MLAs claiming DLA
The Assembly published the register of interests last month. Reading through it you will notice that Mayor of Carrickfergus David Hilditch and West Tyrone MLA Allan Bresland are both:
In receipt of Disability Living Allowance since retirement on ill-health grounds.
I seem to remember ethical questions being raised about Cherie Blair claiming child support benefit some years ago. DLA is NOT (see comments, I was led to believe that DLA is means tested) means tested, but in a welfare state should benefits such as DLA and child support benefit be capped based on your income?
But if he claims he will get a small financial payment in recognition of his disability.
Besides he is only elected for an Assembly term, which if your Party hadn’t been so useless you would probably be making Hilditch live off the DLA at this moment in time.
I don’t know maybe it’s just me but I find your approach to sensitive matters unsensitive leaning on arrogant to the point where I feel quite sorry for you. But not as sorry as I feel for Unionism broad sweep.
dla is basically divided into 2 components.
1,mobility component which is paid at 2 rates -high for people with severe mobility probems ,ie,they could not walk more than 50 yards without severe discomfort,low,for people who could not walk 200m without severe discomfort.
2, care component ,for people wno need help with personal care eg cooking,washing ,getting dressed etc and is paid at 3 levels low rate help to cook etc,middle rate care for 1 hour aday,high ihour a day+ night more than twice during the night.
It is not means tested and is a passport to other benefits.
You can get it while you are working,there used to be a benefit called dwa disability working allowance but it was abolished about 5 years ago.
I’ve never seen a blogger blown out of the water, like this before-well not since Michael’s previous effort, anyway.
I have not been besmirching the reputations of anyone. I have pointed out a fact in the public domain, and commented on public welfare policy.
Michael you’ve your own blog, why not go there and have a go at people on DLA, as missfitz has explained you’ve haven’t a clue; and so your post comes under the heading of “posh tory twat hits out at the disabled”… disgracefull.. resign and go work with some homeless people you snob-moron.
I know Davy Hilditch and although i would be a political opponent I have always thought of him as a decent bloke.dla is a benefit which is usually assessed by a doctor ,so if Davy is getting it – he is entitled to it.Most people getting dla wish they were not eligible,as they would rather have their health.
absolutely correct doc, but try ingtell that to the young conservatives who think it’ll never happen to them.
Michael Shilliday: “I have not been besmirching the reputations of anyone. I have pointed out a fact in the public domain, and commented on public welfare policy. ”
The obvious implication of your post is that there is something inappropriate with their receiving this benefit. Indeed, it was a far more reasonable inference on the part of the reader than your self-stated desire to discuss the larger issues of the welfare state. You went so far as to imply, through comparison to the situation with Cherie Blair, that their receipt of this benefit might be “unethical.”
Your post betrays no effort to determine what their disabilities are, or what their resources, outside of their political salaries, are. You did, however, openly display your near-total ignorance of the benefit you were seeking to use as a club.
At this point, the best move you could have made was to admit your error, apologize and move on to a new topic — when you find yourself in a hole, the best first move is to quit digging.
Face it, Michael, when you manage to get me, Darth and mickhall all on the same sheet of music, you must have stepped in something foul.
Parcifal: “absolutely correct doc, but try ingtell that to the young conservatives who think it’ll never happen to them.”
As a not-quite-middlin’ old conservative, I think Michael is not wholly wrong in concept, but out of line in posting and in practice.
There is not rational reason that the government should be paying for, say, Warren Buffet’s or Conrad Black’s healthcare, save the ideal practice that *ALL* should be equal in the eyes of the state.
That said, being ignorant of the benefit he wishes to use as a club and the financial status of the men he wishes to club, Michael is, at best, talking through his fourth point of contact.
Wow! My flabber has been truly gasted by the reaction to this post! Honestly I can’t remember the last time my gob was so smacked. Just in case anyone didn’t realise that most of the posters on SO’T were out of touch middle class liberals, this post comes along to confirm the fact in spades.
Listen to yourselves! The DLA? The DLA? The biggest joke in the Brandywell (50% disabled according to the DLA, funny I drove through there twice a day for ten years, never saw a wheelchair or blind person once, plenty of nice new cars and pizza deliverymen though!). The Derry Living Allowance! Seriously folks calm down, do you honestly, truly, in your heart of hearts believe that most, even a substantial majority of DLA recipients are genuinely disabled or “carers” of disabled dependents? Because if you do there’s a fine bridge in Brooklyn which I have the pleasure of selling to you exclusively.
