Phew. Thank goodness for that! "Worried veterans" will now be exempt from "humiliating retests" that could have seen them "stripped of vital cash"

Story http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/hoist-by-his-own-petard.html?spref=tw

Why one rule for them and one for the rest of us? Oh, hang on...

Not a matter for jokes in my opinion!!!!

Non of it is Brig tbf.

But until all parties with the same issues are treated the same expect some condescending views. Especially from those in the front line of changes now who are now looking at life going WTF!

What makes a nurse, social worker or somebody who did admin any different from a soldier with any sort of disability?

The answer is nothing! They have the same needs and desires! Is it then right to say one is better/more deserving than the other?

No it isn't and it not rite not by a long shot!

United we stand divided we fall : toppa :

Exactly, Speedfreek. You can't have one rule for one group and another rule for another.

I don't think the issue here is whether one group is more or less deserving, it's about the fairness of the assessment process as embodied by the ATOS WCA, to differentiate between groups by saying that the assessment would be degrading for one group, and acceptable for another, is not itself acceptable.

Disability is impartial it cares not for race, religion, social class or standing, it's effects are as devastating and debilitating to the soldier, as they are to the road sweeper, to the sailor or the nurse, to the pilot or the mechanic. Don't let disability be belittled, despise those who would belittle it.

I would not like to see this go any further, it seems

that you have no regard for the sacrifices made by

service men and women often mere teenagers who

have suffered in the service of this country, they had

no thoughts about claiming benefit when they took

the Oath of Alliegence but put themselves in the Front

Line.

Young soldiers, salors and airmen go into battle for

less pay than a rookie cop on the beat and with far

less pension rights and a hell of lot more risk.

Brig it's not about that tbf.

We should all be equal no matter what you've done. We all benefit society in some way no matter what you do!

We're fighting the same fight and instead of being defensive you need to step out of your corner and support all.

We are the lowest in society now so any improvement goes upwards!

Old it's not about specific access to one benefit.. It's the whole care picture!

AS is being highlighted now PIP + Mobility cars etc etc etc n etc.

We're fighting the whole disability measurement across all fronts!

Because the definition of disability has changed (plus those who decide it's impact) it's gone mad! I tell you mad!

Sorry about this I'm not your stalker just read a lot.

Nyst is now no longer treated with respect and reasonable adjustments made (which would/may/probably happened 2 years ago) on Work Fair because the definition of that has changed.

I myself am now gunning for a £150,000 a year assisted place because care in the community is over! I'm on suicide watch as the fact I have to find £40 out of my £71 ESA to house myself in the same flat I was in before the changes leaves me with £11 a week for feed myself! Even in London ESA+LHA+CT benefit comes to under £7,000 go figure?

I don't think it's about respect. It's about fairness. There are many other occupations where people put their lives at risk daily. (police, fire fighters, nurses, etc)

It shouldn't matter how you became disabled. The little girl who lost both legs as a toddler due to meningitis is as deserving of her benefits as the 19 year old who served in the army and is now disabled as a result.

Brigadier, if you'd be so kind, step down from your high horse. Nobody is disputing the dangers of the job nor the potential sacrifices made by people in the armed services. However, there has to be a level playing field where ALL disabled and seriously ill people are treated with the same level of humanity, care and dignity. Preferably a far higher level than we have now. And whilst you argue that the servicemen had no thoughts of benefits, well neither did any of us who ended up in our situation.

I totally agree with osdset, speedfreek and nystagmite on this one. Oh, did I forget to mention I'm a former member of the armed forces and proud of it? ...

Sadly the only reason it's being done is votes.

Treating Disabled people like their all fraudsters is sadly seen as a vote winner, but treating ex-forces like that isn't.

Had armed forces personnel come home from war limbless and broken and been subject to the same testing as the rest of us, it would immediately have become obvious just how biased the testing is as they'd have routinely been declared to be 'fit to work'. It's to keep the general public from understanding the tests are crooked, that's why this exemption's been made.

