Wednesday 19th August 2015

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 6:57 pm

Article in Private Eye:

"Kick in the Crutch"

Some of those lucky enough to have survived the troubled introduction of the coalition's flagship disabity benefit ,the much criticised Personal Independence Payment,now seem to b e falling at the first hurdle as their payments come up for renewal after the first year.
One man with a rare renal condition who is awaiting a second transplant and for the pwst year has received £53 per week in PIP has been told he no longer qualifies for the payment which is meant to help.with the extra costs caused by long term ill health or disability.Bill Langley's(not real ne)health needs have not changed in the year since be finally underwent a medical assessment and was granted the daily living component of PIP.He still needs and undertakes 15 hours of dialysis a week which with time spent setting up and sterilising the equipment takes him around 22 hours a week to complete.
Without a further assessment or any communication with Mr Langley's consultant or GP ,however, an unnamed DWP office manager has decided that it is medically reasonable to suggest that he only needs 10 hours a week and therefore doesn't meet the 14 hour qualifying criteria.
Mr Langley is challenging this frightening and outrageous decision and would like to the qualifications of the manager who made it.Unfortunately be is not alone.
Without any medical check after a PIP reassessment 50 year old Jo Jones who bas diabetes neuropathy asthma and depression has just lost her Mobility car which she used to make her regular hospital.appointments.Ms Jones had previkusly qualified fkr the enhanced rate for booth the mobity component and xay living component of PIP last year,after she also had to have a leg amputed.She has nkw been told she must give the car back because she can walk more than 20 metres without pain.She says this is nonsense:even a short walk leaves her breathless and pain in ber back and legs makes even crossing the road from her door to her car an ordeal.
Under DLA disabled people qualified for the upper rate of the mobility rate if they could not walk more than 50 metres without pain.Since the introduction of PIP and the 20 metre limit,up to 100 people a week hsve been losing their means of getting out and about.By the time all 900,000 people on higher rate of DLA are finally moved to PIP it is expected that the 20 metre rule and other eligibilty changes will rule out more than half of them from enhanced payments.

My addition:

Home dialysis saves the NHS thousands of pounds a year,has proven better health outcomes v hospital provision and of course independence enhancing.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 6:58 pm

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 7:10 pm

@rebecca

Good to see you back here and glad you've got your house more sorted. Was thinking about you just the other day and wondering how things were going.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 7:31 pm

Rebecca wrote:Evening all.
Well.I have had a very peaceful,politics free summer so far.No news,radio,whatever really.It's been lovely,and my house is less neglected.
The labour leadership issue cannot be ignored,,too many emails and letters,so I've been lurking back here.And I have just voted for Corbyn because I'm fed up with being told not to.
Blimey,so many anti Corbyn posts ,where are the pro,persuasive comments re the other candidates?
Sorry to hear about Mr Ohso and Show,hope it all goes well.

I've posted positive reasons for choosing Andy Burnham previously, but have been on holiday more recently and it seems a few fellow middle of the road "moderates" have disappeared in my absence. There are plenty of pro-Corbyn posts to counter-balance the anti-Corbyn ones, I think. Mostly I suspect that those on the two polar ends of the Labour voting spectrum have the strongest held views and are more likely to comment. I've said many times I prefer Burnham, but I'm not particularly anti Corbyn. If he could get Labour into government I'd love him, but I'm rather of the opinion his politics won't be very popular with the general voting public and I don't particularly agree with more of his policies than I do with Burnham or Cooper's. The lack of anything surprising or especially impressive from Burnham or Cooper have left little to say, but that doesn't mean there aren't positive reasons to vote for either of them. Burnham's very strong on health (obviously) but also could work well with local Labour councils, I think. Cooper's smart and would give Cameron a run for his money, but has maybe over-egged the woman thing. All round, there has been no "stand-out" candidate for me. More generally, however, there are some good new names coming through, especially in the deputy leader contest, that gives me lots of optimism for the future of the Labour party. I just hope the Corbyn hysteria (and it really does feel like hysteria to me - if he wins, he'll either be a good leader or he won't, the party will persist regardless) doesn't distract from the devastating impact Tory policies are having on this country. (Or is used by the media to distract from Tory failures, I suppose its what I'm really trying to say. I guess I see the hand of Murdoch manipulation in everything these days. Corbyn has been given a lot of oxygen by the press - I fear what they have planned if he wins. However unfair that is, I can't ignore it as a factor).

