Scope's reply to the governments planned concessions to the green paper.
Comments
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.0
-
1 -
Just read that on X. I wonder who else will following her?
0 -
Daily mail
0 -
You’re getting your wish Catherine
0 -
SDP anyone? The Independent Group? I would love to believe this party can take off, but have they any billionaire non doms on board?
0 -
I''m 'pro-Palestine', oh DM troglodytes.
0 -
just seen on Facebook disability page, Darren Grimes Reform has posted stats people claiming pip for mh and autism etc 😡
0 -
The user and all related content has been deleted.0
-
Did they not claim you get PIP for having spots? The usual fact-free bullocks i bet!
0 -
As usual, far too many people have no understanding of these things at all.
Or they are people who have experience but their troubles are minimal so they give the 'if I can work like normal without claiming then so can everybody else.'
Then people congratulate them with 'you're one of the good useful ones.'
1 -
Unfortunately autistic people, people with MH conditions and with other invisible disabilities are always the butt of this kind of comment. Because instead of promoting inclusion and awareness, our media likes to peddle misinformation and overdiagnosis tropes that have no basis in fact.
Meanwhile Reform councillors have been costing the tax payer 10k per go each time one quits and forces a local by election. I forget how many it is now but it's more than ten. That's more money than any person gets on PIP for a whole year even on the very top level.
…So maybe they'd like to stop spewing about what disabled people are legitimately doing and ask their councillors why they're capable of playing a game of popularity contest but not actually doing the job that comes with it?
The people who say "I'm fine so you should be too" don't understand disability :/. But there are also a lot of barriers in place for people who can/want to work because of the assumptions about capability and the ignorance from employers. Buckland report did a great job of exposing those for autistic people.
As an autistic person who is working, I'm really lucky in my team and with my manager - but I have seen and experienced first hand the things employers will do to avoid employing a disabled person.
And that's if you even get to the interview. Even some disability charities don't practice very accessible recruitment :(
And just because I work, it doesn't mean that's always easy or that I glide through it then have a wild party on my off days. I literally have a list on my fridge right now reminding me which bus stop I need to use on which day to catch the right bus to work for each shift - because my navigation means I get easily disorientated and I have legit ended up at the wrong one before now. :/ And reminding me to go to work tomorrow because I have swapped a day and so am not on my usual timesheet. That's before I even get to work, so yeah.2 -
I understand the reasoning about prioritising the substantial risk group for assessment, but would that help for those on C-ESA plus PIP? Because, if they're going to using the PIP assessment in future how would turning you down for ESA help them?
1 -
The user and all related content has been deleted.3
-
I agree with @Passerby that they had zero intention of taking onboard anything individuals or disability groups/charities had to say.
I would go further and say Timms has already written his review and will ignore any and all input from experts, fellow mps, and disability organisations. He has already recognised people with life-long and/or degenerative conditions as being 'worthy' disabled and, as such, should not be further assessed. (Which is how it should always have been, imo.)
The rest of us (the vast majority) will be ground through his mill whenever our name comes up in his lottery. The vast majority of us are most likely to be considered 'unworthy' in order to balance their books, and get him a seat in the House of Lords.
5 -
There has been absolutely no mention of 'substantial risk' or any change to it in the 'UC & Pip Bill,' nor it's amendments.
Substantial risk is considered when a claimant already has LCW but doesn't (otherwise) fit the criteria for LCWRA, but they, or others would be at 'substantial risk' if they weren't placed in the LCWRA group (if such a claimant was asked to engage in looking into work/actual employed).
Links about this & 'severe conditions' previously quoted from Benefits and Work were from 22 June just after the Bill was first published on 18 June.
The 'severe conditions' criteria (which already exists) is completely different; you need to meet one of the LCWRA descriptors & all 4 of these need to apply:
- the level of function will always meet LCWRA
- it's a lifelong condition with
- no realistic prospect of recovery of function
- it's an unambiguous condition (with a medical diagnosis)
The latest amendment to the UC & PIP Bill on 3 July has added that fluctuating conditions such as Parkinson's & multiple sclerosis will also apply. [There had been concern that the Bill said that a 'severe condition' had to 'constantly' apply]
I have no way of knowing if the statement B & W made about those with 'substantial risk' not meeting the criteria for 'severe conditions' is correct, for, as I say, 'substantial risk' isn't even mentioned in this Bill.
3 -
The user and all related content has been deleted.2
-
I definitely agree this rewriting of pip already done see how they bring it forward even doing it by a money bill is aborant imagine can never be challenged that's it set in stone never had it this bad with tories I'm still hoping some kind of miracle happens but there all in it together t
1 -
Surely that's unlawful and on Wednesday what will they be voting on the uc element its so confusing how is this ever allowed and no mention of under 22s and because a money bill will recieve less scrutiny terrible the more I understand I wish I didn't but what can we do have to deal with it I'm still emailing
0 -
OK I think I sort of get it and reading severe criteria has to be constant with no signs of recovery? So we move over with lwcra when does that change to severe category when wca is abolished and pip becomes the one you have to pass so I can see where they will be alot of savings let's hope Wednesday goes in our favour because we lose alot of our rights with lwcra being abolished with constant worry do health in even more have stroke with it all
0
![[Deleted User]](https://us.v-cdn.net/6027153/uploads/defaultavatar/nM12UT844LQMJ.jpg)
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.7K Start here and say hello!
- 7.4K Coffee lounge
- 101 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 149 Announcements and information
- 24.7K Talk about life
- 6K Everyday life
- 477 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 889 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 558 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 632 Relationships
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 873 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 935 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 40.9K Talk about your benefits
- 6.1K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.9K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.9K Benefits and income