Coming off DLA

tinkledom

Poppie68 wrote: »

:rotfl:Oops there he goes again, forgetting it was'nt him that lived over 300miles away from his father.....
Please if someone can find the culprit for that particular post then we can also add that name to Andy's ever growing AE list.

Where you neglected as a child, do you not have any friends? The behaviour you display is not normal behaviour for a sane, well balanced person.
The affects of the above are manifesting themselves into the personna of a deeply disturbed individual who does'nt seem to be able to seperate reality from fantasy...Please Andy get some help for Flo's sake!
Anyway :grouphug: for Andy he needs our help and pity so he can try and improve himself and maybe try and become a productive part of society instead of a joke!

You have lost me! What is all that about?


Have you a problem with me or my postings? If so why don't you highlight them and report them to the mods instead of posting your silly comments that actually mean nothing to anybody - except to yourself!

SandraScarlett

Well, he must have had a private helicopter, else how could he travel 300 miles to spend 2, if not 3 days with his ailing father, whilst providing 1:1 care for Flo?


And he's disabled himself as well. Oh, I forgot - he's Superman!


xx

Poppie68

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Well, he must have had a private helicopter, else how could he travel 300 miles to spend 2, if not 3 days with his ailing father, whilst providing 1:1 care for Flo?


And he's disabled himself as well. Oh, I forgot - he's Superman!


xx

:(Did'nt Superman wear lycra....the image of Andy just does'nt bode well with lycra..._pale_

Poppie68

tinkledom wrote: »

You have lost me! What is all that about?


Have you a problem with me or my postings? If so why don't you highlight them and report them to the mods instead of posting your silly comments that actually mean nothing to anybody - except to yourself!

sorry was it the :grouphug:..... you have taken offence with...i promise i won't give you anymore :grouphug:.....

Well just one last one maybe...:grouphug:

Morglin

tinkledom wrote: »

Wind up - you wish!


Besides her many other medical problems, she suffers from Arthritis, starting at the top, in her neck, wrists and fingers. Then the lower back/hips, then to her knees.


She has adapted cups, cutlery etc. Her pain is kept under control with medication. As for everything else, the adaptions and other aids make her life much easier to live.


As for your comments 'When my hands and arms are bad, not only can't I write, I cannot open a medicine container, I cannot grip a cup, glass or pan, and i cannot turn a tap on or off, or fasten buttons and zips on clothing' why don't you have a weekly/monthly pill box that someone can fill for you. Using one of those is child's play and are designed for the very reason you quote. You can buy adapted cups and glasses (double handed). Taps, fit the single bar type tap that you can operate with your arm. Buttons/zips - my wife has her clothes adapted so that everything uses Velcro instead, much easier.


There are always ways to get round a problem.


However the major problem that she has always faced with the DWP is actually proving to them with written evidence that these needs actually exist (of course blood tests and scans can show that the disease is there) to the extent that she says they do and proving that she is incapable of looking after herself if she didn't have the aids and adaptions. She can prove the diagnosis but not the extent of the help she would need - the DWP seem not to want to believe anybody unless there is evidence there - hence why it took 4 attempts (one a year) to even get AA at the high rate for just one year.


She simply cannot prove that the needs actually exist, never mind the extent to which they are present.


As another example of how they view AA claimants. My deceased father who died in December aged 88 was in receipt of AA at the low rate. He lived on his own. He had carers coming in every day, 3 times a day via Social Services. Regularly at night he would mess himself in bed because he couldn't get to the toilet in time. Sometimes he would leave a trail of 'it' on the floor that I had to get his cleaners to sort out. He died of malnutrition and dehydration because he couldn't cope at home.


The DWP when this was explained to them by me, still refused to increase his AA to the day and night rate. I was still arguing with them when he eventually died.


I get really annoyed when people say that those who need the award and financial help will always get it. It's a load of rubbish - they want to try being 88 and unable to cope with most things AND on top of that have to fight the DWP.


Sorry to have gone on, it's a very sore subject and sometimes just not worth the fight or argument.

Don't tell me about solutions - I have lived with this for too long to take advice from someone like you.:mad:

You don't get it - yes, if I chose to, I could find aids etc., but that doesn't give me the power to even adjust the bedclothes when my arms aren't working.

Or have a bath alone etc.,

It doesn't give me the power to do things for myself, as I used to.

It doesn't give me the power to do a lot of things, and you truly don't get it.

I don't have any problems with the DWP, because they know I am genuine, and I back it up with evidence.

But, I was married for 30 years to someone like you, if you are genuine, telling me how easy life was with aids, and do you know what?

Disabled or not, I divorced him, and I am happy with life.:T

I remarried to a man I adore, and who makes life truly worthwhile.

I don't need to wind people up, because I count my blessings - I suggest you do the same, whatever your life is, and stop winding up those truly needing sensible help.

