Moderation feedback
Comments
-
A member proposed that PIP should be means tested, removing support from disabled people with even modest savings, regardless of medical need or financial hardship. This would fundamentally transform PIP from a needs-based benefit into a system that punishes disabled people for working, saving, and simply surviving.
What is profoundly troubling is that this proposal was left unmoderated, despite its foreseeable and discriminatory impact. Instead, disabled members, those who spoke factually and respectfully about their own experiences with work, savings, or benefit loss, were cautioned. Not for aggression. Not for disruption. But for naming harm.
This is not escalation. This is advocacy.
Advocacy grounded in lived experience must never be treated as provocation. When threads are closed, not because harmful proposals were made, but because disabled people spoke openly about those harms, moderation ceases to protect people. Instead, it protects an idea. A comfort. A silence.
Let us be clear:
Are disabled members now discouraged from discussing financial precarity if it challenges a preferred narrative?
Is discomfort with lived experience being mischaracterised as inappropriate behaviour?
Scope must answer these questions. Because when policy proposals that erode rights go unmoderated, and disabled people are punished for responding, the message is no longer implicit, it is explicit comfort is being prioritised over truth.
Moderation that penalises testimony while platforming harm does not protect community it curates exclusion. This forum must be a space where disabled people are treated with equal respect, regardless of income, status, or savings. Anything less is discrimination in practice. That is not inclusion. That is exclusion, enforced through tone policing. If this continues, Scope risks entrenching the very injustice it was created to challenge.
6 -
I think we all are here trying to help & support each other, as well as all disabled people .
I will certainly apologise if this is the first time I've caused harm to another disabled person rather than supporting them. However, as has been mentioned, if support in this case isn't a prerequisite, I believe we were all civil even whilst most of us disagreed with means testing PIP giving reasons as to why. These reasons might not be deemed 'correct,' but were in the main from our personal experience & understanding.
You know I have mentioned that perhaps I thought that the 'House rules' were there for a reason in a recent post that has since 'disappeared;' yet another post remains closed, tho very unfortunate comments remain within it, so I think we have a right to question this very 'questionable' moderation.
I have the utmost respect for all the members I've gotten to know who have kindly responded here; I haven't the slightest antagonism towards @rubin16 & am sorry if he felt 'attacked.' What makes me not want to respond much on this forum recently however is Scope's 'moderation.'
The responses here were mainly against means testing PIP; we won't always have a 'balanced argument,' which could happen with any query; we're being quietly told off for this happening.
4 -
I have to agree wholeheartedly with MW123's post above. If you ask a controversial question, it's reasonable to expect pushback.
Of late I feel like there has been negative energy towards PIP claimants who work, as if for some reason we have caused harm to those who can't work by pointing out the misinformation in the media about PIP as an out of work benefit. I also feel there is some pushback against PIP claimants who work, as if somehow we are entitled or should feel ashamed of ourselves for being PIP claimants in the face of other people's needs. This is in spite of not knowing a person's circumstances, struggles or experiences - in essence, making snap judgements based on conjecture - something I am sure nobody would want to see happen to themselves.
I am not sure that it is always intentional, but it has definitely been there and this thread reads as another example. This is not 'supportive community' behaviour by any means.
I think we all experience enough discrimination outside this space for our various disabilities and the misinformation surrounding it. We shouldn't be advocating for other disabled people to lose out because their circumstances are different. That's all.I would also appreciate moderation taking note of these things when they come up in conversations like this.
6 -
I am not saying the original post should not have been made. Raising challenging ideas, like means testing PIP, is part of open dialogue.
But it was clear that such a proposal would cause upset in a disabled support space. It questions the entitlements many rely on and touches directly on financial survival.
That is why the lack of moderation was troubling. Not because the post existed, but because there was no framing, no acknowledgement of impact, and no support for those affected.Meanwhile, disabled members who responded calmly were cautioned.
So when I said the proposal was "left unmoderated," I meant it was not handled with the care and balance the topic deserved. The concern is about imbalance, not censorship.5 -
Hi all,
There seems to have been some misunderstanding of the moderation actions here. It's my understanding the discussion was not closed due to differences of opinion, or because argument was not balanced. It was not closed to discourage conversation, sharing of lived experience or due to discussion of financial precarity. Open discussion and the sharing of lived experience and opinions has and will always be supported and encouraged on the community.
