The Government wants to cut help for disabled people to buy specially adapted equipment

First topic message reminder :

Ministers are planning to cut a key element of the Personal Independent Payment

A coalition of 25 disability charities has written to the Government to warn against plans that would strip some disabled people of a key payments meant to help them live more independent lives.

The Disability Benefits Consortium wrote to the minister for disabled people, Justin Tomlinson, to argue that proposed changes to Personal Independence Payment – or PIP – assessments would have a “severe impact” on people’s security and make it harder for them to find work.

The Government wants to cut PIP payments for people who currently receive it to help them afford specially-adapted appliances and equipment.

Examples of qualifying equipment currently includes adapted cutlery for people who find it difficult to hold things for long periods of time and specially-designed household items for people less able to stand.

The Government says a review found the current payments were “not working as planned”, but charities say stripping disabled people of the assistance will hurt the most vulnerable.

“This decision could have a devastating impact on the lives of people with MS. In the worst cases, they could lose up to £150 a week,” said Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of the MS Society.

“PIP is an essential benefit which goes towards the extra cost of being disabled.

“The new plans will fail some of the most vulnerable people in society and we have serious concerns about the future health and welfare of those affected.”

The call comes a day after new figures from the Department for Work and Pensions showed that the assessment process for Employment and Support Allowance – another disability benefit – was putting people into the wrong category of a widespread scale.

Those figures showed that over half of appeals against ESA “fit to work” decisions were successful – and that thousands of people who were deemed “fit to work” were actually ill.

36 per cent of all ESA “fit to work” claims are appealed, meaning the mistakes affect a large number of people.
The Minister for Disabled People, Justin Tomlinson, said: “The introduction of Personal Independence Payment to replace the outdated Disability Living Allowance for working age claimants has been a hugely positive reform.

“But it is clear that the assessment criteria for aids and appliances are not working as planned. Many people are eligible for a weekly award despite having minimal to no extra costs and judicial decisions have expanded the criteria for aids and appliances to include items we would expect people to have in their homes already.

“We consulted widely to find the best approach. And this new change will ensure that PIP is fairer and targets support at those who need it most.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disability-benefit-cuts-pip-personal-independent-payment-adapted-equipment-dwp-justin-tomlinson-iain-a6926041.html



Vile, vile, vile, disgusting scummy buggers!

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What I'm getting from that is that some people are ticking the box about needing an appliance to help get dressed because they need to sit on a bed to get dressed. The Government isn't saying they don't need to sit on a bed to get dressed, they're saying they already have a bed so they don't need extra money for one. It's partly the definition of "appliance" or "aid" which is the issue.

Morning Rags 

Spot on, this is about people receiving an amount they do not need and why for some it is going to be reduced
Clearly this is about people who have at least some mobility to the extent, the money is used to go towards the cost of daily help for people with aids to carry out tasks. If they have static aids already like beds, which they use, then why then would they need to receive the full amount?

What a load of fuss over nothing, where this is actually going to make it fairer.

Thank goodness - someone who's actually paying attention to what the actual issue is.

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Unless they were permanently in a wheelchair they wouldn't need longer pull cords or lower light switches would they? Needing to use light kitchen equipment doesn't imply that someone is in a wheelchair.

ok so Mrs "X" has severe arthritis

it doesnt just affect the hands but shoulders and elbows....can she reach up and grasp a pull cord...or does it need to be lower... the ones I have are at shoulder height...could someone in that position reach up with their hand to that height...I doubt it...

can they bend sufficiently to reach an electrical socket at skirting level? I doubt it...

Sorry the above is silly.
You are assessing as if someone with chronic arthritis will be unable indefinitely now to  raise their arms above their head or stand properly, thus rendering them requiring many aids to assist with the many daily difficulties they will face. So if she can not reach up and pull a cord, then this is an example where it would tick the box of an extra cost to lower the cord. If their sockets are on the ground, this is a another box ticked to receive this money, because they will need to be moved to a higher position on the wall, no doubt by the light switches in rooms. You are in fact providing valuable reasons, why they would end up retaining the full benefit. Sorry Victor you clearly have not read what is being proposed.

