The Supreme Court Party

Jezza99

But they are of course quite capable of submitting a benefits claim in the first place. How odd.

Toko Black

Troll

You managed to read and digest my whole post in seconds and reply with a dismissive and totally failed response.

If you had bothered to read my post, you would have realised that those 'people' weren't quite capable of submitting a benefits claim in the first place.
They had to jump through hoops and struggle with their conditions, problems and communcations issues just to get support to help them begin the process, then help understanding their problems and translating that into the required format for the forms etc etc etc.

I personally didn't claim benefits I was entitled to for 2 years and instead burnt through all my savings and ran up debts until I finally told my mother I was in trouble and eventually after family organised someone to come and help me from the council, they suggested and helped my apply for the benefits I was entitled to.
Left to my own devices, I would not and could not apply for them nor communicate with the DWP.
Ergo your comment is both wrong and insultingly naive(or deliberately so).

Jezza99

Troll? Because i disagree with you?

I think you are personalising the situation rather than taking a dispassionate, objective viewpoint.Regardless of your own situation, there are clearly many who are capable of claiming benefits, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to launch an appeal within required time  frames.

Toko Black

No, because you are trolling.

If you could do the same and be objective instead of objectionable, there wouldn't be an issue.

Regardless of my own situation, there are clearly many people who are capable of claiming benefits, but there are also clearly people who are not without support and assistance.
Therefore it is reasonable to expect those that can to do so and unreasonable for those who need support and assistance.

Your argument is either ignorant and naive, or it is purposefully meant to be obtuse.
So which is it ?

Enki

Unfortunately very familiar path right across mental health and it's nice to hear of a supportive family.

Jezza99

Ah, I get it. I'm trolling because you say I am trolling. Does your condition extend to telepathy then? Because you obviously know my own intentions better than I do.

I am. If you choose to take offence, that's your choice not mine. Remember offence is never given, only taken.

Or there's a third option, which you hadn't considered due to your insistence on taking offence rather than looking at the subject objectively.

Jezza99

Meanwhile, on a lighter note, here's a judge who appears to have been influenced by a couple of non-political issues.....

Model caught stealing from Harrods spared jail after judge praised her 'TALENTS'

Toko Black

Glad we agree finally.

Btw, if you can explain in simple terms how it is objective to conclude the following:

A person who has completed a task can be reasonably expected to complete further tasks within a specific time frame it is perfectly reasonable to ignore and exclude any difficulties, challenges the amount of time and effort it took them to complete the task.

ergo a person manages to travel 100m it is therefore reasonable to expect him to be able to travel 100m again and do so within 2 minutes which is the reasonable expectation upon the average person.
It is perfectly fair and objective to not take into account that the person had to be carried the 100m by someone else and that carrier is not available all the time.

That is not subjective nor political, that is simply and objectively an utter failure to account for fundamental parameters of a problem or argument.

Toko Black

What's that got do with the supreme court ?
or have you set your sights on the legal system et al now

krish

It's not even a judge, it was a fudgeing magistrate - out of touch tossers on a power trip from my (non-criminal) experience. Can't expect the Express to get the basics right and match headline to story.