Disability Discrimination at Its Finest

🔊 Listen to Post

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, financial advice, medical advice, or policy guidance. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, laws and DWP policies can change over time. If you are affected by disability discrimination or benefit-related decisions, seek advice from a qualified professional, welfare rights adviser, or legal representative.

The Push to Control How Disabled People Spend Their Money

There are certain proposals that don’t just miss the point; they expose something darker.

A recent call for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to replace cash-based benefits with a restricted “payment card” is being presented as a “solution” to public spending concerns. But for disabled people, carers, and vulnerable claimants, it reads as something else entirely: New calls for DWP benefits payment card to replace cash – The Mirror

Disability discrimination at its finest.

It reinforces the ugly opinion that if you’re disabled, unemployed, or unable to work, you somehow don’t deserve the same rights, autonomy, and dignity as an able-bodied person.

This isn’t welfare reform.
This is social control.

What Is Being Proposed?

According to reports circulating in the media, the petition suggests introducing a benefits payment card that could only be used for approved “essential” items, arguing it would stop public money being spent on so-called “non-essential” purchases.

In other words:

• You could receive benefit support,
• But your choices would be restricted,
• And your ability to live freely would be monitored.

This is not a neutral administrative change. It is an ideological statement.

The Dangerous Assumption Behind the Proposal

This proposal is built on a profoundly harmful stereotype:

That people on benefits cannot be trusted.

And because the benefits system includes a high number of disabled claimants, it effectively implies:

Disabled people must be managed like children.

The implication is not subtle:

• Able-bodied wage earners get full control over their income
• Disabled people face conditions, limitations, surveillance, and suspicion

That is discrimination.

How a Restricted Benefits Card Would Hinder Disabled People

This idea might look “simple” on paper. In real life, it would harm disabled people in ways that are immediate, practical, and deeply humiliating.

1) Disability-related essentials aren’t “approved essentials.”

Disabled people don’t just buy food and clothes.

They buy:

• Pain relief and symptom management items
• Specialist toiletries (skin conditions, continence products)
• Assistive devices
• Accessibility tools
• Mobility-related items
• Transport support
• Devices/apps that support communication and cognition

Many disability-related needs fall into grey areas and vary from person to person.

A restricted system would mean disabled people constantly having to “justify” purchases simply to survive.

2) It removes personal autonomy and dignity

People who have never lived with disability often fail to understand something basic:

Autonomy is health.
Control is well-being.

For many disabled people, benefits are not “pocket money”, they are the difference between:

• Independence vs. dependency
• Stability vs. crisis
• Dignity vs. humiliation

A benefits card sends the message:

“You’re not equal. You’re supervised.”

That is a form of dehumanisation.

3) It could increase financial abuse

Some disabled people already face:

• Coercive control
• Financial exploitation
• Dependence on others for shopping and transport

If benefits are restricted to a card system:

• It becomes easier for others to take control of the card
• It becomes harder for disabled people to hide money for safety reasons
• It becomes harder to escape abusive situations

Cash can be a lifeline. So can freedom of use.

4) It adds barriers for neurodivergent and mentally ill claimants

Disabled people aren’t one group.

Many claimants live with:

• OCD
• PTSD
• depression
• bipolar disorder
• anxiety disorders
• autism
• cognitive impairment
• brain fog from chronic illness

A restricted spending system could:

• Trigger panic and distress
• Increase obsessive checking (“Will my card work?”)
• Worsen paranoia and trauma
• Causes shutdowns, avoidance, and isolation

And the cruelest part?

If the card fails or is rejected in a shop, the public embarrassment can be overwhelming, particularly for someone already struggling with stigma and social anxiety.

5) It creates practical access problems

Not everyone can:

• Travel to “approved retailers.”
• Use digital systems without support
• Manage sudden card issues (PIN failures, restrictions, outages)
• Navigate helplines, apps, and complex bureaucracy

This matters because the UK already has a system for claimants who cannot use a bank account, the Payment Exception Service, which uses cards/vouchers to access cash at PayPoint/Post Office.

So the infrastructure exists where needed, but the petition isn’t about access.
It’s about restriction.

The Bigger Picture: Surveillance, Punishment, and Social Sorting

A restricted benefits card isn’t just about payments.