I have to go now, but I'll comment later if I'm around. I really hope I don't come back to a thread which is full of posts about how I deserve to be disabled, or that I'm claiming that people don't need beds.

Raggamuffin wrote:I have to go now, but I'll comment later if I'm around. I really hope I don't come back to a thread which is full of posts about how I deserve to be disabled, or that I'm claiming that people don't need beds.

Hope you have a nice day Rags....

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I have to go now, but I'll comment later if I'm around. I really hope I don't come back to a thread which is full of posts about how I deserve to be disabled, or that I'm claiming that people don't need beds.

Hope you have a nice day Rags....

Thank you Didge - you too.

Bye!

I've had a look at the PIP points system, and I have two questions.

The issue involves the use of an appliance or aid in order to do a certain activity. In each category, if the claimant says they need to use an appliance or aid, that gets them 2 points. They need 8 points altogether in order to be awarded standard PIP.

Let's just say that they need to sit on their bed in order to get dressed.

First question: Should a bed be considered to be an "appliance"?

Second question: Is the money they're awarded supposed to pay for the appliance or aid which they use, or is it merely an indication of how limited they are?

If it's the former, then they don't need any money for a bed because they already have one, so should they get the 2 points?

sassy wrote:
 

There are several levels of PIP payments and not everyone gets the top rate. Go read up on it. People are assessed and a level set for them

The problem is that each time these cuts are made, new assessments are brought in, and the process is highly stressful for those having to re-apply and justify to a panel their needs and reasons.

It seems to be fairly straightforward really. There are two components to PIP. The first is the daily living component, and the second is the mobility component.

For each component you have to score 8 points to get the standard rate, and 12 points to get the enhanced rate.

HoratioTarr wrote:

sassy wrote:
 

There are several levels of PIP payments and not everyone gets the top rate. Go read up on it. People are assessed and a level set for them

The problem is that each time these cuts are made, new assessments are brought in, and the process is highly stressful for those having to re-apply and justify to a panel their needs and reasons.

I think the point being made by the Government is that they're not cutting it for the sake of it, they want to cut some of it because the definition of "appliance" is too vague, and some people are taking the piss a bit by claiming that a bed, lightweight saucepan, or a long-handled sponge are appliances which require them to spend £55 a week extra.

Raggamuffin wrote:I've had a look at the PIP points system, and I have two questions.

The issue involves the use of an appliance or aid in order to do a certain activity. In each category, if the claimant says they need to use an appliance or aid, that gets them 2 points. They need 8 points altogether in order to be awarded standard PIP.

Let's just say that they need to sit on their bed in order to get dressed.

First question: Should a bed be considered to be an "appliance"?

that depends......

Second question: Is the money they're awarded supposed to pay for the appliance or aid which they use, or is it merely an indication of how limited they are?

If it's the former, then they don't need any money for a bed because they already have one, so should they get the 2 points?

Yes, becasue if the do ned to use the bed in this way that in and of itself is a good indicator that they also have other needs.  Why do they need to sit on the bed to dress?
what does that say about the condition they have??  would you not say that it is likely that thye are going to have difficulties doing other things?

AND, what EVERYONE is forgetting is...if you dont qualify for the daily living component...it doesnt matter if your legs are missing...you will NOT get the mobility component

what a clever trick...with one strok that the useful idiots will swallow, you have removed entire swathes of support for people across a whole range of disablement...

of course I suppose SOMWONE has to find the money to give the 40% tax payers a break...they matter FAR more dont they

what is even worse is those here in support of this see no benefit from it...it wont reduce their tax bill  or maybe it will and thats their interest  they have fallen for the tory "disabled folks are evil scroungers and a valid target" rhetoric.....

Nothing like bullying a criple is there......

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to be fairly straightforward really. There are two components to PIP. The first is the daily living component, and the second is the mobility component.