Who is the clown above that said it’s very difficult to get it? Christ in a kebab shop, you just tootle along to your harassed GP and he’ll write you the chit, honestly folks it’s that easy. Next time you’re in Derry and you’ve run out of smokes or a bottle of Smirnoff, ring up your friendly local taxi company, they’ll have a driver around in a jiffy. See that lovely spanking new deisel Vauxhall Cavalier he’s driving? Aye well don’t look to closely at the badge he’s got in the front windscreen (hint, he also gets the nice parking spots at Sainsbury’s).
I have no doubt that many genuinely disabled people benefit from the DLA, but for fuxake spare us the middle class outrage that anyone might happen to question whether the system is being abused.
Save it for the Guardian, I thought posters around here actually had a clue what was really going on in their society.
(Conversation overheard in Foyleside Shopping Centre five years ago, two 19 year old boys discussing their need for transport “Sure get yoursel’ on the DLA, they’ll give ye a motor”, “Aye that’s alright, but they don’t pay for the fuckin’ petrol do they?” No I did not make this up)
Ok, you’re right, I didn’t seek to clarify what their financial situations beyond their roughly £40 grand a year salaries before questioning the ethical situation of high earners being entitled to claim benefits which, for some, are a total lifeline.
It is utter nonsense to suggest that I think there is something inappropriate in claiming DLA. DLA is the difference between staying above water and destitution for some people. Miss Fitz has pointed out that it is not something that can be claimed as and when it is needed, therefore these men SHOULD claim the benefit, that is not in doubt. What I am questioning is current welfare policy, where high earners can legitimately claim DLA. The state needs to be there for those who need its safeguard.
“do you honestly, truly, in your heart of hearts believe that most, even a substantial majority of DLA recipients are genuinely disabled or “carers†of disabled dependents?”
We’ll there have been serious clamp downs on benefits recently.
There could well be to do with cases of close knit breading patterns inside a tightly segregated community sphere exacerbated by low-level social mobility thus weaking the gene pool.
20% of Northern Ireland’s population has some form of disability, a higher than average figure for other regions.
More integration and immigration as far as I’m concerned – time to mix it all up.
“where high earners can legitimately claim DLA”
Define high earner? Would MLAs be high earners if they didn’t get re-elected. Do those men have a contract of employment?
Do you know the cost of health care should an individual requiring a hip or knee replacement decide to opt for private care for quicker treatment.
Should MLA’s expenses be stopped too including those of the UUP given that the State is paying for them?
Whose paying to put the petrol in MLAs cars?
As I said above, any threshold would need to be high, but an MLAs salary seems pretty high to me. On your second point, this is why they SHOULD be claiming DLA now, because they can’t claim and not claim as they need it. I think that is a clear flaw in the system, but thats just my view of what the welfare state should be doing.
Harry
I’m the clown who said DLA is getting increasingly harder to get. I’m glad you skimmed the posts, but its a shame you didnt read them a little more carefully.
Many years ago, DLA was given as a ‘life award’, meaning that many people were eligible on a certain date or for so many years but were never assessed. About 5 or 6 years ago in Northern Ireland, there was a major programme to re-assess all of these life awards. Hundreds, if not thousands of people were taken off DLA, and in many cases rightly so.
The stories of the DLA taxis are accurate, but mostly in the past now. The fraud teams in DLA are more cohesive and less afraid of entering areas where they once would have been afraid to challenge fraudsters.
Harry, I have been in this game for about 12 years now, and I have seen many changes. I would not have challenged your claims 5 years ago, but things have changed significantly, and I stand beside my claim that this benefit is near impossible to claim today.
Oh, by the way, the GP does not ‘award’ the DLA, he or she makes a contribution to the application. The most significant part of the application is the form itself. Mind you, a lot of ignorance exists around this with many feeling their GP can ‘get’ it for them.
Michael Shilliday: “Ok, you’re right, I didn’t seek to clarify what their financial situations beyond their roughly £40 grand a year salaries before questioning the ethical situation of high earners being entitled to claim benefits which, for some, are a total lifeline. ”
Then how is it you could imply that they were somehow unethical in obtaining said benefit?
Do you have any idea what it costs to be a disabled individual in the present day, Michael? Do you even know what disabilities these individual have so that you might have a scintilla of a notion how much those disabilities cost them to address?