Lin

tinkledom

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Well, he must have had a private helicopter, else how could he travel 300 miles to spend 2, if not 3 days with his ailing father, whilst providing 1:1 care for Flo?


And he's disabled himself as well. Oh, I forgot - he's Superman!


xx

OK so you think that you know it all?


I provide (provided at the time) a minimum of 35 hours of care towards my wife. It doesn't matter if that care is given on 3/4/5 days of the week, as long as the weekly amount comes to at least 35 hours.


Being away for 3 days of the week, still leaves 4 days to care for my wife - an average of 8.75 hours on each of the 4 days. Now that isn't too difficult to understand is it?


Of course I am disabled, but not all disabilities mean that you can't travel, not all disabilities mean that you can't care for someone.


You are simply being a rather awkward individual that really can't see the wood for the trees.


Besides which why you are even posting these silly comments I don't know. I don't even know you and you don't know me.


So may I suggest that you stick to the thread and deal with the question asked. You are possibly putting new members off when they read comments like yours.

margaretclare

I don't know why I even bother, but...

As another example of how they view AA claimants. My deceased father who died in December aged 88 was in receipt of AA at the low rate. He lived on his own. He had carers coming in every day, 3 times a day via Social Services. Regularly at night he would mess himself in bed because he couldn't get to the toilet in time. Sometimes he would leave a trail of 'it' on the floor that I had to get his cleaners to sort out. He died of malnutrition and dehydration because he couldn't cope at home.

Not sure what your example is meant to illustrate because you don't say who you mean by 'they' as in 'how they view AA claimants'. Obviously your father should, at the very least, have had AA at the maximum rate - day plus night - and/or he should have had 24-hour care. 3 x daily visits by carers were obviously not enough. He needed attention during the night as well and, arguably, that could not have been given in his own home, with the best will in the world.

There are always ways to get round a problem.

But in your father's case, there were not.

cattermole

tinkledom wrote: »

OK so you think that you know it all?


I provide (provided at the time) a minimum of 35 hours of care towards my wife. It doesn't matter if that care is given on 3/4/5 days of the week, as long as the weekly amount comes to at least 35 hours.


Being away for 3 days of the week, still leaves 4 days to care for my wife - an average of 8.75 hours on each of the 4 days. Now that isn't too difficult to understand is it?


Of course I am disabled, but not all disabilities mean that you can't travel, not all disabilities mean that you can't care for someone.


You are simply being a rather awkward individual that really can't see the wood for the trees.


Besides which why you are even posting these silly comments I don't know. I don't even know you and you don't know me.


So may I suggest that you stick to the thread and deal with the question asked. You are possibly putting new members off when they read comments like yours.

Can I suggest that you do the same and rather than detracting from the OP by your own tales you stick to answering the questions in hand or not at all if you can't answer them without writing pages about yourself, a friend or a relative,

Whilst I appreciate we all refer to our own experiences from time to time we don't write pages that are of no relevance to the original poster and take the thread off track, unless of course this is your intention in the first place? Because this is known as hi-jacking.

Many thanks in anticipation of your co-operation in this matter.

Poppie68

margaretclare wrote: »

I don't know why I even bother, but...



Not sure what your example is meant to illustrate because you don't say who you mean by 'they' as in 'how they view AA claimants'. Obviously your father should, at the very least, have had AA at the maximum rate - day plus night - and/or he should have had 24-hour care. 3 x daily visits by carers were obviously not enough. He needed attention during the night as well and, arguably, that could not have been given in his own home, with the best will in the world.



But in your father's case, there were not.

Lets just presume for one second that Tinkles father really did die in such a bad condition how on earth did his loving son let it happen....the son of all knowledge of things pertaining to the benefit system and working it...he travelled 300 miles round trip a week to 'care' for him but still allowed the poor man to die malnourished and dehydrated...shame on you tinkle..
Can you please remind us of your AE at the time of when you first told us of your incredible journey everyweek to do this caring!

Poppie68

tinkledom wrote: »

OK so you think that you know it all?


I provide (provided at the time) a minimum of 35 hours of care towards my wife. It doesn't matter if that care is given on 3/4/5 days of the week, as long as the weekly amount comes to at least 35 hours.


Being away for 3 days of the week, still leaves 4 days to care for my wife - an average of 8.75 hours on each of the 4 days. Now that isn't too difficult to understand is it?


Of course I am disabled, but not all disabilities mean that you can't travel, not all disabilities mean that you can't care for someone.


You are simply being a rather awkward individual that really can't see the wood for the trees.


Besides which why you are even posting these silly comments I don't know. I don't even know you and you don't know me.


So may I suggest that you stick to the thread and deal with the question asked. You are possibly putting new members off when they read comments like yours.

You eventually put new members off yourself...we are just trying to save them some time and cutting out the middleman..