ali-cat

Good luck!! With 3 completely tame, reasonable docile cats I know how difficult it is getting them to the vet!! Will be thinking about you!! [:-))]

I would like to take back my earlier comments about Frontline working well for all our cats.  Our house has now offically become a flea rest home!!  Heading out to buy some advantage .... & hopefully something to stop this bl**dy itching!!  

I pre-soaked a favourite, well worn, old white top in 'Vanish White', then washed it (with more Vanish) & it came out like new.  It shouldn't damage the embroidery as it isn't very strong & should hopefully work on mould.  Might be worth a try before using anything stronger.

Now that's what I call a "laid back cat" & he certainly looks happy to be home again!!  I'm so pleased for you!! Well done Tinkerbell & Mooky!!  [:D]

What a fantastic photo!! ..... & what a fantastic response you are getting from everyone on here, including all the offers of help!! I wish I could do more than just keeping my fingers crossed for you – I do live pretty close to Dept 79 & although I don't speak great French I am rather big & can be very threatening looking if necessary (just ask my hubby!!) so let me know if I can be of any assistance!! [:)]  Things will work out, I know they will.

I agree completely with Catalpa's reply that Harry is your cat & you have every right to bring him home.  Take photo's of him to the "other family" to show that he is yours & if that fails return with all his paperwork & the Gendarmes, if necessary.  Without wanting to sound too blunt - they have literally stolen him. Harry is probably being well looked after - but may be locked in at night & hasn't got the oppertunity to return to you.  Keep him indoors, if possible, for a few weeks & let him re-adjust to his home & familar surroundings, again. Please let us know how things go & good luck.

It's always been my ambition to get every checkout person in a supermarket to smile.  Normally by the time I leave a shop I know their name & at least where they are going on holiday that year - only failed once, in a Tesco store in Belfast - she was having a really bad day!!

Still prefer the thought of Amy Winehouse flicking her ciggie butt into the torch to set it alight!!  [:D]

We were advised to treat our cats with Advantage because of ear mites - what we discovered was that it did not work as well as Frontline on fleas.  Our cats became infested with fleas until we started using Frontline again.  Now we alternate between the two & it seems to be the best solution. 

Your new little fella will need a health certificate (passport) by a cattery before they will accept him. This will be provided by your vet after his inoculations are completed, he's tattooed or chipped & if you wish, neutered. Time wise it will take a least one month for both sets of injections & the cattery we used stated that they had to be completed at least 15 days before boarding. If you can't get the vaccines done before you return to the UK a cattery will not take him. If that's the case your vet may be able to keep him, in isolation, while you are away. Once you have received his passport all the cattery will want is a contact address & a list of his likes/dislikes & any other information you think necessary. [:)]

Shocking news Ian. Please let her know that Mark and Alison are thinking about her and wish her (and you) a speedy recovery. Mr Cat  

PM sent.

Thanks Chris From the photos it looks most like the grass snake - quite beautiful in some of the pictures. Best idea I think is to gradually clear the compost heap, as it isn't actuallly used to produce compost,  and hopefully we won't have any snakes close to the house, harmless or otherwise. Regards Mr Cat  

And in my compost heap - at least one of them. I just caught a few quick glimpses before it ducked back undercover but from what I could see it was around one metre long and a pretty uniform dull brown colour.  I had a look at the 'what snake is it' thread and can't tell from the linked pictures. Personally I'm happy to leave well alone however our cats aren't and have been stalking around the area where the snake is nesting so I'd prefer to move it if possible.  Any ideas?  The local SuperU and Brico have loads of products for ants, mice and rats but nothing for snakes. PS - Definitely not a mamba! Mr Cat    

[quote user="Boiling a frog"][quote user="ali-cat"][ Until they lose entitlement to IB as a result of medical review or DWP administrative changes.  Whether or not you agree with this is irrelevent. They were legally resident here under the previous rules and, like E106 holders, should be allowed to join CMU in the absence of E121 cover. Such an undertaking has not been given by the French government. [/quote]   But IB holders always knew that they could lose their right to IB and hence an E121,they just never thought that there was the remotest possibility of that happening.  Sorry BAF but most IB recipients are all, or should be,  too well aware of the possibility of losing the benefit.  Many had a major struggle to get on the benefit in the first place and many have had the benefit stopped only to have it reinstated on appeal due to a finding of maladministration.  Regular reviews and the possiblity of losing the benefit have always been part of the system. Would you're senario only apply to those who were here on IB before November 2007 or for everyone who loses their E121 now and in the future. I was speaking specifically about those resident here prior to Nov 2007 who, like eveyone else, was unaware of the plans to require 'inactifs' to have private health insurance unless otherwise covered.  The case for ALL future residents is a tough one.  Given the current uncertainties around access to the French healthcare system anyone with a current or previous illness would have to think long and hard about moving to France (or Valencia). [/quote]

