nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.

Language; terminology; I have a question.

Legwax

A public and government funded service (public but not in health care area), offers discounts to people "in need". My quotation marks. They use this phrase a few times in their publicity and yet they don't say who is eligible so it sounds very arbitrary. I queried it with them, they missed the point but that was the initial response from Customer Service agent. I also find it condescending.

I know I am right.

I hate that I have to ask others because I am not as confident as usual.

Am I right? I am checking before I escalate. I don't like doing services' work for them for free frankly and I do it alot. So, you can tell I think I am right alot!

But am I in this case?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Littlefatfriend

Which service do you intend please Legwax? I always enjoy a bit of pedantry!

Would they include the "need" of gamblers, users of illegal drugs, dog fighting groups and doggers etc etc? "Needs" must be defined in further detail in order to know which are being referred to.

Most of such services give away whom they are aimed at in their titles. All of them certainly should have available definitions of which needs they are catering for, and how. I'll be surprised if those details aren't publicly available.

"In need" is likely intended to sound inclusive and constructive. Quite a few benefits have ended up described with that term. I agree that it raises more questions than it answers. In my opinion my garden needs an heated, olympic-size swimming pool ramped at one end so I can just push my wheelchair straight in.

As is the way with benefits the devil in claiming them successfully is all in the detail.

Good luck

Legwax

@Wheeled_Weapon and @Littlefatfriend Thank you for responding! Apologies for being a bit cryptic but I am taking it further and it has potential for problems so discretion required. I'll update in future with what happens. Basically, I'm challenging this as I think there are benefits (not DWP type!) gained incorrectly by some involved.

@Wheeled_Weapon, I agree it can cover a lot - I think everybody possibly thinks they're in need of something! I think offering "…a concessionary fee to those on low income", would be a more useful and specific phrase. To give them their dues, it is a generous offer but limited and at this time immeasurable and limited so perhaps not so generous.

@Littlefatfriend, I agree with your point about defining the need. I am sure some amongst those you listed would enjoy the free offer from this service! Details aren't publicly available hence my initial suspicions. Thanks for the luck!

Oh yes, and your pool is in the post.

theme79

Words ARE important as they reveal often intent or thinking that lies behind things like government policy or just organisations approach and philosophy.

So ‘in need’ is vague enough to per’it the organisation to be random, arbitrary and personal in their choice off who to offer a discount to or not.

obvousky if your selling shoes everyone who needs shoes is ‘in need’ of shoes so the term is meaningless ! Putting it in parentheses doesn’t alter it. I don’t find it condescending just avoidance and lip service to inclusion without actually bothering to think or engage in whether they are, needs to be, want to be or are just using lazy language copy writer.

You say they missed the point - I have been pointing out for YEARS at very start of PIP that EVERYONE should have and still should pay close attention to this chant front Disabled Living Allowance to Personal Independence Payme. Note the conokeye obliteration of the words DISABLED and LIVING ALLOWANCE. And the replacement with PERSONAL (obliteration of group identity of disabled person and community) and the whole concept of DLA introduction was about an ALLOWANCE for the extra costs of LIVING in a an environment and social context where disability has financial and personal costs not faced by those who are not disabled. So INDEPENDENCE PAYMENT - is a completely different concept and meaning !
No one seems to pay attention to this or it long and toxic intact going forward - and here we are - it’s not a ‘benefit’ it has been used as an umbrella term for many who require help and services due to illness and chronic conditions - it muddied the water and DUE TO IT NAME has been use to help many groups and communities who deserve better litre targetted support.

No one seemed to care or notice and now it’s accepted that this completely DIFFERENT fund with a different name and scope was an inevitable outcome that may even have been planned front the start.

I get attacked because ‘admittedly to provoke thought and reflection’ say - not everyone who get PIP is disabled person but everyone (or virtually everyone) who gets PIP deserves support

I just think this demonstrates how words that come from institutions and especially government and politicians are VERY important and they reveal the principal behind change of name and titles as being a shift in policy and in this case with PIP /DLA that was never about inclusion.

(PS please excuse typos hands and fingers not very reliable!)

WhatThe

ESA Employment and Support Allowance ( employment allowance plus support allowance ) morphed into ESA Employment Support Allowance (JSA) so in this instance, language does matter.