As posted, it was closed initially to give the time for the team to review it fully. It was then kept closed temporarily because it contained language that was becoming uncivil. This is often done to allow the pace to slow and tensions to cool. When the discussion was reopened, a reminder was posted about keeping things civil in an attempt to stop things escalating further.
0 -
Hello @MW123,
Thank you for this feedback. I'm curious, though, how we can have open dialogue like you've suggested if we don't allow discussion on important issues and the sharing of opinions that might not align with everyone else's? In discussions such as these, we have to remain impartial and to involve ourselves when members had already offered balance to the original proposal, would be neither fair nor impartial.
(Edited for clarity)0 -
Thank you. I want to be very clear that I support open dialogue, including challenging conversations around disability policy. Raising ideas such as means testing PIP is valid, and I have never suggested that such proposals should be deleted or silenced. However, my concern is not that the topic was raised, but how it was handled.
The proposal addressed a highly sensitive issue with obvious implications for disabled people in a support space. It was predictable that such a suggestion would cause distress, yet moderation provided no framing, no acknowledgement of impact, and no support for those affected. Instead, disabled members who responded calmly and factually were cautioned.
That reveals a troubling imbalance. Moderation appears to protect those introducing exclusionary proposals, while policing those responding from lived experience. This is not impartiality, it is containment. If testimony is silenced to preserve comfort, then the conversation may be open in theory, but it is not safe in practice. Inclusion demands more than passive neutrality.
Also, I would appreciate clarification. You mentioned that these issues are being discussed in government, but to my understanding, means testing PIP has already been publicly ruled out and is not part of any formal proposals. If this claim is being used to justify moderation decisions or validate specific viewpoints, it is essential that a source be provided. Without that, there is a real risk of lending legitimacy to a harmful idea that is neither active policy nor under formal consideration, and that matters in a space where disabled people are already being asked to defend their entitlements.
6 -
Hello @MW123
As I understand it, making PIP means-tested has recently been publicly ruled out. Given that, there's no indication of any immediate change.
The fact that it has been ruled out does not make it any less of an important topic, particularly as articles continue to be written on the subject and ministers referring to PIP as a work-related benefit does little to alleviate concerns.
We ensure inclusive discussions by allowing all members to express and share their opinions without fear of being attacked. By remaining neutral, we ensure our personal views do not influence moderation decisions. All members are treated fairly, regardless of their stance, and we intervene when comments begin to breach house rules or when tensions escalate.
I’ve explained the decisions and reasoning behind yesterday’s moderation actions, making it clear that they were not taken to favour or protect any particular viewpoint. They were implemented to prevent further escalation and harm, as some comments had become uncivil. At this stage, I fear we are going in circles, as the moderation decisions were explained when the post was initially closed, when it was reopened, in a further message from the community team, and again by me today.
Just to add: No one had their opinions policed and no one was cautioned. Cautions take place via email or PM and are a formal stage in our moderation process. No posts were removed, and no one was told to stop sharing their opinion. A gentle reminder to remain civil was issued, as some messages had begun to veer towards being unfriendly and uncivil.
I am grateful for your feedback and will ensure we discuss it as a team. Just to round up, you mentioned you would like to have seen framing, acknowledgement of impact, or support for those affected and I would be interested to hear you feedback on what that would look like and how you feel that could or should be implemented in a fair, equitable and impartial way, if you'd be willing to share?
(edited for clarity)0 -
Thank you again for continuing the dialogue. I would like to revisit and clarify a few important points.
Your original statement that the proposal to means test PIP was “being discussed in government” gave the impression of formal Parliamentary engagement. That framing shaped how the proposal was legitimised within the thread. You have since confirmed my understanding that means testing PIP has, in fact, been publicly ruled out, which I appreciate.
That said, your subsequent suggestion that the proposal “may resurface” shifts the conversation away from fact-based clarity into unnecessary speculation. In a support space, where many disabled members already navigate structural precarity, revisiting publicly discredited proposals as hypotheticals, especially when presented without context or safeguards, risks causing distress and falsely legitimising ideas that are not under formal consideration. Speculation of this nature does not serve clarity or care. In such spaces, accuracy must act as a safeguard, not yield to conjecture.