For each component you have to score 8 points to get the standard rate, and 12 points to get the enhanced rate. 

You have to go through an assessment. It's stressful.  I know because a member of my family is disabled and has had to go through this before.   It's demeaning and depressing and not good for morale.   As though a disabled person hasn't got a depressing enough life without having to go through that.   It can cause untold worry.  I wish they'd just assess people once and have done with it.   I get that they have to save money unnecessarily spent, but the point system assessments are awful.

HT its nothing but tory hate of the less fortunate...

I dont doubt these types think quite literally te disabled "deserve it" and that its some sort of divine punishment for some past or immaginary sin...

besides they have got to find more money every year for their mates dont they...

and the useful idiots swallow it hook line and sinker

they havnt learned in all these years that THEY are no better off.....

Raggamuffin wrote:I've had a look at the PIP points system, and I have two questions.

The issue involves the use of an appliance or aid in order to do a certain activity. In each category, if the claimant says they need to use an appliance or aid, that gets them 2 points. They need 8 points altogether in order to be awarded standard PIP.

Let's just say that they need to sit on their bed in order to get dressed.

First question: Should a bed be considered to be an "appliance"?

In certain circumstances yes

Second question: Is the money they're awarded supposed to pay for the appliance or aid which they use, or is it merely an indication of how limited they are?

It is to help pay not only for the appliance but also depending on the appliance, on going servicing and repair

If it's the former, then they don't need any money for a bed because they already have one, so should they get the 2 points?

a bed is perhaps a bad example to use ,a beds a bed unless it needs special adaptations or requirements

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I've had a look at the PIP points system, and I have two questions.

The issue involves the use of an appliance or aid in order to do a certain activity. In each category, if the claimant says they need to use an appliance or aid, that gets them 2 points. They need 8 points altogether in order to be awarded standard PIP.

Let's just say that they need to sit on their bed in order to get dressed.

First question: Should a bed be considered to be an "appliance"?

In certain circumstances yes

Second question: Is the money they're awarded supposed to pay for the appliance or aid which they use, or is it merely an indication of how limited they are?

It is to help pay not only for the appliance but also depending on the appliance, on going servicing and repair

If it's the former, then they don't need any money for a bed because they already have one, so should they get the 2 points?

a bed is perhaps a bad example to use ,a beds a bed unless it needs special adaptations or requirements  

Surely a bed is an appliance when it has to be specially modified?

Yes, becasue if the do ned to use the bed in this way that in and of itself is a good indicator that they also have other needs. Why do they need to sit on the bed to dress?
what does that say about the condition they have?? would you not say that it is likely that thye are going to have difficulties doing other things?

It's not a good indicator though. They might have a dodgy knee, so they need to sit on the bed to put their trousers on. That doesn't mean they have other problems. In any case, there are several categories, so I don't think each category is designed to indicate how mobile or able they are generally - it's more specific than that.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to be fairly straightforward really. There are two components to PIP. The first is the daily living component, and the second is the mobility component.

For each component you have to score 8 points to get the standard rate, and 12 points to get the enhanced rate. 

You have to go through an assessment. It's stressful.  I know because a member of my family is disabled and has had to go through this before.   It's demeaning and depressing and not good for morale.   As though a disabled person hasn't got a depressing enough life without having to go through that.   It can cause untold worry.  I wish they'd just assess people once and have done with it.   I get that they have to save money unnecessarily spent, but the point system assessments are awful.

I think the points system is too specific in some ways, and too vague in other ways. This is why there needs to be a change.

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I've had a look at the PIP points system, and I have two questions.

The issue involves the use of an appliance or aid in order to do a certain activity. In each category, if the claimant says they need to use an appliance or aid, that gets them 2 points. They need 8 points altogether in order to be awarded standard PIP.

Let's just say that they need to sit on their bed in order to get dressed.

First question: Should a bed be considered to be an "appliance"?

that depends......