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 7:58 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
yahyah wrote:Understand more about them ?

The Dalai Lama calls for dialogue with people, is he a terrorist supporter ?
He thinks we should candidly share ideas.
He's even tried to negotiate with the Chinese even though they have been responsible for the cruel deaths of thousands of Tibetans.
I never said anyone was a terrorist supporter.

I said Corbyn seems to have a fondness for political stunts. The trouble with political stunts is that people notice them, the worst people in the world by no means the least.

Stunts?

Oh dear.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:01 pm

Am being pleasant this evening.
In case no-one had noticed.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:09 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:@rebecca

Good to see you back here and glad you've got your house more sorted. Was thinking about you just the other day and wondering how things were going.

Seconded.

And thank you for the best wishes.

We are now on Plan D, boys and girls!

Poor old Show. They've now decided they can't do the op they were hoping to do; so now they're going to try something else and instead of an epidural he's having a general anaesthetic.
He's pleased, because he won't be awake. I'm a bit more worried than I was, being a bit more clued up than he is (but not a lot, I'm not up to date with all this).

How's the house, Rebecca?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:10 pm

This pretty much sums Nicky Morgan's latest announcement...

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:17 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:Am being pleasant this evening.
In case no-one had noticed.

You are being a paragon of sweetness and light, tc.

I am assuming that Mother Clanger has made a particularly delicious soup this evening.

As you are clearly relaxed and content, this could be the very time to start knitting.

See here - radiotimes.com/news/2015-06-09/knit-your-own-tiny-clanger.

You won't need much wool. Just one ball. (She's only little)

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:25 pm

(modest emoticon)

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:28 pm

MPs claimed 23 million expenses in a year. Jeremy Corbyn's share of that was £8.95.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:29 pm

Check out that final tweet...

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:33 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:(modest emoticon)

There is a new series of The Clangers on CBeebies.
With Michael Palin.

You could knit while you watch it.

Michael Palin did some Ripping Yarns, you know.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:34 pm

ohsocynical wrote:MPs claimed 23 million expenses in a year. Jeremy Corbyn's share of that was £8.95.

What a spendthrift!

What was that princely sum squandered on, then?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:38 pm

ephemerid wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:(modest emoticon)

There is a new series of The Clangers on CBeebies.
With Michael Palin.

You could knit while you watch it.

Michael Palin did some Ripping Yarns, you know.

cue Basil Fox

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:39 pm

ephemerid wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:MPs claimed 23 million expenses in a year. Jeremy Corbyn's share of that was £8.95.

What a spendthrift!

What was that princely sum squandered on, then?

probably some new-fangled device for clandestine communications with "Trots"

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:43 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:(modest emoticon)

There is a new series of The Clangers on CBeebies.
With Michael Palin.

You could knit while you watch it.

Michael Palin did some Ripping Yarns, you know.
cue Basil Fox

Are you referring to Mr.Brush of that Ilk?

I rather think you are, tc.

BOOM BOOM.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:45 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:MPs claimed 23 million expenses in a year. Jeremy Corbyn's share of that was £8.95.

What a spendthrift!

What was that princely sum squandered on, then?
probably some new-fangled device for clandestine communications with "Trots"

Nooo!!!!

It'll be T-shirts. Political T-shirts. Irish ones. Or something.

Nudge, nudge, know what I mean, Squire.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 8:48 pm

Did we see this? It's marvellous...

