Housing benefit reforms target the wrong people

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

A woman in Merseyside has been told she is losing some of her housing benefit because the sensory room for her severely disabled daughter is classed as a spare bedroom.

I absolutely agree with the removal of housing benefit for spare bedrooms – if someone else is paying your rent then the house you live in should be absolutely what you need, nothing more – and I won’t call it the bedroom tax because it’s not a tax, that’s just a phrase the Labour Party propaganda machine invented. The problem is that the changes have been poorly implemented as usual and that’s led to so much injustice that the majority of the population thinks that it’s a bad idea and would gladly see a return to the system where the taxpayer is subsidising a middle aged couple whose kids have left home to live in a 4 or 5 bedroom house that they don’t need and can’t afford. Of course, if you frame it in those terms most people would say it shouldn’t happen but this is why benefit reform needs to be done right first time, because if you get it wrong the heart overrules the head and people will agree to virtually anything to end the injustice caused by it being done wrong.

In the case of this woman in Merseyside, her 28 year old daughter is registered blind, mentally handicapped and uses a wheelchair. The spare bedroom in their bungalow has been converted into a sensory room with a ball pool, a TV and lights and is also used to store her wheelchairs. Because it’s still classed as a bedroom though, she loses part of her benefits which leaves her in a situation that there is no real way out of. She can’t move to a smaller place because she needs the extra space to store the wheelchairs and sensory equipment and if she finds a part time job to pay the rent shortfall she’ll need a carer for her daughter which the local authority will have to pay for.

Local authorities have been given £150m by the Department of Work & Pensions so they can clear up the mess the benefit reforms have left behind which is a tacit admission that the British government knows it got it wrong and knew in advance that the legislation was poorly written but this isn’t a secure funding source and it’s unlikely that £150m actually covers the costs. This woman in Merseyside has been given a discretionary award to cover the shortfall in her housing benefit for the start of the year but it still leaves her in limbo, knowing that at some point in the near future she’s going to have to go cap in hand to the local authority again and hope that there’s some money available to help her.

People who are using a spare bedroom as sensory rooms or as storage for medical equipment or for some other type of necessary facility for a disabled person shouldn’t have their housing benefit cut for that room. Nor should couples who have to sleep in separate rooms because of a disability or medical condition (such as one of them being too restless, kicking out, etc. in the night). Part time parents (such as weekend dads and mums) who have overnight contact with their children shouldn’t have their housing benefit reduced for a spare room for their children either because in a great many cases that means that the agreed contact with their children can’t happen. Nor should housing benefit be reduced for parents who are keeping a bedroom for their child who normally lives at home who is currently serving overseas in the armed forces and will return home after their tour.

These exclusions could easily have been written in to the legislation to prevent the injustice we’re seeing now and the abolition of the spare bedroom subsidy would have been better received and would be better perceived by the majority. Instead, it is seen as an attack on the sick and disabled and it will be years before the public are willing to support benefit reform again.


  1. William Gruff (138 comments) says:

    This is one of those rare ‘extremes’ that are used as the exceptions that justify rewriting the rules. Why should anyone be compelled to contribute to the support of another? It’s sad that the young woman in question is so severely handicapped but that in itself is not a justification for living at the expense of others. I haven’t worked for more than three and a half years and I don’t qualify for a penny of any benefit. I am wholly supported by Mrs Gruff and we must exist on her income alone, more than half of which goes on rent, in the private sector, and council tax. For several months at the beginning of 2011 we fed ourselves for £10.00 per week, for both of us. We have to buy the cheapest of everything and clothes are bought only when absolutely necessary. We don’t have a television set and we can’t afford a telephone line or internet connection. We don’t complain – that’s the way it is and we get on with it – and we don’t expect the tax payer to provide us with some of the luxuries that we feel might make life more comfortable. We do, however, resent paying for a lifestyle for others that we cannot afford for ourselves, although we might were Mrs Gruff paying less in tax. I see in the picture that the mother and daughter are posed in front of a large screen TV. Do the mother and her partner smoke? Do they drink? Do they take holidays? Do they run a car? Could they cut their food bills? What other economies could they make? Benefits should be for bare subsistence as a last resort only, and for a strictly limited period.

    • wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

      As you know, I’m an advocate of low tax and personal responsibility and very much opposed to the use of social security as anything other than a safety net which is what it was created as. In this case though it makes economic sense to support the woman keeping her daughter at home. If she can’t afford to provide her with a suitable home then she’ll end up in care and that will be at the expense of the taxpayer. I know from personal experience that the cost of providing adult social care with that level of dependency will far exceed what benefits are paid to this lady – you’re looking at in excess of a grand a week.

      You might see the TV (which is an old rear projection TV of the sort that became obsolete a decade ago) as a luxury but did you notice that it was playing the Tweenies? This is an indication of the mental age of the daughter and of course being registered blind (but clearly able to see something) she would need a big screen to be able to see it.

      I don’t know if they smoke or go on holiday but respite for the carer is a necessity. My mother-in-law is a full time carer for my disabled father-in-law and he would be in a care home already if she didn’t get a break from him. If they do go on holiday (which local authorities will often pay for for carers of high dependency people) then that’s not something I would begrudge as long as it wasn’t extravagant. It’s more cost effective to pay for house adaptations, respite and short breaks for carers to keep a disabled person at home than it is to put them in a care home – especially if they are high dependency.

      I agree that extreme cases are used as propaganda tools to fight against the very principal of benefit reform but it’s just an extreme example of a wider injustice and not just an injustice but something that is costing the taxpayer more money than it saves.

      In most cases I would agree that benefits should be short term subsistence only but there are exceptions to the rule such as people with permanent, severe disabilities and their carers. There is no real prospect of them working (at least until the disabled person dies or can no longer be looked after at home) so benefits aren’t short term and insisting that a carer lives a subsistence lifestyle when they are unable to do anything to improve their financial situation without abandoning the person they care for is unreasonable. They are doing something that is not only morally right but that benefits the taxpayer – surely you must agree that we have a moral obligation as a society to allow them more than a basic existence in return?

      • William Gruff (138 comments) says:

        No more unreasonable than insisting that my wife and I live a subsistence lifestyle so that they needn’t, which was my point. Moral arguments are wholly subjective and no one’s morality is inherently superior to any other’s, nor does anyone have any moral authority to demand money from others, under duress, to alleviate the perceived sufferings of the disadvantaged. My wife and I get no respite from our straitened circumstances and it’s not for anyone else to tell us that we should pay up because they think we are more fortunate than those we are subsidising.

        As I said, it’s sad that the young woman is so severely disabled but Mrs G and I are not responsible for that, and it is not unlikely that the small shortfall in income caused by the loss of a portion of her housing benefit can be compensated for by making some economies.

    • Simon M (30 comments) says:

      What would you have this family do to justify themselves in your eyes? Cut the food bills? How do you know they haven’t had to do this already? And how do you know if that’s even wise? Perhaps the daughter has particular nutritional needs that requires a particular diet. Get rid of their car? Assuming they even have a car, why should they get rid of it? Perhaps having a car is essential for them. Perhaps they live in an area with poor public transport. Maybe a car is the only way the daughter can ever get out of the house. Would you deprive her of an essential connection with the outside world. Aaand the TV. Yes they have a TV – just like 95% plus of the rest of the population. Maybe that TV is the only form of entertainment they have. Or would you rather them sit in the dark all day with nothing to do?

      You ask “Why should anyone be compelled to contribute to the support of another”? Well, it’s because we live in a civilised society that’s why. Would you really leave a disabled person to live in dire poverty?

      • William Gruff (138 comments) says:

        An unimpressive display of ‘righteous indignation’ from an easily triggered, opinionated, loud-mouthed half-wit who thinks he has a crushing intellect and the killer riposte. You think you’ve countered my points and answered my questions, yet you haven’t addressed them at all, largely because you seem incapable of understanding what underlies them. You strike me as one of the less intelligent members of the brick throwing class, as your moronic demand to scrap ‘the bedroom tax’ shows.

        I’d get off my high horse, sit down and have a good long think – assuming that possible in your case – were I you, and then I’d have another go at framing a rational reply. When you can do that I’ll treat your response as though it’s worth a serious reply.

        • Simon M (30 comments) says:

          So none of the practical arguments I’ve put forward makes an impression on you? I’m impressed. To generate as much stupidity as you must take quite an effort, not to mention your staggering lack of insight into the lives of others.

