Internal memos reveal fresh attacks on benefit claimants and job centre workers

And we didn’t think it could get any worse!

Benefit tales

The government is changing the rules to make it harder for disabled people to appeal when it takes away their benefits.

And they are clamping down on job centre staff who try to help claimants, in an effort to break an “appeals culture”, according to internal memos seen by Socialist Worker.

People claiming Employment Support Allowance (ESA) can be stripped of it if they are deemed “fit for work” in controversial tests run by companies such as Atos Healthcare, known as Work Capability Assessments (WCA).

WCAs have come in for massive criticism from doctors as well as disability campaigners, and almost 40 percent of people who appeal against a WCA decision are successful.

The high appeal rate has been a huge embarrassment for the government—as it exposes how arbitrary and unfair their assessments are.

But instead of changing the system the government is making it harder to appeal against it.

View original post 249 more words


Why does David Cameron insist on disability cuts that even sickened his own party?

I found this article via a group on Facebook called The People Vs The Government, DWP and Atos via Mog Why and they added a link to The Daily Mail, so I decided to copy & paste the article so you could all read it.

Enjoy reading!

Why does David Cameron insist on disability cuts that even sickened his own party?

By  Sonia Poulton

I have a question. It’s one that I can’t seem to get to the bottom of no matter how often I ask it. So, I will ask it again in the hope that something new will emerge because the desire is sufficiently strong to make sense of my confusion.

Why, when it comes to the needs of disabled and sick people, is David Cameron so hopelessly, and dangerously, out-of-touch?  And, I should add, not just with the reality of the situation facing those who are disabled and sick, many of them terminally so, but of the opinions given by those who profoundly understand disability, both personally and professionally?

I can’t compute that. Our Prime Minister, through the prism of personal sorrow, has known the devastation that disability can bring to a person – such as his own son, Ivan – and those who love them, and yet he is pursuing some of the most punishing cuts to disabled people that we have witnessed in decades, if not centuries.

What is going on? I’m shocked by the intentions and actions of his Coalition. I struggle to make sense of his proposals. Perhaps there is no sense to be made of them because the disability reforms are not about sense, common or otherwise.

 Dangerously out of touch: the Government have refused to be beaten by every opposition to these disability cuts

Dangerously out of touch: the Government have refused to be beaten by every opposition to these disability cuts

I am forced to ask this question again because Mr. Cameron will attempt today to overturn the recent ruling in the House of Lords against disability cuts. He is hoping that MP’s will unanimously agree to ignore the wishes of the Lords (who voted to give our disabled and sick a halfway decent existence) – and, instead, follow his savage and breathtakingly cruel measures of reform.

I’ll give Cameron this, he’s nothing if not tenacious when it comes to achieving a goal, that much is apparent.  Or, at least, that’s what he has revealed during this fortnight of Welfare Reforms.

As our MP’s and the Lords have debated and voted on all forms of public assistance from housing benefit caps to income support, it has become increasingly clear that David Cameron’s coalition will not allow any obstacle to blight the path of their intentions.

And nowhere is his hostile aims more apparent than when it comes to disability and sickness. It’s like he’s waging his own personal war.

Cameron has displayed a ‘no low is too low’ attitude when it comes to shoe-horning his amendments through Parliament, whether the Lords back him or not, and despite the fact that his own party rejected such proposals, and very strongly, when they were first drafted during Tony Blair’s tenure as PM.

When Labour tried to push through similar disability living changes in 1999, they were opposed, violently, by the Tories and LibDems. It’s all there in Hansard, the official, verbatim parliamentary report.

Quentin Davis, Conservative MP and spokesman for social security – and under the guidance of William Hague – attacked Labour for holding an attitude towards disabled people as being ‘scroungers’.

In an extremely robust opposition he noted that: ‘Those who are disabled should get the support they need to lead a fulfilling life with dignity’.

He said, and I must quote him fully here so as to eliminate any doubt.

‘I am proud that we in the Conservative party never thought of taking such measures when we were in power. We made our share of mistakes, and received our share of criticisms of different kinds. However, we never trampled on the contributory principle in this fashion. We never decided that the disabled were the softest target, and went for them if we needed to raise a bit of money in a hurry for some purpose.

‘I am proud that we stand today on our previous record, which is that the disabled, far from being a soft target and an easy touch for a Government, are a group of vulnerable people who should be the last people to be disadvantaged when changes are made to our welfare and benefits system.’

