Two friend of mine, a married couple, recently moved back from working in Antwerp for a couple of years following the collapse of one of the companies outt there.
Unfortunately, while abroad, the wife's passport had expired.
In order to get back into the UK, she had to get an emergency passport from Brussels. Today this she had to get photographs.
On a return to the UK, she applied for a new passport. However, the photographs that she had provided for her emergency passport were not adequate for a normal passport.
This implies that anyone wishing to get an emergency passport from the British Embassy or Brussels can do so without regulation photographs and gain access to the country.
However, the sad tale of bureaucracy and Britain's inability to function properly in identifying its citizens and helping and protecting them continues.
Having accessed Britain, the couple moved to the residents of their parents in Scotland. The wife then had to apply for a permanent passport. Not only was she informed her photographs were inadequate, she would be charged a ludicrous amount of money to obtain it.
She would also have to provide identification to establish who she was. However, her address on her driving licence was inaccurate, due to her working abroad. Therefore she couldn't supply a driving licence with the correct address and utility bill to go with it. As a result, this was unacceptable.
In order to pay for a passport, she needed to access her bank account. in order to do so, that she was using a bank in an area where she had used one for a long time, the bank stopped her card. When she spoke in thanking people she was informed she would have to supply a photograph identification of who she was. Without a passport or a driving licence for the relevant address, she was unable to do this. Her birth certificate is apparently not proof of who she is.
Then why on earth do we have to be registered at birth in this country? If it is not proof of who we are?
Because she didn't utilise their bank account, she didn't have her passport in order to receive money from British benefit systems, she would need to have a bank account. In order to claim the benefits, she would need have identification.
Luckily, she had been lent money by relatives in order to fund the acquisition of new passport, which will, when it is returned, allow her to change her driving licence, access her bank account and claim benefits.
But ultimately this is simply diabolical state of affairs.
In research on the situation, I discovered that it is very frightening to google the words "British passport" and identify just how many premium rate numbers and companies there are allegedly supplying advice on how to claim passports for entrance into Britain. I appreciate Internet crime makes it impossible to trace the people, tracked them down, or prevent their sites being hosted, it is frightening how easy it is, apparently, to earn money off people pretending to enter the country.
I would imagine that all of this bureaucracy and nonsensical procedures are an attempt by the government to appease scaremongering about immigration and migration issues that are topical in the country.
The irony is, *some* people seem to think if we withdraw from Europe completely, then we will have a significant chance to prevent immigration and migration and get a hold on the fluctuating British public.
However, if we hadn't opted out of the Maastricht Treaty, we would be able to stop the over dramatised flow of immigration in this country. Immigrants will be forced to stop at the first European country they reached that is providing asylum and not be able to continue to Britain.
We would also not have to have ludicrous bureaucracy that we seem to have around proving who we are. We would be able to travel around Europe without the ludicrous protocols and costs, and without scaremongering ineffective legislation in this country that is created without scrutiny.
Showing posts with label impairments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impairments. Show all posts
28 Nov 2009
15 Apr 2009
Trains and Disability
As an impaired person myself, I frequently suffer discrimination that I consider people without impairments wouldn't even consider.
The details on accessibility to trains today on You & Yours come under this category.
I have problems with my hands. Carrying, lifting and stability are paramount to me. The obvious things to effect me in public are shopping, driving, typing, etc. So what, you may ask, is affected at Train Stations?
When I first graduated I had to go to a remote station for work. I needed to take my laptop and files. But the train station had an over pass with stairs. No slopes. I developed a good relationship with the guard and he would carry my case over for me. But He was only in place from 6am to 2pm. So when I finished work I was effectively discriminated against as I could not get my case home.
Current legislation on UK trains are to allow impaired customers to prebook and therefore have accesibility needs met when arriving. I consider that this in itself is discrimination. Why should I have to be treated differently? It prevents me from spontenaity, attending meetings by public transport and makes me feel isolated in the presence of able bodied passengers.
Fascinatingly the EU does not impose legislation on this, merely advises. But if you compare, the UK is far behind services in other countries.
Not only that, but a number of charities and committees on the behalf of disability and accessibility quote statistics as high as a third of customers are failed by rail services, including being left on trains, left on empty platforms and generally not receiving the required assistance.
Take into account the highest train fares in Europe I do wonder what exactly customers are paying for, disabled or otherwise.
An aside, yes there are disability concessions IF you are the highest mobility rate but this actually means you need a 24hr carer and cannot be alone; so the likelihood of rail travel is greatly decreased.
It would be wonderful to see this changed, but the bitter truth is unless it is a pledge of a potential government, impaired persons do not have the demonstrative impact of other minority groups, let alone the energy.
The details on accessibility to trains today on You & Yours come under this category.
I have problems with my hands. Carrying, lifting and stability are paramount to me. The obvious things to effect me in public are shopping, driving, typing, etc. So what, you may ask, is affected at Train Stations?
When I first graduated I had to go to a remote station for work. I needed to take my laptop and files. But the train station had an over pass with stairs. No slopes. I developed a good relationship with the guard and he would carry my case over for me. But He was only in place from 6am to 2pm. So when I finished work I was effectively discriminated against as I could not get my case home.
Current legislation on UK trains are to allow impaired customers to prebook and therefore have accesibility needs met when arriving. I consider that this in itself is discrimination. Why should I have to be treated differently? It prevents me from spontenaity, attending meetings by public transport and makes me feel isolated in the presence of able bodied passengers.
Fascinatingly the EU does not impose legislation on this, merely advises. But if you compare, the UK is far behind services in other countries.
Not only that, but a number of charities and committees on the behalf of disability and accessibility quote statistics as high as a third of customers are failed by rail services, including being left on trains, left on empty platforms and generally not receiving the required assistance.
