From Revd Paul Nicolson of Taxpayers Against Poverty
Civil disobedience led by Dr Gail Bradbrook Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett join the www.compassionate-revolution.net
THE COMPASSIONATE REVOLUTION - LETTER IN THE GUARIDAN THIS MORNING
I have signed this letter published
in The Guardian this morning and will continue to refuse to pay my
council tax, and with my appeal to the Appeal Court, on the grounds that
it has been irrational since April 2013 for councils to tax the incomes
provided by central government for survival and shelter, in a housing
market creating ever more unaffordable rents, and then enforce the tax
by adding the councils costs to the inevitable arrears of their poorest residents.
Solidarity – Paul Nicolson
o
Link to the video to post on social media, e.g. I’m joining the Golden
Rule Tax Disobedience #taxdisobey because I want real democracy in the
UK – join me! –https://goo.gl/U5RrbQ
o
Pledge address – it’s essential for as many folk as possible to pledge
on the CR website, because we now have to get to 5,000 people! – this
is where to pledge: https://www.compassionate-revolution.net/
THIS LETTER WAS PUBLISHED IN THE GUARDIAN THIS MORNING
from the Reverend Paul Nicolson
Taxpayers Against Poverty
No citizen without an affordable home and an
adequate income in work or unemployment.
93 Campbell Road, Tottenham, London N17 0BF, 0208 3765455, 07961 177889,
www.z2k.org, www.prohousingalliance.com
"Wilkinson and Pickett's description of unequal societies as' dysfunctional' suggests implicit criticism of the approach taken by Britain's 'happiness tsar' Richard Layard, who recommended that the poor mental health of many Britons be 'fixed' or improved by making cognitive behavioural therapy more easily available. Consumerism, isolation, alienation, social estrangement and anxiety all follow from inequality, they argue, and so cannot rightly be made a matter of individual management."
Dude Swheatie of Kwug adds: Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett co-wrote 'The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger'. Those who advocate compulsory 'treatment' or loss of benefits for people with mental health probllems should note this extract from the linked review:
"Wilkinson and Pickett's description of unequal societies as' dysfunctional' suggests implicit criticism of the approach taken by Britain's 'happiness tsar' Richard Layard, who recommended that the poor mental health of many Britons be 'fixed' or improved by making cognitive behavioural therapy more easily available. Consumerism, isolation, alienation, social estrangement and anxiety all follow from inequality, they argue, and so cannot rightly be made a matter of individual management."
neither is it fair that people with mental health problems who refuse treatment can be left to terrorise estates for years before enough evidence is built up to take action in the courts, and if it's preventable and your living on that estate you'd approve of compulsory treatment
ReplyDeleteI still feel that vulnerable people are at greater danger from the cuts to their benefits by people on comparatively huge salaries and backed by national newspapers' hate campaigns.
ReplyDeleteAs an example of the imbalance of power involved, the Revd Paul Nicolson of Taxpayers Against Poverty has cited some of the damage caused to children and vulnerable people in general by tightfisted government, and yet the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children seems to remain impervious to such abuse and neglect.
Anyhow, as a banner produced by Psychologists Against Austerity for last Saturday's march says: "Joblessness is not a mental illness." People should not have their benefits threatened for refusing to engage in 'work-related activity' that masquerades as a cure to their mental health problems.
If "people with mental health problems ... terrorise estates for years before enough evidence is built up to take action in the courts" that is one thing; but what harm are people doing by refusing 'treatment' related to their being benefit claimants?
Dude Swheatie of Kwug
if they took treatment as a required part of been on benefits certain people would not terrorise or make a nuisance of themselves on estates, though it is unfortunate for some who may be able to cope without medication to have it required as part of their benefit claim, but in my experience it's those with the money to buy the support to come off who won't be on benefits usually
ReplyDeletebeen out of work may not be a mental illness but theres a certain correlation and requiring people with mental illness to take medictaion as a requirement for benefits would have stopped what has been some painful experiences for me
ReplyDeleteYes i know the argument that cameron has done more harm to me than a certain thug, i'm trying to get rid of cameron and in the meantime i have strong views about treating that thug