Page 2 of 4
Disenfranchised means deprived of the
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:57 pm
Disenfranchised means deprived of the rights of citizenship, including deprived of the right to vote, and in common usage is used to describe the specific lack of the right to vote; we do have the right to vote and, in theory at least, all the rights of citizenship even if we are not in a position to exercise them. But I do agree that we need a word in addition to carer, not least to differentiate us from paid carers who also use the word carer to describe themselves. The problem is knowing which word, this has been debated so many times on so many fora and no-one has come up with an answer, perhaps this time someone will.
how do we care if
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:01 pm
how do we care if we dont care?? the very term 'carer' puts us on a guilt trip if we no longer care!! and if we 'care' how can we then go on 'strike'? how uncaring would that be?? we cant turn the world against us we have to get them on our side!! the one thing most carers have in common is poverty. poverty of time in so many ways. and financial poverty. our poverty needs to be highlighted!! time for ourselves, our other friends etc, time for our health care needs, time to be politically active if thats what we want to do. or even to pursue a career.
i think the term CARERS IN POVERTY' is a catcher for those with a degree of compassion. and it can be attached to all kinds of poverty that are experienced by carers. what do you think???
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:54 pm
Yes it does seem difficult to find a fitting word to go with carer. I thought that possibly Principal Carer might do as well.
Essentially what I think we need is a huge voice to batter the EEC and our government with. A Trade Union or Guild might be set up (I will do some research) and in the longer term should result in the re-education of society (as has happened for the disabled etc). Magz
Just a thought.
If a "rose
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:52 pm
Just a thought.
If a "rose by any other name would smell as sweet" why not change the name?
Because we're used to "rose".
It's taken near on 30 years for "carer" to be recognised and we're still struggling with that. Would changing the name catch on?
When my son was first diagnosed, he was autistic. Then he had autism. Then an autistic spectrum disorder, and now an autism spectrum condition. Or "ASC".
Has he changed? No. Have the name changes improved his services? Again, no. Do the changes make his situation more easily understood? Er....no. It's just that one is more politically correct than the other, along the line.
Change is fine - but it has to have a purpose. And I personally would rather it had a real benefit attached.
we could be called Scivies,
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:58 pm
we could be called Scivies, Helpers, Independent, Trying or -- well work it out for your selves lol lol
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Within the rose family are different varieties/species. I am saying why don;t all of us unite despite the infinite variety of situations/afflictions etc. Those of us who can fight for MORE should join together and speak for the silent ones.
What's in a name
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:52 pm
What about the Hume Party, it sounds a bit like Human Right donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you think?
Hume bought his seat in Parliament in 1812, then became a self appointed guardian of the public purse, by challenging and bringing to a direct vote every single item of public expenditure.
If i had a seat in Parliament i would ask why carers do not get the same as the unemployed who get a Ã‚Â£64.30 allowance a week. According to the TUC this is still the lowest out-of- work benefit rate compared to wages in the developed world. Do other governments pay carers allowance, if so how much?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090903/tu ... 23e80.html
Here's something to think about
Achilles (Greek hero of the Trojan War), was filled with grief and rage; he became a great warrior only vulnerable by his heel.
the term 'informal carer' is
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:49 pm
the term 'informal carer' is attached to those who care on a voluntary basis, and with little or no financial reward. informal carers are not employed by anybody but are tied by emotional expectation and loyalty. informal carers work within the domestic sphere, ie their own homes or the home of a relative or friend. informal caring became the norm with the 'carers act' where care would be provided in the community and by the community. how ever in reality it is not provided by the community it is provided by a sole person. the 'carers act' has rendered informal carers and those they care for as 'powerless' as they are a fragmented body, with little or no political power!! it is in opposition the equal opportunities policies as carers 'never' have equal opportunities. as neither do those being cared for!!! because carers are fragmented, they are weak, in every sence, and have little political clout!! there does indeed need to be a way of addressing this!!! a way of getting carers together, as mentioned, some kind of union. if every carer in the uk gave up the role of 'informal carer' it could cost the government around Ã‚Â£2000 per week per person. THIS IS HOW MUCH YOUR WORK AS A CARER IS SAVING THE GOVERNMENT.
could you ever say 'thats it - im not doing it any more!!' because that just might be what it takes for anybody to listen!! to get fair pay and holidays, and all the other things that people get if employed!! could you ever say 'PAY ME A FAIR WAGE OR IM NOT DOING IT ANYMORE!!???
problem is -
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:54 pm
problem is - all local and central authorities know full well we'll all carry on and never give in
Disenfranchised isn't very helpful. To
Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:11 am
Disenfranchised isn't very helpful. To be Disenfranchised don't you have to be franchised in the first place?
The Union idea has been mentioned before but when someone tried to set a proper one up, nobody could afford to pay the subs!