It is a speech not disimilar to one given by Lord Patel recently, who brilliantly led opposition to disability cuts in The Lords, when he said that we have ‘entered a different type of morality’ when we ‘rob the poor to pay the rich.’

To be clear. We all acknowledge that we have a deficit in this country, the proverbial billion pound black hole as it were, and we all understand – no matter how basic our grasp of economics – that we have to fill it somehow.

Why, though, does it have to be from the pockets of those who need help the most?  Why are we penalising people with disabilities for the misdeeds of others? Can anyone tell me that? For that is what we are clearly doing, as Lord Patel accurately outlined.


The matter of moving millions of people from DLA to PIP may be only an issue of different letters for most people but for those directly affected by the migration from DLA to PIP, the devastation will prove all too real

The matter of moving millions of people from DLA to PIP may be only an issue of different letters for most people but for those directly affected by the migration from DLA to PIP, the devastation will prove all too real

Why, instead of directing all this national vitriol at disabled people – as several newspaper columnists and MP’s have done in the past week, shame on them –  aren’t we sincerely tackling those at the top of the financial hierarchy who led us into this calamitous financial nightmare? Including, but not limited to, CEO’s and bankers?

And, given, we need billions to rectify our economy, why are we allowing multi-nationals to write off, literally, billions of pounds in taxes?  That sounds like a fairly simple sum to me, only those with loyalties to business rather than people would disagree.

Even this week David Cameron and George Osborne have proved utterly ineffective – and have revealed where their true priorities lie – by refusing to get involved in the issue of RBS chief Stephen Hester’s obscene, and undeserved, bonus.

If only they were quite so reserved when it came to interfering in the financial affairs of those who are currently contemplating whether they dare put their heating on for fear of not making ends meet, it would make for an infinitely fairer world.

So, the Conservatives were repelled by the proposals when Labour wanted to instigate them but they support them wholeheartedly now. Other than party leadership, you have to wonder what happened to make them switch from a more compassionate conservatism to one that appears to lack serious understanding, or care for that matter, of the issues facing people with disabilities.

And all that from a Government led by a man who experienced the death of his own profoundly disabled child. I can’t fathom that at all. Can you?

At least the Conservatives of 1999 appeared to have some ethical framework as to how we were going to care and protect some of our most vulnerable citizens whereas David Cameron’s Tory party wants to remove significant and far-reaching support from all disabled people from the very young to the oldest.

Quentin Davies Quentin Davis, Conservative MP and spokesman for social security attacked Labour for holding an attitude towards disabled people as being 'scroungers'

Quentin Davies, Conservative MP and spokesman for social security attacked Labour for holding an attitude towards disabled people as being ‘scroungers’

So far, the Government have refused to be beaten by every opposition to these disability cuts from ignoring extensive public consultation to attempting to overturn the Lords’ votes.  And even when the DWP were forced to admit that some of the new measures were insufficiently trailed, DC’s team have continued to  bulldoze their way through.

To proceed with his ghastly endeavours, Cameron has enlisted the aid of Lord Freud – a man on a mission when it comes to welfare reform.

Originally a member of Tony Blair’s Labour, Freud switched political allegiance to ensure the optimum chance of success. Clearly, then, we can deduce from his wholehearted and persistent support that like Cameron, Freud is determined to force these measures through – no matter the challenges or delays.

Over the last two weeks, the Government disability crack team – Cameron, Freud, Chris Grayling, Iain Duncan Smith and Maria Miller, minister for disabled people – have done their damnedest to persuade the court of public opinion over to their perspective.

The Department for Work and Pensions have been supremely busy issuing skewed statistics and encouraging us to wage war on the fraudulent claimants (who, it turns out, amounted to less than 0.5% of claims, so not such a show-stopping figure at all).

No-one is saying that our welfare system doesn’t need to be reformed. It does. Clearly. It’s a shambolic and disorganised mess that takes billions more to administer than it needs to.  The process of assessment is problematic and riddled with anomalies and need to be reviewed.

If the reforms were targetted towards creating a system that was able to efficiently – and with some traces of humanity – manage the millions who rely on it, then we would already be saving billions.

Campaigners, most noticeably those behind the Spartacus Report, are not asking to leave the system as it stands, they are requesting more consideration in the reforms rather than rush things through at breakneck speed.

