Green Paper Related Discussions

I agree , I feel as though we are being used as bargaining chips. Which party can outdo the other in their bad treatment of us and it seems acceptable. No party is trying to put our minds at rest .

professor tim wilson - the pip lie is exposed !

Yes, the government thinks far more of the elderly and those with kids than he does of the disabled.

They have backed down on the £300 winter fuel payments to 10 million OAP's and also the 2 child cap and, of course Farage has said that he will do the same, if he gets in at the next general election !!

Farage has already said (and repeated several times) that he strongly supports cuts to benefits for disabled individuals……

I am actually really trying hard to find any information saying the new pip proposals would be lawful, they all say they would probably be discriminatory and open to legal challenges.

Could this be discriminatory?

Yes, potentially, under the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998:

• Indirect discrimination: If a rule disproportionately disadvantages certain groups (e.g. people with mental health conditions, learning disabilities, or fluctuating conditions), even if it applies to everyone equally.
• Failure to make reasonable adjustments: If the rule doesn't account for the way certain impairments affect people across several activities but not severely in one, this could be legally problematic.
• Article 14 ECHR (non-discrimination) combined with Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property/benefits) could also be cited in a legal challenge.

3. Could it be challenged in court?

Yes. There is precedent for PIP changes being challenged and overturned or changed via judicial review. For example:

• MH v SSWP (2016) – a legal challenge led to changes in how PIP is awarded for mental health conditions related to mobility.
• RF v Secretary of State (2017) – court ruled that changes to PIP mobility descriptors were discriminatory against people with psychological distress.

If the 4-point rule disproportionately affects certain disabilities, claimants or advocacy groups (like Disability Rights UK or CPAG) could challenge it through judicial review.

4. Could this delay or stop implementation?

Yes, potentially. If a court grants a judicial review and finds the rule discriminatory or irrational, it could:

• Delay implementation
• Force the government to revise or withdraw the policy
• Award compensation to affected claimants

Summary

• The 4-point rule could be discriminatory, especially against people with certain mental or fluctuating conditions.
• It can be challenged in court, especially through a judicial review.
• If successful, this could delay, change, or even stop the policy from being implemented.

You are absolutely right about that.👌We've been manipulated by the system all our lives to keep us down. As far as they're concerned, working class people are to be controlled, to do menial, physically demanding, low paid especially these days.

We are only considered as faceless wage slaves, making huge profits for big business and corporations.

If you are too disabled, too old or too young to do this, they consider you expendable as you are costing them money they want to keep for themselves.

As they are now showing, they will do anything to deprive us of our support, gaslighting others and minimising the impact of these catastrophic cuts to make sure they can force them through.

I somehow think though that their disgraceful lies and complete immortality have caught them out. ✊Let's hope so. 🤞🙏

I think if they reinstate the WFA ( which I agree with) and scrap the two chid limit and cut disability benefits that looks like discrimination to me . Whether it is in law is another matter. I’m more worried now with all the talk of scrapping the two child limit as I think they’ll say the disability rules need voting for to help children. I hope I’m wrong and by next week they’re u turning for us too

Yes it could be discriminatory but maybe not outright, I found out this information though.

Could this be discriminatory?

✅ Not direct discrimination, but possibly:

❗ Indirect discrimination and/or unfair treatment under the Equality Act 2010 or Human Rights Act 1998.

Here’s how:

A. Indirect Discrimination

• If a group policy (e.g. public spending choices) disproportionately harms disabled people, even if it doesn’t target them, it could amount to indirect discrimination.
• Cutting disability benefits while expanding support for other groups without justification could raise legal and ethical concerns.

B. Discrimination by Omission

• If disabled people are not equally supported in the cost of living crisis while other groups are helped, that could be seen as failing the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act:
  • Government must show it considered the impact on disabled people when making major spending decisions.
  • Ignoring this duty has led to successful court challenges in the past.

C. Breach of Legitimate Expectation / Unfairness

• If disabled people were promised continued support (e.g. LCWRA or PIP), then that support is cut while other groups benefit, it may be argued that this is unjust or irrational, especially if the criteria for support are not applied consistently.

🔥 3. Political & Legal Pressure Points

Even if not illegal, this approach is politically and morally challengeable:

• Disabled people face disproportionate poverty, isolation, and energy needs.
• They are more likely to require heating all day (due to staying home).
• Many do not benefit from the triple lock or other pension protections.
• Reinstating generous pensioner benefits while cutting from disabled people could be framed as socially regressive and contrary to equality aims.

I'm afraid to say that it seems like they are backing down on the WFA and the child benefit cap to try and make a trade off with the Labour MPs who are against the cuts, hoping that they will accept having disabled people's people's lives ruined for the sake of looking after children and elderly people.

ALL vulnerable people should be looked after, not just certain groups at the expense of others!! 😡 Plus there is the money to do so.

This country is not as impoverished as the leadership try make out that it is. In fact it's exactly the opposite. They are just making a political choice to neglect us. 🤥 There are many other ways our support could be funded, that will not ruin our lives.

The good news though from what I can see, is that Labour MPs who are on our side are unlikely to be taken in by all this skullduggery and seem really fed up by the leaderships hideous, morally bankrupt antics and being treated with such disrespect by them.

They are the ones who could lose up to 200 seats at the next GE with quite a few going at the next Local Elections, which will cover a lot more of the country than the one just gone will.

The leadership have a great deal more to fall back on so it won't bother them. I can imagine our parliamentary supporters feel pretty fed up about that too!! 😳 Their self interest is to our advantage, as are their worries about how badly the Labour Party is being seen for doing this too.

Thank you @charlie72 😊 for your excellent research for this post and a later one on the basis for legal challenges against these cuts.

I feel more hopeful than I did because of it! 🤗 I hope that everyone reading that information will feel more optimistic about the situation.