The next loaded question would be were it two UUP politicos who were “the only two individuals receiving this benefit” on the roster, would you have brought them up as an example…
Michael Shilliday: “It is utter nonsense to suggest that I think there is something inappropriate in claiming DLA. ”
Again, not reading too closely…
Michael Shilliday: “What I am questioning is current welfare policy, where high earners can legitimately claim DLA. The state needs to be there for those who need its safeguard. ”
So, you don’t believe that all should be equal in the eyes of the state? That the state should be empowered to take from the private citizen without recompense in services? That the state owes those whose taxes actually fund its various programs little more than a hardy handshake and a fare thee well?
“From each according to his gifts, to each according to his needs” is not a welfare policy, it is Marxist doctrine and, frankly, I have more faith in Groucho than Karl.
missfitz
You don’t need my support for you’re an expert in this, but just to reinforce your point.
A relation of mine is nearly crippled after a few necessary back operations. DLA was withdrawn in the cull you speak of (about 3 years ago?). His doctor has been going bananas about it ever since, but to no avail. The consultant who operated at Musgrave has written in support of the reinstatement of DLA, but still no good.
The DLA’s medical people, without personal knowledge of the case and on only a cursory examination, decided it should be withdrawn and, short of a revolution, that’s how it’s going to stay.
Penguin
Has he been to a CAB or independent welfare rights adviser to have his decision appealed at Tribunal? I dont go to Tribunal too often, but many of my colleagues in this sector are experts on Commission Law. A further source of expert opinion is the Law Centre in Belfast.
“Mind you, a lot of ignorance exists around this with many feeling their GP can ‘get’ it for them.”
It’s often settled by the doctor who is tasked to access the claimant at home, on behalf of the benefits office, to determine any level of need.
DC
The doctor that attends the claimant at home is not the GP, but a doctor sent by the SSA. There is often a signifcant divergance in the opinion offered by the GP and that offered by this outside medical ‘expert’.
If I had a pound for every negative story I’d ever heard about these medical professionals, I’d retire!
I was told DLA was drugs and liquor allowance. It seem I know less than MS
Michael
If there was anything which showed that you were attempting to have an unwarrented dig at people it would be the desperate amount of back-tracking you have been doing during the course of the 70 or so posts we have just had.
Its now Michael “keep up the good work DUP MLAs” Shilliday.
Now that’s a guilty conscience.
On the issue which Michael claimed he was raising. I’m just curious and maybe Missfitz can answer this one:
Say for example an MLA was claiming DLA prior to their election (which we can assume at least one of these was doing given he’s been in the job less than six months), and post-election he went to the SSA and told them that he didn’t want it any more or felt he should forego it for some other reason – would that then affect their chances of getting that benefit again in the future if they happened to lose their seat and their income dropped because of this?
Interested
If someone came into additional income, and felt that as a matter of conscience or otherwise that they did not wish to claim, they could of course choose to end their allowance.
If their underlying condition and need for DLA remained the same, they could of course re-apply when they felt that their situation had changed and they needed to do so.
Having had a succesful claim in the past does not in any way mitigate for a positive outcome in the future. The underlying condition may be the same, as is the entitlement, but it still has to be presented and argued on its merits at the appropriate time.
Dont forget, DLA is not as much about a medical condition, but rather the impact said condition has on an individual. In other words, 2 people with the same diagnosis but with different needs will be assessed in very different ways.
Apparently, there are 171,000 people in Northern Ireland claiming DLA, a quarter on the higher band.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2007-01-29.2.1&m=90245
penguin
if your relation needs any help or advice i would be happy to help-email me and i will send you my contact details.
george
there are a lot of people who were physically and mentally affected by almost 40 years of the troubles.
Can I come at all this from a slightly different angle.
It is clearly laudable that these two individuals have declared their recipt of DLA. As Miss Fitz, however, has pointed out the purpose of DLA is to enable a disabled person to not be financially (or be less financially disadvantaged) by a disability.
As such is it really any of our business whether or not an MLA recieves DLA? Indeed is it any of our business whether or nor they are disabled?Unless they wish to tell us.
There is a danger (as has been amply demonstrated by Mr. Shilliday, though he chooses to deny it) that the fact that the MLA recieves DLA will be used against them to imply something to the MLAs detrement, namely they are a sponger etc. Alternatively there could be all sorts of sniping regarding what illness or disability the MLA has. Hence, having to declare DLA could be an unfair disadvantage to the MLA and as such should it have to be declared. Any thoughts?