For example, the matter of moving millions of people from Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) may be only an issue of different letters for most people but for those directly affected by the migration from DLA to PIP, the devastation will prove all too real.

According to the Government’s own criteria for PIP, many disabled people will not qualify for assistance and will find themselves unable to leave their homes as they will be excluded from motability assistance including wheelchairs.

People who cannot bathe independently will no longer qualify for a carer to help them and employed people with disabilities will be forced into unemployment because PIP will not be able to faciliate their role in the workplace.

So even though we are heading towards an all-time high of three million unemployed, the Government want to make those who are working intentionally job-less. No good sense there, either.


Abandoned: People who cannot bathe independently will no longer qualify for a carer to help them

Abandoned: People who cannot bathe independently will no longer qualify for a carer to help them

Over the past few weeks, and as the debates have increased, it has become clear that abolishing DLA and replacing it with PIP is neither advisable or ethical. And, yet, David Cameron has displayed a dogged determination to see it come to pass. I can’t help but wonder why.

After all, didn’t he, himself, utilise Disability Living Allowance for his own child? And yet both he and his wife Samantha, independently wealthy, would not need it in the same way as the millions who do. Pity it wasn’t means-tested.

As one campaigner said to me: “You want my Motability car? Have it. You want my DLA care component? Have it. You want my incapacity benefit? Have that too. But also have my Cerebral Palsy, my inability to vocalise my thoughts and feelings, my inability to hear yours. So, if in spite of all this you still want everything I have, then take it all and let me have your life and your freedom of choice.”

It’s not much of a choice when you hear it like that, is it? The way some people talk you would think it was a desirable lifestyle to have inherited or contracted sickness or disability.

The argument of disability has become an exercise in de-humanisation and it must stop. The levels of anxiety that have been created among disabled and sick people as a consequence of these merciless reforms is a stain on our national character.

Personally, I’m getting used to being called a ‘bleeding heart Liberal’ when it comes to the issues of disability – even if it is entirely inaccurate – but I cannot allow that to distract from the fact that we, as a nation, are being led into measures against our disabled that lack all morality and compassion.

What David Cameron’s coalition is proposing is heinous and we should reject it in the strongest possible terms. I hope, with every fibre of my being, that our Members of Parliament give the bill a proverbial bloody nose as they are asked to overturn what the Lords’ already found so repugnant.

To be clear, this is systematic mental, physical and emotional abuse of our sick and disabled at the hands of our Government and I say again, as I have before, not in my name.

Read more: Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Thinking the Unthinkable: Move Parliament out of London

Beastrabban\'s Weblog

From Hell, Hull and Halifax, good Lord deliver us

-16th Century beggars’ prayer.

Last week The Economist recommended that the government cease trying to revive declining northern towns and leave them to die. The main example of such a town, where further intervention was deemed to be useless, was Hull, but the magazine also mentioned a number of others, including Burnley. The Economist is the magazine of capitalist economic orthodoxy in this country. Its stance is consistently Neo-Liberal, and the policies it has always demanded are those of welfare cuts and the privatisation of everything that isn’t nailed down. It has loudly supported the IMF’s recommendations of these policies to the developing world. Some left-wing magazines and organisation like Lobster have pointed out that the IMF’s policies effectively constitute American economic imperialism, citing the IMF’s proposals to several South and Meso-American nations. These were not only told to privatise their…

View original post 2,035 more words

‘Dave’ Cameron says he’s in touch with reality…but with so much wealth and blue blood you have to wonder

I found this while looking on Pride’s Purge recently and followed the link he placed to the Daily Mail. This man claims to be in touch with the real world. Read this and you’ll realise he is anything but like any of us.


‘Dave’ Cameron says he’s in touch with reality…but with so much wealth and blue blood you have to wonder


Last updated at 22:00 15 June 2007

With his cut-glass vowels, tweed jacket and collection of stately homes, he is a textbook toff.

A direct descendant of Charles II, Sir Reginald lists his recreations in Debrett’s Peerage as shooting and stalking.

He can trace his bloodline back to the Knights Templar and the Fifth Crusade, and owns 3,000 acres of prime Lincolnshire farmland.

Much of the furniture at his country home once graced Buckingham Palace – which was the family’s London pad, before they passed it on to the Queen.

