Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
Bloody Ian Duncan Smith!(80 Posts)
Everyone needs to see this: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046924/Parent-child-ADHD-Have-free-car-1-5bn-taxpayer-funded-scheme.html
I'm so angry I can barely speak. Would anyone be prepared to join me in putting together some sort of pressure group to stop this? I could have cried when it mentioned naughty child syndrome. I think my son has ADHD and he gets overstimulated and is frightened. Why shouldn't such families be entitled to a car? SN, mental or physical massively impact on any family. I'm sure there are better brains than mine who can think of a way to make a stand. Please feel free to include any ideas or thoughts and perhaps we can consolidate them and try to fight this.
What a badly written article to start with. It states that children who need supervision and guidance outdoors ie LRM get a Motability car. I don't know anything about ADHD tbh as haven't had any experience at all of it but I do know how hard it would be to get HRM and that you would definitely need a whole lot of medical evidence. Am happy to sign any petition.
ffs, they're not free cars either let alone all the crap about about adhd, daily fail strikes again. Stay away from the main boards today then
Terrible, terrible article.
No mention that these poor children that qualify for the mobility part of DLA probably have other issues too that do affect their mobility, just bung them all in the same pot and call them naughty children who are undeserving of anything.
It is just cruel.
Thanks Ben10. I will get one started properly later.
I have complained to the Press Complaints Commission about this..for a start it quotes the criteria for lower rate mobility, and you need higher rate to be eligible for the scheme..which is very difficult to get. Pure hatemongering.
Thanks for the link. Will get to complaining now.
Typical DM article. I know many people who have a Motability vehicle for their child, but I have never come across anyone who has a car like the luxury model they show in the picture! We paid £5000 towards our last WAV people carrier as it was the 'cheapest' vehicle we could get which would take DD's wheelchair and all her equipment when we go away, and still allow a full size seat that my now 6ft tall DS (aged 14) could fit the whole of his bum on (and not the 1/2 sized seats that many of these WAV cars have).
We pay all of DD's HRM towards it so as others have said its not exactly free. And yes I do drive it myself when DD is not in it - it is the family car - we can't afford to have 3 cars & DH has to have his own for getting to/from work 30 miles away - of course if we bought another car just for me to drive then I could see another DM story - family of DC with SAHM can afford 3 cars by living off DLA!!!!!.
Please explain how you believe the Code of Practice has been breached:
Sections 1 ( i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.) and 12 ( i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.)
The article falls down on accuracy and discrimination.
To begin the article, ADHD is described as "naughty child syndrome". The Daily Mail may well dispute the existence of ADHD but it is a medically recognised physical and mental disability; would they describe somebody with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair as having "lazy legs syndrome?". This prejudicial and inaccurate label promotes negative attitudes towards children (and adults) with this disability and therefore breaches 12i of the Code.
The reference to "free cars" is also inaccurate. The cars aren't free; they are paid for by the claimant giving up the mobility component of their DLA entitlement. This reference seems to be the latest in a long line of comments by Daily Mail journalists to stir up hatred and contempt for disabled people.
Another inaccurate reference is "to get the mobility element, families of sufferers must prove they need guidance or supervision most of the time from another person when walking out of doors in unfamiliar places. They can either spend it themselves on transport, or have it paid direct to Motability to provide a lease car." The criteria quoted is for low rate mobility DLA, which would not entitle the claimant for the motability car or high rate mobility DLA. The criteria for high rate mobility/ the motability scheme is much more stringent. They have not bothered to check their facts correctly in the article. This is also true in this example: "According to advice on a Government website, this would include physical problems when walking out of doors and needing someone with them when out of doors in unfamiliar places. You may, for example, need help to cross the road or avoid obstacles. The claim should be backed up by a doctors reference."
If the Daily Mail had looked at the DLA criteria more carefully, instead of rushing into an inaccurate headline-grabber, they would have seen that it is virtually impossible for a child with 'just' ADHD to qualify for high rate mobility DLA and, therefore, for the Motability scheme. If a child does not have a disability which physically prevents them from walking, there is a very specific route for claiming under a mental disability, and pure ADHD would not qualify for this. A child with autism and ADHD would qualify, if they had severe behavioural problems, regularly required restraint and also had arrested development of the brain (which autism qualifies as but ADHD on its own would not).
Therefore, the children who the Daily Mail are demonising in this article are very likely to have multiple, complex needs, rather than purely ADHD. They are likely to be the children with no sense of danger, living under a different set of rules in their head, due to their autism.
Speaking as the mother of a child with ADHD and autism, who qualifies for high rate mobility and a Blue Badge and all sorts of things that the Daily Mail likes to spew bile at me for daring to claim, I find this article offensive. If the journalist who wrote this would like to try to take my son out and keep him safe on the weekly shop, they would see how, sometimes, mental disabilities are more dangerous than physical ones. Preventing my son from running out in front of a car because he's seen a dog or a bee is not easy; having a Blue Badge is a lifeline. What makes life harder is the verbal abuse we get from people when they see that he can walk. Articles like this make the likelihood of that abuse much much greater in promoting prejudice towards my son for daring to have a hidden disability.
Just google "naughty child syndrome". Amazing: comes up with a story from 2007 from guess which newspaper. Not even gonna mention their name - ignorant, poorly educated journalism at its worst!
My DS1 may have ADHD. He will not be diagnosed for another year as that is the policy where I live. He is nowhere near being considered naughty. I am very lucky in that respect. He has many other issues that may be down to this condition, not least learning difficulties.
The newspaper should be ashamed of printing such garbage. Cars being used by family members. Oh, would that be because children are not allowed to drive or would that not enter their heads.
So flamin' angry!!!
Oh it's so nice to know we don't have enough rubbish to deal with so now we have a little more!
what gets me more is the ignorance of most of the comments posted underneath...I've posted about 3 but guaranteed they won't be printed, they never are!
plenty of ignorant comments on MN today about this also. The OP has posted this across the board. I'm on a thread at the moment where posters are showing similar views.
cornsilk, link please can't find it on board, thanks
I must admit to being quite when a mother told me she had got a brand new Ford Galaxy because of her son, who has got learning difficulties but is physically mobile. But actually I was more surprised that she had managed to get HR mobility than that she had used it for the car.
I thought the mobility scheme was intended for those who physically cannot walk, and presumably IDS thought so too. Do people who are blind qualify for HR mobility? I don't actually know, this is not a facetious question.
Do blind people get HRM NO unless they can't walk. Ihave been told that deafblind people no longer are eligible but it may be a rumour.
Jandymac, Google is what you need here
Why do people get all shocked and outraged without just looking up the eligibility criteria
2old2beamum must be a minefield for the assessors then.
Yes that is why 2 people with exactly the same needs get different levels of need get different levels of DLA. Still hate the Daily Fail.
Join the discussion
Please login first.