[quote user="Ron Avery"] Edited What I don't understand is that everytime the reform of IB comes up, you get the same claimants telling everybody who welcomes the reforms for positive reasons as many have done, I've already welcomed the proposals in as much as they might assist those capable back into employment that they are not intelligent enough to possibly understand their situation I made no such claim   and then to others who might be counting on IB to assist in a move to France "to read between the lines" and invent rhetoric unwritten and unspoken about fruad scroungers etc  Direct quotes from this thread Ron.  However, given the attitudes displayed on this forum I'd keep quiet about my personal circumstances if considering the move. But all the time the bottom line is really we don't like you talking about the fact that we might lose our IB as under the new rules we might lose our IB because we can actually do some work as many have admitted. Thats quite a bizarre statement. I've already stated that our interest is for those who are more vulnerable than us and who might lose out due to what economists call 'unforeseen consequences' - i.e. no system is perfect and mistakes are made.  What we object to is not the discussion of these topics per se, but the unalloyed joy that some express when reforms are mentioned, displaying shall we say, a rather 'one dimensional' appreciation of the subject?  The statement made by Mr Cat about those incapable of any work is true, but nobody is saying that IB/ESA will continue be paid to people outside of the UK in future no matter what government is in power and I have yet to see any reason from anybody why it should be paid to people in France with no intention of ever working again if they can help it!  Hopefully we would all agree that there should be some safety net of support for those who have previously been working and find themselves unable to work through illness.  That support is IB.  IB is paid to those found to be incapable of working in any capacity. This being the case they do not need to be available for work unless subsequently judged capable.  Under EU regulations IB is an exportable benefit.  If someone receiving IB decides to move to France, for the same reasons as anyone else - i.e a better quality of life,  in the full knowledge that they may lose that benefit and will not be able to claim JSA,  then why shouldn't they?  PS If you check my earlier posts I've already stated that I've no intention of never working again if I can at all help it.   [/quote]

[quote user="Ron Avery"][quote user="ali-cat"]  Actually I think Grecian was pretty adept at reading between the lines. What he could also have added was that the French Govt's amnesty allowing existing residents to join CMU was NOT extended to IB claimants (or those with E109s). Why was the collective weight of this forum not thrown behind these people? [/quote] Because IB claimants and their dependents get E 121s and are covered as are pensioners by the general medical system, not the CMU? [/quote] Until they lose entitlement to IB as a result of medical review or DWP administrative changes.  Whether or not you agree with this is irrelevent. They were legally resident here under the previous rules and, like E106 holders, should be allowed to join CMU in the absence of E121 cover. Such an undertaking has not been given by the French government.

[quote user="cassis"][quote user="Russethouse"] Grecian, No matter what any ones opinion the facts speak for themselves. The Uk government 'says' it is going to invest in getting those that can work in any capacity off IB. That may mean they go onto JSA which is not exportable in the long term as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) From the googling I have done some people on IB actually welcome this, they want to work and want to see legislation that makes employers take on a certain number of disabled workers, actually enforced for example. I don't know how clear I can make this, no one has said anything about those who genuinely deserve or  qualify for IB getting it. The people I (and others) object to are those that are receiving IB when they shouldn't be. This does not mean people who look healthy but are actually ill, it means people who are cheating. Why genuine claimants have taken offense at this I just don't know - it's a bit like me as a tax payer sanctioning tax evaders. I really don't get it.  [/quote] I think this bears repeating. [/quote] Yes it is worth repeating. Up front - immediately once of these 'lets crack down on IB' threads appears. To recap : the original post was a link to the government's proposals to focus more on what IB claimants can do and not what they can't and therefore to attempt to identify suitable employment opportunities rather than a life on benefits. Therefore the OP referred to all those receiving IB – not to a crackdown on fraud. However it wasn't long before comments such as these appeared : “There were some figures on the news last night. If I remember correctly 47% of claimants are due to 'mental illnesses' and another 12% due to people with back injuries and rheumatism. It seems unjustified and fraudulent claims cost each UK taxpayer £135 per year.” “Yes some illnesses can come and go and vary in their intensity but I would venture that it is a minority who are utterly incabable of performing some sort of light work on a part time basis, how physically fit do you need to be to say work in a call center where all you have to do is answer the telephone and read from a script and/or tick a few boxes on a computer screen ?” “stress”, “backache”, “depression” etc... “I know more fradulent claimants than genuine ones” “The stats for fraudulent claims are surely only those that have been proven, as far as the DWP is concerned all those claimants in France and Spain for that matter are genuine because they have all been “assessed”, but we all know that is not the case” etc etc etc. Hardly qualified by a concern for genuine claimants! I was always taught that effective communication is not the message you think you are giving but the one received. The message received on the face of it was pretty unambiguous. Most if not all those claiming IB do not deserve it and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to move to France. Why should anyone have to “read between the lines” to find what you really mean? Actually I think Grecian was pretty adept at reading between the lines. What he could also have added was that the French Govt's amnesty allowing existing residents to join CMU was NOT extended to IB claimants (or those with E109s). Why was the collective weight of this forum not thrown behind these people? Finally “ there has never been anything but 100% support of genuine IB recipients in this thread, but people like Grecian should be aware that IB was not designed as a long term benefit or pension, it was intended as a short term benefit to allow people to come to terms with an incapacity that was preventing them from undertaking their normal employment.” In respect of 100% support - to use that well worn phrase “Oh come on!”  FYI Statutory Sick pay is a short term benefit relating to one's normal employment. Long term IB, or its replacement, is and will continue to be a benefit paid to those assessed by DWP as being incapable of working in any capacity.

