To be sick of all the newspaper articles saying lies about DLA and PIP

[elliejjtiny]

To get any DLA or PIP you have to be significantly disabled. To get the higher rate of either part you have to be severely disabled.

A motability car is not free, it's rented. To get one you need to either be unable to walk 50 metres or have a severe learning disability, which is very difficult to get.

It's always happened but since the stuff in the news about changes to PIP it's got worse.

Articles in the newspapers claiming you can get a free car for bed wetting, which just doesn't happen. There will be children like my ds who get DLA because they have a number of problems including bedwetting but nobody gets high rate mobility for bed wetting on its own.

There are other articles about people claiming PIP and DLA for various minor sounding conditions and I am so fed up with it. I know from experience that the newspapers will have talked to people claiming PIP/DLA and twist everything they say to make them sound like a scrounger.

All these articles are giving off the message that anyone with any minor disability can claim loads of benefits.

I’m not that poster but I was on what was considered high rates of benefits, and had I posted about it I’d have been shredded.

I didn’t work, but this was because no job existed that was flexible enough for me to meet my dc needs - I know that because I tried several, including various self employed things.

I was a single parent.

One dc could have gone to a special school, but the only one that would accept him had a dreadful reputation, cost the taxpayer at least £100,000 per year per child not counting transport and transport supervision that would have been necessary for me to work part time. That was just for one child.

So what would be more cost effective, me accepting benefits to the tune of probably over £40,000 and being able to care for my dc at home, educate them in a way they could cope with, and teach them employable and livable skills so that they can be productive and independent adults, or putting them in special school and costing the taxpayer a quarter of a million a year? You choose.

IIRC mine was a similar scenario to the poster in question.

No your circumstances aren’t similar at all.

Firstly you’re a single mum. This poster had a partner and the partner was not working and claiming for anxiety for himself. So that’s an extra 400 or 800 quid. So the entire household were all claiming and also getting carers and PIP as well as DLA.

Maybe it’s just where I live but LOADS of families round here get the full works - PIP, DLA, carers, UC/LCWRA…

I personally know a number of families blagging the system. I never know whether to be in awe of their ingenuity or cross that they're using their children to get additional funds.

We’re talking about a different thread then.
The one I read was strikingly similar to my own circumstances, yet she was absolutely ripped to shreds because of jealous bitter scumbags who have no idea what disability and invisible disability is about.

Oh yes it’s absolutely true that a PIP assessment can be paper based. Autistic DS1 has severe social anxiety and is selectively mute. So the DWP assessor spoke directly to his OT and mental health worker. This was in addition to evidence supplied.

It is a nonsense to suggest that a paper based assessment with no expert evidence would be accepted.

It’s just bollocks and urban myth. But people are ignorant so don’t know that you’re chatting shit. If you said I know someone with no qualifications who got a 6 figure job with no interview they would know you were bullshitting.

Isn’t it odd that all of these people who allegedly are committing very obvious frauds have never been identified with all of the checks against medical records that are required to substantiate any claim to PIP.

It’s also very odd that people committing such frauds are so happy to disclose this to so many people, often - apparently per the accounts here - people that they barely know, even though the penalities for such frauds are mostly time in prison.

It’s also very odd that the people who are so convinced that a large proportion of PIP claimants are not genuinely eligible, and claim to know personally people who are defrauding the system, have not reported these cases either to the DWP or, their best friend, the Daily Mail, who I’m sure would dispatch some journalists to investigate immediately.

All very mysterious.

Considering she's such a manipulative liar why would you believe her when she says she gets the high rates of pip you sound a bit guliable also to think you would get high rate pip without significant medical evidence just isn't possible and makes you sound a bit well lot uninformed on the realities of the pip process

You really need to engage your brain.

Half of the most common cancers that people die from weren’t identified 70 years ago, let alone being treatable. Nor were a large number of other medical conditions of which presumably you don’t deny the existence?

What is going on here? Is it:

1. that you are you objecting to the advancement of medical science and research in general over the last 70 years and don’t “believe” in any of it (for unspecified reasons, despite my repeated requests for your explanation)? In which case, presumably, you’ll be happy to accept the 1950s treatment (or lack of) for any medical condition that you or a member of your family develop. So you’ll be declining most modern antibiotics, operations, in fact most modern treatment of any kind for you or any members of your family because you wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite, would you? Or;

2. You are attempting to claim that all medical research (via the same medical system, same process of scientifically validating medical studies that has been used for all medical conditions in the last 70 years is valid for all medical conditions except for the ones that you happen to dislike the most, and in those cases the doctors (who went through the same medical training before doing this research) are all wrong, and while you consider modern research techniques and medical findings valid in all areas of medicine that suit you it’s ok to disregard them and claim they are not valid in others?

If option 2), then please do explain and provide evidence for your assertion that certain doctors in particular areas of medicine have been fabricating their medical research - that has been peer reviewed and published - and your evidence that supports your assertion that you know better than they do about their own medical specialism.

If option 1), then good luck to you and your family. You’ll have a rather shorter than normal life expectancy.

Also where are you getting these figures from? Are you including HB and UC benefit for children? These aren’t disability benefits. The beneficiaries are landlords and potentially employers. If you work for a decent wage and own your own home your income and expenditure will not fall off a cliff when your DC hit 16/18.

If you are still caring for disabled DC over 16/18 but not employed your income will reduce.

MP expense claims? Your posts get more and more ludicrous. What relevance does this have? It’s a drop in the ocean. If you banned MPs from claiming any expenses at all tomorrow it would not even make 0.01% of difference to the national budget.