          The William Guff view of the world – Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! Only people who receive the official Guff Seal of Approval shall be permitted to have a dignified life. Everybody else who does not meet my criteria shall henceforth be confined to a hostel (but not one built near me god forbid…)

          I’m done with this site, Christ knows there is little chance of English Nationalism ever being taken seriously when Captain Guff and Co are its chief luminaries.

          • Stan (222 comments) says:

            If this is your last post, I’m sorry to see you go.
            I wouldn’t worry about what William says too much. The fact that he doesn’t qualify for benefits shows that he is already better off than the lady in question. The fact that he believes that a single parent caring for a severely mentally handicapped child, 24 hours a day, seven days a week should be even further down the pecking order than him says more about him than we ever could.

          • William Gruff (138 comments) says:

            Stan: That I don’t qualify for benefits ‘shows’ nothing about my economic circumstances; it merely shows that I don’t fall into any of the myriad categories of those currently entitled to live at the expense of others. That notwithstanding, I wouldn’t claim them even were that otherwise.

            If you read my posts, instead of mindlessly reacting, like any other opinionated, loud mouthed, brick throwing ‘barrack room lawyer’, you’ll see that the woman in the article is considerably better off than my wife and I. It’s typical of ill-educated and ideologically indoctrinated baboons like you that you see nothing wrong in one group of individuals confiscating the earnings of another in order to provide yet another with a lifestyle members of the first group cannot afford for themselves, often because of an unfair tax burden.

            Try to make a case without creating straw men from false assertions based on unfounded assumptions, and check the definition of ‘fact’ before using the word again.

            Idiots like you are part of the reason this country is collapsing, and are an example of why we must abolish universal suffrage: you simply haven’t the brains to use a vote sensibly.

          • Stan (222 comments) says:

            Mr Gruff

            “That I don’t qualify for benefits ‘shows’ nothing about my economic circumstances”

            The main reasons why you would not qualify for benefits are:
            1)You and your wife have savings high enough to disqualify you from benefits.
            2)Your wife earns more than the benefit rate.
            3)Your wife works too many hours to qualify. Even at minimum wage rate, she would earn more than the benefit rate.

            The fact that you don’t qualify yet the lady in question does would indicate that you are above benefit rate and she is not.

            If you believe that:
            “the woman in the article is considerably better off than my wife”,
            then you obviously have no idea what constant care of a mentally handicapped, blind and wheelchair bound 28 year old involves.

            If you want to discuss the “myriad categories of those currently entitled to live at the expense of others” I am more than happy too. As I have stated before, I worked for many years for the benefits agency and the contributions agency and I have also spent many years as a carer. My partner is a benefits adviser for a law centre where she not only advises people on matters such as this, but also runs occasional training courses for council staff about benefits.

            I would prefer it however if you were to make valid points instead of resorting to personal abuse – it is a rather serious subject after all. If however you feel that you would prefer to insult me then by all means carry on – it reflects on you far more than it does on me.

            “Idiots like you are part of the reason this country is collapsing, and are an example of why we must abolish universal suffrage: you simply haven’t the brains to use a vote sensibly”

            See what I mean, have you got any idea how badly that makes you appear?
            You actually want to abolish the vote?

          • William Gruff (138 comments) says:

            Stan: I have also worked for the DWP, so what. I do not want to abolish the vote, merely universal suffrage, because allowing idiots like you to vote is why England is rapidly disappearing down the pan.

            It’s amazing how upset carers become when someone dares to suggest that they have no right to other people’s cash just because they’ve chosen not to work, using as their excuse that they have to ‘care’ for someone else. If you worked for the agencies you claim you’ll know that it is only necessary to sleep in the same house as the disabled claimant for thirty hours a week to qualify, and there is no requirement to do anything else.

            Now, since you are quite clearly nothing more than an easily triggered, loud mouthed lout, with little in the way of inteligence and nothing in the way of any sort of argument, and since I’m disinclined to bandy brickbats with idiots, this thread is closed.

          • Stan (222 comments) says:

            “If you worked for the agencies you claim”
            Well it’s a bit of an odd thing to lie about.