If you believe David Miliband has the answer for Labour, the question is: what's wrong with you?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if- ... 61122.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 9:00 pm

janice barnes @logansteven
Labour MP Simon Danczuk paid £2,000 an hour by Tory press http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-fe ... tory-press" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … via @RochdaleOnline

Malcolm Mildren ‏@Lord_Monteagle 8 mins8 minutes ago
Oh dear. Naughty naughty. And his expenses look a bit tasty as well Malcolm Mildren added,

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 9:08 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Did we see this? It's marvellous...

If you believe David Miliband has the answer for Labour, the question is: what's wrong with you?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if- ... 61122.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is, Roger.

Thank you.

There's a new Seamus Milne on Corbyn at the G. I think that's good, too.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 9:16 pm

Simon Danczuk’s Gravy Train

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/ ... train.html

Post by **refitman** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 9:31 pm

@ephie - I have replied.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 9:38 pm

ohsocynical wrote:MPs claimed 23 million expenses in a year. Jeremy Corbyn's share of that was £8.95.

Sorry to burst this particular bubble but that claim is bullshit.

According to IPSA, Mr Corbyn claimed a total of £14, 827.78 between April 2014 & March 2015.

http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Results.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 9:43 pm

David Mills
‏@DavidMills73

@Dannythefink In my experience, Corbyn was only guest who ever asked if he could take uneaten pastries etc to give to homeless people nearby

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 9:44 pm

refitman wrote:@ephie - I have replied.

Thank you!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 9:47 pm

pk1 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:MPs claimed 23 million expenses in a year. Jeremy Corbyn's share of that was £8.95.
Sorry to burst this particular bubble but that claim is bullshit.

According to IPSA, Mr Corbyn claimed a total of £14, 827.78 between April 2014 & March 2015.

http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Results.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As far fetched as the rest of the derogatory bullshit that's been put about?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 9:56 pm

pk1 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:MPs claimed 23 million expenses in a year. Jeremy Corbyn's share of that was £8.95.
Sorry to burst this particular bubble but that claim is bullshit.

According to IPSA, Mr Corbyn claimed a total of £14, 827.78 between April 2014 & March 2015.

http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Results.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hello, pk1.

That link says the cache has expired.

Theyworkforyou links to the new IPSA information.

That has his expenses for office/staff/etc. at under the Standard London Area Budget.
Other expenses (he doesn't claim for travel or accommodation) were £819.49.

It's certainly not £8.95 (where did you get that from, OhSo?)

It's not £14K-plus either.

I wonder which of these is actually true? Genuine question.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 10:04 pm

ephemerid wrote:
pk1 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:MPs claimed 23 million expenses in a year. Jeremy Corbyn's share of that was £8.95.
Sorry to burst this particular bubble but that claim is bullshit.

According to IPSA, Mr Corbyn claimed a total of £14, 827.78 between April 2014 & March 2015.

http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Results.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hello, pk1.

That link says the cache has expired.

Theyworkforyou links to the new IPSA information.

That has his expenses for office/staff/etc. at under the Standard London Area Budget.
Other expenses (he doesn't claim for travel or accommodation) were £819.49.

It's certainly not £8.95 (where did you get that from, OhSo?)

It's not £14K-plus either.

I wonder which of these is actually true? Genuine question.

Full expenses, when everything is selected is what PK said. It all seems to be office expenses (consumables, rent and even a BSL interpreter) and travel expenses for volunteers. Full breakdown attached.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 10:15 pm

1.He clearly doesn't take the piss
2.Although his initials suggest otherwise,he isn't actually the Messiah.

Neutral statements.
PS.this is getting silly.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 10:26 pm

HindleA wrote: 2.Although his initials suggest otherwise,he isn't actually the Messiah.

...h'e a very naughty boy!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[youtube]Zjz16xjeBAA[/youtube]

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 10:31 pm

ephemerid wrote:
pk1 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:MPs claimed 23 million expenses in a year. Jeremy Corbyn's share of that was £8.95.
Sorry to burst this particular bubble but that claim is bullshit.