I also welcome your invitation to share thoughts on moderation approaches, especially regarding framing, acknowledgement of impact and support mechanisms. That said, it is difficult to know what would be helpful without understanding what is already being done. Could you clarify the current moderation framework? Specifically:
- What guidance currently exists for situations involving foreseeable distress linked to policy speculation?
- Are moderators encouraged to acknowledge impact or offer contextual framing when sensitive proposals are introduced?
- How is neutrality operationalised in cases where lived experience and speculative discourse intersect?
Several other members have raised concerns about moderation in this thread. If the community team is genuinely seeking feedback to inform future practice, I would strongly encourage extending that invitation to all members. These concerns are not limited to one voice, and meaningful reform begins by ensuring that everyone affected has the opportunity to help shape what safety, support and transparency look like in this space.
Thank you again. With clarity on the existing moderation structure, I believe this can be a valuable opportunity for collaborative reflection and principled progress.
5 -
I'm at a loss about moderation, &, as mentioned, I'm not alone. Surely the Scope team could have looked at this thread & decided if any action was needed without making a declaration that it was closed for review, then opening it again about an hour later saying to everyone be civil & safe. That meant it felt like we were all being cautioned, not that we had expected anyone to have received a formal 'caution' as part of the moderation process.
Members have been at pains to come back & explain their words with they hope better clarity; why? because this forum matters to us all.
Scope seems to be giving mixed messages, as you often say you can't detect 'tone' in text, &, as I tried to say, knowing nearly all of the members here in this discussion, I couldn't see any would mean any harmful intent, far from it.
Then, well Scope remain impartial on the community. Yes, I know you have to consider all members, & rightly so, but, certainly over the past months members of the Scope team have stepped in with political discussions to say, 'well actually that's not the case' to reassure members, yet here you have indeed speculated @Charlie_Scope so how is that keeping this online community a safe space for all our members? We have members, who may later read this thread, who can struggle with understanding political content, so in this context you're giving a mixed message.
Also Scope is at pains to say. 'Tell the Gov't not to cut benefits' in the Community Scope's signature, & campaign to say how much disability costs a disabled member on average a month, yet are not stepping up here to reassure. Nor has it been said that the PIP 4 point rule for at least one daily living component is now completely gone, so you can't compare this (hypothetically) against any means testing. It is not a current rule, thankfully. You either step in to reassure & correct misassumptions, there are enough of those in media speculation, or you don't. Not sure you can have it both ways.
In general, it takes me a long time to type; I do so when it really matters to me. Yet it happens that my comments 'disappear' because a whole thread has disappeared, with no reason given why by the Scope team. I keep meaning to save my comments elsewhere so I can relate back to them/remember exactly what I said, yet keep forgetting. Elsewhere a post was closed, it seemed because the Scope team are uncomfortable with any content that mentions religion (it was said 'we do try to avoid religious conversations') , tho adverse comments within the thread remained, so yes, moderation recently has been very confusing, & lacks clarity.
6 -
I'd like to thank @MW123 and other users for exceptionally interesting contributions to this difficult topic and for confronting @Community_Scope regarding modulation.
The thread began with the OP stating that he supports the means-testing of PIP and referring to claimants' super-rich lifestyles. Initially, he did not mention how he thought PIP ought to be means-tested. Quite naturally, other users queried his post. Hence the involvement of @Community_Scope
I have just noticed a post from another user in favour of means-testing. His post is as simplistic as the first and calls other forum users with other perspectives a rather silly name, that is not in keeping with the forum rules. I have flagged this post and hope that @Community_Scope will deal with it appropriately.
I regret that at the moment I do not trust Scope adequately to discuss ongoing and contentious benefit issues on this thread or the wider forum again.I wish everyone here only the best in this trying political climate.
4 -
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. What is becoming increasingly evident is this. A truth, long building beneath the surface, can no longer be ignored.
When vital, often difficult, dialogue takes root, a familiar shadow falls. Individuals deliberately seeking to derail inject chaos. Their aim is clear, to shut down conversations they merely disagree with. Yet, instead of confronting this disruption, the default, almost reflexive response is closure. Threads are amputated. Clarity is stifled. Helpful, insightful exchanges are brutally cut short. This predictable pattern chokes off authentic discourse, replacing protection with a chilling silence.
This is not theoretical conjecture. In June, I privately raised these profound concerns. My email was acknowledged, shunted between teams, and culminated in a hollow promise of follow-up. That last communication was dated 10 June 2025, over six weeks ago. The silence since has been absolute. My concerns were not addressed; they were simply erased.
