Get Off Thy Death Bed and Work: British Values for the New World Order

Author: Paul Dodenhoff
Published: 2016/01/25 - Updated: 2020/11/19
Contents: Summary - Introduction - Main - Related

Synopsis: Paul Dodenhoff writes on British values, disability, and sickness related welfare benefits. The famous author and social commentator George Orwell once gave a fascinating analysis of fascism written in 1944, and one that strikes a chord here. What people are craving for is a fair society where blocks are not placed in front of opportunity nor talent, either by intent or otherwise.


Between December 2011 and February 2014 approximately 81,000 people died within six months of ceasing to receive a sickness-related welfare benefit. In 2014 a Scunthorpe man received a 40% cut in his welfare benefits after he was diagnosed with cancer, leaving him in serious financial trouble. To help his plight, the DWP told him that he could return to his previous level of benefits provided he gave up his cancer treatment and complied with the DWP's Jobseeker's programme.

Main Digest

In July last year, MP Frank Field in his role as chairman of the Commons Work and Pensions Committee raised concerns that the DWP had actually been questioning terminally ill people in his constituency about the date that they were expected to die from their illness - and possibly questioned other terminally ill people who were yet to be told that they were going to die. Around about the same time a disabled man died of a heart attack an hour after the DWP threatened to sanction his benefits. In October a seriously ill Brit had his benefits stopped because he was deemed fit for work - only to die three weeks later?

In November a woman suffering from a debilitating lung condition was sent a letter informing her that she no longer qualified for sickness benefits - on the very day she died. On top of this we have had suicides galore, in which the official coroner named DWP assessments or sanctions as the primary factor involved. An investigation last year by the Disability News Service into such deaths, subsequently revealed that the DWP Secretary Iain Duncan Smith had actually neglected to pass on a legal letter written by the coroner in the wake of the suicide of a disabled man as far back as 2010. A letter stating that the man's death was primarily triggered by the DWP's Work Capability Assessment and officially called for a legal review of the policy. Only for the legal letter to be ignored and 'sat on' indefinitely by IDS.

So, what are we to make of all this?

The above account would certainly make bizarre reading even if these events could simply be dismissed as mere blips in a modern, generous, forward looking society. However in reality, these behaviours are not mere blips on the landscape, but actions that have quickly become the 'norm' for a government whose behaviour surrounding welfare not only seems 'aggressive' to say the least, but may come dangerously close to being regarded as a display of 'fascism'. Read any type of social media and the government will be certainly be attacked from all corners for consistently displaying what are perceived to be 'fascist' tenancies, particularly towards the unemployed, the disabled, the mentally ill and the Muslim community. And considering the events outlined earlier, the actions of government and its institutions do seem to becoming more than a little extreme.

It's a government who are arguably positioned on the 'right' of the political arena at the very least, but one that also continually harps on about 'British Values' as if they are the one, true champion of these sacred, ancient beliefs. Listen to the speeches of senior 'Conservative' figures and such talk about British values will undoubtedly surface, and almost to an evangelical pitch. But just what are these revered 'values'?

British Values, Mr Cameron?

To mark the 799th anniversary of Magna Carta (a charter outlining a constitution of 'freedoms') the Prime Minister wrote an article in June 2014 for The Mail on Sunday concerning 'British values'. Indeed, the big man starts off the article by insinuating that British Muslims may not actually be displaying these values at all, and quickly gave us a real insight into what he considers these British values to really be:

"This week there has been a big debate about British values following the Trojan horse controversy in some Birmingham schools - about what these values are, and the role they should play in education. The values I'm talking about - a belief in freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, respecting and upholding the rule of law - are the things we should try to live by every day".

