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 you said

“Such as autism which is why i said the system needs to cgange so that it better reflects conditions like autism rather than being physical based.
"“The system does need to be changed regardless of any benefit reform as it doesn't adequately provide descriptors for those with conditions such as autism””

Then you can argue that if it ever happens.

Unlikely as if there are any changes those making decisions will have better understanding of the system than you and not come up with such a ludicrous suggestion.

You can write all of that and it's taken into account. The descriptors only apply if they can do the activity safely, to the required standard, as often as necessary, and in a reasonable time frame (at least half as quickly as a non-disabled person).

At this point i'm beginning to think you'd argue the reverse of anything i write just for the sake of it.

Do you honestly believe that the pip descriptors assess the needs and requirements of those with conditions such as autism fairly and on a par with those conditions which are physical and reflect the descriptors used?

I find it amusing that i've gone from being called an autism basher to it being implied i'm too soft on autism.

Pip is allocated for support needs not diagnoses. If you have support needs they should be easy to prove and no harder for autism than anything else.

In very many cases family and friends are best placed to know about and comment on the impact of a disability. Especially if they are the carer for that person. They would have first hand information directly relevant to the assessment.

They are around the person a lot more often than the claimants’ health professionals and have the opportunity to observe the impacts and difficulties that health care professionals don’t see as the norm. For example l can’t recall my GP ever seeing me get on and off the toilet or in and out of the bath, feeding myself or assessing how far l can walk.

The nature of the assessment calls for as much information about the impact of a condition as possible. If a relative or friend can attest to that, why should their opinion not count. Yes it’s open to exaggeration but the basic premise of any benefit award is that the claimant has a right to be believed in the absence of contradictory evidence. You clearly don’t share that view and believe that genuine claimants should be denied the opportunity to present this kind of evidence, because some not so genuine claimants may lie. I don’t share that view thankfully.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/people-autism-spectrum-conditions-are-unfairly-treated-pip-claims

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46024961

https://publiclawproject.org.uk/latest/pip-discrimination-challenge-reaches-the-high-court/

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/82914/html/

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/invisible-disabilities-and-pip-assessments/ar-AA1MbAro?ocid=hpmsn&apiversion=v2&domshim=1&noservercache=1&noservertelemetry=1&batchservertelemetry=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1

Autism itself makes the application morw difficult especially as many can do the descriptors and answer as such. It doesnt reflect what they may need to complete the action.

You’re making zero sense. Half the time you’re saying you want PIP made more stringent with only those eligible for enhanced pip getting it and then you say you want it made easier so more people with autism can qualify.

It leaves the system open to abuse. It should be air tight to avoid abuse and claims of abuse. As you say there should be an abundance of evidence, why would this as extra be required?

The rate of fraud for PIP is less than 1%.

Again you make no sense. You say you want autistic people better catered for as they’re unable to advocate for themselves but now you don’t want carer logs or documentation. 😳

I have twenty years experience in disability support, including in an advisory capacity for benefits. I’ve worked within the PIP system since its introduction thirteen years ago and served in a minor capacity on the steering committee advising and consulting on the design of the descriptors. I’ve supported numerous claimants at tribunal which requires a working knowledge of the application of the law regarding disability benefits. Do you not think l might actually know what I’m talking about ?

Myself and other posters have proved you wrong on many of your statements about disability and the supporting benefits for it. I’ve quoted you acts of law and other evidence to support what I’m saying. Why ? Because this is a public forum and people come here to look for information, so l believe it should be accurate.

I didn’t say you were an autism basher or too soft on it. I actually agreed with you in that the PIP assessment for it could be improved. But l was talking about the area of assessment of those without formal diagnoses and so little supporting evidence - the assessment could probe a bit more and provide additional descriptors. But in general there is a very high bar for stand alone conditions which are not based in physical disability, and rightly or wrongly l believe that’s as it should be given the cost of the benefit to the tax payer.

No, i've said if* it came down to it and benefits were cut (which i believe will happen in some form or another and especially when labour lose power) that i would want those with the most needs/ severe disabilities to still be supported. I've repeated this over and over. Severly disabled those with profound disabilities would be easy targets, can you imagine whats comming if reform get in to people who cant advocate for themselves or argue like this on the internet? What hope will they have? Some people who are severly disabled are already locked up because care in the community costs so much- this has been discissed on this thread

For purely admin reasons as i can't see the tories or reform bringing a new system in i would like those who get enhanced/ higher rate still get it. There is a big difference to what you assert i'm saying. Removing the standard levels would be relatively easy from an admin process given the points are already calculated.