            “It’s amazing how upset carers become when someone dares to suggest that they have no right to other people’s cash just because they’ve chosen not to work”

            Chosen not to work??????
            When my dad was bed ridden and slowly dying of cancer do you think I was just sitting there with my feet up?
            Do you not think there are at least some people in the world who do things for anything other than financial gain?

            “this thread is closed”
            Is it? I hadn’t seen anything from Mr Wonko to suggest anything of the kind.

            Still if you’ve grown tired of pointlessly insulting me I’m happy to drop this too

          • Simon M (30 comments) says:

            I just couldn’t resist coming back – I must be a sucker for punishment.

            “It’s amazing how upset carers become when someone dares to suggest that they have no right to other people’s cash just because they’ve chosen not to work, using as their excuse that they have to ‘care’ for someone else. If you worked for the agencies you claim you’ll know that it is only necessary to sleep in the same house as the disabled claimant for thirty hours a week to qualify, and there is no requirement to do anything else.”

            Ha ha haaaaa! Ha ha hahhaaaaaahahaa!!!!!

            You honestly think people who care for others full time have simply opted for an easy lifestyle?? Jesus, I never have read such stupidity anywhere before! Aside from the fact people caring for sick or disabled relatives save the public purse billions of pounds a year (if their own relatives don’t care for them, who else do you think will? Nurses and doctors and other paid staff, working in special hospitals or hostels. That’s who, genius!) caring for a relative full time is an extremely demanding job, and incurs an enormous toll on people’s physical and mental health. If you think – in all honesty – that people who feed, bathe, dress, wipe the backsides of, get up at three in the morning to check up on, brush the teeth of, take out on the occasional outing (if they’re lucky) and perform all those other deeply personal tasks for a loved one have an easy lifestyle, then, well words fail me, they really do.

            Also, to make what amounts to an accusation of fraud is just pathetic. You don’t know much if you think cares’ allowance is generous (it isn’t), as you obviously believe people are willing to put on a show of disability just to qualify for the grand total of £59.75 a week.

            As for the other things you said, well based on your obvious ignorance I can choose to simply ignore them.

          • Stan (222 comments) says:

            Glad you decided not to jump ship after all. It gets a bit lonely on this side of the house 🙂

            To be fair to Mr Gruff though, despite the nasty things he’s called us I wouldn’t say he was stupid. I think he’s wrong on this particular subject and it would be nice to be able to debate it with him without the pointless insults but I definitely wouldn’t say he was stupid.

            The real problem is that Duncan-Smith, Cameron and the other Tories aren’t stupid either – they know exactly what they are doing. The worrying thing is that they can inflict all this suffering and not give a damn.

          • Simon M (30 comments) says:

            Thanks Stan. 🙂

            To be fair, I didn’t say Mr Gruff was stupid, I said he was ignorant, and that the things he said were stupid (a subtle difference I admit…).

            IDS, Osborne and Cameron certainly are not stupid, and they are doing what all governments do and that is press on with the policies they think are right. What amazes me about the current situation is the acquiescence of people, in the face of reports of suicides, increases in hunger, malnutrition, and the spiralling use of food banks. People don’t seem to care, and I really don’t know why. Maybe public opinion towards benefit claimants has been poisoned by all the scare stories and misinformation over the years, but even if that’s the case why no sympathy for the working poor, who represent an ever growing number of people relying on food banks (also, the majority of new Housing Benefit claims are made by people in work).

  2. William Gruff (138 comments) says:

    Sadly my 2 hours daily internet access at the library is just about to run out, otherwise I would write considerably more on this topic.

  3. Simon M (30 comments) says:

    The Bedroom Tax is an outrage and should be scrapped immediately.

    • William Gruff (138 comments) says:


      • Simon M (30 comments) says:

        The Bedroom Tax is an outrage and should be scrapped immediately.

        The Bedroom Tax is an outrage and should be scrapped immediately.

        The Bedroom Tax is an outrage and should be scrapped immediately.

        The Bedroom Tax is an outrage and should be scrapped immediately.

        • William Gruff (138 comments) says:


          • Simon M (30 comments) says:

            This from a man who says those who care full-time for relatives are simply exploiting the system to enjoy an “easier lifestyle”!