So, there you have Dave's opinion in a nutshell. For Mr Cameron it's simply about a belief in freedom, taking complete responsibility for yourself and upholding the law. Of course 'tolerance' of other people is mentioned too, but I am always concerned by the use of the word 'tolerance' in the political arena, because it implies that there are some 'inferior' people out there in the world who are doing things that are not exactly the way we superior Brits would do them - but we should be 'tolerant' of them anyway. And indeed as Dave muses later on in the article, it is primarily a tolerance of other pesky religions and faiths that have come to Britain for whatever reason:

"Our belief in tolerance was won through struggle and is linked to the various churches and faith groups that have come to call Britain home".

The article is not only very clear about our values, but also how we have arrived at them: "…our values and our respect for the history that helped deliver them and the institutions that uphold them - forms the bedrock of Britishness". Therefore, it's not just British values and the ideals of 'freedom', 'self-responsibility' and 'order of law' that we should be proud of and go out of our way to protect, but we are told to also be proud of where these beliefs originally came from.

Any brief look throughout British history will indeed point out some very good things that we have done over the years, but it will also highlight many bloody awful things too. Therefore, I would be extremely concerned if the values that Dave regards as 'Britishness' originated out of Britain's darker psyche and not it's more angelic side.

Britishness and Self Responsibility

I've often talked about a 'rolling back' of the welfare state system within Britain, something that has been happening in earnest since the 1980's and under both a Conservative government and a Labour government (to various degrees). Many of the arguments for welfare change often draw upon the notion of 'British values' as the motivating factor, and as if these changes are being brought in to protect and promote these deep-rooted and sacred beliefs that are perceived to be under erosion by an some unseen and unscrupulous 'enemy' of the state. Therefore, the values and Britishness that are often talked about by politicians of both Britain's right and left wings, tend to be the ones that Cameron primarily drew upon in his praise of Magna Carter - freedom, self-responsibility and rule of law.

However, what we have seen in the events that I began this article with, is much more than simply a rolling back of state welfare. It is also arguably an apparent, total and blatant disregard for human life, and one that drags us right back to the old street philosophy and brutality of the early days of industrialisation. Not just an blatant disregard for life, but one that views people as purely disposal and primarily put upon this planet solely to 'work' and make money. Or more importantly, make money for other people. What happens to these 'workers' afterwards is therefore of no real consequence.

So, if you are not in a position to work, long term or temporarily and are on welfare for whatever reason, then you simply have no viable function nor economic value to this country, to its business and its industry. It's basically as simple and as brutal as that, because any recourse to welfare or charity will automatically be viewed as the antithesis of the sacred ideals of 'self-responsibility and 'work ethic'. And as David Cameron has constantly been recorded as saying, "the days of receiving something for nothing are over".

It is a deep rooted and deeply embedded hatred of 'not working' that seems to be highly implicit in the state sponsored terrorism outlined earlier. Actions that seem on the surface not only to suggest an aggressive and callous urge to bully and harass people not currently in employment for any reason at all, but seemingly can't wait to see them disappear off the DWP's books, by any means.

The Ideology Behind British Values

I have argued many times in previous articles for Disabled World that the political ideology underlying Britain's welfare changes from the 1980's up to the present day are purely based upon old style 'Liberal' ideals. Such as freedom from government interference in the affairs of the individual, freedom from interference in the market place, and of course that old chestnut - the holy grail of 'self-responsibility'. These three highly simplistic ideals actually drive much of what our political elite believe (past or present) and the negative effects of which are experienced by us Brits on a daily basis in some shape or form.

It's interesting if you take a look at the internet today and see the hundreds of conspiracy theories that exist, particularly those clustered around the themes of globalisation, war and of course, a 'new world order'. Theories attracting millions and millions of views worldwide, and theories that often talk about a new world order being created by some kind of aggressive, alien dark force out there - but one that is close to many of our world leaders.

The pure abundance of these theories are not just the creations of very active and fertile minds, but indicate a very blatant distrust of most of our world governments and their power brokers. Governments who have finally been rumbled as not primarily working in the best interests of their lowly citizens, but often purely in their own best interests or on behalf of the interests of some very powerful friends.

