Please or to access all these features

Feminism: chat

The Bluestocking Pub, where we continue to read about gerbils nobly and bravely working undercover in the Fen.

1000 replies

AsWithGlad · 20/08/2026 15:44

Welcome to The Bluestocking, the best (perhaps only) online women's pub. Nothing in the food or drink can harm you, everything is served by a very enthusiastic crew of gerbils, who enjoy doing this, and any curious menfolk are welcome at the Staunch Ally down the road.

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5564959-the-bluestocking-womens-pub-in-which-we-wait-excitedly-for-the-next-instalment-of-goseis-adventures

OP posts:
Thread gallery
104
DauntlessDamson · 31/08/2026 21:05

Boiledbeetle · 31/08/2026 20:05

More than likely.

You do realise, don't you, Boily that he will start shedding the pieces in places where you are likely to step on them in bare feet?😧

AngleofRepose · 31/08/2026 21:06

Magpiecomplex · 31/08/2026 18:38

I always want the plural of moose to be meese.

I think "meese" is the plural of mouse. Or is it "meeses?"

AngleofRepose · 31/08/2026 21:08

Boiledbeetle · 31/08/2026 20:04

I know! Annoyingly I actually moved it from where I originally placed it as I figured the cat might be tempted so I moved it to the other side of the room.

He was asleep when I left the room. About 60 seconds later he was awake and had teleported to on top of the Lego.

I may have had a Caramel water or two to console myself.

Clearly, he had been watching you. That's what they do best.

AngleofRepose · 31/08/2026 21:10

EmpressaurusKitty · 31/08/2026 20:34

Probably the most important thing to know is that because it’s very cluttered, they insist on everyone putting whatever they’re carrying into a plastic bag - if you can’t fit everything in the bag they don’t let you in, and there’s no cloakroom.

Good tip, Kitty, thanks!

EdithStourton · 31/08/2026 21:12

MyrtleLion · 31/08/2026 20:55

Except Tommy Lee Jones was exceptional as Gary Gilmore in The Executioner's Song which was an exceptional film TV show. Just a difficult year to be nominated for the The Thornbirds.

Edited

<sulks>

AngleofRepose · 31/08/2026 21:13

DauntlessDamson · 31/08/2026 18:31

I'm clueless, but agog.

My usual state really🤔

I also have no idea where this is heading, but now Gemma Glasswing is involved again, and they're getting close to knowing the password, so I'm gripped! Am worried that the gerbils might be in over their heads (we don't want another kidnapping). And I need to know what kind of sandwiches they're having.

EmpressaurusKitty · 31/08/2026 21:14

AngleofRepose · 31/08/2026 21:06

I think "meese" is the plural of mouse. Or is it "meeses?"

It’s meeses when it needs to rhyme with cheeses.

EmpressaurusKitty · 31/08/2026 21:15

DauntlessDamson · 31/08/2026 21:05

You do realise, don't you, Boily that he will start shedding the pieces in places where you are likely to step on them in bare feet?😧

As long as he doesn’t shed them in Boily’s slippers.

DauntlessDamson · 31/08/2026 21:15

EmpressaurusKitty · 31/08/2026 21:15

As long as he doesn’t shed them in Boily’s slippers.

Ouch!

MyrtleLion · 31/08/2026 21:18

I'm about to be very boring about government regulations, but this refers to the legal test that assessors are requied to carry out on applications for the Personal Independence Payments. I am not a lawyer, though I studied Law at university, and I love reading regulations, Bye-Laws and governing documents. Hopefully you will be able to follow.

The legal test for whether a claimant can carry out ten individual daily activities and two mobility activities is this

Regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 provides that where a claimant's ability to carry out an activity is assessed, they are "to be assessed as satisfying a descriptor only if" they can do so

  • safely,
  • to an acceptable standard,
  • repeatedly, and
  • within a reasonable time period.
These four requirements are colloquially known as the reliability test.

Regulation 4(4), defines the individual terms, aside from acceptable standard as follows:

  • "safely" means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to the Claimant or another person, during or after the activity
  • "repeatedly" means as often as the activity is reasonably required to be completed
  • "reasonable time period" means no more than twice as long as the maximum period a person without the relevant condition would normally take.

For each activity a number of points from 0-8 can be allocated, and the regulations set out how many points are available for subsections of the activity.

For example, activity 10 Making budgeting decisions sets out the points as follows,
a. Can manage complex budgeting decisions unaided. 0
b. Needs prompting or assistance to be able to make complex budgeting decisions. 2
c. Needs prompting or assistance to be able to make simple budgeting decisions. 4
d. Cannot make any budgeting decisions at all. 6

So you would imagine that a decision letter and an assessment report would measure the claimant against the reliability test and would justify why a number of points would be allocated. So if someone could not manage their money, safely, repeatedly, to an acceptable standard and within a reasonable time, the report would mention these things.

I am not going to give details of my DSD's report, but I am going to mention that the following words:

  • "safely,"
  • "acceptable standard,"
  • "reasonable time period"
do not appear at all, across all thirty pages.

repeated does appear once, but in the context of my DSD repeating aspects of her school education.