I have said i think benefits (all benefits need to be looked at, i inc pensions, social housing, education- i know its not a benefit among others) the thread isnt just about disability (ive wrote that a lot). The country cannot go on like this, it is a choice what we spend money on and other services are being cut. I (personally) would like other areas to have their funding increased.

You have been what appears militant at trying to jump on anything i put to the extent that you thought i was "autism bashing" when i was doing the reverse, you've made assumptions about me which you can't support and have been facetious. I think my replies to you have been quite tame tbh and there have been points where ive wanted to be much ruder. You do appear to want to take objection to everything i write. You did actually at one point say i told another poster to get a job because they could type when i did no such thing.

You are making no sense!!!!

And are ignoring the same points and corrections of inaccuracies made to you by several posters.

There is no way to reliably qualify that figure.

Is that because it does not fit your narrative?

You either haven’t read or haven’t understood what I’ve posted here - there are good reasons for gathering evidence from those who spend time around claimants. Why are you asking me why extra evidence in the form of social statements from friends/family/carers are accepted when l’ve provided comprehensive and officially recognised reasons as to why they they are ? I’m not repeating myself - all the information you asked for is there.

You need to understand that not every benefit claimant is a fraudster and not everyone outside of the professionals who provides a support statement is a liar. Genuine claimants shouldn’t be denied the opportunity to present valuable and relevant information from those who know them best, alongside robust medical evidence to support their claim, just because some not so genuine claimants tell lies. If the medical evidence doesn’t support the social statement, then the assessors will see it for what it is. You can’t legislate for everything.

Yes, it would stop the claims of benefits for those that are a bit quirky, not really disabled etc (this does get said).

Do you not believe parents submit sleep diaries that arent fully accurate to prove night time needs? Come on, i've known people openly discuss this for childs dla. Proof of referal to sleep clinic, use of a sleep charity, sleep med prescription, social care assessment are miles better than mum says x wakes for so many mins each night on so many occasions.

Do you not believe some people claim prompting more than they really need? Etc

That isn't to say some people do wake up or do need prompting its just not hard to claim when they dont.

Ive also wrote that i think carers allowance should be massively increased for those that can prove that they do the required caring. Do you not believe that some people dont do the amount of hours required but still claim?

The figures are from the DWP themselves. Given the pressing need to reduce the benefits bill, l would have thought any inaccuracy would tend towards the higher end to support cuts, rather than the lower.

The overall rate of fraud specifically in disability benefits is relatively low, with official figures showing that disability related overpayments mostly stem from claimant error rather than deliberate fraud. The overall overpayment rate for PIP sits at 2.3%, but the rate of deliberate fraud remains at less than one percent of this, with the vast majority of overpayments caused by honest claimant errors such as failing to report changes in health or care needs, and the DWP’s own admin errors.

Not my experience. At all. In twenty years of disability support.

No, i accepted that the standard rate was partially used as a fall back, ive ignored comments that have replied to my opinions with lists of rates and repeated statements of there are two components to pip. - im aware of that.

Many of these replies have been about removing the standard/ lower rates of pip but the replies and comments have ignored that ive said if it comes to it.....and that id want the most vulnerable and the most servely disabled supported regardless. There are genuinely some people who are just too disabled to work, to advocate, to make claims on their own behalf etc if it is a choice between them losing out or all disability claiments losing out, i would rather its those that do have some skills, that can work part time or a few hours- that is better than nothing. Ive said this repeatedly infact i had too because another poster was aaying i was telling them to get a job (in a similar way to what you did to me!)

But the sleep diary without actual medical evidence such as sleep clinic, sleep meds etc would be discounted anyway. Alongside medical evidence, it could be useful.

How would you suggest carers prove that they do the required caring?

And do you think that those parents with children who have severe sleep issues don’t have other evidence?

Again you’re ignoring the fact you’re making no sense. One minute you want the system made easier for autistic people and the next harder cutting b off many who will have more points than those you think should keep it. It’s as if you want it honed to what would suit you.

You’re going to consistently ignore this and the points many posters are pulling you up on. I as an autistic person with autistic children to care for and work in the morning need some sleep. Not going to keep repeating the same thing over and again for you to just ignore repeatedly whilst posting the same posts that makes zero sense.