According to IPSA, Mr Corbyn claimed a total of £14, 827.78 between April 2014 & March 2015.

http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Results.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hello, pk1.

That link says the cache has expired.

Theyworkforyou links to the new IPSA information.

That has his expenses for office/staff/etc. at under the Standard London Area Budget.
Other expenses (he doesn't claim for travel or accommodation) were £819.49.

It's certainly not £8.95 (where did you get that from, OhSo?)

It's not £14K-plus either.

I wonder which of these is actually true? Genuine question.

I'm not sure it matters. The expenses scandal was about MPs stretching the rules to claim for things they really shouldn't have done, like cleaning out their moat. 14p or £14,000 - it doesn't matter to me if it was all spent on legitimate expenses related to the job, which I assume they were in Corbyn's case or we would have heard about it by now. One of the biggest expenses claimants at the time was my MP Dan Norris. He didn't have to pay back a single penny as all his claims were completely legitimate. Whether or not the expenses system is too generous is a question for the House in general. Individual MPs need only show they are within the rules, to satisfy me. Spending less than anyone else may be conscientiousness or may mean they're not doing a lot of parliamentary work or a combination of both. Either way, it doesn't make much odds. If he becomes leader his expenses will go up a bit, I would imagine!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 10:56 pm

Belated thanks for messages.

Thankfully,the symptoms have abated with a slight increase in the doses.Though,not as is her wish,to the extent of being "zonked out throughout the day".We are lucky really,having only needed this adjustment after three months.Her mother is coming for a few days tomorrow so I might utilise some sedation myself to get me through.#UnPC mother-in -law joke klaxon.

Sticky99 · Post by **Sticky99** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 11:00 pm

Evening all,

Newsnight really must have a shortage of quality guests to speak. We have Ryan Shorthouse, from "Bright Blue", speaking about who marvellous the rise of self-employment is - his specialist area - clearly.

He used setting up a think-tank as an example of going self-employed! Goodness me, how out of touch. Whilst Shorthouse thinks that being self-employed is writing some articles, appearing on TV and errr...doing the other awfully taxing work that running a think-tank involves - other poor people are trying to bust a gut trying to get any work they can as labourers, builders etc.

Good old left-wing BBC had nobody else to counter his right-wing arguments.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 11:12 pm

The 10 funniest #fakeDWPstories: Twitter responds to made up benefit sanctions leaflet
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/10 ... ds-6279219" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My favourite so far ...

LobbyComm @LobbyComm
Having eaten my own guide dog I was directed to a job as sleeping policeman. I feel I'm giving something back now

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 11:22 pm

The hours on dialysis thing is spurious nonsense,you adjust subject to how you are,fluid to be taken off to maintain target weight etc.We never did more than 12 hours actual treatment at home per week and certainly less at hospital due to hospital transport considerations.Of course the actual process involved as stated in the article is far more,and that doesnt take account of interrupted/abandoned sessions eg.blood pressure problems or recovery time.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 11:53 pm

Hope @Mr. Ohso's pre-op appointment went well today, that @Show's Plan D progresses smoothly, that @Mrs. HindleA is more comfortable now; and that they and their partners can get a good night's sleep.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 19 Aug, 2015 11:54 pm

Public relations body investigating DWP fake welfare claimants leaflet
CIPR has written to members who work at DWP to find out if they had any part in producing document which featured two non-existent benefits claimants
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ts-leaflet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) said it had written to all of its members who work at the Department for Work and Pensions to find out whether they had played any part in putting the leaflet together.

Sarah Pinch, the CIPR’s president, said: “Falsely creating the impression of independent, popular support is a naive and opaque technique which blatantly disregards the CIPR’s standards of ethical conduct. It is deeply disappointing if public relations professionals allowed it to be published.”

The official document was pulled on Tuesday after the DWP admitted it had made up supposed benefits claimants “Sarah” and “Zac”. A spokesman said the leaflet was produced in-house by its “communications team”.