Turgon
Do you honestly think that an MLA is in any danger of being financially disadvantaged, even if disabled?
No, neither do I.
This is greed, simple as that. These people don’t need any extra money, so what is it for?
Miss Fitz and The Doc
Thanks for that, much appreciated.
I will speak to my relation re the CAB etc. and put forward the doc’s kind offer.
He doesn’t know that I have mentioned his case on here so I will, of course, have to talk with him first.
But thanks so much to both of you again.
justthoughtidask,
Indeed MLAs are not poor but the point of DLA is as has been explained (by an obvious expert) is that it is there to offset any relative disadvantage caused by a disability.
I just wonder if it is our business whether or not an MLA recieves it provided of course they are entitled to.
to help with care and modility needs,it is not means tested soif you meet the criteria you can claim it- you are entitled to it.
These benefits should not be (de)mean tested. Amazingly Child Support is, so Brooklyn Beckham gets £20,000 a week, and Ardoyne O’Shaughnessy gets £5.
Rather than alleviate child poverty, this actually creates child poverty. All means tested benefit appears to have the same result, poverty.
child support is not a benefit,it is paid by the parent of the child who does not have custody to the parent who has,it is assessed against the ability to pay.It is right and proper that parents pay for the upkeep of their children,the fact that there are a lot of irresponsible parents who refuse to pay-it is the children who suffer-is to be condemned.slightly off post though.
Jeez, ok the guy made a mistake, I do believe he has apologised, why not cut him a little slack? Doesn’t everyone, even the smuggest of poster here makes a mistake every now and again?
I agree entirely with Mick Hall’s assertion that means testing is known to be one of the most inefficient means of distributing necessary benefits. This drawback would be seen most acutely if applied to benefits such as DLA and Child Benefit where the social stigma of means testing would be a disincentive to apply for many greatly in need and much entitled to the bebefit.
Such universality of disbursement however need not necessarily mean that those on higher income who receive such benefit cannot have a portion of it clawed back via income tax assessment. Since all income, including benefits, is potentially taxable and that any benefit received would be in addition to other income then it would be deemed part of that income taxed at the higher rate, where the higher rate was levied on a portion of total income. The drawback to this method acting as a “levelling” mechanism lies in the low rate of higher taxation. So I would expect those who favour a method of reducing, or even denying, such benefits to the already better off would as a matter of principle be in favour of a higher rate of income tax.
We might Michael Shilliday if he is in favour of a higher rate of income tax we for that would seem to be the essential conclusion of any argument in favour of means testing. But then Michael only posits the question for debate and does not tell us his own position on means testing so it would be most unfair to suggest that like any good UUP man, the party of business after all, he favours mean testing only as a means of reducing taxation on the wealthy not if it means penalising the wealthy in favour of the less well off and needy.
turgon
I think you raise some interesting questions here and I would like to know whether MLA’s,MPs or even local councillors need to reveal that they are claiming State benefits. For example has Ian Paisley senior declared his state old age pension?
I see real problems if politicians have to declare benefits that are linked to their health, not least as it would make life very difficult for any politico that suffered from mental health problem, depression for instance. Surly this would not be right nor beneficial to society? I believe all earnings and gifts need to be declared but I do not feel benefits fall into that category.
Last para above should begin “We might ask Michael Shilliday…”. Apologies.
Jeez, ok the guy made a mistake, I do believe he has apologised, why not cut him a little slack?
NO – NEVER!
“I see real problems if politicians have to declare benefits that are linked to their health, not least as it would make life very difficult for any politico that suffered from mental health problem, depression for instance.” – Mickhall
I think half of them would fail a mental health test, due to some psychopathological classification or other dysfunction – megalomania, narcissism, phychotic and psychopathic disorders being top picks. While a little depression is good for the soul, I’d rather not have a President or Prime Minister who suffers from clinical depression (waits for the inevitable mention of Chruchill) simply because common sense (and definition) dictates that reality is not best grasped by the insane. In fact, it should probably be mandatory for those seeking public office to undertake a mental health assessment. If nothing else, it gives the public a first line of defence against electing sociopaths such as Bush and Blair.