These are not isolated cracks in the foundation; they are systemic failures. Threads vanish without explanation. Factual discussions are twisted into mere conjecture. Posts rooted in faith are quietly excised, while the adversarial replies that prompted their closure are permitted to stand. Reassurance is a phantom, and speculative harm is allowed to fester unchecked.
The stark truth emerges, moderation, in its current form, is not a shield but a veneer. It purports to protect, yet it consistently retreats to comfort, enforces silence, or simply defers action until the problem disappears. When clarity and structure are desperately sought, the framework dissolves. When disruption is deliberately sown, the instigator is never privately challenged. Instead, they are rewarded with precisely what they sought, the abrupt termination of the very dialogue they opposed.
This is not safeguarding. This is calculated containment. And the time has come to call it what it is, without equivocation or apology.
5 -
We appreciate your feedback and understand the importance of maintaining open and constructive dialogue.
Our moderation protocols are designed to protect the integrity of discussions and ensure that they remain productive and inclusive, alongside keeping things civil. While it may seem that some threads are closed abruptly, this decision is often made to prevent further disruption and maintain a respectful environment. Moderation involves careful consideration by the team and often takes place behind the scenes to address issues discreetly and effectively, so it may seem like nothing is happening, or random comments are removed, but they are all done with careful consideration toward the community.
Safeguarding is not just about preventing disruption; it is about creating a space where constructive dialogue can flourish. By prioritising safeguarding, we aim to uphold the values of respect, inclusivity, and equality, which are central to Scope's mission. We are committed to continuously reviewing and improving our practices to ensure that our community remains a welcoming and secure place for all.
We acknowledge that communication regarding moderation decisions can sometimes fall short, and we are working to improve in this area, so the feed back is appreciated. If you have specific concerns or queries, please feel free to reach out to us directly, though please be aware there are some things we will be unable to discuss.
Thank you for your patience and understanding as we continue to refine our processes.
0 -
I appreciate your thoughtful response and your acknowledgement that improvements are necessary. To foster greater transparency and strengthen trust, I would like to gain a clearer understanding of how these commitments are being translated into tangible, visible changes.
On 10 June, I raised concerns regarding moderation practices and was informed they would be addressed “in due course.” More than six weeks have now passed without any further updates, which has been disheartening. When members are subsequently advised to “reach out directly,” it can create a sense of circularity, where the very act of raising an issue leads not to resolution, but to quiet marginalisation.
When guidelines intended to protect members are applied in ways that shield internal processes from scrutiny, we risk losing not only clarity, but also the essential foundation of trust. My intention in raising this is not to disrupt, but to ensure that moderation practices continue to align with the values they espouse. If transparency is indeed a core value, it should be reinforced through open examination, not insulated from it.
I understand that meaningful change takes time to implement, but even a general outline of anticipated steps would be helpful in guiding the community’s understanding of how and when these commitments might translate into visible changes for the members. Thank you for your time and attention to this.
2 -
I was just about to reply, as I've been thinking about this all day, but see @MW123 has beaten me to it!
A long time ago I remember Adrian saying that he'd rather wish forum members to moderate themselves, & I think this thread in particular has shown that by our explanations, apologies, etc. We've had different opinions, but can still respect the members that have made them.
I think we also know that if moderation is thought to be needed, much does indeed take place behind the scenes as you need to respect other members privacy, & will have guidelines you need to follow.
Where I find problems is when a discussion is closed with a time indicated when it will re-open, then it doesn't. I'd suggest just a few words from the Scope team to say why you've made the decision not to re-open it. The discussion I have in mind made one member feel so uncomfortable (which is putting it politely) that he then made a post about 'This forum' indicating he was going to leave because of it. Another member had agreed with me in this first discussion when I said that words can hurt saying they'd 'found this forum not to be a safe space for certain topics.'
I have not made the habit of commenting about a post that has been closed, but felt it was important to do so as I felt moderation had let us down, & certainly that member. That post then completely disappeared; again a simple explanation from the Scope team would have helped. There's something wrong when a member feels they need to leave the community because appropriate moderation unfortunately hadn't happened. I also wonder what is the point in commenting sometimes when your comment & everyone elses disappears; the whole post gone, again without the Scope team saying why. I appreciate that you can 'hide' a post, but why this one?