Second question: Is the money they're awarded supposed to pay for the appliance or aid which they use, or is it merely an indication of how limited they are?

If it's the former, then they don't need any money for a bed because they already have one, so should they get the 2 points?

Yes, becasue if the do ned to use the bed in this way that in and of itself is a good indicator that they also have other needs.  Why do they need to sit on the bed to dress?
what does that say about the condition they have??  would you not say that it is likely that thye are going to have difficulties doing other things?

AND, what EVERYONE is forgetting is...if you dont qualify for the daily living component...it doesnt matter if your legs are missing...you will NOT get the mobility component

what a clever trick...with one strok that the useful idiots will swallow, you have removed entire swathes of support for people across a whole range of disablement...

of course I suppose SOMWONE has to find the money to give the 40% tax payers a break...they matter FAR more dont they

what is even worse is those here in support of this see no benefit from it...it wont reduce their tax bill  or maybe it will and thats their interest  they have fallen for the tory "disabled folks are evil scroungers and a valid target" rhetoric.....

Nothing like bullying a criple is there......

Victor, I don't want to change the direction of the thread, and this is only an example of your way of thinking. You mentioned MP's expenses earlier. You agree that it's wrong for them to claim for things they don't need, right? However, even if they do, it's a drop in the ocean, right? If they reduce their expenses, that won't reduce anyone's tax bill, right?

It's the principle isn't it? MPs shouldn't be claiming for some stuff because it's just not right. It's not just about the money is it?

Why then do you think it doesn't matter if people are claiming benefits that they don't actually need?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I've had a look at the PIP points system, and I have two questions.

The issue involves the use of an appliance or aid in order to do a certain activity. In each category, if the claimant says they need to use an appliance or aid, that gets them 2 points. They need 8 points altogether in order to be awarded standard PIP.

Let's just say that they need to sit on their bed in order to get dressed.

First question: Should a bed be considered to be an "appliance"?

In certain circumstances yes

Second question: Is the money they're awarded supposed to pay for the appliance or aid which they use, or is it merely an indication of how limited they are?

It is to help pay not only for the appliance but also depending on the appliance, on going servicing and repair

If it's the former, then they don't need any money for a bed because they already have one, so should they get the 2 points?

a bed is perhaps a bad example to use ,a beds a bed unless it needs special adaptations or requirements  

The point is that some people have been claiming that a bed is an appliance when it comes to getting dressed. They say they need to sit on it, and they claim 2 points for that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, becasue if the do ned to use the bed in this way that in and of itself is a good indicator that they also have other needs.  Why do they need to sit on the bed to dress?
what does that say about the condition they have??  would you not say that it is likely that thye are going to have difficulties doing other things?

It's not a good indicator though. They might have a dodgy knee, so they need to sit on the bed to put their trousers on. That doesn't mean they have other problems. In any case, there are several categories, so I don't think each category is designed to indicate how mobile or able they are generally - it's more specific than that.

aaannnddd.......then they need a thing to help them pull their socks on, then a walking aid...then they need a stair lift, and a walk in bath or wet room shower, and so on and so forth.......

of course all YOU see is "a dodgy knee...a "bit of an inconvenience" .....its not "life threatening"...well ragga...actually it IS.....climbing in and out of a bath is a dangerous business for someone with a poorly functioning knee walking up and down stairs with a dogy knee is dangerous....

but hey ho...if they fall and break their neck I suppose they wont need ANY "benefits" which you seem to begrudge anyone.....they will cease being a "burden upon society...and we will all be so much better off wont we.......really????

Deleted cos Victor fucked it up.

