Lotus Cars Ltd, the Motability con, and more....

[Ihavenojob]

Spaz chariots, some people rather unkindly called them. They used to be able to be parked on the touch line at West Ham home games.

They'd probably get a game these days

 

[MeldrewsMate]

MM
If you're going to launch a thread , you should make sure it's got the facts right.
Your doesn't.

You don't seem to have a clue, as much as you have a prejudice.
You've conflated Blue Badges with Motability.
Wrong. Junk.
etc etc etc etc.
I'm not defending the scheme, but there's no need to lie about it to try to make a point. That's what you're doing.
If it's being misused, you can't blame the disabled.
Got any proof? If you have, you should have shown it
If you haven't, then STFU.

Have I conflated Blue Badges with Motability? No, I pointed out the misuse of Blue Badge parking spaces.
Have I lied? No. I have an opinion based upon my own observations. Just because you don't sympathise with my opinion doesn't make it a lie.
Proof? Of what? Misuse of the system? Perhaps easier for you to provide proof that no-one misuses the system.
I'm not trying to blame the disabled, and if you'd read my first post you would have seen that I argued that it is those who misuse the system who negatively affect the amount of money available to those genuinely in need of help.
Maybe it is that my opinion/argument is so close to the truth that you wish to silence me; is that the reason for your STFU (I looked it up) rant? Silencing of dissent is, after all, what happens to those in such places as Saudi, Russia, etcetera.

 

[morqthana]

Have I conflated Blue Badges with Motability? No, I pointed out the misuse of Blue Badge parking spaces.

You are misinformed and blinkered if you believe that the Motability scheme is not widely misused; simply observing those who blue-badge park at supermarkets reveals that the 'not all disabilities are visible' argument fails to explain the result that it appears that 90% are very able to walk with shopping the extra 20 yards to the normal parking spaces...

Have I lied? No. I have an opinion based upon my own observations.

How many Blue Badge holders are there in the UK?

How many disabled parking spaces are there in the UK?

Have you ever thought about how statistically significant your observations are, and therefore how soundly based your opinion is?

Proof? Of what? Misuse of the system? Perhaps easier for you to provide proof that no-one misuses the system.

You must know that it doesn't work like that. The way it works is that if YOU make a claim, YOU must be able to provide proof of its validity.

 

[MeldrewsMate]

Clearly Mr Morqthana, you have gone the route of @Justin Passing by attempting to distract from the main argument by concentrating on points you think will detract from it.
I think you are very unlikely to change my opinion and I suspect I have the same chance of changing yours.

 

[morqthana]

I was just pointing out that here you said that you weren't conflating Blue Badges and Motability

Have I conflated Blue Badges with Motability? No, I pointed out the misuse of Blue Badge parking spaces.

And here you were doing exactly that.

You are misinformed and blinkered if you believe that the Motability scheme is not widely misused; simply observing those who blue-badge park at supermarkets...

It's very important for healthy debate to call out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

And how is it "attempting to distract from the main argument" by asking you to consider how representative your personal observations are when you use them to justify your opinions regarding the main argument?

Surely it's the opposite? Surely the main argument should be based on actual proof and real evidence, not casual observations by a single person?

 

[MeldrewsMate]

It's very important for healthy debate to call out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

And how is it "attempting to distract from the main argument" by asking you to consider how representative your personal observations are when you use them to justify your opinions regarding the main argument?

Surely it's the opposite? Surely the main argument should be based on actual proof and real evidence, not casual observations by a single person?

I have provided evidence based upon my observations. It is up to others who may concur with their own observations to determine whether this constitutes proof or not. Your argument suggests that no one should express an opinion unless backed up with proof, and I have just explained that proof is a function of a critical mass of people agreeing with the evidence.

Once again we digress from the main topic, that of a benefits system that enables some (those who qualify based on political criteria) to obtain free cars which do much more than benefit the individual PIP claimant; much more than provide them with the ability to travel to work and the shops. The benefit extends to their family, and the inevitable (please don't pick up on that single word) misuse of this car by unauthorised use. Surely the benefit name 'PERSONAL independence payment' tells you that it is designed for the individual, not for the extended family. The car is NOT for taking the kids to school, it is NOT for taking the family on holiday.

