To think benefits need to be cut to fund increased spending on defence

[Viviennemary]

This is absolutely necessary. Keir Starmer shouldnt have backed down the last time. But now with the current situation with Russia drastic steps need to be taken. We simply can't afford to sustain the current benefits bill with the armed forces so depleted. The money is needed to increase defence.

When have i said dla/ pip are related to work ability- i haven't never mind using it as a yardstick. However the thread is discussing benefits, it's in the title so keeping the discussion on that seems appropriate.

You realise you've just accused me of "wrong thinking" are you really trying to stop me having an opinion because you don't agree with it? They have words for that....

I have empathy for the young man you supported but wouldn't that come under being so disabled he can't work and in agreement with what I wrote?

You seem to be trying to virtue signal by mis representing my posts.

Why are you making assumptions about me when I haven't given any details about my life? You have absolutely no idea what my life consists of. The poster did divulge information on a public forum. They are able to work and have overcome a lot of disability, why is it unfactual to say that there are other people that are more disabled? Bloody hell even the dwp have levels of disability benefit awarded because not everyone with a disability is equally disabled!

So along with the wrong think do you now want to sensor everyone who disagrees with you too?...

Yes, that's a good assumption but if you wanna try the debate idea it means not using insults as retorts and actually thinking about others ideas.

Buckingham Palace is only open to visitors from early July to late September, so wouldn’t be expected to have the same amount of visitors as attractions open most days year round. Windsor Castle also has a limited availability for visitors.

No, not at all. But fraud and error in the disability benefits system is very low. And abolishing an element of a benefit for genuine claimants is not the way to tackle the fraud that does exist. Having worked within the PIP system it’s been my experience to date that PIP actually works the other way - rather than waving through spurious claims as seems to be the MN opinion, it actually prevents genuine claimants from getting the award they are entitled to. As evidenced by the 65-70% success rates where cases are brought to tribunal. Something is clearly wrong and it suggests that in many cases assessors are not qualified to judge the conditions they’re being asked to look at, because actual doctors and social care experts who make up PIP and child DLA panels tend to disagree with them at a very high rate. Which is massively unfair to the claimant.

And you haven’t hit a nerve with your comment about care in the community. Because it’s nitpicking. I was referring to the closing of the institutions which routinely housed disabled people up to the 1960s and 70’s simply because they were disabled. The people who are ‘institutionalised’ these days are mainly autistic people, those with learning disabilities and mental health conditions. Some are inpatients in mental health hospitals or assessment/treatment units, but the difference is that the average stay is five years, not whole lives as used to be the case. Many are detained simply because there is a lack of suitable community housing and social care available to support them. Many also enter the prison system because their needs are not recognised until they commit a crime - even then they tend to stay in prison because of the state of MH services generally in the UK.

As for the SEND reforms I broadly agree with the intended aim of focusing on support in mainstream schools because more children will be reached. The reception from disability charities has been mixed - welcoming increased support in mainstream education but pointing out that as with everything, the devil is in the details. Much of the debate is focused on structure and efficiency, but there needs to be more attention paid to the children who fall through the net - those whose needs aren’t recognised until they’re in crisis. More early diagnosis and less labelling of kids as defiant or disruptive will hopefully lead to earlier appropriate support and better outcomes.

That was particularly jaw-dropping, I must admit...

You seem to regard anyone who doesn’t agree with you as being insulting. Why is that ?

Really baffling how people want to take from the poorest in Britain to buy bombs to kill poor people overseas.

Means test the state pension (because overall pensioners are the richest generation in British history), pledge to buy defensive capabilities only, no global power projection, declare political neutrality, and do not join foreign wars. Ever.

And get rid of Trident.

Yes and St James Palace does not seem to open to visitors much at all. My point is that the revenue generated by the actual Royals seems over-emphasised. There must be great savings to be had. Maybe cut down on some of the processions with them in open carriages, they don't look that comfortable doing this anyway?

The worst thing is the secrecy. Unlike the public the wills are kept in secret. Charles did not pay any inheritance tax on his mother's estate. The Met does not disclose the cost to the taxpayer of the security bill for the Royals. The Andrew/Epstein emails have been known by the Palace for six years, etc....

