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

Lord Foul wrote:


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 ....

Lord Foul wrote:No I see what ragga is saying...her ORIGINAL post did get altered...

cant do much now...becasue THAT has been quoted

I'll get used to that extra button...sooner or later....

smile.........

Lord Foul wrote:keep yer shirt on...done ...I THINK



ohhh you ARE a fussy one....

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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????

Lord Foul wrote:and damn...I cant see any way to move that "edit" button out of harms way.....grrrrrrrrrrrr.......

Lord Foul wrote:No I see what ragga is saying...her ORIGINAL post did get altered...

cant do much now...becasue THAT has been quoted

I'll get used to that extra button...sooner or later....

smile.........

aspca4ever wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:No I see what ragga is saying...her ORIGINAL post did get altered...

cant do much now...becasue THAT has been quoted

I'll get used to that extra button...sooner or later....

smile.........

This is just all so F'n amusing...if the issue so disturbed the unfortunate --- well so easily CONFUSED
Poster...why the hell couldn't SHE just go back and *bump* up her own original post and FFS stop the WHINING---???    

aspca4ever wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:No I see what ragga is saying...her ORIGINAL post did get altered...

cant do much now...becasue THAT has been quoted

I'll get used to that extra button...sooner or later....

smile.........

This is just all so F'n amusing...if the issue so disturbed the unfortunate --- well so easily CONFUSED
Poster...why the hell couldn't SHE just go back and *bump* up her own original post and FFS stop the WHINING---???    

Didge wrote:

aspca4ever wrote:
This is just all so F'n amusing...if the issue so disturbed the unfortunate --- well so easily CONFUSED
Poster...why the hell couldn't SHE just go back and *bump* up her own original post and FFS stop the WHINING---???    

Good Morning

Everybody wants the forum to be a better place with far less squabbling and fighting and as seen since Victor has been added to the team of Mods, this has vastly improved and more also because many posters are moving on and wanting to, from past squabbles. The above is not helping in any shape or form, its goading Rags, has no relevance to the debate and its this sort of antics that derails the thread. May I suggest that if you have nothing to add onto the debate, that you keep personal opinions about other posters with no relevance to the thread to yourself please. Victor has admitted he is at fault, mainly as he is getting used to the forum functions and Rags has every right to question if her post had been altered.

Lets all try and move on.

Thanks

Stormee wrote:

Didge wrote:


Good Morning

Everybody wants the forum to be a better place with far less squabbling and fighting and as seen since Victor has been added to the team of Mods, this has vastly improved and more also because many posters are moving on and wanting to, from past squabbles. The above is not helping in any shape or form, its goading Rags, has no relevance to the debate and its this sort of antics that derails the thread. May I suggest that if you have nothing to add onto the debate, that you keep personal opinions about other posters with no relevance to the thread to yourself please. Victor has admitted he is at fault, mainly as he is getting used to the forum functions and Rags has every right to question if her post had been altered.

Lets all try and move on.

Thanks

I disagree with the ALTERING of posts and DELETING them by management, that is despotism and takes away the right of free speech but NOT for management as they are deciding that which people can say and in some cases creating/posting their own interpretation upon things.

Stormee wrote:

Didge wrote:


Good Morning

Everybody wants the forum to be a better place with far less squabbling and fighting and as seen since Victor has been added to the team of Mods, this has vastly improved and more also because many posters are moving on and wanting to, from past squabbles. The above is not helping in any shape or form, its goading Rags, has no relevance to the debate and its this sort of antics that derails the thread. May I suggest that if you have nothing to add onto the debate, that you keep personal opinions about other posters with no relevance to the thread to yourself please. Victor has admitted he is at fault, mainly as he is getting used to the forum functions and Rags has every right to question if her post had been altered.

Lets all try and move on.

Thanks

I disagree with the ALTERING of posts and DELETING them by management, that is despotism and takes away the right of free speech but NOT for management as they are deciding that which people can say and in some cases creating/posting their own interpretation upon things.

sassy wrote:You trying to shit stir again?

sassy wrote:Bumped for Fluffy

Disabled people must be awarded eight points to be paid standard PIP but the change means people will only earn one point if they have to use aids like a handrail or walking stick.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is about PIP, so I'll stick to that for the moment.

I have some questions about the procedure for claiming. Does the person fill in the form by themselves and then go and discuss it at an assessment?

