RSPB Membership...

cattermole

Actually I would go further and say that your Local Authority has a legal duty to support you in carrying out your hobbies, i.e. by facilitating a PA that's why it's called "Social" care

Sadly we can no longer afford to give people lives, even though we are Wealthy according to big DAVE.

Independent Living Fund (it's all in the name!)

Morglin

tinkledom wrote: »

It depends on the hobbies and the claims where you have difficulties.
You can't very well claim that you have no concentration powers but add that you read books daily.

You stated, in an earlier post, that due to head trauma, your concentration was very poor.

It doesn't seem to stop you reading and posting prolifically... :whistle:

Lin

Morglin

cattermole wrote: »

Actually I would go further and say that your Local Authority has a legal duty to support you in carrying out your hobbies, i.e. by facilitating a PA that's why it's called "Social" care

Sadly we can no longer afford to give people lives, even though we are Wealthy according to big DAVE.

Independent Living Fund (it's all in the name!)

I remember a time when hobbies (and holidays) were positively encouraged, as being therapeutic for disabled.

Various assistance methods used to be part funded by government, and facilitated by the LA.

Seems to have stopped now though.

Along with the ILF.

Lin

cattermole

This probably isn't going to be a very popular thing to say I do think the watering down of what a disability is hasn't helped this.

It has stretched funds over a much wider and larger group.

Withdrawal of ILF affects the most severely disabled in our Society and it is an absolute tragedy and nightmare for those people. I can't begin to think how it will affect them. LA's are not going to be able to afford to make up the shortfall in Care packages. Integrated Health & Social Care teams are decreasing not increasing, so can't see Health putting in the money either to joint funded packages. And CHC will be very difficult for many and that isn't an option either for some because of the issues surrounding having a DP from Health. The latter an issue that has been dragging on for years.

Anyway I digress

tinkledom

cattermole wrote: »

Actually I would go further and say that your Local Authority has a legal duty to support you in carrying out your hobbies, i.e. by facilitating a PA that's why it's called "Social" care

Sadly we can no longer afford to give people lives, even though we are Wealthy according to big DAVE.

Independent Living Fund (it's all in the name!)

cough, splutter!!! and what financial mess would we be in if we did that? Heaven help us if Labour get anywhere near any form of power in 2015.

tinkledom

cattermole wrote: »

This probably isn't going to be a very popular thing to say I do think the watering down of what a disability is hasn't helped this.

It has stretched funds over a much wider and larger group.

Hey someone after my own heart!!!


What was only accepted as a disability in 1992 is now no longer the case. It seems every day that I hear that if someone is off work sick, or has a broken leg, or is depressed, the automatic reaction is that it must be a disability and as such 'I want everything I can get'.
I've even heard of people try to claim DLA for just being a type 1 diabetic. Just because it is recognised as a disability in the work place doesn't mean that it is accepted as a disability were benefits are concerned.
I'm a type 1, and I don't even mention it on my claims for benefit as it isn't really a disability but an inconvenience.


No wonder that DLA had to go, people have stretched it to breaking point as to what is now a disability.


Let's go back to where it all started and think only of the most severe as the ones entitled to help.

Indie_Kid

tinkledom wrote: »

Hey someone after my own heart!!!


What was only accepted as a disability in 1992 is now no longer the case. It seems every day that I hear that if someone is off work sick, or has a broken leg, or is depressed, the automatic reaction is that it must be a disability and as such 'I want everything I can get'.
I've even heard of people try to claim DLA for just being a type 1 diabetic. Just because it is recognised as a disability in the work place doesn't mean that it is accepted as a disability were benefits are concerned.
I'm a type 1, and I don't even mention it on my claims for benefit as it isn't really a disability but an inconvenience.


No wonder that DLA had to go, people have stretched it to breaking point as to what is now a disability.


Let's go back to where it all started and think only of the most severe as the ones entitled to help.

Just because you manage, doesn't means do. I have a friend who is diabetic. He's also blind with glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy, I think it's called.

You remind me of someone I know - he claimed he was so disabled he can't walk, but he does. He then told me there's nothing wrong with me, so I shouldn't be claiming. He, like everyone, has no idea what I do and don't see. All the medical professionals can say, is that my vision is blurry and I may see things move.

cattermole

Indeed Indie, diabetics face all sorts of other complications loss of sight being a major and very debilitating one.

Tinkledom OUR HEARTS ARE IN NO WAY SIMILAR!! :eek:

Let me clarify I'm not in favour for example of removal of LRC because it will lead to less differential between for the very severely disabled.

For example all people/children with PMLD require 24/7 care, they can't do it for themselves at all. otherwise they would die.

That does not mean I think disabilities should not be recognised and people should not receive some help.

Morglin

tinkledom wrote: »

Hey someone after my own heart!!!


What was only accepted as a disability in 1992 is now no longer the case. It seems every day that I hear that if someone is off work sick, or has a broken leg, or is depressed, the automatic reaction is that it must be a disability and as such 'I want everything I can get'.
I've even heard of people try to claim DLA for just being a type 1 diabetic. Just because it is recognised as a disability in the work place doesn't mean that it is accepted as a disability were benefits are concerned.
I'm a type 1, and I don't even mention it on my claims for benefit as it isn't really a disability but an inconvenience.


No wonder that DLA had to go, people have stretched it to breaking point as to what is now a disability.


Let's go back to where it all started and think only of the most severe as the ones entitled to help.

And another major difference between now and 1992 is that if anyone stating they were a carer then, for 35 hours a week, and claiming UE for it, wouldn't, of course, have been entitled to DLA when it was introduced, simply because 'being a carer' in those days was taken as doing physical stuff, and did not include emotional support, as it does now.

Which would have meant you got less than you do now.

Luckily, we are more enlightened now, and PIP does allow for all this.

Lin

tinkledom

Indie_Kid wrote: »

Just because you manage, doesn't means do. I have a friend who is diabetic. He's also blind with glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy, I think it's called.

I said just being type 1 diabetic. Obviously if you have complications resulting from that then of course that is a different thing altogether.
Just being a type 1 diabetic is NOT a disability by itself and should not be used to claim a benefit - it is more of an inconvenience - I should know I have it but the DWP don't know that when awarding my ESA & DLA.

You remind me of someone I know - he claimed he was so disabled he can't walk, but he does. He then told me there's nothing wrong with me, so I shouldn't be claiming. He, like everyone, has no idea what I do and don't see. All the medical professionals can say, is that my vision is blurry and I may see things move.

There are a lot of so called 'low grade' benefit scroungers that never get caught but regularly exaggerate and tell porkies to gain a benefit.