However, we are simply pointing the finger at the wrong guys when blaming a bunch of alien reptiles or human-alien hybrids for the extreme lengths that some of our very human politicians will take in pursuit of their own desires and goals. Certainly, many politicians talk of a 'new world order', including the British. Check out the words of our most recent Prime Ministers:

"We need now a powerful revival of our alliance. In the world so rapidly changing around us, we cannot take a narrow view of our interests or a short-sighted view of our destiny. We can't afford to take fright at these changes and go back into isolationism. We can't avoid the challenges. But we can master them. Together. The transatlantic partnership was never just the foundation of our security. It was the foundation of our way of life. It was forged in experience of the most bitter and anguished kind. Out of it came a new Europe, a new world order, and a new consensus as to how life should be lived."

(Tony Blair in 2008 addressing the Atlantic Council).

"But what does the new world order mean for countries like ours who are looking to succeed? I suggest that the countries that are going to succeed are those that combine flexibility, free trade, open markets, with proper stewardship of the environment and investment in education, infrastructure and innovation. And the question for us is how we meet and master all these challenges to ensure Britain enhances its competitiveness in the process and realizes what I believe is our destiny of success in this new world order.

(Gordon Brown, CBI speech in 2007)

"The other feature of our modern world, of this new world, is the sense of insecurity and danger, particularly in foreign affairs and security. The world that maybe some people dreamed of at the conference back in Bournemouth when it looked as if maybe history would end, that Liberal democracy would triumph, that free market economics would slowly progress and we would have a new world order, that world is not going to happen."

(David Cameron - 2007 Conservative Party Conference).

So, all of our most recent Prime Ministers wanted to see a 'new world order' emerging out there to some degree, and one that not only accommodated 'globalization' in the demise of communism, but one that could be completely dominated by liberal ideology and the principals of the free market economy. Ideals which are argued to bring the flexibility and competitiveness needed in order to succeed in this new global structure. However, while politicians talk about a new world order, what they may really be talking about is simply a re-assertion of 'the old world order', but one where the conditions to make money for our traditionally privileged few, may be much tighter and open to much stiffer competition and technological innovation than they once were.

A situation that calls for greater emphasis on keeping our own end up at home. Where domestic wages and production costs can be kept as low as possible, particularly in a global economy were the world's poor now press on for better working conditions and higher living standards themselves. An old world order that wants to regain control over the aspirations of its own citizens, in a long backward look towards old-school liberal ideology. And one that views life as primarily about 'work' or 'work ethic', free from any interference from trade unionism or state welfare.

The New/Old World Order

I remember being on a Health & Social Welfare course many years ago where us mere students were horrified to learn that our Health Ministers and hospital managers were using the term 'bed-blocker' to describe elderly people who were in hospital. A rather callous term that basically described what these people thought of our pensioners - somebody in the way of somebody else more worthy, by 'blocking' access to a hospital bed.

An indication of a British Health Service and a welfare system that even then was moving ever closer towards ruthless, business style philosophy and methodology. Becoming increasingly top heavy with a management presence that focused primarily on increasing productivity and efficiency from their already overworked staff. Managers who arguably were becoming increasingly detached from pure patient care, and to the point where cost cutting totally overruled any kind of compassion towards, or consideration of the patients or staff in their charge.

I have always regarded this period as the beginning of the 'factory-ization' of our hospitals, and the beginning of the end for the NHS that we once knew. The beginning of the introduction of production style procedures and where the 'time & motion' people would get their stop watches out to see how fast our nurses and doctors were walking to and from their patients. Something which did eventually happen under the guise of the NHS 'productive ward' programme, years later.

While I think there has been some improvement in the way we treat our elderly, (and primarily due to an increasingly older population who now organise themselves into lobby groups and activist organisations) our pensioners may still be considered by many to be a burden upon society. And basically because they are deemed by the powers that be, to be economically inactive and unproductive. Even though many carry on working after retirement age if they can, purely to make ends meet.

