Those descriptors you quote have just been amended this week. All during the consultation period it has been 50metres and cannot mention repeatedly, safetly and in a timely fashion. The Spartacus Group have worked hard to make changes but it was bittersweet; they got the repeatedly etc changed but in doing so the governement changed it to 20 meters without mentioning it in any of the consultation periods.



In any event, the descriptors still don't allow for fluctating conditions, nor the pain level it would mean for a lot of people. Maria Miller has already stated the aim of PIP is to save 20%of the DLA/PIP bill so why people are so intenent on pretending otherwise is beyond me

HWS: When is achool a hospital? Apparently they stopped Miss D's mobility allowance for days she is in "hospital." The 'hospital' being a school which has nurses.

Sigh all you like ... but pain / discomfort are simply not addressed and the only terms coming close to recovery time and repeatability are so vague as to be meaningless.

The [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/08/dwp-fitness-to-work-fiasco?commentpage=1Public Accounts Committee[/url don't seem too impressed with the fitness to work programme.



I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me just how finding more people fit for work will actually create the job vacancies for them to move into

I don't interpret the rules I'm afraid.

If I did, every disabled person would get what they needed to live a full, independent life





As I understand, if you go into hospital for more than 28 days you lose your benefits for the number of days you are in. I only know this because it states on your paperwork you must inform them if you go into hospital, which I did but I was only in for a week each time. Rubbish, I know because your rent/bills don't get cancelled because you are in hospital.

I'm more suprised (or am I?) that its taken 2 years of disability groups, charities, organisations, TV programmes, Lords and individuals of relentless campaigning to shout it from the roof tops to anyone who'll listen that its not fit for purpose. Its what we've all known for 2 years but no one would listen, with some "news" papers prefering to focus on the "lazy, scrounger, sponger, workshy, liar" propaganda instead of doing some proper investigive journlism into whats really going on.

Quote samwire="samwire"i'm sorry, but unless the info in the link is utter rubbish, then it isn't just yes/no. you have several choices and you are also able to take into account personal situations. ffs.'" disabilitynewsservice.com/2013/0 ... f-nowhere/ This may help clear up a few things you are unclear of

Quote samwire="samwire"i'm sorry, but unless the info in the link is utter rubbish, then it isn't just yes/no. you have several choices and you are also able to take into account personal situations. ffs.'" disabilitynewsservice.com/2013/0 ... f-nowhere/ This may help clear up a few things you are unclear of

Interesting point raised on Radio 4 this evening re the Phillpott arson case - It stated he stood to lose >£1,000 a month in benefits after his girlfriend and her 5 children moved out - £1,000 a month why would he ever consider working?

Because he could earn more than £1000 a month if he did in order to feed, clothe, house, transport, entertain, one adult and five children ?

If he was on the minimum wage he would get about the same for a 40 hour week - stay at home or work for the same money!! Given he didn't work I assume the incentive wasn't sufficient enough? With 11 kids I assume he was drawing > than double that so >£2k a month - you need to earn >30k to draw that money

No because the majority of the benefits he'll have been receiving would continue regardless of whether he was in work or not. So any work he did would only affect the £71 a week JSA not the other benefits which im assuming are Child Benefit and Housing Benefit.

See reply above, the assumption in cases like this is always that the claimant recieves a big wad of cash every month as the total sum of the quoted amount whereas the total amount will include, for the sake of journalistic affect, things like council tax and rent alowances, and of course a child allowance (that he would get whether workign or not) which for all of those kids will be a large part of the £1000, I doubt though that a person would be able to live a life of luxury when trying to house and feed 11 children and three adults on that sort of money.



Of course its all semantics if you are just talking of the total amount, the total amount could be anything if you don't actually approve of the principle of giving the unemployed or very low waged any public money at all.