Why so much hate on MN?

I was addressing your airy assertions that anyone can get it, as I think you know full well. And if you've been on benefits yourself, I'd have thought you'd have a better understanding of the factors that can place a person in need.

If you’re a pensioner it’s called Attendance Allowance.

Pensioners could lose access to personal independence payments (PIP) as part of a review into the welfare system, LBC understands.

The government is reviewing retirees' access to PIP benefits as part of the ongoing Timms Review, which is expected to be published before the end of the year.

The benefit – which is available to claimants regardless of their income or savings – is designed to help with the extra costs of living with a disability or long-term health conditions.

Nearly one in five (17%) claimants are over the state pension age, despite a widespread view of PIP as an in-work benefit to help with ongoing costs.

You might want to think about being a little more polite.

Yes, I have, because I consider it relevant. And yes, so-called 'sweeping' statements have their place in discourse. It's valid (and important, tbh) to make general observations about what has been happening to society of late. There's no virtue in sleepwalking, any more than there is in having one's head in the sand.

Where did I state I wanted to see pensioners on PIP, stripped of it? Tell me.

I often post for info - we’ve been over this, as recently as this morning.

Ok, now you have introduced another, more sweeping statement concerning society in general.

Yes, we can agree on that.

And your point is, what exactly? That you would like to see disabled pensioners stripped of PIP?

"LBC understands" is not government policy.

If they did abolish PIP for those over state pension age, there is still AA which anyone over pension age and currently on PIP would probably be eligible for.

Pensioners could lose access to personal independence payments (PIP) as part of a review into the welfare system, LBC understands.

The government is reviewing retirees' access to PIP benefits as part of the ongoing Timms Review, which is expected to be published before the end of the year.

The benefit – which is available to claimants regardless of their income or savings – is designed to help with the extra costs of living with a disability or long-term health conditions.

Nearly one in five (17%) claimants are over the state pension age, despite a widespread view of PIP as an in-work benefit to help with ongoing costs.

I'm thinking plenty, thanks. Everything starts somewhere. Do you really think Nazism sprang up overnight?

And for your information, I'm not only taking benefits into account in saying what I am. Society is turning nasty, selfish and uncaring in so many other ways than that.

You might want to think about being a little more polite.

You might want to do a bit of reading about the history of Germany in the 1930s and how Hitler came to power, to give just one example.

An absurd comment. Playing in the rise of national socialism because posters have the temerity to question whether all benefit claimants are equally deserving of state support. It doesn’t automatically make people ignorant, or bigoted, or ‘far right’. Even this socialist government accepts that PIP is not fit for purpose.

So, if you expect to be taken seriously, you might want to think before posting.

Setting aside the rudeness of that reply, you are correct that the interim Timms review has said PIP is not fit for purpose. But not because people are receiving benefits they shouldn't:

"Our work as a steering group to date has identified deep-rooted problems in both the design and delivery of PIP. Too many people describe the process as “dehumanising”, and this must be addressed. Processes can feel overly complex, repetitive and difficult to navigate, particularly for people whose needs fluctuate or are less visible. Delays or barriers in accessing support can have significant consequences for people’s ability to manage daily life, remain independent, and stay connected to work, family, and community. For some people, the current design and delivery of PIP itself can create barriers to participation, including in work, physical activity and community life. The scale and consistency of these findings suggest the challenges identified are systemic, rather than individual or case-specific.

We have reflected on the role and purpose of PIP - we agree a clearer emphasis on supporting independent living and participation in society, for example through volunteering, work, and cultural and social activities, would strengthen the aim of PIP. We also recognise that PIP alone will not always be sufficient, and that support and services can play an important role in addressing barriers"

You might want to think about being a little more polite.

You might want to think about being a little more polite.

Setting aside the rudeness of that reply, you are correct that the interim Timms review has said PIP is not fit for purpose. But not because people are receiving benefits they shouldn't:

"Our work as a steering group to date has identified deep-rooted problems in both the design and delivery of PIP. Too many people describe the process as “dehumanising”, and this must be addressed. Processes can feel overly complex, repetitive and difficult to navigate, particularly for people whose needs fluctuate or are less visible. Delays or barriers in accessing support can have significant consequences for people’s ability to manage daily life, remain independent, and stay connected to work, family, and community. For some people, the current design and delivery of PIP itself can create barriers to participation, including in work, physical activity and community life. The scale and consistency of these findings suggest the challenges identified are systemic, rather than individual or case-specific.

We have reflected on the role and purpose of PIP - we agree a clearer emphasis on supporting independent living and participation in society, for example through volunteering, work, and cultural and social activities, would strengthen the aim of PIP. We also recognise that PIP alone will not always be sufficient, and that support and services can play an important role in addressing barriers"

You might want to do a bit of reading about the history of Germany in the 1930s and how Hitler came to power, to give just one example.

An absurd comment. Playing in the rise of national socialism because posters have the temerity to question whether all benefit claimants are equally deserving of state support. It doesn’t automatically make people ignorant, or bigoted, or ‘far right’. Even this socialist government accepts that PIP is not fit for purpose.

So, if you expect to be taken seriously, you might want to think before posting.

You might want to do a bit of reading about the history of Germany in the 1930s and how Hitler came to power, to give just one example.

An absurd comment. Playing in the rise of national socialism because posters have the temerity to question whether all benefit claimants are equally deserving of state support. It doesn’t automatically make people ignorant, or bigoted, or ‘far right’. Even this socialist government accepts that PIP is not fit for purpose.

So, if you expect to be taken seriously, you might want to think before posting.

I hardly think so. The benefits system is shocking in this country. People who need it struggling and others who play the system coining it in.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying if you won't bother to educate yourself, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Interesting that you assume I'm trying to shut you down, though, when at no point have I said 'stop talking' or anything even remotely approaching that. Do you normally confuse being disagreed with with being shut down? 🤔

Yes, it’s the same.

Because the Victorians were known for their UC, CB and PIP.

Yes, it’s the same.

Because the Victorians were known for their UC, CB and PIP.

Well, your first paragraph is a false premise, so there is no need to address your patronising second paragraph.

Stop trying to shut down people who have a different view from yours.

Yes, it’s the same.

Because the Victorians were known for their UC, CB and PIP.