This is the list of categories by the way.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independence-payment-pip/pip-points-system

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
a bed is perhaps a bad example to use ,a beds a bed unless it needs special adaptations or requirements  

The point is that some people have been claiming that a bed is an appliance when it comes to getting dressed. They say they need to sit on it, and they claim 2 points for that.

well my daughter has to sit/lie/roll on her bed to get dressed
The bed is abnormally high for a normal bed the mattress top is at waist hight so yes in that respect its a essential tool for independence

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that some people have been claiming that a bed is an appliance when it comes to getting dressed. They say they need to sit on it, and they claim 2 points for that.

well my daughter has to sit/lie/roll on her bed to get dressed
The bed is abnormally high for a normal bed the mattress top is at waist hight so yes in that respect its a essential tool for independence

Is it a special bed? We're not talking about special beds, we're talking about normal beds.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
well my daughter has to sit/lie/roll on her bed to get dressed
The bed is abnormally high for a normal bed the mattress top is at waist hight so yes in that respect its a essential tool for independence

Is it a special bed? We're not talking about special beds, we're talking about normal beds.

yes its a normal bed but the highest bed we could find plus sitting on 4 x 4in in feet

I think the confusion has arisen because it's not clear if an "appliance" can include an item which is not specifically there to help a disabled person - like an ordinary bed or an ordinary chair - ie, everyone uses those. Something like a shoe horn, for example, could be considered to be an appliance if someone could not bend down enough to put their shoes on without it. A pick-up tool would be considered to be an appliance too if they couldn't bend down to pick things up.

Victor, you've done it again - you've edited my post instead of quoting it. I'm not sure I can sort it out this time - could you sort it? Ta.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

AND, what EVERYONE is forgetting is...if you dont qualify for the daily living component...it doesnt matter if your legs are missing...you will NOT get the mobility component

what a clever trick...with one strok that the useful idiots will swallow, you have removed entire swathes of support for people across a whole range of disablement...

of course I suppose SOMWONE has to find the money to give the 40% tax payers a break...they matter FAR more dont they

what is even worse is those here in support of this see no benefit from it...it wont reduce their tax bill  or maybe it will and thats their interest  they have fallen for the tory "disabled folks are evil scroungers and a valid target" rhetoric.....

Nothing like bullying a criple is there......

Victor, I don't want to change the direction of the thread, and this is only an example of your way of thinking. You mentioned MP's expenses earlier. You agree that it's wrong for them to claim for things they don't need, right? However, even if they do, it's a drop in the ocean, right? If they reduce their expenses, that won't reduce anyone's tax bill, right?

It's the principle isn't it? MPs shouldn't be claiming for some stuff because it's just not right. It's not just about the money is it?

Why then do you think it doesn't matter if people are claiming benefits that they don't actually need?

Who's bright idea was it to do it this way?  Perhaps the interfering powers that be should have left well alone and stopped trying to justify their jobs around the board table with coming up with crap point systems that clearly don't work.

Raggamuffin wrote:Victor, you've done it again - you've edited my post instead of quoting it. I'm not sure I can sort it out this time - could you sort it? Ta.

yep thats why i coloured my response in red...

it makes it easier to respond to individual points within a post ragga.....

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Victor, you've done it again - you've edited my post instead of quoting it. I'm not sure I can sort it out this time - could you sort it? Ta.

yep  thats why i coloured my response in red...

it makes it easier to respond to individual points within a post ragga.....

But you've put it in my post. I'm not happy with that - you should have quoted my post, not edited it.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Victor, I don't want to change the direction of the thread, and this is only an example of your way of thinking. You mentioned MP's expenses earlier. You agree that it's wrong for them to claim for things they don't need, right? However, even if they do, it's a drop in the ocean, right? If they reduce their expenses, that won't reduce anyone's tax bill, right?

It's the principle isn't it? MPs shouldn't be claiming for some stuff because it's just not right. It's not just about the money is it?

Why then do you think it doesn't matter if people are claiming benefits that they don't actually need?

Who's bright idea was it to do it this way?  Perhaps the interfering powers that be should have left well alone and stopped trying to justify their jobs around the board table with coming up with crap point systems that clearly don't work.

How did DLA work? Was that a points system too?

Victor, can you sort the post please? This is the second time you've done it. It's misleading, and you can only do it because you're admin.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I've had a look at the PIP points system, and I have two questions.

