Phil

Those nice tories

Recommended Posts

And prove it he did, thus getting his disability payment. Perhaps each individual case should have their very own handcrafted letter as opposed to the mass generated missive that is dished out to everyone. Or I should simply be able to say "my daughter is disabled, I need financial help, and no you can't have any proof".

The way PIP is supposed to work is that cases such as this get approved at the Paper Based review stage; no need for the trauma of a face to face interview.

 

I'd best not point out which party introduced these assessments or point out the spineless hypocrisy of people who voted for them and now hope we hadn't noticed.

Yes, the Tories have a lot to answer for don't they? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't give two hoots whether the Guido Fawkes website is a Tory mouthpiece or not. I'd read and laugh at a left wing eqivalent if it was funny.

 

Trouble is, all the left wing stuff is so earnest and politically correct. Generally, when the leftie writers  attempt humour, it's useless because their personalities are not naturally jocular. Most of them love the workers but wouldn't dream of being one of them and doing a proper job.

 

I equate them to the top brass in the Environment Agency, who spout figures and policies at the drop of a hat but haven't actually visited a waste treatment station for ten years, except for an organised visit on open days. They remember only too well that those sort of places are dusty dirty and prone to the presence of flies and vermin.

 

Not only that, when they do go one and don their shiny new yellow coats, gleaming safety helmets and wellies that have never seen mud,  well, some of those site workers don't seem to show them much respect.

Flipping cheek, some of those workers wouldn't have the faintest idea how to prepare a spreadsheet on a laptop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone noticed that the Tories are giving the pensioners a right old kicking lately?  First the trashing of the pensions year after year that make Brown's raids on pension funds seem like petty shoplifting, now the new probate fees that are essentially an extra inheritance tax.  They raised the probate fee from £45 in 2014 to £155 now and are now implementing the scaled fees where they cut it again for 3/5ths of people but once you're in a house over £300,000 then your probate bill goes up to £1000 and sharply rises after that.

 

Targeting people that they used to rely on for votes.  And this is why the hard-nosed Tories should be seriously unhappy that there's no effective opposition, you usually get the best from your winning vote if the government are under pressure to keep you voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't wish anyone dead but I do have a bit of advice for anyone who is the executor of a will. In 2010 a close friend of mine died and, as executor, I handled the probate. The assets crossed  the Inheritance Tax threshold.

 

I got a lad who was a trainee accountant to give me a hand and we manually worked out what the Inheritance Tax should be. Then, my helper tried putting all the values through the government's computer service, which allows you to post all the details on an online database. The computer-derived IT levy was  hundreds of pounds lower than the manual value. We double-checked both manual and online calculations and verified that we had not missed any data out of either.

 

Obviously, we posted the details online but I also hand delivered a manual file to offices in Nottingham.

We were levied the computer-derived sum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way PIP is supposed to work is that cases such as this get approved at the Paper Based review stage; no need for the trauma of a face to face interview.

 

Yes, the Tories have a lot to answer for don't they? :rolleyes:

Trauma?  Do you have any idea what a trauma actually is?  I can tell you what it isn't: it isn't being assessed for benefits, that's for sure!  And it is exactly right that people who claim to be disabled show irrefutable evidence that they are disabled.  Otherwise we may as well all just pepper the government with claims for disability!  It is utterly ridiculous to assume claimants are telling the truth without asking for evidence, including interviews.  When I am unemployed I have to provide evidence that I am unemployed in order to claim benefits.  Why then should a person claiming disability benefits not also provide evidence that they are actually eligible for their benefits?

Edited by Saintslass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trauma? Do you have any idea what a trauma actually is? I can tell you what it isn't: it isn't being assessed for benefits, that's for sure! And it is exactly right that people who claim to be disabled show irrefutable evidence that they are disabled. Otherwise we may as well all just pepper the government with claims for disability! It is utterly ridiculous to assume claimants are telling the truth without asking for evidence, including interviews. When I am unemployed I have to provide evidence that I am unemployed in order to claim benefits. Why then should a person claiming disability benefits not also provide evidence that they are actually eligible for their benefits?

Maybe a shot in the dark, but being asked to attend a face to face interview to prove you're disabled when you have no arms or legs may be a little traumatic.

Edit to add:

Oh, and unnecessary face to face interviews are costly (around £300 each to the service providors, Atos or Capita, as I recall) , so it's a huge waste of that public money that you're always so keen to save.