            The bedroom tax is an outrage and should be scrapped immediately.

          • Stan (222 comments) says:

            Even without going into any moral arguments, the stated aim of the bedroom tax is to get people out of accommodation which has a “spare” room.
            Yet between 90-95% of those affected cannot move because the required smaller housing just isn’t available.
            On purely logical grounds the bedroom tax doesn’t work.

          • wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

            I disagree with the 90-95% figure Stan and I’ll tell you why. I heard lots of stuff from our Cllr Comrades at Telford & Wrekin Council about the “bedroom tax” as part of their regular taxpayer-funded attacks on the government. One of the claims was about the number of people who needed a one bedroom house or flat – it was an extrapolated figure based on the number of people who went to a council-run housing benefit advice session. In other words, entirely baseless. So I asked the council how many households were living in houses too small for them that could be notionally swapped with a household that lived in a house that was too big with them. They don’t have those figures apparently. So what they do have is a bullshit figure for the number of people who need a one bedroom property that is no more credible than rolling some dice and no idea at all how many one bedroom properties are notionally available in the borough. I would expect this to be the same for every local authority in the country.

          • Simon M (30 comments) says:

            @Wonkotsane (sic)

            There’s an article from the Daily Mirror, which shows that even David (Lord) Freud admits there are not enough one bedroom homes for people to move into. From the article:

            “Lord Freud told peers: “Over the past decade the social rented sector has built virtually no single bedrooms.

            “We need to make sure we are building the type of accommodation people in this country actually need.””

            Also, the report goes on to show Birmingham has nowhere near enough single room properties for those affected by the tax. Again, from the article:

            “Now new figures from Birmingham alone show 11,257 council tenants chasing just 75 available one-bedroom flats.

            The city council is desperately working on another 113 properties to make them fit for tenants.”

            As you can see, in Birmingham at least there isn’t even one available single room property for every ten tenants, so what do you expect people affected by the bedroom tax to do?

            The article in full here:


          • wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

            But how many people are living in a house that’s too small for them? How many households are on the statutory overcrowding register? How many people aren’t statutory overcrowded but need or want a bigger house? How many of the people that need a one bedroom property could be accommodated by swapping (notionally if not actually) with someone who wants or needs a bigger house? Councils aren’t quoting the statutory overcrowding figures and they don’t know how many people want but don’t need a bigger house.

          • Stan (222 comments) says:

            Hi Wonko

            The info comes from a data protection request from the labour party. I read about it here.

            From what I can tell, it’s based on the the number of vacant one or two bedroom properties in each borough.

            As with all of these things the devil is in the interpretation, however even if you factor in a huge margin of error it would still be a pretty substantial number.

            It’s interesting to note that many councils did not respond to the request though.

          • Simon M (30 comments) says:


            And whose fault is that? The people living in houses that are too big (and plenty of these people want to downsize but can’t) or successive governments/local authorities who have built nowhere near enough smaller houses?

            I must say one thing in defence of local authorities – for decades they concentrated on building family-sized homes (2, 3 or more bedrooms) because that was what was needed most. Family sizes since then have fallen, and now we have more people living alone or living without children, and it is obvious councils and private house builders have failed to keep up with the changing demographics in the UK. But again, whose fault is that? Not those living in homes that are too big, the very people being punished by the government’s benefit reforms.

            You and others like you preach “personal responsibility”, yet are never willing to see the conditions created where people can do that.

            Those suffering for want of a bigger house should blame the governments of the past and present for their plight, not those being hit by the bedroom tax.

          • Stan (222 comments) says:

            The other thing to bear in mind is the great council house sell-off that has led to the dire shortage of council housing. Between 33-66% (depending on the borough)of old council houses are now in the hands of private landlords.
            They charge (on average) twice as much for rent than the local authority does and means that housing benefits are going straight into the hands of private landlords.

  4. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    The whole system is to cock and the fundamental problem is political parties which are constitutionally forbidden in Englamd anyway.

    But if we have what is mostly recognised as a “Conservative” government, then a “Labour” council will do what ever it can to be awkward and attempt to sabotage the policies of the “Conservative” faction, and visa versa.