This is Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffield – a colourful old-school Baronet, who just happens to be man-of-the-people Tory leader David Cameron’s father-in-law.

Scroll down for more…


David Cameron’s father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield has a line going back hundreds of years

To the potential embarrassment of the new-look Conservative high command, Sir Reginald has just erupted in anger at the peasants on his estate, who were getting out of hand.

He is said to have become enraged during a heated dispute over a strip of land at his magnificent country seat.

John Kilmartin, who lives in a semidetached former council house adjoining the estate in Normanby, Lincolnshire, said that 61-year-old Sir Reginald ranted at him before pushing him out through the door and ‘blowing me off the premises’.

He described the encounter as a clash between nobility and the common man and said Sir Reginald is ‘a big bully multi-millionaire landlord’ who shouted: ‘Get orf my property.’

Kilmartin said: “It was so degrading. It has all been very distressing.”

For his part, Sir Reginald – an Old Etonian whose family crest is a boar’s head framed by two arrows – was pictured with his hands thrust defiantly into his pockets, in front of priceless antiques.

It is not the first time he has been in trouble with locals – he sparked widespread anger by chopping down an historic lime tree in the centre of Normanby village green, and is described as ‘a throwback to feudalism’.

This, of course, is the silver-spoon background that ‘Dave’ Cameron would rather the common man did not see.

Scroll down for more…




David Cameron (left) is descended from King William IV

Indeed, his wife Samantha is aristocratic on both sides of her family.

Creative director of the upmarket stationery company Smythson of Bond Street, she is a direct descendant of Nell Gwyn, mistress to Charles II, and her stepfather is Viscount Astor.

Meanwhile, ‘Call me Dave’ himself comes from a family which makes the bulk of the British landed gentry seem positively nouveau riche.

Cameron is William IV’s great-great-great-great-great grandson, which Debrett’s says makes him fifth cousin, twice removed, of the Queen.

As Patrick Cracroft-Brennan, of the guide Cracroft’s Peerage, says: “Mr Cameron is the most aristocratic leader of the Conservative Party since Alec Douglas-Home.”

But as well as being impeccably connected, David Cameron is also extremely wealthy. Sunday Times Rich List compiler and wealth watchdog Philip Beresford has valued the Tory leader for the first time.

He says: “I put the combined family wealth of David and Samantha Cameron at £30m plus. Both sides of the family are extremely wealthy. They certainly have no need to worry about poverty or paying school fees.”

Cameron is, of course, keen to play all this down. Although it has been said that he ‘exudes Eton from every pore’, he is acutely conscious that his elite education and topdrawer relatives are a vote-loser.

He was embarrassed by photographs showing him dressed in formal attire attending the Bullingdon Club at Oxford, an exclusive dining society notorious for Hooray Henry high jinks.

He has admitted ‘shooting the odd pigeon’, but neglects to mention that he is a regular visitor to the 20,000-acre estate in Scotland owned by his stepfather-in-law, Viscount Astor, where he shoots stag.

The Astor family trusts own a property company called Sableknight, with more than £140m of net assets, so they can afford to be generous hosts.

His lineage is fascinating: he is related to William IV through the King’s illegitimate daughter, Lady Elizabeth FitzClarence.

She is one of at least ten children he had out of wedlock with the actress Dorothea Jordan, his long-term mistress.

The royal connection comes through Cameron’s paternal grandmother Enid, who married his grandfather Ewen Donald Cameron.

Enid can be traced back directly via a couple of knights and a brace of earls to William IV’s daughter.

A spokesman for Debrett’s says of Cameron’s illegitimate ancestor: “It was a scandal, but the 18th century was less prudish about these matters than we are. It wasn’t a secret.”

With such a pedigree, it goes almost without saying that the family has been wealthy for hundreds of years.

An early forebear went to Chicago and made a fortune in the grain business, before returning to Scotland in 1880 to build the ancestral home, Blairmore House in Aberdeenshire.

Then there is their long and lucrative history in finance. David Cameron’s great-great grandfather Sir Ewen Cameron helped the Rothschilds sell war bonds during the Russo-Japanese war.

Cameron’s father, Ian, and grandfather, Ewen Donald, were both Eton-educated senior partners at stockbrokers Panmure Gordon.

