Will they stop my DLA if I get a job?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Lou76 wrote: »

I read it as; "No, it won't be affected [as DLA is not an out of work benefit] unless the job contradicts your reasons for claiming [in which case you're no longer eligible anyway]... "

So make sure it doesn't?

Lou76

nannytone wrote: »

thats your interpretaion, and youre entitled to your opinion.

but seems like youre on your own .....

and no worries lou .... think you may have seen a previous post of mine when someone trued ti defend my opinion lol

No, I just read it in the way it was intended, as I've read enough of your posts to know what your opinion on benefit fraud is.

Eeek, how stalkerish does that make me sound..?:eek:

:rotfl:

In saying that, had it been someone I wasn't familiar with, I probavly would've drawn the same conclusion as Lighting did, so I can see where he/she was coming from.

princessdon

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Absolutely. So the DLA entitlement should be re-examined, rather than advice given not to take the job in-case the DLA entitlement got re-examined.

As I said above - I interpted that poster (who I don;t know the posting style or political views of) as saying - Well be careful or it will bite your behind once the govt tightens up.

Far from encouraging fraud. I have re-read and re-read and can't see your view point. Perhaps a night's sleep will see a different interpretation, so on that note ...

Lou76

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

So make sure it doesn't?

See, I didn't read it that way at all.

Granted, I'm reading it with the benefit (pardon the pun) of having read other posts from Nannytone, and I know she doesn't condone benefit fraud.

As I've said in another post though, I can see why you did.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Well, I think we've reached an en-passe and should agree to disagree.

Lou76

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Well, I think we've reached an en-passe and should agree to disagree.

Aye, no point in going around in circles arguing the toss. :T

sniggings

princessdon wrote: »

As I said above - I interpted that poster (who I don;t know the posting style or political views of) as saying - Well be careful or it will bite your behind once the govt tightens up.

Far from encouraging fraud. I have re-read and re-read and can't see your view point. Perhaps a night's sleep will see a different interpretation, so on that note ...

again no history of the person but it does read as a heads up not to take a job that would lead to their DLA being stopped, to say

"make sure that what you will be doing soesnt (sic) contradict what you say are your care/mobility needs"

how would it be possible for someone to do a job that is beyond their capability, so no warning is needed as the person couldn't take a job they have already said they can't do, so no warning needed.

It would be daft for me to tell someone in a wheelchair getting DLA because they can't walk to make sure they don't take a job that involves walking.

clemmatis

sniggings wrote: »

again no history of the person

Her posts are easily available...

"make sure that what you will be doing soesnt (sic) contradict what you say are your care/mobility needs"

This type of use of "sic" is pathetic.

sniggings

clemmatis wrote: »

Her posts are easily available...



This type of use of "sic" is pathetic.

I was making the point not everyone will or has read the OP's posts, you shouldn't have to, be be able to understand what they meant, it should be clear.

My use of sic was used correctly, when else are you meant to use it? incorrectly! :rotfl:

Bit said you choose not to add anything else to the thread apart from being rude, now that is really pathetic.

clemmatis

sniggings wrote: »

I was making the point not everyone will or has read the OP's posts, you shouldn't have to, be be able to understand what they meant, it should be clear.

The meaning was clear.

sniggings wrote: »

My use of sic was used correctly,

I think you're trying to say you used sic correctly.

when else are you meant to use it? incorrectly! :rotfl:

The proper way to use sic is as an indication that a passage has been quoted correctly, that any errors were not introduced by the person quoting it. But here, where -- for example, I can simply link to the post where you wrote

sniggings wrote: »

My use of sic was used correctly,

it is not needed.

Its secondary use is of course to sneer at other writers, and in this case, at fellow posters. And that use here is, IMO, pathetic.

Bit said you choose not to add anything else to the thread apart from being rude, now that is really pathetic.

"Bit said"? "..said you choose"?

And I refer you to my posts above

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=54692831&postcount=19

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=54692919&postcount=22

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=54692941&postcount=23