Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Bedroom Tax
So, there's been a suicide because of the 'bedroom tax'. Poor woman couldn't afford the £80 per month for 2 empty bedrooms when her children left home. How many more before it's abolished?
Answers
Well she didn't kill herself before the 'bedroom tax' was brought in which led her to believe she wouldn't be able to afford the extra £80+ per month, which meant she had to leave her home of 18 years. I don't think anyone gives a stuff about the £80 per week, they simply find it heartbreakin g that they have to leave their home, which they have lived in for years...
12:17 Mon 13th May 2013
More, your family and friends. In any personal case of someone I don't know, I should have no say whatsoever, unless you involved me for some reason. If, for example, you told me of your plans, then I think I would have good reason to try to dissuade you and to help you. Otherwise what I would say in your case has no weight at all.
You still haven't really elaborated under what circumstances you would "coolly and rationally want to kill yourself". While you don't have to share these if you'd rather not, it makes it hard for me to really respond. Would you kill yourself, coolly and rationally, if an exam went wrong? More reasonably, would you do so if suffering from daily pain? Perhaps in response to a family tragedy... and so on. I can't speak in general terms. I only know that in my specific case it would have been irrational, and I don't see why it is so controversial to say so for this woman either. Taking the circumstances at face value she appears to have over-reacted. Therefore, I can only assume that there is more to the story. Most likely, again based on my own experiences, she had lost perspective due to mental illness.
You still haven't really elaborated under what circumstances you would "coolly and rationally want to kill yourself". While you don't have to share these if you'd rather not, it makes it hard for me to really respond. Would you kill yourself, coolly and rationally, if an exam went wrong? More reasonably, would you do so if suffering from daily pain? Perhaps in response to a family tragedy... and so on. I can't speak in general terms. I only know that in my specific case it would have been irrational, and I don't see why it is so controversial to say so for this woman either. Taking the circumstances at face value she appears to have over-reacted. Therefore, I can only assume that there is more to the story. Most likely, again based on my own experiences, she had lost perspective due to mental illness.
/I only know that in my specific case it would have been irrational/
If that is what you believe then I'm sure that was true for you jim
But i think we should accept that there may be people out there with a different set of values and beliefs
Just because you can't conceive of self-destruction as anything other than irrationality or an 'illness' does not necessarily make it so for everybody
If that is what you believe then I'm sure that was true for you jim
But i think we should accept that there may be people out there with a different set of values and beliefs
Just because you can't conceive of self-destruction as anything other than irrationality or an 'illness' does not necessarily make it so for everybody
What you don't seem to grasp Jim, is it doesn't matter what the reason is, it just matters that it is that person's choice. You disregarding that freedom of choice and labelling anyone who chooses that option as mentally is really missing the point of everything I and a few others have been trying to convey.
Yet again the ex Eton Boys have a wonderful scheme that has been very poorly thought out. Not one of them has a clue how family's are now having to struggle to make ends meet. The scheme itself is quite sound in that people living in social housing that have become too large because of their children leaving home to start new lives should be offered alternative accommodation of their own choosing to allow larger houses to become available for families who are on the waiting list, it would appear that this poor lady WAS offered alternatives but none of them were suitable for one reason or another & after all if the council want her house the so called ''tax'' should not be implemented until all other avenues had been explored. Another rule could be that people could stay in their houses until death & THEN the council could take over the house for re-allocation.
WR.
WR.
I still disagree, because you are trying to make a general point and I am arguing about specific cases.
Specific case 1: A woman walks in front of a truck as a result of feeling trapped, when if she had only done more research, or not listened to the media storm, she would have known there was another way out. In those cases it is surely more polite, and more respectful, to say that she was mentally ill so that it felt that there was no way out. What is the alternative? In this particular case, it cannot be argued that she was of sound mind. It just can't. If it is, then she rushed into a rash and short-sighted decision. And that is even more disrespectful. Pretending she was rational in this specific case is to ignore the alternatives available.
In any other general case I'd be far more inclined to concede the point you are making. But by wrapping it up with a case in which there is far less ambiguity, I think you're doing this woman a disservice.
Specific case 1: A woman walks in front of a truck as a result of feeling trapped, when if she had only done more research, or not listened to the media storm, she would have known there was another way out. In those cases it is surely more polite, and more respectful, to say that she was mentally ill so that it felt that there was no way out. What is the alternative? In this particular case, it cannot be argued that she was of sound mind. It just can't. If it is, then she rushed into a rash and short-sighted decision. And that is even more disrespectful. Pretending she was rational in this specific case is to ignore the alternatives available.
In any other general case I'd be far more inclined to concede the point you are making. But by wrapping it up with a case in which there is far less ambiguity, I think you're doing this woman a disservice.
I take your point jim
for myself, it is a general point and i wasn't 'wrapping it' with this particular case
however, i don't see how dis-empowering someone by assuming they were mentally ill is more respectful than assuming they did what they did (right or wrong from our pov) for their own reasons and to meet their own needs as they perceived them at the time
for myself, it is a general point and i wasn't 'wrapping it' with this particular case
however, i don't see how dis-empowering someone by assuming they were mentally ill is more respectful than assuming they did what they did (right or wrong from our pov) for their own reasons and to meet their own needs as they perceived them at the time
I suppose it's because in this particular case it strikes me, and I've been trying to avoid saying this so bluntly, that if this were a rational decision then it was a stupid one.
There, I've said it. I hope you don't judge me too harshly for thinking that. But at least you can see why I'd rather think that she was mentally ill!
There, I've said it. I hope you don't judge me too harshly for thinking that. But at least you can see why I'd rather think that she was mentally ill!
Oh, phew, I thought I was going to get slaughtered for that one.
In response to the other point, I didn't say I wouldn't have done it either. Who knows what I would have done? Assuming I were exactly in the same position, then I'd have done basically the same. If it were me, but otherwise everything else was the same, I can't answer.
In response to the other point, I didn't say I wouldn't have done it either. Who knows what I would have done? Assuming I were exactly in the same position, then I'd have done basically the same. If it were me, but otherwise everything else was the same, I can't answer.
I was going to add, that it oughtn't be a troublesome thing to label someone as mentally ill. Because such people with mental health problems are very common. So labelling someone who commits suicide mentally ill is on balance likely to be right. And, too, it shouldn't be viewed as stigmatising that person.
I don't think anyone with a mental illness should be stigmatised any more than anyone with an ingrown toenail or measles should be, it can happen to any of us. There is no shame in mental illness. I do think though that assuming anyone is mentally ill because they behave in a way you cannot personally equate with something you might do is not fair, and likely to be based on your own personal thoughts and feelings about suicide rather than anything more tangible.
An old thread I know but I heard someone the other day saying about this case of the suicide and that she wouldn't have had to pay the extra money. It was about something in the Guardian paper last month the link is below. If there is anyone on here who has been affected by it then they may want to take a look. If you think you may have got a case for refund then it may be worth your while asking about it as not all councils keep records going back that far so they may not contact you.
http:// www.the guardia n.com/h ousing- network /2014/j an/09/b edroom- tax-err or-expl ained-h ousing- benefit
http://