The word "reliably" appears 14 times, but every single instance is the assessor's own conclusory phrase, for example "should be able to reliably [undertake daily living activity], without any reasoning tied to the four elements of the test.

I want to express my shock, disgust and incredulity that the report has not engaged with the actual legal test at all.

So far I have this sentence in the appeal letter
It appears that neither the assessor nor the decision-maker, actually engaged with the test. If that is the case, then this is shocking.

Except I want a stronger more horrified word for shocking.

All comments welcome, but I won't be going into the details of what else was written or her disability. I am still really fucking furious and I've been working on this appeal for three weeks.

EmpressaurusKitty · 31/08/2026 21:20

Fucking hell, Myrtle. How about horrifying?

AngleofRepose · 31/08/2026 21:20

MyrtleLion · 31/08/2026 21:18

I'm about to be very boring about government regulations, but this refers to the legal test that assessors are requied to carry out on applications for the Personal Independence Payments. I am not a lawyer, though I studied Law at university, and I love reading regulations, Bye-Laws and governing documents. Hopefully you will be able to follow.

The legal test for whether a claimant can carry out ten individual daily activities and two mobility activities is this

Regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 provides that where a claimant's ability to carry out an activity is assessed, they are "to be assessed as satisfying a descriptor only if" they can do so

  • safely,
  • to an acceptable standard,
  • repeatedly, and
  • within a reasonable time period.
These four requirements are colloquially known as the reliability test.

Regulation 4(4), defines the individual terms, aside from acceptable standard as follows:

  • "safely" means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to the Claimant or another person, during or after the activity
  • "repeatedly" means as often as the activity is reasonably required to be completed
  • "reasonable time period" means no more than twice as long as the maximum period a person without the relevant condition would normally take.

For each activity a number of points from 0-8 can be allocated, and the regulations set out how many points are available for subsections of the activity.

For example, activity 10 Making budgeting decisions sets out the points as follows,
a. Can manage complex budgeting decisions unaided. 0
b. Needs prompting or assistance to be able to make complex budgeting decisions. 2
c. Needs prompting or assistance to be able to make simple budgeting decisions. 4
d. Cannot make any budgeting decisions at all. 6

So you would imagine that a decision letter and an assessment report would measure the claimant against the reliability test and would justify why a number of points would be allocated. So if someone could not manage their money, safely, repeatedly, to an acceptable standard and within a reasonable time, the report would mention these things.

I am not going to give details of my DSD's report, but I am going to mention that the following words:

  • "safely,"
  • "acceptable standard,"
  • "reasonable time period"
do not appear at all, across all thirty pages.

repeated does appear once, but in the context of my DSD repeating aspects of her school education.

The word "reliably" appears 14 times, but every single instance is the assessor's own conclusory phrase, for example "should be able to reliably [undertake daily living activity], without any reasoning tied to the four elements of the test.

I want to express my shock, disgust and incredulity that the report has not engaged with the actual legal test at all.

So far I have this sentence in the appeal letter
It appears that neither the assessor nor the decision-maker, actually engaged with the test. If that is the case, then this is shocking.

Except I want a stronger more horrified word for shocking.

All comments welcome, but I won't be going into the details of what else was written or her disability. I am still really fucking furious and I've been working on this appeal for three weeks.

Except I want a stronger more horrified word for shocking.

Reprehensible. Unprofessional. Negligent.

EmpressaurusKitty · 31/08/2026 21:20

Atrocious.

Swashbuckled · 31/08/2026 21:26

I like “astonishing” @MyrtleLion
I think it can often be placed very nicely.

MyrtleLion · 31/08/2026 21:31

Thank you, and do keep them coming.

Some of the "she can do x, so she should be able to reliably do y" statements are relying on things that are not even mentioned in the regulations. Not this, but as a pretend example: she can wash her hands, so she should be able to reliably make budgeting decisions.

Magpiecomplex · 31/08/2026 21:31

Swashbuckled · 31/08/2026 21:26

I like “astonishing” @MyrtleLion
I think it can often be placed very nicely.

Astonishing is good. Angle has some good words too. Possibly "astonishing, and unprofessional".

Boiledbeetle · 31/08/2026 21:38

I'm watching a Dolly Parton interview from 1977.

I think it's safe to say she got her wish!

And I have realised whilst watching Dolly interviews that I've never watched Steel Magnolias.

The Bluestocking Pub, where we continue to read about gerbils nobly and bravely working undercover in the Fen.
The Bluestocking Pub, where we continue to read about gerbils nobly and bravely working undercover in the Fen.
MyrtleLion · 31/08/2026 21:38

None of Regulation 4(2A)'s four elements of the reliability test are named or addressed individually anywhere in the PA4 or the decision letter. It appears that neither the assessor nor the decision-maker actually applied the legal test at all. If that is indeed the case, then this is an atrocious example of negligent and unprofessional conduct. In fact, we would go so far as to say it is reprehensible.

this is a draft so far. I'm trying to get them all in.