The issue involves the use of an appliance or aid in order to do a certain activity. In each category, if the claimant says they need to use an appliance or aid, that gets them 2 points. They need 8 points altogether in order to be awarded standard PIP.

Let's just say that they need to sit on their bed in order to get dressed.

First question: Should a bed be considered to be an "appliance"?

that depends......

Second question: Is the money they're awarded supposed to pay for the appliance or aid which they use, or is it merely an indication of how limited they are?

If it's the former, then they don't need any money for a bed because they already have one, so should they get the 2 points?

Yes, becasue if the do ned to use the bed in this way that in and of itself is a good indicator that they also have other needs.  Why do they need to sit on the bed to dress?
what does that say about the condition they have??  would you not say that it is likely that thye are going to have difficulties doing other things?

AND, what EVERYONE is forgetting is...if you dont qualify for the daily living component...it doesnt matter if your legs are missing...you will NOT get the mobility component

what a clever trick...with one strok that the useful idiots will swallow, you have removed entire swathes of support for people across a whole range of disablement...

of course I suppose SOMWONE has to find the money to give the 40% tax payers a break...they matter FAR more dont they

what is even worse is those here in support of this see no benefit from it...it wont reduce their tax bill  or maybe it will and thats their interest  they have fallen for the tory "disabled folks are evil scroungers and a valid target" rhetoric.....

Nothing like bullying a criple is there......

Victor, I don't want to change the direction of the thread, and this is only an example of your way of thinking. You mentioned MP's expenses earlier. You agree that it's wrong for them to claim for things they don't need, right? However, even if they do, it's a drop in the ocean, right? If they reduce their expenses, that won't reduce anyone's tax bill, right?

It's the principle isn't it? MPs shouldn't be claiming for some stuff because it's just not right. It's not just about the money is it?

Why then do you think it doesn't matter if people are claiming benefits that they don't actually need?

the difference IS

morality

if the system that pays out to the disabled is, for a very few, slightly over generous then thats "how the cookie crumbles". And making it harder for ALL disabled to get what they are entitled to is not the way to correct that...even if its necessary...which it isnt

the MP's fiddling and expanding their expenses, unnecessarily occuring expenses etc is a deliberate and IMO fraudulent act by individuals that not only should but DO know better. moreover they have no need to, their actions are predicated simply by greed....

how about we cut out DELIBERATE fraud....before we pursue and hound the few "accidental percieved over payments"

Raggamuffin wrote:Victor, can you sort the post please? This is the second time you've done it. It's misleading, and you can only do it because you're admin.    

Anyone can do it

Your post is still there in black, Victors replies are in red.

Raggamuffin wrote:Victor, can you sort the post please? This is the second time you've done it. It's misleading, and you can only do it because you're admin.

anyone can post within a post ragga....

why is it confusing??

my response is red?????

but just to please you I'll try.....

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Victor, I don't want to change the direction of the thread, and this is only an example of your way of thinking. You mentioned MP's expenses earlier. You agree that it's wrong for them to claim for things they don't need, right? However, even if they do, it's a drop in the ocean, right? If they reduce their expenses, that won't reduce anyone's tax bill, right?

It's the principle isn't it? MPs shouldn't be claiming for some stuff because it's just not right. It's not just about the money is it?

Why then do you think it doesn't matter if people are claiming benefits that they don't actually need?

the difference IS

morality

if the system that pays out to the disabled is, for a very few, slightly over generous then thats "how the cookie crumbles". And making it harder for ALL disabled to get what they are entitled to is not the way to correct that...even if its necessary...which it isnt

the MP's fiddling and expanding their expenses, unnecessarily occuring expenses etc is a deliberate and IMO fraudulent act by individuals that not only should but DO know better. moreover they have no need to, their actions are predicated simply by greed....

how about we cut out DELIBERATE fraud....before we pursue and hound the few "accidental percieved over payments"

If people are claiming PIP on spurious grounds whereby they don't need extra money, isn't that about morality? It seems that the PIP system has created loopholes for some people to claim when they don't need extra money.