Now I know that members may not read other posts, but I'd question why then very unpleasant comments against other members remain in the first post I mention. It does just feel like this post will gently slide down the lists of discussions, so can be quietly forgotten.
I'm also not trying to be critical, other than I hope in a good sense. I appreciate that moderation must be a difficult balancing act, but recently we've seen a lack of consistency, & just it seems a hope that we'll forget it all.
@Charlie_Scope mentioned that he feared he was 'going around in circles' with explaining moderation in this thread; as MW123 indicates, we're going around in circles too when we feel problems we highlight are not addressed.
I seriously wonder how prospective members must view things; we read about some having looked on the forum & reading posts before plucking up the courage to join in. I'd hope it shouldn't be that way.
The most important thing I have always asked of the Scope team is transparency.
2 -
Thank you for taking the time to reflect so thoughtfully. I recognise much of what you've shared, and it echoes many of the concerns I’ve raised previously.
On page 3 of this very thread, Charlie invited me to share thoughts on framing, acknowledgement of impact and support mechanisms: He stated, "I am grateful for your feedback and will ensure we discuss it as a team. Just to round up, you mentioned you would like to have seen framing, acknowledgement of impact, or support for those affected and I would be interested to hear your feedback on what that would look like and how you feel that could or should be implemented in a fair, equitable and impartial way, if you'd be willing to share?"
I responded directly with the following: "I also welcome your invitation to share thoughts on moderation approaches, especially regarding framing, acknowledgement of impact and support mechanisms. That said, it is difficult to know what would be helpful without understanding what is already being done. Could you clarify the current moderation framework? Specifically:
What guidance currently exists for situations involving foreseeable distress linked to policy speculation?
Are moderators encouraged to acknowledge impact or offer contextual framing when sensitive proposals are introduced?
How is neutrality operationalised in cases where lived experience and speculative discourse intersect?Several other members have raised concerns about moderation in this thread. If the community team is genuinely seeking feedback to inform future practice, I would strongly encourage extending that invitation to all members. These concerns are not limited to one voice, and meaningful reform begins by ensuring that everyone affected has the opportunity to help shape what safety, support and transparency look like in this space.
That reply and request for information was never acknowledged.
When feedback is invited but responses are selectively addressed or simply overlooked, we do not just lose clarity. We create a dynamic where good faith engagement is met with silence, and members are left circling the same concerns without knowing if they are being heard. If moderation frameworks cannot hold these questions, then we are not in dialogue. We are in deflection.
Transparency is not optional. It is the baseline from which trust, accountability and any credible engagement must begin. Structural questions cannot be answered piecemeal or selectively acknowledged without undermining the very values the platform claims to uphold.
When feedback is invited, it must be recognised and built upon, not quietly bypassed or left to dissolve across pages while those raising concerns are nudged back into silence or private channels. The cost of ignoring substantive questions is not just frustration. It is the erosion of trust, the replication of exclusion, and the signalling to others that speaking up is both thankless and futile.
If we are repeating ourselves, it is not because we lack solutions. It is because the system does not recognise the problem.
1 -
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback, it's appreciated. To avoid any confusion or misunderstandings, might we propose an actionable list of points of the changes you’d like to see on the community, any issues, ideas etc. which we can take away to review further.
We do intend to arrange an opportunity for feedback across the community as a whole in the future, however we welcome proactive individual feedback such as this too, but would appreciate feedback being sent to community@scope.org.uk this streamlines things for everyone.
1 -
Thank you for your response. I appreciate the continued invitation to share feedback and engage.
Just to clarify, I submitted a detailed email in early June, outlining specific concerns about moderation structure, balance, and visibility. This was acknowledged on 11 June, with a commitment to reply. Six weeks have passed, and no response has yet been received.
Given this, it’s difficult to understand why feedback is still being framed as something awaited. The input has already been shared thoughtfully, respectfully, and in full. The concern now is not about contributing more, but about how what has already been submitted is received and addressed.
Regarding the suggestion to send further feedback via email, I recognise the intent to simplify the process. However, when the issues raised relate to structural patterns affecting the whole community, transparency matters. What impacts many should be visible to many. While private channels may support internal coordination, they can also limit scrutiny and exclude voices that deserve to be part of the conversation.
To be clear, no one is asking for personal details or case specific disclosures. What is being requested is clarity about moderation as a system and how decisions are made, what frameworks underpin them, and how consistency is maintained. These are process questions, not personal ones.
