I agree with the benefit cuts for promoting

[Canaryhead]

I am on disability and universal credit and I don’t work (which will change when I get the support to some part time work, and I have been in contact with a disability charity). I get points for a physical disability and a cognitive disability. I do have severe mental health issues which I am working on but I don’t claim for it.
So I can see that currently you can score 2 points across a number of categories for needing prompting. And I can see how that relates to mental health, and if you score enough you would then get the full amount of the care component, with the full mobility component if you say you need to have someone with you for your mental health condition (I agree they need someone with them but they shouldn’t be able to use that money to pay for a mobility car in my opinion if they aren’t physically or cognitively disabled) For neurodivergence you would get more than two points as it comes with executive functioning difficulties that have an impact for the majority of the time, harm to yourself and others, so you could argue you're needing supervision and things take longer like for example in processing and tiredness.
if a family and their children are claiming full pip and DLA and associated benefits because they need prompting to do tasks (sorry if I’ve got this wrong and it’s not possible) and are getting thousands for it all combined then I agree that’s so wrong and needs to stop. And I could also see how that allows the family to spend that money on lots of nice things.
people with more expensive disabilities are getting the same rates with more significant costs. I have had to make do with two pairs of leggings from the factory shop that have split apart at the seams and can’t be repaired because of the quality, and I have just been gifted money to buy better quality leggings.
If I am wrong about how I feel towards those that are on full pip for needing prompting, I wouldn’t mind being corrected

Well if that is true , and personally I have not seen it then I am sorry for it. I take your point. We should be challenging discrimination on all fronts. I am sorry if my wording caused offence to you.

Speaking to someone like this when they have a cognitive disability is embarrassing… for you.

It is true, and widespread on here, and in the media. Now the focus is definitely on disabled people, as there is an agenda to rile up the general public, into believing that they are having an easy time on taxpayers money. It works, so by the time that the Government makes it public that they are going to do such, and such to benefits affecting disabled people, the majority of the public are already on board with that, and then it is left to mostly disabled people to have to fight their corner. It is insidious, and dangerous. I agree we should all be challenging discrimination.

yes I totally agree with you. It is the manipulation of public opinion that is so scary whomever they are targeting.
And call me a conspiracy theorist but I think the push for assisted dying alongside is extremely chilling.

I have read about some people having legitimate fears about what this assisted dying could lead to. Yes it is a worrying time for a lot of people right now. I believe we are witnessing a rise of something totally undesirable towards some people. We should not get to that stage again where it is deemed acceptable to loudly proclaim that people are useless, and allowed to be so demonised.

I have just reported this post. How utterly awful of you to speak to OP in such a vile manner after she acknowledges she was wrong. OP has disclosed a cognitive disability, whereas you have disclosed, well I can’t say or I will get banned. But please, do think about what you say to people, your comment is nothing short of nasty.

Msmoonpie, you are going to end up with a ban.

I am pretty confused by OP, tbh. Having looked at her other threads, this is not the first thread she has started to attack other disabled people. Yet she herself is on the gvt's hit list as she is only 19, I think.

Quite🤔

You may not approve, but disabled people are allowed to have a variety of opinions too. Not everyone agrees on how to administer the benefits system.

Absolutely. But those opinions can be challenged as has happened on this thread.

I can tell you what one of them said, roughly, because it was mine. It was not abusive in the slightest, it merely pondered about some of the OP's language use and whether that had some bearing on the posts content. Since I don't want to get banned I won't repeat it. But there was no abuse and I have seen no abuse whatsoever towards the OP (and have read every post from the first one). Some people might not like robust challenges to the OP's views, but nobody has abused them; and as you say, the OP chose to come on here, to make some nasty observations about people that she did not consider disabled enough to deserve support, and continually repeated those comments even when told how offensive they were. If the OP chose to continue to make offensive comments then neither the OP, nor anybody else, is in a position to complain if the responses are "robust".

Yes, I’m fine with that too! But I think the post I quoted in my post above goes beyond just challenging (as did some of that poster’s other responses, which were deleted by MNHQ).