However, not quite a burden as 'the disabled' may be perceived to be (although many people will acquire a disability as they indeed get older) and arguably because they are largely thought of by the British public to have 'proven' themselves throughout the years. Proven as good British citizens by being in employment, by raising families, by fighting in wars, making grave sacrifices for their country, while also contributing to state and occupational pensions.

In contrast, disabled people are generally perceived as 'non-working' and 'never worked'. They have not 'proven' themselves as good citizens. In 2009, the Government Office for Disabilities released a report that suggested that four in ten people thought of disabled people as less productive than non-disabled people and that 75% of people thought of disabled people as needing to be 'cared for' some or most of the time. Rather interestingly, the DWP now seem to be in charge of such research projects these days, and a further government report on this matter has conveniently never been commissioned (or at least, I can't find one).

However, charities such as Scope run their own studies which suggest that the situation is no better than it was. Something certainly not helped by negative government rhetoric that depicts disabled people as not only being dependent upon welfare, but actively ripping the system off. It is this blanket scapegoating of disabled people as the dark architects of Britain's perceived economic woe, that have caused some commentators to view the government's treatment of disability as largely akin to fascism. And who can blame them.

So, What is Fascism?

The famous author and social commentator George Orwell once gave a fascinating analysis of fascism written in 1944, and one that strikes a chord here. Orwell primarily felt that it was difficult to put forward a definitive description of 'fascism' because fascist states actually differed from each other in form and ideology. Therefore, in one sense the use of the word 'fascism' to describe states, regimes or administrations may actually become meaningless. However, Orwell argued that there was indeed a deep and buried meaning in the use of the word and one that roughly meant:

"...something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'"

Certainly in looking at the cases briefly outlined earlier, we can surely see behaviours from the DWP that are 'cruel', 'bullying' and arguably 'anti-working class'. That's if we use the term 'working class' in its more traditional sense, of one that assumes the working classes to be the lowest social class within British society and primarily made up of poorly educated, manual, low skilled or semi-skilled workers.

These days we Brits would probably call the lowest social class within the UK, the non-working 'underclass', and split the classes of middle and working classes into even more ludicrous categories - such as upper middle class, middle-middle class or lower middle class (and may not even consider anybody to be 'working class' at all). But one thing is for certain, that Britain is primarily a backward looking and divisive country, and one that continues to split people into some kind of social hierarchy or caste, be it by employment, religion, age, ability or disability. And one where there is arguably little chance of opportunity nor social mobility for those at the bottom of the social hierarchy- no matter what that group is called.

However, those at bottom of the social ladder are continually subject to great argument about what actually is the root cause of the problem - a lack of education, opportunity, a lack of motivation or laziness? In my opinion unemployment is a complex phenomenon, but for the Government the cause is simple. One primarily due to a lack of individual motivation, compounded by an over-generous welfare system that encourages dependency on welfare.

Therefore, coming from this perspective, our government naturally wants to give such people a good old fashioned, kick-up-the-backside, and basically because they believe that will motivate them to look even harder for work. Or to put it more precisely, look for and accept ANY type of work. Which is perhaps the real aim. In the Governments Treasury Vision for 2016, the main aim stated is indeed to get more people into employment, and primarily in order to fill the 700,000 or so jobs that are not being currently filled. For example:

"The government has set out its ambition to raise the UK's employment rate to the highest in the G7".

However, a closer look at the jobs currently available on the market indicate a fair amount of jobs that are in highly unstable employment, seasonal jobs, low paid, short term and temporary contacts. Therefore in a political climate where anybody out of work is seen as dependent and irresponsible, the disabled (even the severely disabled) will undoubtedly be harassed and continually harassed by DWP assessors looking for any excuse to reduce or remove the benefits that they may currently receive. Not only in order to hit state enforced targets on welfare spending cuts, but arguably to motivate as many as possible into the types of employment that nobody else wants to do. Jobs that now offer disabled people little protection under that other ancient British value - 'the rule of law'.