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Victor, can you sort the post please? This is the second time you've done it. It's misleading, and you can only do it because you're admin.

anyone can post within a post ragga....

why is it confusing??

my response is red?????

but just to please you I'll try.....

No they can't. I can't just post what I like in someone else's post - I have to quote it. You can do it because you're admin and you have an edit button for all posts. I'm really not happy about it. I thought you did it by accident the first time, but you seem to have done it deliberately this time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Victor, can you sort the post please? This is the second time you've done it. It's misleading, and you can only do it because you're admin.

anyone can post within a post ragga....

why is it confusing??

my response is red?????

but just to please you I'll try.....

No they can't. I can't just post what I like in someone else's post - I have to quote it. You can do it because you're admin and you have an edit button for all posts. I'm really not happy about it. I thought you did it by accident the first time, but you seem to have done it deliberately this time.

use the quote and then type something here.............................................. in a different colour.....

see anyone can do it....

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No they can't. I can't just post what I like in someone else's post - I have to quote it. You can do it because you're admin and you have an edit button for all posts. I'm really not happy about it. I thought you did it by accident the first time, but you seem to have done it deliberately this time.

use the quote and then type something here..............................................    in a different colour.....

see anyone can do it....

That's not what you've done though - you've actually posted within my post using your edit button. Have a look back.

I do it regualry to anyone...if they raise a number of points worth adressing individually....

it saves a lot of messing around....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

anyone can post within a post ragga....

why is it confusing??

my response is red?????

but just to please you I'll try.....

Anyone can do it

Isn't that right Vic

No they can't. I can't just post what I like in someone else's post - I have to quote it. You can do it because you're admin and you have an edit button for all posts. I'm really not happy about it. I thought you did it by accident the first time, but you seem to have done it deliberately this time.

In fact is couldn't be easier and some people do it by mistake sometimes because they don't go below the quote box

See how easy it is?

Lord Foul wrote:I do it regualry to anyone...if they raise a number of points worth adressing individually....

it saves a lot of messing around....

I don't think you understand. You didn't quote my post and then insert your own comments into it, you actually posted WITHIN my post. You couldn't do that before you were admin. If I were to look back at your posts, those comments would not appear because they're in MY post.

Does anyone else see what I'm talking about?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I do it regualry to anyone...if they raise a number of points worth adressing individually....

it saves a lot of messing around....

I don't think you understand. You didn't quote my post and then insert your own comments into it, you actually posted
There you go, posted within your post
WITHIN my post. You couldn't do that before you were admin. If I were to look back at your posts, those comments would not appear because they're in MY post.

See

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No they can't. I can't just post what I like in someone else's post - I have to quote it. You can do it because you're admin and you have an edit button for all posts. I'm really not happy about it. I thought you did it by accident the first time, but you seem to have done it deliberately this time.

In fact is couldn't be easier and some people do it by mistake sometimes because they don't go below the quote box

See how easy it is?

That's because you QUOTED my post and then added your own comments - you didn't post directly in it.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think you understand. You didn't quote my post and then insert your own comments into it, you actually posted
There you go, posted within your post
WITHIN my post. You couldn't do that before you were admin. If I were to look back at your posts, those comments would not appear because they're in MY post.

See

No - you're quoting my post again, you're not posting directly in it using the edit button.

Vic did exactly what I just did.

No, he didn't - he EDITED my post, he didn't quote it and then insert his own comments in his own post.

FFS, someone must be able to see what he did using his admin edit button.

I've just looked...using the edit button

and the only difference effectively....is......................

a pair of missing [quote} [/quote} descriptors in the code.....

wonder if we can move the quote and edit buttons a bit further apart....


donr worry raggs...I dont beleive in "maliciously" editing someones post so as to misrepresent whats said....

and even if I was to edits a post becasue of content...I would make the changes obvious (by colouring them) and leave an explanation as to why....

I'm NOT trying to mess with your head ....