Edited by Griff9of13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trauma?  Do you have any idea what a trauma actually is?  I can tell you what it isn't: it isn't being assessed for benefits, that's for sure!  And it is exactly right that people who claim to be disabled show irrefutable evidence that they are disabled.  Otherwise we may as well all just pepper the government with claims for disability!  It is utterly ridiculous to assume claimants are telling the truth without asking for evidence, including interviews.  When I am unemployed I have to provide evidence that I am unemployed in order to claim benefits.  Why then should a person claiming disability benefits not also provide evidence that they are actually eligible for their benefits?

When you apply for PIP, your GP and other health professionals are asked for their advice.  The first review is supposed to take things like that, cut needless stress and make things easier for fully-entitled claimants by trusting the GP and consultants who provide the evidence.  Bringing in people for assessments when there's clear and proven evidence in the health system is nothing but a money generator for the private companies and a genuine trauma for many people who hear nothing but bad things about the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you apply for PIP, your GP and other health professionals are asked for their advice. The first review is supposed to take things like that, cut needless stress and make things easier for fully-entitled claimants by trusting the GP and consultants who provide the evidence. Bringing in people for assessments when there's clear and proven evidence in the health system is nothing but a money generator for the private companies and a genuine trauma for many people who hear nothing but bad things about the system.

Not quite true. The paper based review stage (PBR) is a check box exercise designed by the DWP. Unfortunately it doesn't really cater for the real world documents available from the health care professionals meaning far more cases need to go to face to face interview because the PBR fails to meet the criteria score. This is what caused the initial backlogs when PIP was first introduced as the numbers of face to face interviews was getting on for about 150% of those anticipated by the DWP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite true. The paper based review stage (PBR) is a check box exercise designed by the DWP. Unfortunately it doesn't really cater for the real world documents available from the health care professionals meaning far more cases need to go to face to face interview because the PBR fails to meet the criteria score. This is what caused the initial backlogs when PIP was first introduced as the numbers of face to face interviews was getting on for about 150% of those anticipated by the DWP.

Really?  That's a surprise, I remember helping someone with their PIP application last year and she had to nag her GP to do his part for something.  It's not a simple process, I make no apologies for not completely understanding it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trauma?  Do you have any idea what a trauma actually is?  I can tell you what it isn't: it isn't being assessed for benefits, that's for sure!  And it is exactly right that people who claim to be disabled show irrefutable evidence that they are disabled.  Otherwise we may as well all just pepper the government with claims for disability!  It is utterly ridiculous to assume claimants are telling the truth without asking for evidence, including interviews.  When I am unemployed I have to provide evidence that I am unemployed in order to claim benefits.  Why then should a person claiming disability benefits not also provide evidence that they are actually eligible for their benefits?

 

You can't prove you are unemployed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? That's a surprise, I remember helping someone with their PIP application last year and she had to nag her GP to do his part for something. It's not a simple process, I make no apologies for not completely understanding it!

Yes, that's what I was getting at; it's not always easy getting what's needed from GPs etc. therefore the PIP staff are unable to "tick the box" and the case has to go to face to face.

One of the issues that the DWP hadn't foreseen was that some GPs wanted paying for filling in the claim forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a private members bill, so unlikely to get voted in. But what sort of chopper proposes it in the first place?

If you look at (d) and (f) I think you'll find the answer to your question. :dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-deputy-mayor-owen-lister-558677

Nice guy

 

 

 

 

 

Given that my younger granddaughter is severely disabled, (unable to walk or talk at 2 1/2) and possibly blind and lives in Wiltshire, this is a pretty scary story.  She's a lovely kid, with a lovely nature and a beautiful smile.  I could cry just thinking about her.

 

Edited by Trojan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Chope MP is putting this law change forward this week -

 

CbueHC3WIAA5fLl.jpg

Shipley MP Philip Davies is said to dislike Private Members Bills and is in the habit of talking them out on principal (he says)  I wonder if he'll do the same to this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without an opposition why worry about keeping your core voters.

They seem more interested in peripheral issues, like the nuclear bomb, Syria, Iraq etc. instead of the bread and butter issues that affect the every day lives of people who should be their natural supporters.  If Corbyn & co don't alter their ways PDQ they need dumping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here