something wrong.

As for the checking and verifying of expenses claims:

"There is checking where there are receipts. Where there are no receipts there is no checking....If it's below £250 then the assumption is that it's going to be reasonable."

There is a John Lewis list which allows MPs to claim for a plasma tv. But ipods are apparently not allowed.

She then went to the high court. Eventually what we've been hearing about this past week came out. It's well worth reading the article as I've only summarised the first half.

Call me naive, but I never would have thought that our MPs were this corrupt. I am disgusted.

I say congratulations to Heather Brooke for bringing this crap out into the public eye. It's good to see that investigative journalism is still alive. The last case I remember is the Hamilton's corruption case, investigated by The Guardian. Also involving expenses claims. There's a coincidence.