Language; terminology; I have a question.

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!)