In July 2013, the government brought in fees for claims heard through an employment tribunal, the first time that fees have been charged since the tribunal system was established in 1964. Additionally, disabled people argue that recent changes to employment law have put them at a severe disadvantage within the work place, and particularly at a greater risk of discrimination and bullying. And with fees now in place for employment tribunals, there is no realistic chance of disabled people ever taking on an unscrupulous employer through the courts.

Get Off Thy Deathbed and Work

If the DWP can bully disabled people who are clearly not fit enough to work. Bully the terminally ill or those actually lying on their deathbed, and even dare to suggest that some people should not receive life-saving or life prolonging medical treatment simply in order to receive benefits - just where exactly are we going with this highly dangerous nonsense? Let's see if IDS can guide us?

This week IDS revealed plans of a new crackdown coming soon to those who are on sick leave from work - a 'culture' that is argued to cost British businesses billions of pounds a year. Government plans have been revealed that Iain Duncan Smith is now out to slash the numbers currently taking sick leave from work, and particularly those who are off work due to anxiety or depression.

In an article published by The Mail four days ago, the Right Honourable Iain put forward plans for the sick to be 'tested' in a similar way to disabled people under the Work Capability Assessment, to see what work they can still do and not what they cannot (while off sick from work). Smith was quoted as saying:

"The sickness benefit culture in this country is in dire need of reform," he said. 'Getting people into work is more than just earning a salary and certainly more than balancing the public purse. For culturally and socially, work is the spine that runs through a stable society. I want those who remain trapped and isolated on welfare to move from dependence to independence.'

Rather interestingly, the Conservative Party has traditionally been a party that actively works to block full employment within the UK, as they fear that full employment will drive up wages as competition for jobs become less and less. Therefore, while Herr Smith states that "work is the spine that runs through a stable society", it is on the firm proviso that there should not be full employment nor full opportunity to work. We wouldn't want British society to be THAT stable, would we Iain?

However, while IDS may believe that the 'work ethic' is the driving force behind social stability and independence, as the number of deaths and suicides of disabled people continue to occur through benefit sanctions and the WCA, just what exactly are we to expect when more people with mental health issues such as anxiety and depression get forced back to work. More suicides perhaps?

In a House of Common's speech in August 2015, IDS muses about the health of the nation and how this can be improved:

"Yet there is one more area which we haven't focused on enough - how work is also good for your health. Growing evidence over the last decade has shown work can keep people healthy as well as help promote recovery if someone falls ill. By contrast, there is a strong link between those not in work and poor health. So, it is right that we look at how the system supports people who are sick and helps them into work".

So, work is good for your health and if you are 'sick', work will make you better. Government figures published in 2014 state that 131 million days were lost due to sickness absences in the previous year, a figure that has been continually falling since the 1990's. The reason for these absences were often 'minor', but also given as back pain and muscle pain. Reasons that IDS obviously regards as not valid reasons at all for taking any time off from your employer, but perhaps forgetting in the process that many people do not actually receive sick pay anyway (which is hardly an indicator of blatant malingering).

Government figures also indicate that in 2014/15, 142 deaths occurred through work place injury, 76,054 non-fatal injuries occurred and 4.1 million working days lost due to injury in the workplace. That's not including days lost through work-related illness or the accumulative effects of wear and tear, nor mental health conditions related to work induced stress and anxiety. Not a sign that work is always good for your health, Iain.

It is generally regarded that anxiety and depression carry a very high risk of suicide. It is also regarded that those with high levels of anxiety and depression can lead to other problems such as hypertension, a condition that is one of the major killers within the western world. So, just what is IDS thinking of by attempting to drive people who are 'ill' with depression back to work before they are ready? What is it about anxiety and depression that IDS seemingly doesn't consider to be a proper illness, or at least, a valid reason to be away from work? And what is it about sickness, illness and disability in general, that IDS simply doesn't understand?