Here, they made serious money. Philip Beresford says: “Ian would have reaped the rewards of the Big Bang, 21 years ago, when genteel stockbroking partners sold out for a fortune at places like Panmure Gordon.

“He will also have made some serious money as director at the upmarket estate agent John D. Wood. I value him at £10m plus.”

Something of a character, Cameron Senior frequents White’s, the most aristocratic of London gentlemen’s clubs, where he was chairman.

Fellow members include not only Cameron Junior but also Prince Charles – who held his stag night at the club two days before marrying Diana – and Prince William.

As a former High Sheriff of Berkshire, Ian Cameron is a leading light in rural circles, and the family home is a solid rectory in the quintessentially English village of Peasemore, near Newbury.

Last year, the Camerons held an auction of £200,000-worth of family antiques, one table alone fetching £30,000.

The young Cameron’s early childhood was one of nannies, matrons and tennis courts. His mother, Mary Fleur Mount, is the second daughter of Sir William Malcolm Mount, 2nd Baronet, and is descended from a long line of Tory MPs.

At the age of seven, he was sent to Heatherdown preparatory school in Berkshire, attended by Princes Andrew and Edward.

It is said that at sports day, the school provided three separate lavatories: one for the ladies, one for the gentlemen and one for chauffeurs.

His biographers, Francis Elliott and James Hanning, note that the other parents included ‘eight honourables, four sirs, two captains, two majors, two princesses, two marchionesses, one viscount, one brigadier, one commodore, one earl, one lord, and one queen (the Queen)’.

In the late Seventies, the grandson of the oil billionaire John Paul Getty asked four of his classmates to America to celebrate his birthday. Cameron was one of them.

As they tucked into caviar, salmon and beef bordelaise on board Concorde, the master accompanying the boys recalled turning towards the 11-year-old Cameron, who raised a glass of Dom Perignon ’69 and exclaimed: ‘Good health, Sir!’

All in all, Cameron is used to moving in wealthy circles. His first flatmate, Pete Czernin, was the heir to a £1.5bn property fortune, and in this world, privilege is taken for granted.

The Camerons know how to ‘work’ their connections, too. David Cameron got his first job as a researcher for Tim Rathbone, his godfather and Conservative MP for Lewes.

Three months later he went to Hong Kong to work at the conglomerate Jardine Matheson – Daddy was stockbroker to the chairman, providing a fast-track into the business world.

When the young Cameron was due to attend a job interview at Conservative Central Office, a phone call was received from Buckingham Palace. “I understand you are to see David Cameron,” said the caller. “I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man.”

It has been speculated that the mystery call was from Captain Sir Alastair Aird, Equerry to the Queen Mother and husband of Cameron’s godmother. The Airds vigorously denied it.

Others have suggested the caller might have been Sir Brian McGrath, a family friend who was private secretary to Prince Philip. But he, too, though named as a referee for the job, denies it firmly.

No matter – the tale provides an illuminating insight into the family’s enviable social standing, and how the ambitious Cameron was helped by well-placed friends and family.

And as we have seen, there is no shortage of pedigree on Samantha’s side of the family, with Sir Reginald Sheffield tracing his lineage back to the 13th century.

She herself triggered giggles at the 2005 Tory Party Conference for saying she grew up in Scunthorpe, neglecting to mention that home was 3,000-acre Normanby Park, purchased in 1590.

Sir Reginald now lives in nearby Thealby Hall – an imposing home with formal gardens – with his second wife, Victoria. He also owns Sutton Park, near York, and manages the Normanby estate.

His land makes him a millionaire many times over. Beresford says: “As a Lincolnshire grain baron, he is quids in. These are the richest farmers in Britain, with money to burn.

“With world food commodity prices soaring, they are set for years of huge increases in their incomes as grain prices soar.

“The value of his land will also be going up as the City bonus brigade tries desperately to buy rolling acres and magnificent country houses. Sir Reginald is sitting on a £20m-plus fortune.”

He also has impeccable connections. His cousin, Davina, was one of the Prince of Wales’s earliest girlfriends and another, Jane, was lady-in-waiting to Princess Margaret.

The Sheffields accumulated their vast wealth through a concerted campaign to marry Lincolnshire’s richest landlords, becoming the wealthiest family in the area by the 15th century.