What was that you were saying about a SpAd about to be thrown to the lions, Roger? Looks like someone's probably going to get a reprimand over lack of ethics ... pity it isn't IDS and Cameron.

I'm waiting for the next unpicking of dodgy DWP figures being explained away as the figures being merely for 'illustrative purposes'.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 12:30 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Public relations body investigating DWP fake welfare claimants leaflet
CIPR has written to members who work at DWP to find out if they had any part in producing document which featured two non-existent benefits claimants
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ts-leaflet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) said it had written to all of its members who work at the Department for Work and Pensions to find out whether they had played any part in putting the leaflet together.

Sarah Pinch, the CIPR’s president, said: “Falsely creating the impression of independent, popular support is a naive and opaque technique which blatantly disregards the CIPR’s standards of ethical conduct. It is deeply disappointing if public relations professionals allowed it to be published.”

The official document was pulled on Tuesday after the DWP admitted it had made up supposed benefits claimants “Sarah” and “Zac”. A spokesman said the leaflet was produced in-house by its “communications team”.
What was that you were saying about a SpAd about to be thrown to the lions, Roger? Looks like someone's probably going to get a reprimand over lack of ethics ... pity it isn't IDS and Cameron.

I'm waiting for the next unpicking of dodgy DWP figures being explained away as the figures being merely for 'illustrative purposes'.

It was long before Tuesday that the offending leaflet disappeared. DPAC had this article on August 1st, which @HindleA shared here on August 2nd:
http://dpac.uk.net/2015/08/the-case-of- ... ns-leaflet
There have been follow-ups including the newer leaflet appearing on 7th August. It's good that the MSM have caught up with the story fairly quickly - a fortnight being 'fairly quickly' for them. I'm not sure about the investigation by the CIPR but I suppose they'd have to have a look if what was done contravenes their Code of Ethics. If the 'stories' were given them by DWP officials, would they be expected to ask for proof that the people were real, I wonder, and to police things to ensure they comply with the Code?

Wish they'd throw IDS and Cameron to the lions - or at least the part of the MSM, who have 'speaking truth to power' as an often forgotten part of their DNA, finally remembering how to be lions...

Edit on second line. Mostly stray-bracket-related. Bumboils™

Hobiejoe · Post by **Hobiejoe** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 12:39 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Public relations body investigating DWP fake welfare claimants leaflet
CIPR has written to members who work at DWP to find out if they had any part in producing document which featured two non-existent benefits claimants
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ts-leaflet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) said it had written to all of its members who work at the Department for Work and Pensions to find out whether they had played any part in putting the leaflet together.

Sarah Pinch, the CIPR’s president, said: “Falsely creating the impression of independent, popular support is a naive and opaque technique which blatantly disregards the CIPR’s standards of ethical conduct. It is deeply disappointing if public relations professionals allowed it to be published.”

The official document was pulled on Tuesday after the DWP admitted it had made up supposed benefits claimants “Sarah” and “Zac”. A spokesman said the leaflet was produced in-house by its “communications team”.
What was that you were saying about a SpAd about to be thrown to the lions, Roger? Looks like someone's probably going to get a reprimand over lack of ethics ... pity it isn't IDS and Cameron.

I'm waiting for the next unpicking of dodgy DWP figures being explained away as the figures being merely for 'illustrative purposes'.

Bloody hell! When the hithertofor unknown to me Chartered Institute of Bullshit Merchants are distancing themselves from the DWP, and moreover doing so on ethical grounds, then we really are moving into uncharted waters.

What next? EDL calls on Daily Express to moderate anti-immigrant rhetoric?

As an aside, I'm somewhat flummoxed that being a PR can somehow gain you "chartered" status. I always associated it with reputable professions.

*edit* Ahhh. I've let my prejudice show, in all it's inglorious light. My apologies to all those that disseminate in the public interest and for the greater good.