Take into account the highest train fares in Europe I do wonder what exactly customers are paying for, disabled or otherwise.
An aside, yes there are disability concessions IF you are the highest mobility rate but this actually means you need a 24hr carer and cannot be alone; so the likelihood of rail travel is greatly decreased.
It would be wonderful to see this changed, but the bitter truth is unless it is a pledge of a potential government, impaired persons do not have the demonstrative impact of other minority groups, let alone the energy.
14 Apr 2009
A Few Thoughts on Legislating on Alcoholism
Labour spin continues in the sidelines to the email scandal.
This current initiative, while not as detrimental to freedom as the enforced community service for adolescents, is illogical and impractical. The assertion that Labour "are going to look at the arrangements for alcoholics on benefits, just as [we] did for problem drug users, so that people get the help they need to get sober" is missing fundamental information about both drug users and alcoholics.
Measuring the "treatment" of heroin addicts is quantifiable. They go to the doctors once a week and get methadone. This replaces the heroin in their system and they are "ticked off". I they fail to collect methadone then it is assumed they are back on heroin (unless they are in work of course) and the benefits are ceased.
What exactly are the government prescribing to subsidise the addiction of alcohol?
They also fail to consider that alcohol is readily and cheaply available. All the time, thanks to the 24 hour drinking scheme initiative.
How can they tell if someone is off alcohol if there are not regular visits to a professional?
Is there even a measurable form of alcoholism? I know plenty of people who may drink every day, and plenty of people who consume so much alcohol in short periods they should be pickled.
This is without touching on the expense, bureaucracy and time investment that it will weight the NHS down with even further. Let alone valid points made by Theresa May and Steve Webb.
Looking at the story in more detail also reveals that it will be the Job centres that will refer the alcoholics for treatment. Ironically at the same time the Scotsman reports that alcoholics have the right to claim disability benefits such as Incapacity. So they wont be going to the job centre anyway will they?
Although alcoholism is cited as the main reason for claiming benefits, alcoholics getting disability benefits are also likely to have other health problems, such as mental health issues, which prevent them working.
So would being an alcoholic with mental health problems negate the removal of benefits if they refuse treatment? And which is the greater problem anyway? Will this extend to removing benefits of people with serious mental heath impairments if they refuse to attend counselling?
As an aside, the constant degradation of smokers aggravates me. I used to manage wine merchants. It always confused me that smokers were penalised more heavily than drinkers, and as staff, I would be penalised to the tune of £5000 if I sold cigs to an underage smoker. But if I sold a bottle of whisky to someone under 18 and they got in a car and killed someone I would only be fined £2000. This seems illogical. The argument, of course, is that smoking causes long term irreversible damage. Although, getting killed in a car accident is not exactly reparable!
This current initiative, while not as detrimental to freedom as the enforced community service for adolescents, is illogical and impractical. The assertion that Labour "are going to look at the arrangements for alcoholics on benefits, just as [we] did for problem drug users, so that people get the help they need to get sober" is missing fundamental information about both drug users and alcoholics.
Measuring the "treatment" of heroin addicts is quantifiable. They go to the doctors once a week and get methadone. This replaces the heroin in their system and they are "ticked off". I they fail to collect methadone then it is assumed they are back on heroin (unless they are in work of course) and the benefits are ceased.
What exactly are the government prescribing to subsidise the addiction of alcohol?
They also fail to consider that alcohol is readily and cheaply available. All the time, thanks to the 24 hour drinking scheme initiative.
How can they tell if someone is off alcohol if there are not regular visits to a professional?
Is there even a measurable form of alcoholism? I know plenty of people who may drink every day, and plenty of people who consume so much alcohol in short periods they should be pickled.
This is without touching on the expense, bureaucracy and time investment that it will weight the NHS down with even further. Let alone valid points made by Theresa May and Steve Webb.
Looking at the story in more detail also reveals that it will be the Job centres that will refer the alcoholics for treatment. Ironically at the same time the Scotsman reports that alcoholics have the right to claim disability benefits such as Incapacity. So they wont be going to the job centre anyway will they?
Although alcoholism is cited as the main reason for claiming benefits, alcoholics getting disability benefits are also likely to have other health problems, such as mental health issues, which prevent them working.
So would being an alcoholic with mental health problems negate the removal of benefits if they refuse treatment? And which is the greater problem anyway? Will this extend to removing benefits of people with serious mental heath impairments if they refuse to attend counselling?
As an aside, the constant degradation of smokers aggravates me. I used to manage wine merchants. It always confused me that smokers were penalised more heavily than drinkers, and as staff, I would be penalised to the tune of £5000 if I sold cigs to an underage smoker. But if I sold a bottle of whisky to someone under 18 and they got in a car and killed someone I would only be fined £2000. This seems illogical. The argument, of course, is that smoking causes long term irreversible damage. Although, getting killed in a car accident is not exactly reparable!
4 Apr 2009
Alternative Transportation
Illogical social policy
Why do we get people over 75 to retake driving tests, and if they fail give them motor scooters with out tests?
These "trundle buggies" are lethal and un-mot'd, replaced with new models by the government regularly and then people are surprised when this, this, and this.
There is some initiative to instill basic road guidance but like all policy for elderly and people with impairments it is not exactly high on the concern pile.
Why do we get people over 75 to retake driving tests, and if they fail give them motor scooters with out tests?
These "trundle buggies" are lethal and un-mot'd, replaced with new models by the government regularly and then people are surprised when this, this, and this.
There is some initiative to instill basic road guidance but like all policy for elderly and people with impairments it is not exactly high on the concern pile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