 

[morqthana]

I have provided evidence based upon my observations. It is up to others who may concur with their own observations to determine whether this constitutes proof or not. Your argument suggests that no one should express an opinion unless backed up with proof, and I have just explained that proof is a function of a critical mass of people agreeing with the evidence.

But the question is to what extent are your observations evidence enough to prove that there is systemic abuse.

Once again we digress from the main topic, that of a benefits system that enables some (those who qualify based on political criteria)

The criteria are medical, not political.

to obtain free cars which do much more than benefit the individual PIP claimant; much more than provide them with the ability to travel to work and the shops. The benefit extends to their family, and the inevitable (please don't pick up on that single word) misuse of this car by unauthorised use. Surely the benefit name 'PERSONAL independence payment' tells you that it is designed for the individual, not for the extended family. The car is NOT for taking the kids to school, it is NOT for taking the family on holiday.

OK. So if a disabled person didn't get this "free car" (you do know that it isn't "free", BTW?) but took their benefit in cash, and went out and bought or leased a car using that cash, would you insist that the family bought a second car to use to take the kids to school, or to go on holiday? If they all went on holiday, would you force them to use 2 cars, the disabled person in "theirs" and everybody else in the other one?

Let me give you this worked example I gave somebody else, and see if you can answer it, because he couldn't.

Let's invent two hypothetical people, Jack, and Jill, and use some hypothetical amounts of money (which are not meant to be realistic - we just need something to plug into your model to see how it works).

Jack and Jill each receive £500 per month in disability benefits.

Jack and Jill each receive £1,000 per month state pension.

Jack and Jill each have savings of £10,000.

Jack and Jill each want to get a new car.

Jack and Jill each make a down payment of £5,000 for a leased car.

Jack elects to pay the lease costs of £300 per month out of his disability benefit.

Jill elects to pay the lease costs of £300 per month out of her pension.

Jack ends up with a new car, £5,000 in savings, and a net income of £1,200 per month.

Jill ends up with a new car, £5,000 in savings, and a net income of £1,200 per month.


Which of them should be prevented from doing what they did, and why?

 

[MeldrewsMate]

From Morqthana:

But the question is to what extent are your observations evidence enough to prove that there is systemic abuse.

I have already stated that my observations alone are not, and are not claimed to be, proof, however if further coroborrating evidence exists, then that hypothetical man on the Clapham bus (no Motability for him) is more likely to be persuaded it is the truth - ie proof in the observer's mind.

From Morqthana:

The criteria are medical, not political.

Wrong. The Gov't sets out the (medical) criteria based on its political ideology

to obtain free cars which do much more than benefit the individual PIP claimant; much more than provide them with the ability to travel to work and the shops. The benefit extends to their family, and the inevitable (please don't pick up on that single word) misuse of this car by unauthorised use. Surely the benefit name 'PERSONAL independence payment' tells you that it is designed for the individual, not for the extended family. The car is NOT for taking the kids to school, it is NOT for taking the family on holiday.

From Morqthana:

OK. So if a disabled person didn't get this "free car" (you do know that it isn't "free", BTW?) but took their benefit in cash, and went out and bought or leased a car using that cash, would you insist that the family bought a second car to use to take the kids to school, or to go on holiday? If they all went on holiday, would you force them to use 2 cars, the disabled person in "theirs" and everybody else in the other one?

I know that benefits are not free, I see it in my tax bill. I also see that if a personal (independence) payment is handed out and it is enough to buy/lease a car large enough to fit the whole family in, then we, the tax payers, are paying for more than for personal independence, and so paying too much.

I will indulge your hypothetical and highly loaded Jack and Jill story with the following answer:

Jill will be worse off than Jack, but much better off than their neighbours. She has worked and accrued a pension, just as Jack has. They both have the same income, however Jill has the extra cost of maintenance of her vehicle, Jack's will be paid for by the long suffering taxpayer. Jack and Jill's neighbours, who have also accrued an identical pension, are unable to enjoy having a car because they are not disabled and do not get £500 per month extra. They are glad they are not disabled, however they feel a bit disgruntled that they have to wait at the bus-stop while Jack and Jill drive past.