OT Assessment for Blue Badge

bifold

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

We have discussed this before, no one can see your photo for the reasons I've given. If they could we would have to have a collection here on MSE to pay your fine for you

Yes we have discussed this before,I dont have a photo so no chance of a fine:rotfl:
Yes I have red skin and tumours on my face,Yes I know you would rather turn me into a freak show and open to ridicule and force me to be photographed ,but your not in charge.

Richie-from-the-Boro

bifold wrote: »

Yes we have discussed this before,I don't have a photo so no chance of a fine:rotfl:
Yes I have red skin and tumours on my face,Yes I know you would rather turn me into a freak show and open to ridicule and force me to be photographed ,but your not in charge.

Have you misunderstood ? - see #47 no one would be able to see your photo my friend .. .. its illegal to display your photo if you had one, so not having one was a pointless endeavour as no one would have been able to see it anyway.

You also said in relation to BB's :

""" Its a good thing they are being replaced,because they would be easy item to copy for a old style jobbing printer """

""" My badge was filled in by hand using a black felt pen"""

""" Thats why I am exempt a photo, and yes I am in a minority colourwise . And to have a photo on display to all whilst parked at the supermarket do I want my house to be targeted whilst shopping? or mugged because I am a easy target? ""

Anubis_2

bifold wrote: »

Cancer patients are exampt photos,Its a chemo/hair thing,should the patient photo have real hair,no hair,hat or wig?
As a cancer patient I would be happy to have a yearly BB which would cut down on the number of badges being misused.

Do you have a link where it states the specifically? All I can find is that exemptions from photograps are very rare, even for those with facial disfigurement?

There is a genuine reason why I ask.

http://www2.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/259428/281009/laguidance.pdf

Look at 2.6 photograps.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

I'm not having a pop at you, but you said the taxpayer did not pay and argued for Council discretionary criteria.

I'm saying the taxpayer does pay and the council(s) discretionary criteria is largely (1) responsible for the wholesale fraud and the (2) way the press and chav abusers target the disabled and (3) the reason the politicians and treasury are able politically to get away with coming down on BB users with a great clunking fist.

Yes but your weblink says sharing the badge is the main reason for misuse. The badges can be shared with others whether issued discretionary or via DLA auto right. I expect if the councils toughen up on discretionary issue there will be an influx of probably sucessful DLA claims putting up the taxpayer bill too not to mention the cost to the public purse of tribunals for those deemed not entitled to HRM DLA

formaldehyde_perfume

sunnyone wrote: »

the diffrence between high and low rate mobility FP,is that low rate has nothing at all to do with walking but is for supervision only and normally its given to people with MH problems etc. who need someone with them when they are outside.

I don't know about supervision, but dislocating a joint such as a knee cap in public and thus probably causing a fall would need some assistance from a carer who is aware of how to physically handle a person with EDS, and which joints in particular are at risk when helping the person up from a fall. There is also the issue of severe pain, whether standing, sitting or laying, which can cause a lack of concentration and lead to dangerous situations. On the rare occasion that I do walk, I am concentrating so hard on keeping my legs pointing the right way and maintaining my balance that I have walked in to a road without realising a car was coming and have almost been hit...

..... I was going to write more but I am far too ill to think right now, I may edit this later on as I did have a point but my mind has gone foggy.

dafyguy

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Yes but your weblink says sharing the badge is the main reason for misuse. The badges can be shared with others whether issued discretionary or via DLA auto right. I expect if the councils toughen up on discretionary issue there will be an influx of probably sucessful DLA claims putting up the taxpayer bill too not to mention the cost to the public purse of tribunals for those deemed not entitled to HRM DLA

I would go one step further and say that a badge should only be given if you actually receive high mobility DLA. Unless you are over 65.

Then we lose DLA and gain PIP, then let us see how many 'real' claimants there are that can actually qualify for a badge under those anticipated harsher tests?
That should give the public the knowledge that those who qualify under PIP are the real genuine cases.

Anubis_2

dafyguy wrote: »

I would go one step further and say that a badge should only be given if you actually receive high mobility DLA. Unless you are over 65.

Then we lose DLA and gain PIP, then let us see how many 'real' claimants there are that can actually qualify for a badge under those anticipated harsher tests?
That should give the public the knowledge that those who qualify under PIP are the real genuine cases.

I don't think PIP will mean that every genuine user is awarded, or awarded correctly. There are genuine people now falling through the DLA net, and with PIP having a more astringent qualifier, if what media leads us to believe, I think more will slip through the net. Swings and roundabouts really.

bifold

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Have you misunderstood ? - see #47 no one would be able to see your photo my friend .. .. its illegal to display your photo if you had one, so not having one was a pointless endeavour as no one would have been able to see it anyway.

You also said in relation to BB's :

""" Its a good thing they are being replaced,because they would be easy item to copy for a old style jobbing printer """

""" My badge was filled in by hand using a black felt pen"""

""" Thats why I am exempt a photo, and yes I am in a minority colourwise . And to have a photo on display to all whilst parked at the supermarket do I want my house to be targeted whilst shopping? or mugged because I am a easy target? ""

Certain people are allowed to inspect the blue badge and use the photo for identy purposes,A year ago I looked like Brian Blessed ,I now look like a slice of corn beef crossed with a potatoe So using a photo ID is pointless in my case.
And if you remember the contex of the last quote was the new style bb and some people wanted photos on the front of the bb.

Richie-from-the-Boro

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Yes but your weblink says sharing the badge is the main reason for misuse. The badges can be shared with others whether issued discretionary or via DLA auto right. I expect if the councils toughen up on discretionary issue there will be an influx of probably sucessful DLA claims putting up the taxpayer bill too not to mention the cost to the public purse of tribunals for those deemed not entitled to HRM DLA

HiYa flock of sheep - it in fact says that none of these offences could be committed without the BB user being implicit in its misuse. Its BB users who brought the hammer down on their own heads.

They found a sweet shop full of candy and helped themselves to the bits they wanted, loaned or gave them to their friends, sold or duplicated them for thieves, shared them with their family when they shouldn't. Hey its free and no one is counting or cares, and if they don't like one of the rules they will ask if they can change it, after all its only staffed by minimum wage muppets and as stated no one cares or counts or costs. They just fill the shelf ready for the next troop of claimers.

But someone did notice.

My point is the BB and DLA is a lifeline, make a pig at the trough and sure enough someone will pull the trough away, and they did, and it was BB owners and that phrase ' discretionary criteria ' that brought it tumbling down.

Sharing per the blue book and sharing per anyone and his auntie are different things. The BB users will be 30% minus after PIP and perhaps a~n~other % minus for those who had a BB under the old criteria / standards but cant get through the O/T examiner [ many LA's are already using the new rules already ] hoop when the new rules come into full force.

Anubis_2

Anubis wrote: »

Do you have a link where it states the specifically? All I can find is that exemptions from photograps are very rare, even for those with facial disfigurement?

There is a genuine reason why I ask.

http://www2.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/259428/281009/laguidance.pdf

Look at 2.6 photograps.

Anyone got a link which states cancer patients are exempt from photos?