    It is a pitty that real people are on the receiving end of gang politics. Universal suffrage is the law of the land and can never be reversed, the proper alternative is to abolish all political parties, since they are technically criminal, and introduce self representation via a direct democratic system. I will agree to abide by the majority wishes of the people, rather than the legal fiction of parliament at best, but a corrupt factionist and secret society assembly in reality.

    It is not a “bedroom tax” policy but rather a circumstance adjustment, and clearly all situations should be concidered before requesting an individual or family to seek accomodation suited to their logical requirements. No disabled people who suffers enough by misfortunes of nature, should further suffer by the misfortunes of living in a socierty controlled by bickering political gangs, neither of which have any true morals.

  5. Simon M (30 comments) says:

    “Hi everyone,

    Not sure if anyone can help or not. This morning I had tests on a lump I had found and I was told that it was 95% certain that the lump was cancer and I would need treatment for breast cancer.

    This afternoon I had an appointment with my adviser for a post work programme interview, it wasn’t a signing day but they still insist on checking my jobsearch throughly. Because of what had happened in the morning I completely forgot to take it and they threatened me with a sanction. And made appointments for me to be at the job centre every day for the next fortnight at varying times, one of these clashed with my appointment at the hospital for my test results and I told them this.

    This set them off saying I was signing when I wasn’t actively seeking work, that I needed to fill in a sickness form, this would be my second period of sickness and would mean I would not be eligible for anymore sickness until November this year. I said this to them and I was told in a roundabout way it was tough.

    Then things went from bad to worse, my adviser made me sign off saying I was not eligible to claim JSA as I was now sick as I had breast cancer. They have now signed me off and I am not getting anymore JSA apart from 3 days that are due to me.

    Is what they did right?

    I have read that ESA isn’t payable for some cancers so that doesn’t seem an option plus at the moment I would not be able to get a doctors note as nothing is confirmed so what am I meant to live on?

    This is a worrying enough time as it is without having they worry of no money for bills and food now.

    Any advice welcome


    The above is a post on a forum, wherein a cancer patient details the treatment they have received at the hands of the jobcentre. To all you idiots out there – particularly Captain Guff and Wankstain – do you think this treatment is fair? Do you think this is an example of the easy lifestyles people on benefits enjoy?


    • Stan (222 comments) says:

      Hi Simon

      Advice for the person who posted on the forum

      First thing is get a sick note from the Doctor for stress if they won’t do it for cancer and then make a claim for ESA. Ask for the ESA to be back-dated to the date the JSA stopped – there is a month maximum for backdating though.
      Appeal the sanction and then make a complaint against the tosser in the Job Centre.

  6. Stan (222 comments) says:

    “I have read that ESA isn’t payable for some cancers so that doesn’t seem an option plus at the moment I would not be able to get a doctors note as nothing is confirmed so what am I meant to live on?”

    ESA is available to anyone who is too sick to work for whatever reason as long as the doctor confirms it – the cancer thing is about the length of time you can claim it if it’s based on national insurance contributions (but not if it’s based on your income)

  7. Bob Anglorum (86 comments) says:

    The British system is your enemy, it is controlled by unseen pupett masters who care about no one, the same fat controller pulls the strings no matter who you vote for. This is why Simon M needs to back an English parliament that will order the printing of our own money without unelected private bankers controlling who lives and who dies.

    I do not know anything about the benefits system, and of course people who are genuinely ill should be supported. Your priority is improving your chances of recovery and non NHS specialists claim higher levels of vitamin D are benefitial for cancer prevention, especially in the UK. So cod liver oil, eggs and or a Vit D suplement could help.

    Also making your body more alkaline is said to slow down growth of cancer cells. Eat fruit and veg and eggs again, look up alkaline foods on the net. Sodium bicarb is a quick and cheap way to turn your body into a more alkaline state. If it is still going “drsircus dot com” could give some advice. Avoid any form of stress, dont panic, go to the citizens advice perhaps if you are not sure how the benefit system works.

    But the ultimate point remains, how the hell can we ever sort out a quality health and care system in England, if we have no parliament and no democracy. The majority of the English people would not turn their backs on the genuine needy. Some individuals will always do so, but the majority in England would not. We are all in the same boat, you could be fine one month and be diagnosed with cancer the next, so the right system should be there for all our benefit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.