Nobody, not even the DWP would presume to tell a disabled person that they are lucky not to be more disabled than they are, or to remember that there are people worse off than themselves. I’m disabled myself and I wouldn’t even think of presuming that someone else’s’ disability is any of my business. Or comparing them to other disabled people. It’s not disability top trumps and it’s just another example of your jaw dropping insensitivity.

They are still institutionalised through lack of funding or community care. Five years may seem minor to you but it's five years that someone is detained/ dol without doing anything wrong. These people aren't an accceptable minority and shouldn't be an after thought. We cannot describe all disabled care as being in the community while people are kept in ATU's and hospitalised for this reason this isn't nitpicking, it's a national scandal. It's rather gearing that for someone who seems to be an advocate for all disabled you minimise their confinement.

You acknowledge that fraud does exist but chastise me for saying it. Removing the lower rates is what i've wrote as preferable (in my opinion) if benefits are reformed so that those with higher rates retain theirs.

The only disabled charity i've seem say anything near palitable about the send reforms is contact a family. The devil in the detail is removal of legal rights and the move to put the majority in mainstream with set provision rather than provision to meet need. I don't believe it's going to be as helpful as you clearly feel it will be. If anything there will be more "units" in mainstream to babysit rather than educate. I am genuinely surprised at your support for this given how much you've said you've worked with cwd families.

No but this poster has repeatedly.

Means testing the state pension would necessitate taking it out of the NI system. You can’t ask people to pay into state pension provision all their lives if there’s little chance they can claim it at the end.

And yet you were the one who was deleted.

I don't have a problem at all if some disabled people receive more money in benefits than some healthy working people. You are not taking into account the effect of disability on someone's life at all when you talk about standard of living. Not only does being disabled often cost more but it also effects quality of life.

I didn't say they were lucky tho? You won't be able to quote that as i didn't write it. That is you mis quoting and misrepresenting what i did write for your narritive.

This is the exact quote of what i wrote "why do you find it insulting that somebody may be in a worse position than you are and not able to work at all? Ofcourse there are people who are more disabled than you are, that isn't an insult, it's factual."

At no point did I say they were lucky. That poster used the word lucky in regards to her graduate education.

That is just factual. If somebody is having a discussion about disability are we just to pretend that everyone is equally as disabled?

No i wasn't they were, my post in reply still stands. You may want to check that.

Disability benefits are not awarded on the basis of a fit note, because they have absolutely nothing to do with the ability to work - they are there to support the extra cost of disability. And the claimants already are examined by state approved health professionals, they are very definitely not decided by a GP.

But i can hold that view. It's mine to hold, i'm allowed. You're allowed your view too.

I believe everyone should have a basic standard of living. I've said that repeatedly but full time work should give a better standard of living than full time benefits. That's my view, i won't apologise for that.

Im confused why my comment saying maybe you should get a job rather then spending all day everyday on here telling disabled people to get a full time job but your reply of calling me an arse wasn't deleted I'd love this explaining @mumsnet

My reply has now beem deleted too as expected.

So it should be don't namecall I've not once called you a name or sworn at you on this whole thread. The only thing i said that was for some reason has been deleted is instead of telling disabled people to get a job maybe you should get one is that not a fair point since you have said it repeatedly on this thread for 3 days

'disability' isn't a fixed thing, is it? People with disabilities may experience better, really good, good, not so good, awful, unbelievably bad periods in their lives in relation to the condition or issue they have. People with the same condition will experience it in very different ways. You cannot - nor should you - suggest that one condition is somehow less awful than another or because Person X works 50 hour weeks, Person Y should also.

No i haven't said that at all. I wrote that you clearly have skills which are transferable and could be used to wfh.

You were being facetious telling me to get a job because i'd been on mumsnet. You have been insulting repeatedly which i've repeatedly called out.

That isn't what i've said but if it was you have no right to tell me what to do.

Discussion around benefits especially disability benefits is difficult to have if we all have to pretend every disability is the same and nobody is more disabled than anyone else.

The fact that i've acknowledged that some people will never ever be able to work and are severely disabled all the time isn't a bad thing. There are people who are profoundly disabled and should recieve more support than others because they need it.