This is particularly important when we consider how upset IDS was reported to be when his own wife took ill with cancer a couple of years ago. He certainly should understand the devastation and misery that illness can cause. The only difference being that IDS and his wife are wealthy people and can roll with the punches that life throws at them. Most other people can't, and even with the best of intentions, most people cannot drag themselves into the workplace if suffering from serious mental health problems, problems that their employment may have caused or contributed to in the first place. Nor can (or should) people suffering from illness be bullied back to work before they are fit, or indeed bullied in their final hours upon this earth.

But who cares about that when you don't happen to live in the real world like the rest of us. And that may be the real problem. If you don't live in the real world, how can you take decisions that affect the lives of others when you have very little experience of the conditions and pressures that ordinary people actually live under? Certainly if IDS or David Cameron became sick at some point in the future, it's certain that there will nobody hounding them back to work or looking to take money away from them because of it. And that is not a 'benefit' earned through 'self-responsibility' and 'work ethic' alone, unless that is, self-responsibility is defined as something that includes the blatant self-interest and domination or bullying of others.

New World Order or Just the Old One?

IDS certainly receives a healthy salary from the taxpayer, one in excess of £100,000 per year and is entitled to a very healthy pension when he retires. He also receives generous perks from the taxpayer who pay many of his expenses. In October 2003, a senior aid gave written evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Standards and Privileges about her concerns over IDS claiming money for personal lunches, haircuts, food for his own home, items for his flat, and god damn it - even his underwear. Mr Smith also made a claim on his Commons expenses for a £193 hotel stay in a hotel, including £39 for Breakfast.

Depending on your personal circumstances, the unemployed within the UK may receive from the Mr Smith the 'overgenerous' sum of either £57 or £72 per week, money that is argued to encourage a 'dependency' on welfare. Taxpayer's money which undoubtedly could be better spent on part-payment for a nice room in a nice hotel or a decent breakfast for our Iain. However, he doesn't really look like a man in need of a bloody good breakfast nor one who apparently works so hard on behalf of the country that he regularly generates holes in his underpants because of it. So, it's hard to fathom out just what exactly is going on in the tiny mind of our beloved class warrior, a man who can easily set aside one rule for himself and another for Britain's downtrodden poor.

He obviously considers himself to be 'hard working' and 'independent'. However, he is also someone who can seemingly live off other people's money - in a £2 million 16th-century Tudor farmhouse set in three acres with a tennis court, a swimming pool and orchards. A house which is actually part of the ancestral estate owned by his wife's parents, Lord and Lady Cottesloe, her father being a wealthy hereditary peer and a distant relative of Princess Diana. So, his current lifestyle cannot be said to have been totally earned through his own hard work and independence.

Similarly, if we take a look at the work ethic and independence of David Cameron, a fifth cousin twice removed of the Queen and a seventh cousin of Princes William and Harry - and a descendant of William IV. We see somebody else who has also been given a very firm helping hand from fate on the way to success. In 2013, Mr Cameron was revealed as a descendant of slave-owners as researchers analysing government compensation claims paid out to Britain's most powerful families following the abolition of slavery in 1833, discovered a family link. Cameron's first cousin six times removed, Sir James Duff was awarded £4,101 to compensate him for the 202 slaves he forfeited on a sugar plantation in Jamaica. In today's terms, that money would equate to more than £3 Million. A nice little earner, especially when a public hanging might have been a more appropriate outcome for Sir James.

The prime minister also receives a nice salary from the tax payer (over £140,000) plus a lovely pension. Our Dave will also enjoy the perks of his Prime ministership with a house at Number 10 Downing Street, plus a plush country house retreat called Chequers Court, which has been estimated to have cost British taxpayers £3.6 million over the past five years. Mr Cameron is also a multi-millionaire in his own right, with a house in North Kensington worth just under £2 Million and a cottage in the hamlet of Dean which may be worth about the same.

Like IDS, Mr Cameron arguably likes to look upon taxpayers money as his own and in 2009 was seen to have been (legally) claiming mortgage expenses for his constituency home, including the cost of clearing away his unwanted wisteria - adding up to £82,450 in total over 5 years. Last year, tens of thousands of pieces of official paperwork relating to MP's expense claims made before 2010 were shredded by the House of Commons authorities and overseen by the Speaker of the House himself. So, we are now unable to do further digging on that score, but I think we can all guess which way the wind is blowing with that one.

