• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
  • We seem to be having technical difficulties with new user accounts. If you are trying to register please check your Spam or Junk folder for your confirmation email. If you still haven't received a confirmation email, please reach out to our support inbox: support.forum@diabetes.org.uk

A quarter of Britons now say they are disabled.

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
A quarter of Britons now say they are disabled.

The stark findings come after Rachel Reeves on Wednesday announced sweeping changes to the welfare system, including slashing cuts to disability benefits, in an effort to save £5 billion by 2030.

 
George Osborne, when he was Chancellor, once said that Europe accounted for just over 7% of the world's population, 25% of its economy, and 50% of global social welfare spending. I wonder what the numbers are now, post-Covid.
 
A quarter of Britons now say they are disabled.

The stark findings come after Rachel Reeves on Wednesday announced sweeping changes to the welfare system, including slashing cuts to disability benefits, in an effort to save £5 billion by 2030.

25% may need a reality check.
 
25% may need a reality check.
Official figures released by the Department for Work and Pensions on Thursday showed that 16.8 million people in the UK are assumed to have a disability — up by 40 per cent in the past decade and 700,000 in the last 12 months alone.
 
For reference, would someone be able to post a definition of disability. I'm interested in how a type 1 diagnosis isn't considered a disability. Thanks
 
For reference, would someone be able to post a definition of disability. I'm interested in how a type 1 diagnosis isn't considered a disability. Thanks
The Equality Act (2010): "A person has a disability for the purposes of the Act if he or she has a physical or mental impairment and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities." So, simply having an "impairment" (such as diabetes) isn't sufficient: it has to meet the second half of the statement too.
 
More than a fifth of UK working-age adults are still not in work or actively looking for work, official figures suggest.

The UK needs to move from a disjointed system that focuses on what people can't do to one that focuses on what they can do, he said

"Being off work is not always the solution."

 
I thought someone with diabetes who was on insulin came under the Disability discrimination act regarding reasonable adjustments, ie, the need to test, inject, take time out to treat a hypo etc. There is no blanket 'yes' or 'no' as the Act treats everyone as individuals.
This is DUK's position.
 
For reference, would someone be able to post a definition of disability. I'm interested in how a type 1 diagnosis isn't considered a disability. Thanks
Not in a medical way with referencing (no time) but since I am without deformities, learning difficulties or other serious limiting conditions, then lucky I guess and am so very thankful.

I just have another full time job.
 
More than a fifth of UK working-age adults are still not in work or actively looking for work, official figures suggest.

The UK needs to move from a disjointed system that focuses on what people can't do to one that focuses on what they can do, he said

"Being off work is not always the solution."

It's interesting how UK politicians (of all persuasions) seem to be fetishing 'working people', as if all other people (children, students, retired people and people who either can't work or can't find work) are less valuable as humans. It seems like a subtle way of returning to the Victorian era, in which most people were expected to work (literally) until they died, without being able to afford a decent quality of life - especially when the phrase 'hardworking families' gets used, evoking images of chimney sweeps.

I'd prefer politicians to not be scapegoating any sector of society but accepting that society includes a whole range of people - most of whom aren't either wholly 'good' or wholly 'bad'. For example, how about landlords, who make money simply by owning a building? Does that qualify landlords to be 'working people'?

1743246529777.png
 
I thought someone with diabetes who was on insulin came under the Disability discrimination act regarding reasonable adjustments, ie, the need to test, inject, take time out to treat a hypo etc. There is no blanket 'yes' or 'no' as the Act treats everyone as individuals.
This is DUK's position.
The DDA's been replaced by the Equality Act (2010).
 
Last edited:
25% may need a reality check.
I find that comment harsh and unnecessary. You don’t know how any of these people are individuals are. Try living with a combination the effects of 54 years of Type 1 diabetes since the age of 2, chronic silent migraines, chronic fatigue syndrome, glacucoma, the effects of neovascularisation cause by a hemi retinal vein occlusion, supra ventricular tachycardia, hearing loss in both ears requiring hearing aids, cervical stenosis with spinal cord flattening, lumbar spine spondylitis, lower limb polyneuropathy AND severe sensory/motor neuropathy in upper limbs and gastroparesis. And this is despite excellent diabetes control
 
Interesting discussion and wonder if officially things like Diabetes can be considered a “ disability” so that it can be included in any “ disability equality” legislation which may prevent discrimination.
If that is the case I am happy to accept the definition but I do think as others have said it very much depends on your individual situation.
I certainly do not consider that my diabetes ( have no associated complications or co morbidity) makes me disabled as with medication I am able to live a completely normal life so do not require any additional support.
So I look upon it in exactly the same way I as do taking any of my other medication such as Creon/ or Statins. I acknowledge some may see that as a very narrow definition but that is how I see it.
 
It's interesting how UK politicians (of all persuasions) seem to be fetishing 'working people', as if all other people (children, students, retired people and people who either can't work or can't find work) are less valuable as humans. It seems like a subtle way of returning to the Victorian era, in which most people were expected to work (literally) until they died, without being able to afford a decent quality of life - especially when the phrase 'hardworking families' gets used, evoking images of chimney sweeps.
Potentially, it's a slippery slope. Valueing only those that work in society could change our national values and culture long term. Working is "good" for society versus not working is "bad" for society. For those that don't work due to serious illness or simply due to retirement what are the potential implications of assisted dying? Would they feel pressured or obliged to opt in?
 
I find that comment harsh and unnecessary. You don’t know how any of these people are individuals are. Try living with a combination the effects of 54 years of Type 1 diabetes since the age of 2, chronic silent migraines, chronic fatigue syndrome, glacucoma, the effects of neovascularisation cause by a hemi retinal vein occlusion, supra ventricular tachycardia, hearing loss in both ears requiring hearing aids, cervical stenosis with spinal cord flattening, lumbar spine spondylitis, lower limb polyneuropathy AND severe sensory/motor neuropathy in upper limbs and gastroparesis. And this is despite excellent diabetes control
Yes it was, and unnecessary, I really do offer my sincere apologies.

It was a very poor choice of words and mean't as 'Some of which may need a reality check' anyone with genuine needs should always be helped and supported.
 
Last edited:
25% may need a reality check.
Those of us who are white, straight, cismale, neurotypical baby boomers (who have a reasonable chance of owning our own homes) probably have far more privileges than other people to help us cope with life's challenges, including illness and disability.
 
Last edited:
Potentially, it's a slippery slope. Valueing only those that work in society could change our national values and culture long term. Working is "good" for society versus not working is "bad" for society. For those that don't work due to serious illness or simply due to retirement what are the potential implications of assisted dying? Would they feel pressured or obliged to opt in?
So much for the 'Tomorrow's World' idea that we'd all end up with too much leisure time, due to no longer having to work much 🙄
 
Last edited:
... and you may need a privilege check: those of us who are white, straight, cismale baby boomers (who have a reasonable chance of owning our own homes) may have far more resources than other people to be able to cope with disability.
Check my reply and apology to @AJLang i have hopefully gone someway to minimise my mistake
 
Back
Top