I’m surprised at the reaction to this thread – and to Michael Shilliday. It’s unwise to expolate (never stopped me before), but I’d hazzard a guess it’s partly because folks are addicted to benefits in the most heavily subsidised statelet in Europe and they’ll be damned if they’ll give free money up that easily (someone mentioned that an astonishing 170,000 of NI’s population of 1,700,000 are receiving DLA, fully 10%). It could also have something to do with NI’s murder gangs creating tens of thousands of victims, and the need to be understanding of the profound and subtle ways in which people have suffered.
I tend to the view that the individual is responsible for his own welfare, not the state. If the state must undertake that role, it should only do it as a last resort.
Sorry for asking but isn’t DLA the Derry Living Allowance?
I have real issues about discussing the disability needs of individuals on this thread, but when nonsense is being talked, it is essential to step in.
DLA is obviously a poor substitute for great wealth. The issue here is that we have to compare the capability of of one MLA against another. Will the disabled MLA be able to operate on a level playing field with other MLAs?
The State, rightly, recognises that there will be times when the disabled MLA may be disadvantaged and provides a minimal benefit to help. That benefit relates specifically to the personal needs of the MLA – not to the employment related needs.
If, for instance, we had a severely physically disabled MLA ( and I would encourage all disabled people to get involved in politics, it would significantly improve the level of political debate in this society.) who requires personal assistance to travel, feed etc, why should they not be entitled to that minimal state assistance?
MLA’s who are not disabled do not have those needs.
The fact is that this is an issue because there are too few people with disabilities involved in politics. Indeed, the basic premise of those who would deny basic state aid is that disabled people are not actually capable of representing constituents at the Assembly. Theirs is a dismissive, careless attitude to other individuals who can really contribute to society.
So, finally, a challenge to all political parties -
How do you encourage disabled people to get involved in politics ?
How accessible are your local party meetings?
How do you reach out to people with communication issues?
Have you carried out Disability Awareness training for your local agents?
Excellent post Alan, now we have had our fun at Michael’s expense it would be nice if we could move beyond that and look at some of the issues Alan has raised. We would all like to live in a world where individuals are able to take responsibility for all aspects of their own lives, but unfortunately we live in a society that makes this an impossibly for the majority. Especially in the case of many disabled people, not least because employers refuse to carry their responsibilities by employing disabled people and making their working environments disabled friendly.
Benefits such as DLA are not for large sums of money, the mobility component higher rate is I believe approx 50 per week, yet they can and do make a real difference to peoples lives. As to one or two of the posts which come at this issue from the scroungers level. I always find it interesting that many of those who take this tack, the Sun newspaper for instance, seem to have no problems with the extremely wealthy refusing to pay their fair share of tax a la Murdoch.
I would add that just because someone does not carry a white stick or sit in a wheel chair does not mean they are not suffering from a disability.
Those who condemn the welfare state see nothing wrong with people insuring their homes collectively via an insurance company. Yet when society as a whole attempts to do like wise to gain decent health care, education or infrastructure they cry Communism, shock horror and search out every little flaw in the system.
Yet both acts are similar and necessary if we are to have some protection against unforeseen events, except one is carried out by a private business and the other the state. there is a very good reason for this and it is States rarely go broke, but private companies do. Thus when the cost is prohibited as with health care education and infrastructure, it makes sense for the state to step in.
For most people private health care, education, pensions, unemployment insurance is beyond our means, those neo- liberals who told us that this does not matter as capitalism will change all this with the trickle down effect have been proved wrong. Thus more and more rational people are coming to see that a sensible welfare state is the best way to building a harmonious and civilized society.
it is only those who are still fighting the cold war and the very wealthy, who see any move to greater equality as a threat to their wealth who continue to oppose this.
Its also probably worth noting that we no longer have a ‘pure’ welfare state in any case. Many of the older benfits have been moved into a welfare to work programme.
For instance, the old family credit was a true welfare benefit, and was used as such. Over the past decade, this has been turned into a tax credit, a complete change from the original intent of the benefit. Indeed, many of the older benefits are now being administered by Inland Revenue in what is surely a move to a less comprehensive welfare network.
Its also worth noting that there is a major reform of the incapacity benefit system being undertaken at the moment. The ultimate outcome will be to provide a good net for those who are unable to work, but less sympathy and no benefit for those swinging the lead. I have concerns about it of course, because the system as it stands is far from perfect and I fear about how the changes will be implemented.