The questions are very general, and the specific one we're discussing - the use of appliances or aids - is particularly so. For example, two people could tick the box to say that they need to use an appliance when washing, but one could mean that they need a long-handled sponge, and the other could mean that they need a sit-down shower cubicle - a big difference obviously. Are the specific appliances they feel they need discussed at the assessment or do they specify them on the form?

Furthermore, let's say two people say they need a sit-down shower cubicle, but one already has one, would that person still get the 2 points? If the other person doesn't have one, how would giving him/her £55 a week help? They need the appliance now, not after they've saved up for one. Is there not a system for people to apply for that kind of thing independently of PIP?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This is about PIP, so I'll stick to that for the moment.

I have some questions about the procedure for claiming. Does the person fill in the form by themselves and then go and discuss it at an assessment?

The questions are very general, and the specific one we're discussing - the use of appliances or aids - is particularly so. For example, two people could tick the box to say that they need to use an appliance when washing, but one could mean that they need a long-handled sponge, and the other could mean that they need a sit-down shower cubicle - a big difference obviously. Are the specific appliances they feel they need discussed at the assessment or do they specify them on the form?

Furthermore, let's say two people say they need a sit-down shower cubicle, but one already has one, would that person still get the 2 points? If the other person doesn't have one, how would giving him/her £55 a week help? They need the appliance now, not after they've saved up for one. Is there not a system for people to apply for that kind of thing independently of PIP?

I think the nit picking nature of such questions is most demeaning to the claimant. Not you personally but the way the questions themselves and the specifics the Government seem to deem necessary.

If a person is disabled and unable to work because they can't wash themselves without assistance of appliances or indeed another person, if they are incontinent some days but not all, if they are unable to dress themselves possibly most days but may just manage it after an hour painfully struggling once a fortnight then this person cannot work. It really is that simple.

The nitpicking which ensures the person loses points and therefore is denied money is merely a heartless and rather transparent scheme to save money.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This is about PIP, so I'll stick to that for the moment.

I have some questions about the procedure for claiming. Does the person fill in the form by themselves and then go and discuss it at an assessment?

The questions are very general, and the specific one we're discussing - the use of appliances or aids - is particularly so. For example, two people could tick the box to say that they need to use an appliance when washing, but one could mean that they need a long-handled sponge, and the other could mean that they need a sit-down shower cubicle - a big difference obviously. Are the specific appliances they feel they need discussed at the assessment or do they specify them on the form?

Furthermore, let's say two people say they need a sit-down shower cubicle, but one already has one, would that person still get the 2 points? If the other person doesn't have one, how would giving him/her £55 a week help? They need the appliance now, not after they've saved up for one. Is there not a system for people to apply for that kind of thing independently of PIP?

I think the nit picking nature of such questions is most demeaning to the claimant. Not you personally but the way the questions themselves and the specifics the Government seem to deem necessary.

If a person is disabled and unable to work because they can't wash themselves without assistance of appliances or indeed another person, if they are incontinent some days but not all, if they are unable to dress themselves possibly most days but may just manage it after an hour painfully struggling once a fortnight then this person cannot work. It really is that simple.

The nitpicking which ensures the person loses points and therefore is denied money is merely a heartless and rather transparent scheme to save money.

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I think the nit picking nature of such questions is most demeaning to the claimant. Not you personally but the way the questions themselves and the specifics the Government seem to deem necessary.

If a person is disabled and unable to work because they can't wash themselves without assistance of appliances or indeed another person, if they are incontinent some days but not all, if they are unable to dress themselves possibly most days but may just manage it after an hour painfully struggling once a fortnight then this person cannot work. It really is that simple.

The nitpicking which ensures the person loses points and therefore is denied money is merely a heartless and rather transparent scheme to save money.

I don't think it's nit-picking though Fluffy. If someone needs an appliance in the form of a sit down shower, for example, that needs to be addressed rather differently to someone who needs a long-handled sponge.

This isn't to do with whether people can work or not - one can get PIP whether one works or not, and it's not means tested. I think people need to distinguish between PIP and ESA.

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

4. Washing and bathing.
a. Can wash and bathe unaided. 0 points.
b. Needs to use an aid or appliance to be able to wash or bathe. 2 points.
c. Needs supervision or prompting to be able to wash or bathe. 2 points.
d. Needs assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist. 2 points.
e. Needs assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath or shower. 3 points.
f. Needs assistance to be able to wash their body between the shoulders and waist. 4 points.
g. Cannot wash and bathe at all and needs another person to wash their entire body. 8 points.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's nit-picking though Fluffy. If someone needs an appliance in the form of a sit down shower, for example, that needs to be addressed rather differently to someone who needs a long-handled sponge.