Thereafter, the family history reads like an Arthurian drama, complete with kings, battles and bloody plots. One ancestor, Robert Sheffield, was knighted by King Henry VIII only to die a prisoner in the Tower of London after offending Cardinal Wolsey.

Another met a grisly demise, being poisoned in 1568 by the Earl of Leicester, who was after his wife, one of the great court beauties.

In time, Leicester poisoned her too, after tiring of her – she lived but the potion made her lose her hair and nails, destroying her looks.

The wealthiest and most powerful Sheffield of all was John, who became the Duke of Buckingham and Normanby. He built Buckingham House, as it was known then, and bestowed the first baronetcy on his son Sir Charles Herbert Sheffield, who later sold Buckingham Palace to George III in 1762.

A later Sheffield married a descendant of one of the illegitimate sons of Nell Gwyn, the actress and mistress to Charles II.

Sir Reginald is the eighth baronet, who married Annabel Jones, Samantha Cameron’s mother, but they divorced after only six years, and she went on to marry the extremely wealthy and aristocratic Viscount Astor.

Jones herself is descended from the 10th Baron Clifford of Chudleigh and works as the director of a home furnishings company, based in London. She is now, by marriage, Viscountess Astor.

Recently, the Cameron household has been rocked by rumours that Viscount Astor – Samantha’s stepfather – was having an affair with Rachel Whetstone, one of David’s campaign team and godmother to his eldest child.

Ever eager to press his modern, new man credentials, be it riding his bike to work or chatting about iPods, Cameron is unquestionably a great family man.

Indeed, he is fond of saying: “If you don’t see your family, you lose touch with all reality.”

But with such wealth and so much blue blood in his family, one can’t help wondering how legitimate his links with reality actually are.

Read more:–wealth-blue-blood-wonder.html#ixzz2iGupq5Gh Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Cameron tells unemployed – “Stop whinging and get daddy to find you a job!”

Says it all really, doesn’t it!

Pride's Purge

David Cameron said in a speech yesterday that the unemployed “should stop whinging and get a job.”

It doesn’t take a genius to spot the obvious flaw in the Prime Minister’s logic.

There aren’t any jobs.

But it’s not his fault. He wouldn’t really know all that much about getting a job in the real world, because he’s never had to live in it, has he?

Right from the start he’s been living in a different world to the rest of us.

Did you know that on school sport’s days, Cameron’s primary school always provided three separate toilets: one for the ladies, one for the gents – and one for the chauffeurs? Believe it or not, it’s true.

And it’s also a fact that at the age of 11, Cameron was invited to a classmate’s birthday party – in the US.

The party was for John Paul Getty’s grandson…

View original post 257 more words

Dear 10 Downing Street – An Open Letter Thanking the PM for His Heating Advice

I saw this just today posted on Facebook in Respect For The Unemployed and Benefit Claimants group. I have to say that it hits everything square on the head. There is also a video that’s been posted on youtube which I enclose here. Enjoy!

Dear 10 Downing Street – An Open Letter Thanking the PM for His Heating Advice
Dear David Cameron,
Thank you for the advice on keeping down my heating bills…
You said to wear a jumper to keep out the winter chills
I’m 75 years old, I’ve jumpers older than you!
But none of them do the job when it’s minus bloody two!
I’m actually ten years older than our beloved welfare state
I’ll outlive the thing if times keep on as they have of late
We used to have this quaint idea of solidarity
‘All for one and one for all’ got replaced by ‘me,me,me’
They sold off the utilities; thus privatising heat.
So now us old folks have to choose to warm our rooms or eat.
They sold off all the factories; they sold off all the mills
Now kids are lucky to find work scanning tin cans at tills
They sold off all our railways, and they gave away our trains
It made some folks a lot of cash, but we just felt the pains
They sold off schools and hospitals, now police stations too
Things once owned by all of us, now owned by the likes of you
For decades now your lot have sold what wasn’t yours to sell
Your gang of ham faced charlatans can go to bloody hell!
You tell us now we’re old and cold to ‘wrap up warm’. As ‘eck!
I’ll take my winter scarf and wrap it round your soddin’ neck!
You wouldn’t know a tough choice if it bit you in the arse
To be lectured by you on ‘making do’ is beyond a soddin’ farce
‘Wear extra clothes’ to save some cash? I’d love to, but alack…
You rotten thieving bastards stole the shirt right off my back.
Yours Shiveringly, An Apocryphal OAP