In my case, this input has already been submitted in writing. It exists, and it has been acknowledged. Asking me to resubmit, whether publicly or privately, suggests the original contribution has been misplaced, deprioritised, or overlooked. That is what now requires clarity.
So I would welcome a response to two key questions:
- Will my June email be replied to?
- And if Scope intends to engage the community around moderation, will earlier contributions be recognised and built upon, or is the intention to restart the conversation without acknowledging what has already been carefully shared?
I raise these questions not as criticism, but in the spirit of supporting a process that is inclusive, transparent, and capable of earning trust. That trust depends on dialogue that honours prior contributions, not asks participants to start from scratch.
In this thread alone, multiple members have voiced similar concerns. These are not isolated reflections. Across the forum, there’s a growing sense of confusion and disillusionment about how rules are applied and how decisions are communicated. When threads are closed, there is little visibility around why. Members often end up revisiting their own contributions in silence, wondering, was it me? The result is not safety, it’s stress.
I am hopeful that, with openness and clarity, we can move towards a space where thoughtful engagement feels welcomed, not weighed down, and where trust can be rebuilt, not just from my own perspective, but across the forum, where many members seem increasingly disillusioned with how the rules are applied.
4 -
@Community_Scope - I'm also of the opinion that I have said many similar things before, & I can't see why there should be any confusion necessitating my thoughts, if you were considering these, having to be sent privately (again).
You can if you wish look back at ny comments to the community@scope.org.uk address from 6 May - 10 June & any previous contact by this mean, as well as what I've mentioned here.
In brief, & in no particular order, & I personally would welcome other members feedback:
- I think the House Rules should matter, & everyone should abide by them.
- I welcome the Scope team interacting, but sometimes a satisfactory resolution isn't reached when your [the Scope team's] responses dwindle to nothing
- Factual content should matter more than unfounded speculation
- Passive aggressive comments should be 'nipped in the bud'
- As you get to know members you should understand the sort of person they are; are they likely to cause discord, or not?
- In order to be seen completely fair, & build up trust in our members, transparency really does matter.
- Personally I'd just like to know that action has been taken when something is reported, or I've otherwise contacted you; I don't need to know the details, which I know you can't give
Now some questions:
- What is a member supposed to do first; report an issue, when sometimes such reports go unheeded, or even unacknowledged, or
- Defend your position, or anothers, hope to diffuse the situation, or, perhaps the Scope team feel we should say nothing & let members say what they will?
- Is it acceptable that members feel they need to take a break away from the forum or leave because of abusive comments? What do you feel you can do about this?
To counterbalance this, I have received much appreciated support when I've needed it from previous members of the Scope team (I'm not sure if Morgan is still about). I also want to support each & everyone one of you, & thank present Scope team members when you have intervened in discussions appropriately, & you've all helped me, as you have other members. Just hoping we can move forward with this to keep this forum safe for all members, & better.
3 -
Hi @MW123,
I wanted to respond as you’ve mentioned a couple of times that I hadn’t followed up since our discussion in early June. I’m really sorry for the delay and appreciate your patience.
As you may recall, I took some time off due to my son’s surgery. When I returned, we had just completed a consultation period and large-scale restructure involving multiple redundancies, alongside a busy time politically. Unfortunately, amidst all that, our conversation slipped my mind, especially as it had moved down a few pages in the community inbox.
That’s entirely on me, and I take full responsibility for the gap in communication. As the conversation was between us, the team wouldn't normally get involved.
Please do feel free to nudge me at any point, I’ll always do my best to respond.
I can see you’re now in touch with the team and as it covers the same theme as our conversation, I’ll make sure they include your earlier feedback in their ongoing discussions.
Thanks again for your understanding.
Adrian
(Edit to add: I’ve moved the comments about moderation into a separate discussion so we can keep the original one focused on the question posed. We want to make sure both conversations get the attention they deserve, and splitting them helps keep things clear for other community members.)
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.3K Start here and say hello!
- 7.2K Coffee lounge
- 87 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 118 Announcements and information
- 24.2K Talk about life
- 5.8K Everyday life
- 413 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 868 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 524 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1K Transport and travel
- 884 Relationships
- 256 Sex and intimacy
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 863 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 923 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.5K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.6K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.7K Benefits and income