[quote user="Ron Avery"]   If anyone does not really need  their benefits as some are now claiming, they are after all a payment made by a caring society to assist in the loss of earnings resulting from an illness and not a cash bonus, you don't have to claim them and you can notify the DWP of that fact without losing your IB status.[6] [/quote] Well Ron. If IB is to assist with loss of earnings due to illness then they have a long way to go to compensate for mine. What I did say was that IB for us was not critical which may not be the case for others. For your information DWP request and are provided annually with details of my medical retirement pension and as a consequence I receive one quarter the standard rate of IB – coincidentally almost exactly the sum I continue to pay in UK taxes. Presumably I'm allowed to keep the remaining quarter due to some calculation of what represents a liveable income. So hardly the lap of luxury but better than some. By the way my original claim for IB was made when my occupational income ended and prior to the awarding of my retirement pension. Should I now state that I no longer require IB because I'm capable of working. I don't think so as that would be a fraudulent statement and we couldn't condone that now could we? It would also mean that, in the absence of being able to sign on for JSA, I would for all intents and purposes disappear off the government's books. Personally I would prefer the government to be reminded of the ongoing costs of people like me and maybe then they might consider commissioning some meaningful research into causes and treatment and maybe prevent tens of thousands ending up on benefits. Mr Cat  

[quote user="Russethouse"] Fine. I have no disagreement with any of this posting but please refrain from making inflamatory postings about groups of people in general, when you clearly cannot sunstantiate your statement I suspect you are assuming that I refer to all IB claimants in France where as I actually referred to 'feckless fiddlers' and I reserve the right to make defamatory statements about them. Read what I wrote, please don't assume you think you know what I meant, it seems you don't. [/quote] Unfortunately the way your post was phrased you did appear to imply that all IB claimants in France were “feckless fiddlers” & it is therefore understandable why it received the reaction it did. I can't think of one posting that says there is no fraud in the system – of course there is, just like all other benefits – so maybe you should be a more careful with your wording or “moderate” your own posts a little more.

  Good Grief. Look what happens when you take a day off to top up the tan. [;-)] Firstly I didn't think RH was getting at us specifically but I was a little confused about who exactly she did object to. But now that some have thought fit to discuss our personal circumstances on this thread ..... Ron -Yes you did advise us that we could claim IB abroad. This is a perfectly legitimate entitlement and was a pleasant surprise given an uncertain future - but not in our case critical. Others however may be much more dependant on IB and where genuinely incapable of working must have deep concerns about any publicised 'crackdown' on IB. So while we have a personal interest in this topic it isn't because we live in fear of the proposed reforms. On the other hand I do wonder what motivates those who regularly spout vitriol on this subject and don't have a direct interest. When I was working I was too busy doing so to worry about how the government was misspending my taxes. As for sacred cows its pretty clear to me that the anti-IB posters are the least open to a sensible discussion. It certainly doesn't help that each time the subject is raised on this forum its in the context of 'about bloody time too'. Having spent a number of years evaluating government employment and training programme I can guarantee that some innocent people will lose out and if you care to revisit the comments on this thread you'll see that all we have ever said is that these reforms are not necessarily a cause for unqualified celebration. No-one has ever said that everyone on IB is entitled to it. On the other hand there appears to be a few who believe that nobody is entitled. As for us , it has certainly never been in our long term plans to spend the next 30 years 'on the sick'. Mrs Cat's condition is degenerative and inoperable and neither her consultants nor I expect her to be able to work again. In my case, the deal is that if and when I believe I'm capable of working again (and believe me I'll know), then regardless of what the DWP do, I will be either seeking work in France or more likely returning to the UK. Unfortunately I'm sure I'm wasting my breath so I'll leave it there! Mr Cat