People are fine with OP being challenged. Indeed, I am someone sticking up for OP, and I don’t even agree with her original point! But she very obviously has been abused multiple times; I can assure you HQ does not rush to act on ableist posts such as the ones that have been deleted in this thread. They have to reach a high threshold of abuse to be deleted. Those that, for instance, bullied her over her quality of writing despite her disclosed cognitive disability were unequivocally abusive, and if that had been directed at a poster you agreed with, you’d have said the same. It’s so disingenuous to pretend that that kind of response is okay.

@Msmoonpie
“The posts were deliberate to offend.”
no, that wasn’t my intention but was your interpretation
”Someone who did no research whatsoever”
I didn’t look at the green paper. I have only seen a few videos on YouTube and agreed with the removal of the prompting criteria. So no I didn’t go and do research it but this thread was to gather information and I didn’t think of my opinion out of my own head either.
“opining at length about why disabled people do not deserve their benefits”
That is a broad statement. I was specifically referring to a particular kind of person that may or may not exist who is currently being portrayed on the media as taking advantage of the system. I wasn’t referring to people with disabilities, but the people (who are portrayed on the media) who exaggerate their symptoms for full benefits and or get pip for saying they need encouraging to do something cos they feel a bit anxious with no other accompanying information.
my last comment was to acknowledge that people’s issues are being downplayed in the media and that the person they portray most likely doesn’t exist. so I was also acknowledging why my posts came across as inflammatory.
Its funny so many of these type of threats start with “I’m disabled BUT”.
I am disabled

I find it telling that the only posts being deleted on this thread are from other disabled people… 😕

The only posts being deleted are those viciously attacking the OP.

I am glad you are back OP as I want to square a cpuple of things with you.

Do you think the gvt is right to remove benefits from people like yourself who are under 22?

Also, why are you so fixated with removing the prompting criteria? That is not even in the government's proposals, so it is a moot point.

Where did I say that such a post was ok? And posts are deleted for reasons which have nothing at all to do with abuse - mine contained no such comment and no abuse whatsoever. You are being disingenuous yourself, since you couldn't have read the post. In fact it was me (possibly others, but definitely me) who asked moderators to consider the nature of the posts, and they have found no abuse in the vast majority of the posts - including the OP's posts which I still find pretty offensive. So if they are satisfied as to the debate, then your opinion is hardly relevant to the matter, is it?

The only posts being deleted are those viciously attacking the OP.
That is untrue. Totally untrue. I will not speak for anyone else but I did not attack the OP, viciously or otherwise. If you do not know what those posts say, then do not deem to comment on other peoples postys or intent.

I read all the posts on the thread and was at least one of the people who reported the deleted posts. You are simply incorrect. I reported them either as “personal attack” or under the free form field with details about why the attack was egregious. MNHQ has deleted several attacks on OP.

you can claim they weren’t attacks, but MNHQ has a generally poor record on defending disabled posters so the fact they deleted these posts in itself shows how awful they were.

I have OCD. I need prompting to eat and to take medication because I'm so frightened of food hurting me, or taking the wrong dosage, combination etc, so my husband literally has to sit there every night to make sure I take my meds and swallow them. I won't eat or shower unless my husband or another trusted adult is with me because I'm convinced i'm going to choke/have a reaction/poison myself/slip over and die, despite having no mobility issues or allergies.

I don't think you realise how debilitating that is. It means my husband has to choose his jobs very carefully so that he's around as much as possible.

“I don't think you realise how debilitating that is.”
No I do realise that

I repeat - I did not attack the OP and if you say you read any such post from me that was deleted then that is a lie. You are being disingenuous keep repeating this lie when you know that people cannot repeat the deleted comment without risking a ban. If you continue to attack me for something which I did not do then I will be reporting you to MNHQ. I made no attack on the OP. Full stop.

I find it telling that the OP has posted many times saying how the threat of cutting her benefits is making her physically and mentally sick, and has received support and sympathy from others with disabilities, then chooses to attack other people with disabilities.

I am sorry that, as it transpires, she will be one of the people likely to lose their support; but I did point out very early on that in attacking one set of people with disabilities it becomes a slippery slope .... unfortunately the OP was already on that slope, which makes it even more disturbing that she chose this approach. The narrative that "too many young people" are "choosing disability" rather than working is exactly the same type of narrative that she employed about others - as if anyone chooses a disability.