Boiledbeetle · 31/08/2026 21:40

DauntlessDamson · 31/08/2026 21:05

You do realise, don't you, Boily that he will start shedding the pieces in places where you are likely to step on them in bare feet?😧

Thankfully they are that sodding small it will just feel like a tiny bit of grit.

Boiledbeetle · 31/08/2026 21:53

MyrtleLion · 31/08/2026 21:18

I'm about to be very boring about government regulations, but this refers to the legal test that assessors are requied to carry out on applications for the Personal Independence Payments. I am not a lawyer, though I studied Law at university, and I love reading regulations, Bye-Laws and governing documents. Hopefully you will be able to follow.

The legal test for whether a claimant can carry out ten individual daily activities and two mobility activities is this

Regulation 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 provides that where a claimant's ability to carry out an activity is assessed, they are "to be assessed as satisfying a descriptor only if" they can do so

  • safely,
  • to an acceptable standard,
  • repeatedly, and
  • within a reasonable time period.
These four requirements are colloquially known as the reliability test.

Regulation 4(4), defines the individual terms, aside from acceptable standard as follows:

  • "safely" means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to the Claimant or another person, during or after the activity
  • "repeatedly" means as often as the activity is reasonably required to be completed
  • "reasonable time period" means no more than twice as long as the maximum period a person without the relevant condition would normally take.

For each activity a number of points from 0-8 can be allocated, and the regulations set out how many points are available for subsections of the activity.

For example, activity 10 Making budgeting decisions sets out the points as follows,
a. Can manage complex budgeting decisions unaided. 0
b. Needs prompting or assistance to be able to make complex budgeting decisions. 2
c. Needs prompting or assistance to be able to make simple budgeting decisions. 4
d. Cannot make any budgeting decisions at all. 6

So you would imagine that a decision letter and an assessment report would measure the claimant against the reliability test and would justify why a number of points would be allocated. So if someone could not manage their money, safely, repeatedly, to an acceptable standard and within a reasonable time, the report would mention these things.

I am not going to give details of my DSD's report, but I am going to mention that the following words:

  • "safely,"
  • "acceptable standard,"
  • "reasonable time period"
do not appear at all, across all thirty pages.

repeated does appear once, but in the context of my DSD repeating aspects of her school education.

The word "reliably" appears 14 times, but every single instance is the assessor's own conclusory phrase, for example "should be able to reliably [undertake daily living activity], without any reasoning tied to the four elements of the test.

I want to express my shock, disgust and incredulity that the report has not engaged with the actual legal test at all.

So far I have this sentence in the appeal letter
It appears that neither the assessor nor the decision-maker, actually engaged with the test. If that is the case, then this is shocking.

Except I want a stronger more horrified word for shocking.

All comments welcome, but I won't be going into the details of what else was written or her disability. I am still really fucking furious and I've been working on this appeal for three weeks.

One should always answer PIP questions (if applicable) with "No. I cannot safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly, and within a reasonable time period carry out the task specified."

Of course they ignore it it and reasons with "I am of the opinion Boiled can repeatedly carry out x as I saw her do y" despite the fact y never happened and was not performed in front of the assessor.

I remember getting my first assessor response many years ago and honestly I thought for a good while I was reading about a different person and thought the assessor had mixed me up with someone else.

Honestly @MyrtleLion ( I'm assuming this is for the mandatory review stage) I'd just assume the mandatory review is not going to get you anywhere and accept it as a necessary but ultimately pointless step in the journey to the tribunal.

The tribunal for DLA/PIP/ESA thankfully have panels and judges that aren't getting paid to deny claims. Save your energy for that.

EdithStourton · 31/08/2026 21:56

Appalling?

What sort of joker wrote the report?

WearyAuldWumman · 31/08/2026 21:58

AngleofRepose · 31/08/2026 21:20

Except I want a stronger more horrified word for shocking.

Reprehensible. Unprofessional. Negligent.

How about "appallingly unprofessional and negligent"?

Thehorticulturalhussie · 31/08/2026 21:59

MyrtleLion · 31/08/2026 21:38

None of Regulation 4(2A)'s four elements of the reliability test are named or addressed individually anywhere in the PA4 or the decision letter. It appears that neither the assessor nor the decision-maker actually applied the legal test at all. If that is indeed the case, then this is an atrocious example of negligent and unprofessional conduct. In fact, we would go so far as to say it is reprehensible.

this is a draft so far. I'm trying to get them all in.

Inexplicable? Incomprehensible? Appalling?
All preceded by Frankly.
So sorry Myrtle that this is happening.

ErrolTheDragon · 31/08/2026 22:00

I know nothing about this sort of thing but it seems ‘astonishingly unprofessional’ to me.

ErrolTheDragon · 31/08/2026 22:04

My Richard Armitage/Chamberlin revelation was Rock Hudson, but that was tragic because it only became publicly known that he was gay due to him being an early victim of AIDs. He’d been one of my ‘Sunday afternoon film’ crushes.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.