[quote user="Russethouse"] As always, this subject has generated a lot of opinion and little or no intelligent discussion or empathy. Back in 'sacred Cow' territory then ! I save my empathy for those who deserve it thanks, not feckless fiddlers living in France. [/quote] Well. At last we're finally getting to the truth. Its not about benefit fraud per se or saving the UK taxpayer's hard earned money or even the dignity or work. Its all about 'feckless fiddlers living in France' (the Sun would be proud of that one!). Anyone in particular in mind RH?  

Of course!

There are roughly two types of persons on this thread :  those who through personal experience are aware that any government 'crackdown' on health related benefits is just as likely to adversely affect those genuine claimants as it is the fraudsters and is therefore not necessarily a cause for celebration; and those who have been lucky enough not to be forced out of work due to ill health but who, because of personal prejudice or because they think they know all about someone else's personal circumstances, believe that anyone less fortunate than them is a 'skiver' or 'leech'.  I haven't heard anyone on this thread defending benefit fraud or suggesting that IB claimants should be beyond scrutiny - just a healthy degree of skepticism and a weariness that everytime the subject is raised IB claimants become everyone's favourite flogging horse. Perhaps Gordon's heart is in the right place.  From an economic perspective all governments aim to reduce the 'dependency rate' and from a personal perspective few would argue that, when possible, work provides financial and personal benefits and that people should not be excluded from work because of illness of disability.  I would also add that there is nothing more soul destroying than trying to carry on working when it is no longer impossible.  As for tackling fraud I see nothing in these proposals that go beyond the current system.  If some claimants are allowed to claim IB with conditions that do not prevent them from undertaking some sort of work then this is a failure or government policy and administration - not fraud. If claimants are to be reviewed more regularly it just gives the fraudsters more opportunities to lie.  As for the genuine claimants it just means more opportunities to lose what may be their only source of income. Unfortunately for Gordon his not customary sense of mis-timing means he will now be trying to offload a raft of people with, at least on paper, a range of ailments and a poor health record at a time when jobs growth is curtailed and many thousands of perfectly fit ex-builders, bankers, estate agents etc are desperately seeking work.  As an employer who would you employ?  The healthy recently redundant or the ex-IB claimant who may or may not be able to carry on working after training; may need to work special hours; may need alterations to the workplace etc in order to do the job? As for any savings they won't go back to the genuine claimants. After all when the numbers of unemployed fell from 3 to 1 milllion the government didn't raise the level of JSA!  No, the real beneficiaries will be the extra civil servants in the 'managing change' teams and the private sector organisations who will be paid performance bonuses to place ex-claimants into jobs which are likely to be unsustainable for them and the employer. As always, this subject has generated a lot of opinion and little or no intelligent discussion or empathy. MR Cat        

[quote user="Russethouse"] Oh, come on, I've had IBS, colitis etc, my OH has Dupuytrens contracture Sponsored Link and rheumatism in his hands and is a typesetter/graphic artist, we never claimed, perhaps we hould ?   [/quote] Claimed what – a medal? Sorry RH but there is a difference between having a little discomfort (nearly every symptom you mentioned plus many more either Mr Cat or I worked with for over 20 years) & suddenly becoming so ill that work is absolutely impossible. At the start of this thread it was said that surely all IB claimants could find some sort of menial work (I think the example given was working in a call-centre) which suggests that no-one on IB is deserving of it. How can I not see that as a personal insult? If yet another10 page thread about cheating, lying antique dealers was here I am sure even you would start to feel it as a personal slur on your profession. I have never said there are no cheats, or described IB recipients as a “holy cow”. If I knew someone who was fraudulently claiming (& not through 2nd hand Chinese whispered type stories) I would not hesitate to report them & wish more people would feel the same. Why would we have willingly given up jobs when we were financially secure for the first time in our lives to have to start from scratch, constantly worrying about money? We didn't choose to be in the situation we are in nor would we want anyone else to have to live the way we do now. This thread has only demonstrated that some members of this forum see all IB claimants as cheats or “blood sucking leeches” (I believe that was the expression used earlier) even if they make some backhanded comment about “genuine cases” or not.