It opens the door to:

• Spending controls
• Item blacklists
• Merchant restrictions
• Behavioural monitoring
• Punitive sanctions for “wrong” purchases

And once that exists for benefits claimants, the line moves.

Today it’s:
“Only essentials.”

Tomorrow it’s:
“Only approved essentials.”

Then:
“Only approved shops.”

Then:
“You’ve breached conditions.”

This is how rights get eroded, not all at once, but gradually, through “reasonable-sounding” proposals.

Equality Means Equal Rights, Not Conditional Freedom

Disabled people are not second-class citizens.

If someone is entitled to benefit support, they are entitled to:

• Dignity
• Autonomy
• Privacy
• Freedom of choice

A restricted card says:

“You may exist, but only under control.”

And that attitude is exactly what disabled people have fought for generations to dismantle.

Who is Dewald Meiring?

From what’s publicly available:

• The petition appears on the official UK Parliament petitions site:
  “Introduce a benefits payment card that can be used for essentials only.”
• Companies House shows Dewald Meiring as a director of BALLUCCI LIMITED, listed occupation: “Coffee Bar & Lounge.” The Story – Ballucci
• The Ballucci business website has a “Story” page identifying the owner as Dewald, with a background in catering/design.
• Media/social posts reporting on the petition describe him as the petition creator.
• The petition is in his name, and media reports are treating him as the originator/“brainchild” of it.
• There’s nothing to suggest he has any formal authority in welfare policy. He isn’t a DWP official, MP, disability rights specialist, or policy authority; he appears to be a member of the public who started a petition, and he has a hospitality business background (based on Companies House and business info).

That’s already enough to explain why this feels so outrageous: someone with no lived experience of disability (as far as we can tell) and no welfare expertise appears to be advocating a policy that would restrict disabled people’s autonomy.

Why would he do it?

Now, this is the part where we can’t know for sure, but we can make human sense of it:

1. He genuinely believes it.
   Some people are convinced that benefits should come with “conditions”; they see it as moral discipline rather than social support.
2. He wants attention / to be seen.
   Petitions can be a shortcut to visibility. Getting picked up by MSN is exactly how someone “makes a name.” I believe he wants to make a name for himself, albeit he has gone about it the wrong way.
3. He’s parroting a wider narrative.
   This idea isn’t new. It’s basically a recycled “food stamps” style argument that pops up whenever disability benefits are discussed.
4. He’s disconnected from the real world of disability.
   A lot of able-bodied people have no clue what disability costs look like. They think disabled people buy “luxuries,” when in reality it’s things like:

• extra heating,
• transport,
• specialist items,
• pain management,
• accessibility needs,
• survival-level essentials.

So their ignorance becomes policy appetite.

Final Word

When people suggest replacing benefits with a restricted payment card, they reveal more than they realise. They aren’t talking about budgets; they’re talking about moral judgment. The implication is that disabled people must be monitored, controlled, and managed. That attitude is ableist, discriminatory, and completely incompatible with a society that claims to value equality.

There is something deeply wrong with a society that looks at disabled people struggling to survive and responds with: “Let’s restrict what they can buy.” A benefits payment card is not reform; it is a step towards surveillance and social sorting, aimed at people who already face barriers, discrimination, and poverty. If the state can control your spending, it can control your life.

If the government truly wants to improve outcomes, it should focus on:

• Ending poverty
• Improving disability support
• Protecting claimants from stress-based harm
• Tackling inequality
• Improving access to work for those who can work

Not introducing systems that punish disability by restricting human freedom.

Because disability does not remove your rights.
And being on benefits does not make you less deserving of autonomy.

Further Reading:

• New calls for DWP benefits payment card to replace cash
• New calls for DWP benefits payment card to replace cash – The Mirror
• DWP Faces Petition to Replace Benefits with ‘Essentials Only’ Payment Card – Musicoutfitters
• Dewald MEIRING personal appointments – Find and update company information – GOV.UK
• https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/752494
• https://ballucci.co.uk/the-story/
• https://uk.style.yahoo.com/call-replace-dwp-benefit-cash-090350283.html
• https://www.facebook.com/edinburghlivenews/posts/a-new-online-petition-is-urging-the-uk-government-to-scrap-cash-payments-for-ben/1328587242645902