[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
predictable soundbites. - Page 2 - Carers UK Forum

predictable soundbites.

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
The main problem re carers is the 24/7 full time carer , and this person is generally a family member who has had to give up work , they may be a spouse , parents, children or other close relative ... .
It's arguable that the 24/7 carer is simply a victim of the welfare and social policy system, rather than a jolly eager recruit to the cause. I know how to recruit more carers, simply increase the cash benefits and the numbers would double, triple them again and the numbers would treble. But is that what we want? I mean, I can think of better things to do than being a Carer at the heavy end, cant you, regardless of how much money we get ? Rich people don't usually become carers, they just hire people to do the heavy caring and visit once or twice a week for tea. Thats not because they are nasty, its because they are smart.

Lets take two main drivers of choice in 'Carerworld': duty and money. They aren't independent of each other, but some people are more motivated by one than the other. Many carers have a duty to their wider family; for example I'm trying to help my daughter through university and I also have a duty to her - duty and money are hard to separate and there are some tough choices to make.

So, social policy would tweak the system a bit to achieve the desired result: increase CA and also double the earnings threshold for example, and see what happens - I suspect in that scenario there would be both more carers and also more working carers. Or abolish CA and watch the admissions to nursing homes start to go up as carers quit and trickle back into the workforce - its all about levers of change, isnt it?
I mean, I can think of better things to do than being a Carer at the heavy end, cant you, regardless of how much money we get ?
I can think of lots of things i would rather do than be a heavy end carer,(i don't need to be needed) as long as the people i love are happy, feel wanted, loved and are a part of my day to day life, not relegated to the sidelines and visited twice a week. Not that i am judging people who do that it's just not how my family operate. We enjoy each others company and look after each other, although these days i seem to be doing most of the looking after.

If i had the choice I would choose for my family to be well, happy and physically independent. I do accept what help i can get in the form of direct payments but that doesnt come anywhere near enough to be able to have the time to work and earn a good wage. More money not just for care but for help with all the other household and financial stuff that the sole carer has sole responsibility for would be great but boy could I do with a whole load of good luck!
Or abolish CA and watch the admissions to nursing homes start to go up as carers quit and trickle back into the workforce - its all about levers of change, isnt it?
Well firstly there's a shortage of nursing homes and i don't think you would find a lot of change..CA doesn't exactly keep the wolf from the door at the moment does it. In my case my savings would just disappear even faster than they are now and i guess i would have to try and find some part time work where i could still look after my husband like i have before and give up having any life of my own at all. Looks like i am set to wear out rather than rust out.

Oh and Maxi i am a 24/7 carer and there's absolutely no chance of me getting to a CUK agm Image
Being a 24/7 carer isnt an option for a parent carer, because you have a legal duty to send your child to school, so in some ways you quickly adapt to learning to trust others with the care. So, you wave your child off the school every morning, and have a day to fill - in those circumstances working is always an option unless you are literally up all night.
[Being a 24/7 carer isnt an option for a parent carer, because you have a legal duty to send your child to school, so in some ways you quickly adapt to learning to trust others with the care. So, you wave your child off the school every morning, and have a day to fill - in those circumstances working is always an option unless you are literally up all night.]quote, Excalibur.

Not if your child has medical needs. As a parent, you responsible.Have a look at Diabetes UK on Facebook, see how many parents are talking about juggling work with their caring, and how many have given up, so that they can go into school two hourly or more often, to test bloods, to give insulin, to correct a high sugar. See how many are told that their child cannot go on a trip,because the teachers are not going to be held responsible.

Over the last 25 year of caring, Downs Syndrome has been the easy option, compared to the Diabetes. (I am aware that Ben's health is pretty good, he has never had heart or digestion problems).
Rhys was penalised by the junior school for attending diabetes appointments,and all associated with them;eye appointments,dietitian appointments,etc. They had to be at least two monthly.as insulin reacts against the growth hormone,so reviews were vital. Rhys and I worked hard to keep him up-to-date with schoolwork then, so that he was always where he should be educationally.
Ben did not develop diabetes till he was almost 16, by which time he was in special needs school,and they worked really hard in partnership with us and Ben.

