Big petition to get the impact of changes to disability benefits reviewed

flipflop29

blopipe wrote: »

Errr what wording? I don't see any material difference to what was envisaged with PIP in the first place, unless you mean the quietly included 20 metre rule.

The government removed 'safely, repeatedly, reliably and in a timely manner' from the PIP regs, Spartacus got it put back. They are challenging the 20 metre rule through the courts.

Prinzessilein

blopipe wrote: »

I know, why don't we cut the NHS, the Armed Forces and the Education budgets by say 20% and pour it into the Welfare budget?

Or, how about we cut the ridiculous expenses paid to MPs; the money paid in to QANGOs; the funds that allow some councils to send their members abroad and whilst they are away have their offices refurbished; and cap child benefit at a two-children maximum?.....it might not completely solve the problem but it would make a start, and it would prove that 'we're all in this together'.

obvious

Guys, this now has nearly 60,000 signatures but is in danger of failing to meet the 100,000 required to trigger a parliamentary debate.

Perhaps it could be mentioned in the weekly MSE email?

Could someone ping Martin on this?

flipflop29

Thanks obvious.

I don't know how you'd do that. I've tweeted Martin about it in the past but got no response

swheatley

Have signed and shared and would encourage others to do so.

flipflop29

Hello, just popped back to say we finally got the 100,000 signatures required to be considered for parliamentary debate (happened at the weekend, but I've not had a chance to post until now). Thanks lots to all that signed, and I'll keep you posted as to when the debate happens (it most likely will).

Thanks again

MothFilledWallet

Signed and shared everywhere I could.

Parva

tumboodle wrote: »

You should be more realistic than trying to fight a cause that is already lost.
As for the disabled, I do have some sympathy with IDS considering those that claim DLA that I know that are 'playing the system'

Like you have openly admitted to many times under your various guises. Guess what, not all disabled people are actually telling lies and living on benefits that are not deserved.

tumboodle

Parva wrote: »

Like you have openly admitted to many times under your various guises. Guess what, not all disabled people are actually telling lies and living on benefits that are not deserved.

I don't actually understand all of that response but from the gist of it you seem to be inferring that what I claim I am not entitled to or I legally deserve?

I'm sorry but I would prefer to believe that the DWP are correct when they confirm what my entitlement is and they put it into payment.

Why are you suggesting that I have lied to the DWP?

Or maybe you are one of those that differentiate between morally deserving and legally deserving?

I honestly don't know of any legal statute that has that in it.

I think it is immoral for people to have pay rises above 3%, yet legally many are entitled to receive them.

Parva

tumboodle wrote: »

I don't actually understand all of that response but from the gist of it you seem to be inferring that what I claim I am not entitled to or I legally deserve?

I'm sorry but I would prefer to believe that the DWP are correct when they confirm what my entitlement is and they put it into payment.

Why are you suggesting that I have lied to the DWP?

Or maybe you are one of those that differentiate between morally deserving and legally deserving?

Errrm, you are the one that has openly admitted so many times under so many guises that you don't deserve the benefits. HRM / HRC, the Motability car and how you stood to lose it but had copious savings to cover it etc. Oh how the welfare system has wronged you Andy....