In a similar vein to IDS, our Dave has primarily struck it big by marrying another rich lady in her own right. Samantha Cameron is a businesswoman and elder daughter of Sir Reginald Sheffield, a landowner descended from King Charles II of England, and a man whose estimated fortune is at least £20 Million. In addition, her stepfather Viscount Astor is another rich man whose family trust owns the property company Sableknight - valued at £130million. Rather interestingly, like our Dave, Mrs Cameron is also descended from slave owners, this time the 19th-century slave owner William Jolliffe who received £4,000 in compensation from Britain for 164 slaves given freedom in St Lucia. Somebody else who therefore made a massive fortune out of somebody else's misery.

So, do we really have the beginning of a 'new world order' here, or simply just the re-assertion of an old one? Certainly, if you are born into a rich or well-connected family you are far more likely to be running a high ranked company or running for office, than somebody born into a family at the other end of the ladder. We are not born onto a level playing field and it doesn't really matter how much 'work ethic' you have, we all need a helping hand from fate, or a helping hand if fate actually deals us a lousy set of cards. But then again, the powers that be will know that, they just want to convince you that you are indeed lazy, so that you will work harder.

What people are craving for is a fair society where blocks are not placed in front of opportunity nor talent, either by intent or otherwise. If government wants more people into work and less on welfare - that is fine by most people. But to do it, they need to help people through the employment door with some kind of well-considered and thought out plan of action. Not try to kick them through it with some kind of indiscriminate attack by a pair of IDS's jack boots.

Unfortunately, it looks like the jackboots are firmly in charge at present. What we see in the above is a reverting back to the same old, same old. People in highly privileged positions of power with the same mentality of slave traders and slave owners, who just take what they want or do what they want, simply because they feel that is their privilege and their destiny. Something evidenced by their total disregard for the lives of others, not to mention the taxes of ordinary individuals. These are people who will continually abuse the system that similar others have created, and misuse that system to shore up their own interests and the interests of their friends - and seemingly lose little sleep in doing so.

It is the main underpinning of the holy grail of unfettered 'Liberalism', an ideology that at its most extreme has been proven time and time again to be a brutal and aggressive philosophy, and one that actually kills people - one way or another. So, who needs alien-human hybrids when we have Britain's very own Dick Dastardly and Mutley in charge, with their shiny big bag of 'British' values to do the job?

Author Credentials:

British born Paul Dodenhoff, is a regular contributor of UK disability related news and content. Paul has always taken an interest in disability issues, and writes for Disabled-World trying to highlight issues that don't always get a great deal of attention from Britain's popular media. Paul Dodenhoff completed a part-time Open University Bachelor of Science degree in Social Problems, Health and Social Welfare; graduating at the Guild Hall, Preston, United Kingdom. He also gained a part-time Master of Arts degree in Research Methodology in 2003 with the Open University; graduating at the UNESCO headquarters, Paris. Explore Paul's complete biography for comprehensive insights into his background, expertise, and accomplishments.

Related Publications

Share This Information To:
𝕏.com Facebook Reddit

Page Information, Citing and Disclaimer

Disabled World is an independent disability community founded in 2004 to provide news and information to people with disabilities, seniors, their family and carers. You can connect with us on social media such as and Facebook.

Cite This Page (APA): Dodenhoff, P. (2016, January 25). Get Off Thy Death Bed and Work: British Values for the New World Order. Disabled World. Retrieved May 26, 2024 from

Permalink: <a href="">Get Off Thy Death Bed and Work: British Values for the New World Order</a>: Paul Dodenhoff writes on British values, disability, and sickness related welfare benefits.

Disabled World provides general information only. Materials presented are never meant to substitute for qualified medical care. Any 3rd party offering or advertising does not constitute an endorsement.