This isn't to do with whether people can work or not - one can get PIP whether one works or not, and it's not means tested. I think people need to distinguish between PIP and ESA.

I would agree if claimants weren't losing their benefit money as a result- but they are. It is a highly transparent way of saving money and taking it from those who are far less likely to complain, or indeed are  not able to, about the abysmal way they are being treated.
The whole point of the " going into immense detail" means that the claimant loses money.That is the point of the exercise.

When all is said and done these are people in great pain, who are  frail, who would love to be able to work but simply can't- and the differences of whether they are able to wash alone on a monday but  not on a tuesday- it doesn't really matter. They just need money so they can live in some way that is worth living-not in comfort, they will never have that, but changing the nature of the questionnaire in such a dubious manner so that less points are awarded and more less money is given is a heartless and truly saddening way to treat people in this day and age.

Tory rebels tell Osborne: disability benefit cuts just not acceptable
Government facing increasing opposition within its own party ranks to plans for cuts to personal independence payments

The government is facing a growing Tory rebellion against George Osborne’s plans to cut £4.4bn from benefits for disabled people over the course of the parliament.

Downing Street was forced to defend cuts to personal independence payments (PIP) for people who need aids to help them dress and use the toilet, as the leading rebel Andrew Percy accused the chancellor of hitting “exactly the wrong people”.

The MP for Brigg and Goole, who wrote to the chancellor last week to express concerns about the changes to PIP, told The World at One on BBC Radio 4: “The government has a very small majority. So you don’t need very many for this to be a problem of parliamentary arithmetic. But it is fair to say that the numbers on this who have expressed concern directly to ministers, to whips, to myself ... are very significant indeed.”

Johnny Mercer, the Tory MP for Plymouth Moor View, tweeted: “Concerned by proposed changes to PIP. Not sure right direction. We must look after our most vulnerable at every turn. No doubt welfare spend still too high, but for those who really need it, it is lifeline.”

The row erupted after the budget revealed that the chancellor’s biggest single revenue-raising measure over the next five years would be cutting PIP by £1.3bn. Disability rights groups said the changes would be a devastating blow to disabled people who relied on the benefit to help them live on their own.

Three Tory MPs have also been asked to step down as patrons of prominent disability charities on the back of supporting budget slashes to disability allowances.

Zac Goldsmith, the Tory London mayoral candidate, resigned on Wednesday as patron of his local disability charity after coming under pressure for voting for disability benefit cuts. He was criticised by Richmond AID, the west London disability charity, earlier this month when he supported cutting £30 a week from disabled people claiming Employment Support Allowance (ESA) – despite warnings from charities that the benefit barely covers basic living costs and would have a “severe and detrimental impact on the lives of disabled people”.

Kit Malthouse, the MP for North West Hampshire, was told to resign as patron of the MS Society, the national charity that campaigns on issues surrounding multiple sclerosis, and was no longer seen as “suitable” for the position after he voted in favour of cuts to ESA that would see people with MS among hundreds of thousands of disabled people to lose critical allowances.

James Cleverly, the MP for Braintree, was also told to resign as patron with “immediate effect” by Advocacy for All, a charity that works to help vulnerable people in the local area, who said they were “surprised and disappointed” to learn he had voted for £30 a week cuts to ESA benefits.

Responding to the budget announcements, the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC), a national coalition of more than 60 charities, said: “These changes could have harmful consequences for the health and independence of the 640,000 affected disabled people, and significant cost implications for the NHS and local authority social care services as a result.”

The DBC reported how 28% of people on the current work-related activity group (Wrag) rate have been unable to afford food, while 38% have been unable to heat their homes.

A Labour analysis found the disability cuts would deny 200,000 claimants access to PIP worth almost £3,000 a year, with a further 400,000 seeing their entitlements reduced.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said that it was “morally reprehensible” to cut disability benefits while helping the rich with changes to capital gains tax and cutting corporation tax. McDonnell said about a “third of the cutbacks [Osborne] has been raising money from will fall on people with disabilities” by 2020-21.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/17/tory-rebels-osborne-disability-benefit-cuts-just-not-acceptable