I remember being shocked when I first moved to Northern Ireland, and realised that being unemployed was not an unfortunate, temporary situation for some people but a lifestyle choice. I dont agree with that, and I strongly feel that those who are fit to work should be doing so, and should not be subsidised by the state. On the other hand, those who are not fit should be cared for in a dignified and respectful manner.
Mickhall,
I agree entriely. Provided these benefits are being honestly claimed how does ill health in a politician matter provided they can do their job.
I suspect there might be a predjuice against say someone with heart disease or cancer (as they might be percieved to be likely to die sooner). Mental illness is an even bigger problem in terms of the stigma still attached by some to those suffering from mental illness.
The examples of Winston Churchill who apparently suffered from depression and Franklin Roosevelt who was in a wheelchair following polio are obvious. Interestingly FDR was apparently convinced he would not have been elected had people known about the wheelchair. I wonder how much times have actually changed?
From what I can gather in the USA people know the blood pressure and cholesterol levels of the president which seems to me a pretty ridiculous situtation.
miss fitz
It seems to me the problem with the way some of the unemployment benefits are being re-structured, is it over looks the fact that capitalism is a system of boom and bust, what happens when there is a down turn in the economy, [as there always is] will people still be entitled to unemployment benefits.
I would also say if I were an employer, I do not feel I would wish to employ someone who had no interest in working.
We have a shortage of skilled workers, carpenters, plumbers sparks, this type of work, we could do worse than look back to the 1960s-70s, when the State provided government training schemes for the unemployed to be re-skilled.
They would last from 6 to 9 months and would often be residential and consisted of an intensive training course in the various crafts. Back in the 60,70 and early 80s I worked in the construction industry and new many welders, brickies etc who had gained their skills on a GTC. At the end of the course employers agreed to take a trainee on at a rate just below that of craftsman for the first year and after that they received the full shilling. Trainees also received an allowance above dole many and their digs were met when on the training course. Not cheap but much better than forcing people into dead end jobs as few of these trainees returned to the dole, until that is thatcher decimated the British manufacturing base.
i witnessed an example of how the current system fails and is obsessed with getting people of benefit without a thought to their well-being. I recently went into a job centre just to have a nose, i noticed a good few jobs for HGV drivers, good money. I found this odd as most people these days have a driving license so I asked a worker in the JC why these jobs were not filled. she replied there is a shortage of HGV drivers. no problem I thought it cannot take more than a month to train a person to gain their HGV license. So I asked do you run courses to train HGV drivers. No she replied.
Typical I thought, there were posters about training to fill application forms in and the like but nothing for the jobs the JC was advertising.
Well mission accomplished Mr. Shilliday, Davy Hilditch trailed through the Nolan Show and harangued because other people hadn’t recieved DLA when they had applied. You must be so proud of yourself.
Mick, I appeal to you to axe this “blogger”.
Mick
I couldnt agree with you more in terms of the analysis of the market and the training needs that would be required to fill those posts.
At the other end of this scale, we have almost 6 thousand teachers in Northern Ireland who are skilled but cannot get permanent employment. Indeed, I had a chat with a lady yesterday whose daughter wants to be a hairdresser. The mother refused to allow her to do this, as she wanted her to go to University. I think I persuaded her to allow her daughter to go off and do the hairdressing, if that is what she desires.
We have determined that third level education is the utmost requirement for people and anything else just isnt enough. I cannot disagree more with this and feel that all socieites require a balance of employment, skills and input.
I dont have too much knowledge of it, but one of my cousins is the Director of a College in the ROI. He has told me that the courses in the RTC are determined by the needs of local employers. In other words, if so many types of x tech are required, well then the run the course to provide the labour. Something inherently logical about that.
Ginfizz,
Ahhhh,,,, but sure the fine Mr Shilliday only raised the issue to highlight a much higher-level debate on the benefits system, despite showing near complete ignorance of the facts on his post. Cant imagine that his motivation was in any way to have people shouting at Davy Hilditch on the Nolan show…………Nooooo way.
I was actually a little surprised at the level of reasonablness shown by many of the callers – quite different to the usual level of hysteria Nolan usually likes to create.
I think that Davy handled himself reasonably well. Davcy is a nice guy and is generally well-liked accross all parties – he didn’t deserve what he got courtesy of Michael “Whatever Basil says goes” Shilliday.
In the spirit of doing the double, would it not be an appropriate time for Michael to hang up his keyboard altogether. First young unionist Protégé and now blight on this otherwise authoritive site.