No, the poster you refer to was talking about evidence. Not anecdotes. “Personal experiences” are, by definition, anecdotes, not information with any statistical validity or relevance to making evidence-based policy decisions. You seem unable - even though like other things you queried it’s been explained several times just in this one thread - to understand the difference between evidence that actually has any statistical relevance or can be extrapolated and personal experiences/ anecdotes or “opinions” and “beliefs”, that you were so keen to tell me about earlier. Do you genuinely not understand the difference between valid evidence that’s relevant to a discussion on economic policy and one person’s experience/ opinions? I find this mind-boggling given that presumably you went through at least 11 years of education where maths was taught pretty much daily.

It isn’t me that’s “bordering on comical”. I note that you’ve failed to provide a single response with any evidence or even logically consistent argument to refute a single one of my responses to your many bizarre comments.

Yes, it would indeed blow my mind that anyone would be paying you a sufficient amount of money to be a net taxpayer. Some really, really stupid people do become well off by random chance through things like being “influencers”, or doing “Only Fans”, or whatever. So I suppose it is possible. But generally it’s unlikely that people who can’t even understand the difference between opinion and fact or even the basic principles of maths to be a net contributor to tax i.e. earn over £50k (inflation adjusted, as it stands) on average over your entire lifetime, from when you were born until when you die (so generally far more than that during working life to account for the periods when you are a child, or old and not working).

Given your attitude to the topics discussed, your comments earlier about how people “don’t need to know about economics or politics”, expressed disdain for anybody you consider to be “educated”, and your mathematically nonsensical responses (or lack of any) to all of these posts which - as you requested - answered the questions that YOU asked and you offering not one single counter-argument or shred of evidence to support your position at all, I think this latest assertion that you actually pay your way highly dubious.

And if that is true, and you are very comfortable financially, then it’s even more unfathomable why you’d be so up in arms about providing a very small percentage of the tax revenue that those of us who are net contributors pay towards support the severely disabled.

Would add to court time but not affect claimants so why not have non-experts who think they are experts giving evidence to court in tribunal hearings so they can be ripped a new one by real experts and then think twice about spreading malicious lies. Maybe they could even be charged if their claims were found to be baseless?

I also find it hard to believe that she can get away with it, but so she does.

Like I said above, you and others may disbelieve it, but it doesn’t make it less true. This is why I believe it when people say that the assessment process is can be manipulated as I’ve seen it done.

I lived with her for 5 years.

Ok, then you would have seen her be quite ill at points in her life, and is it not an ongoing condition? People are able to claim for conditions that fluctuate. She has gone through the process, which is by no means a walk in the park!

Would you limit the amount of children in a family can be on DLA?

No, but i think the fact so many families claim for 2/3/4 children in itself is a red flag. It used to be unusual to have 1 disabled child, let alone 3.

...how she persuaded the judge to determine what he did, I do not know; I just know that she was able to do it ...

This is why people don't believe you, your tale is full of holes.

It doesn’t matter if you believe me. Your beliefs are entirely independent of the reality of the situation.

I have seen the judgement which declares she cannot walk more than 200 metres. I also have personally walked several miles with this woman on more than one occasion.

It’s not that unusual for families with disabilities to end up claiming UC, CA etc.

Having a disabled child (or adult) to care for is very time consuming, it can be very difficult to work.
Being on carers allowance can be quite trapping, as there’s no phasing to allow you to slowly increase your hours, if you go 50p over the threshold you can lose it, but to make up the £333 a month it is you’d have to find an extra 27 hours a month to make up for it. This is something that should change imo. There should be a sliding scale to allow you to work more hours if and when you can.

If a child is autistic, it’s a genetic thing so not unusual for there to be more autistic children and adults in the family.

Caring for our children and facing the crap we get from gaslighting professionals on top of very challenging situations to manage every day, often means that parents stop being able to cope with other stuff. CPTSD is very common amongst autism parents, and is debilitating. Other chronic illnesses linked to stress are also very common. Perhaps fewer parents would end up chronically ill or severely mentally ill if our children were better supported? Or perhaps there could be efforts made to stop destroying our children in the education system?

You could meet my children (obviously would never happen) and you wouldn’t see their issues. You could meet me and have no inkling that I have severe mental health issues. You are simply not qualified to make the bold statements you keep making about disabled people, so please stop.

Edited to add: addressing your last post - again, autism is genetic. If you have three children and one is autistic, it’s likely the others and at least 1 parent is too. Years ago it was uncommon to see us because the education system wasn’t hurting us quite as much as it is now. Society was slower and less pressured. It could be difficult but it was easier to get by than it is now. Today though, schools are systematically fucking over our children and creating an environment where diagnosis is essential, and our children’s needs appear to be more severe. Maybe there’s an added element of microplastics (basically unavoidable now) and UPFs (can be avoided but when your life is already full to the brim of dealing with stuff that most parents don’t even know exists it can be very difficult to find the time to cook from scratch for every meal, plus there’s the little issue of autism parents having far higher expectations on their parenting than parents with NT children!). As far as I know there isn’t clear research on this. However the genetic link is really bloody obvious when you meet families of autistic children!

What do you suggest we do? The parents are already penalised because they may have to give up work it reduce hours

And again High Rate care/mobility on PIP and LCWRA on Universal Credit are for the most disabled. These are not people who are able on the whole to hide their differences or fabricate them.

Maybe we should give them back 😬
Or hand them out into the “village” and share the joy?

My son was an expert masker during his time at school. He still got high rate DLA with not one word of a lie on the claim form.

Disability is not one obvious easily defined thing. DLA/PIP is awarded on care needs, not how obvious the issue is.

I was asking because my child had cancer which is why he gets DLA. It can happen to anyone's child at any time.

Cancer doesn't care if they already have a child who receives DLA for whatever reason.