Caring can be 24/7, even when you send your child to school.
sad thing is,the mainstream rolling news media and red-top tabloid press suffer from very short attention spans and oh-so-simple one dimentional stories.

as was so rightly observed here,no two carers stories are ever the same.what i find so,so boring,so tedious so predictable,and thus,so missing the point,is the case-study,the "Typical" "Statistic" that meets the criteria of this media.

a "Carer" in news-agenda terms is one the non-carer public must:

Warm To.

Identify with.

feel very sorry for.

understand in a few words.

feel supportive of.

the carer fielded,trotted-out,put-up or volunteering to be some sort of "Typical" specimin of what a caer is,whatever way you wish to style it,the person who speaks,as a carer,to the media,must be very easy to empathise with.

so,a carer who,uncomplicatedly cares for well over 50 hours a week,for example,and does this as the sole occupation,and lives on carers allowance etc,ticks all the boxes for media.

i dont expect it to be otherwise.

i muse on the chick-and-egg factor.

however these sounbites are arrived at,you allways see or hear a fulltime carer as the example of THE CARER.

i cant say if its just these are the folks willing to speak to media,able,timewise,to do so,i cant say if the bbc etc choose the peoplew who speak,or if carers uk field the "Typical" carer,or if carers uk,the media,or,maybe a bit of both,decide who is to speak as a carer.

but in net-result terms,funny how we never hear working carers on these sounbite oppotunities.

i just observe the facts,deduce accordingly,by deductive reasoning,it would seem,to me,by their omission,by the absence of a working carer who juggles work and care being heard,
on these occasions,the case is,proven,i think.


either by editorial decisioin,by the media doing the interviews or by selection by carers uk,or,that bit-of-both,these things tend to be decided by both parties arriving at which speakers represent a clear concise simple case for the cause,and can put it accross in easy terms,are both down to earth and instill the empathy of viewers listeners or readers.


i merely would submit there are many other examples of carers.

.
The DWP definition of a carer is someone who cares for at least 35 hours a week. I still maintain that they should have different levels of CA based on the level of care provided. People who go out to work are not at home doing the actual physical caring (no offence intended to anyone who works) - how can they be caring for the person whilst they are at work as it is not possible to be in 2 places at the same time. The government should help those the most that do the most and thus save the country the most money.

Eun
Good to see you back, Eun. Haven't seen you around for a while - hope everything's ok?

I agree that those who provide more care need more support, Eun, but frankly your idea is a bit arbitrary, as it presupposes that carers not in employment are de facto providing more care, which is not necessarily the case.

What about those whose carees attend school, day services, etc.? Are they caring more than someone working part time? Working carers still need time off for hospital appointments, or to meet other caree-related appointments, reviews, etc., and they are still on call 24/7. Some working carers will have a lower caring burden, others won't. It seems to me that it would take a much finer measure than the one you're proposing, and would probably be even more intrusive than the current system...which of course is just what we need. Image

The system certainly needs a shake up but why replace one bad idea with another? There must be a better way. The proposal from the Work and Pensions Select Committee to the previous government made better sense to me, if not to the politicians in power at the time (or now, for that matter).
i care,therefore i am a carer.i care for well over 50 hours a week and i work.the dwp job spec for carers not withstanding,i feel its all hogwash,frankly.

reality of life as it is does not fit neatly into either a media soundbite or government definition.so,whats new in that?.
"They also serve who only stand and wait." -
-- John Milton
From]On His Blindness


When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one Talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest He returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly: thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait."[/quote]

Meaning: We all have a place in this world and we all perform a function, regardless of our ability or disability. The word order of this sentence may make it more difficult to understand. In normal English it would be something like: "They (those people) who only stand and wait, also serve."

Origin: Quotation from the great English poet John Milton (1608-74). After going blind, Milton wrote the poem "On His Blindness". In the sonnet's last line, he reflects that even with his disability he has a place in the world.

I therefore reflect that caring isn't about what you actually do, it is about what you can't do, the freedoms that are denied, and that this too has a meaning and value.
Thanks for asking Charles - I have had a chest infection for which I am currently dosing myself with young R's antibiotics which I keep in the fridge. Seems to be doing the trick as I am up and around a bit today and feeling quite a bit better. Also using the Co-ops Bronchial Mixture which I swear by and dosing myself with Disprin. Only problem now is the muscle pain from the constant coughing. Hope to be back to normal soon as we have quite a busy week next week.

Eun