I doubt this is being done for votes. It's being done because of the financial system we have. At its simplest, it demands that each year more interest is paid, this to financiers and bankers who don't exactly have to work for the money. As our governments meekly hand over more and more of the wealth of the country to them, there's less for the rest of us. The disabled are being picked on as we're seen as being unable to fight back.

this idea is simply to appease the voters who believe everything they read in the daily mail and other tory papers...we are the undeserving, a drain on society, etc etc.....either this odious testing system is for all of us or none of us....there should be no difference how you became disabled...I proudly served in the forces when I was fit and well....am also wondering if all those with PTSD will not have to jump through the hoops the rest of us has to?...but I dont think this particular disability will be recognised even though there are probably more ex-serving personnel suffering from this than limbless personnel...I have already resigned myself to losing my DLA when the new system rolls out...and I thank previous govts for giving me the opportunity to remain mobile....I have in my more darker moments thought that direct action may be the only way to put our plight out there....maybe starving myself to death in front of olympic stadium during olympics might make a point...but my family assure me it wouldnt...so another idea bites the dust...whilst we are confined to fighting for ourselves with the new ESA and proposed DLA descriptors it becomes a daily struggle that leaves many of us exhausted and unable to do anything more than post on the forum our plight...hoping for help from others...I dont have the answers I which I did....we have become a nation where the pursuit of wealth is more important than the sick, ill and disabled...until the people of this country wake up and smell the coffee nothing we say or do is going to change

Very well put

This is just one more tactic in the government's "Divide and Rule" plan. Divide the disabled into smaller groups, thus taking away the impact that any lobbying by the now smaller disabled group might have had.

The same is happening with pensioners receiving different rates of pension and different tax thresholds.

The child benefit anomaly is another ruse by the government.

All designed to Divide and Rule by breaking protest groups down to smaller and less effective groups.

These principles are now in the Armed Forces Act 2011. In certain limited circumstances, special treatment will be given to members of the Armed Forces ‘whose lives are irreparably altered by Service.’.

as previously posted PTSD which should be treated as a disability...but you can bet it wont....except 'in certain limited circumstances' this govt attitude...if you cant see it..it aint a problem......plus all the claims for this disability can then be discounted....this is nothing more than the usual propoganda message from this divisive govt

I would love to know how this is legal? Treating people differently because they became disabled in a certain way.

it probably isnt nystagmite...but finding a law to hang it on maybe a problem....

More to the point, how can the government suggest a doctor and specialist on the one hand be trusted to decide whether an individual from the armed forces is too sick to work but the same doctor and specialist can't make that decision about someone in civvy street? How can doctors' and specialists' decisions only be accurate about enlisted personnel and not civilians? Either they can decide it or they can't. Cameron makes a complete fool of himself - again - in trying to have it both ways. No wonder they keep calling this government an omnishambles.

I am also wondering if this is going to be the case for ex-serving personnel from other conflicts...or is it only going to apply to iraq and afghanistan....he could be opening a can or worms...as the claims flood in for allowances..remember everyone next time your atos appt comes up....'Im ex forces m8'..every time this cameron opens his mouth utter rubbish utters forth....(excuse poor english but it rhymed nicely)

I would not like to see this go any further, it seems

that you have no regard for the sacrifices made by

service men and women often mere teenagers who

have suffered in the service of this country, they had

no thoughts about claiming benefit when they took

the Oath of Alliegence but put themselves in the Front

Line.

Young soldiers, salors and airmen go into battle for

less pay than a rookie cop on the beat and with far

less pension rights and a hell of lot more risk.

I think you have misunderstood what we saying.

its not that we saying they dont deserve help, but rather everyone should be getting the same treatment.

eg. when I was working full time at 18 years of age I had no thoughts in my mind of claiming benefits either, I didnt even know what incapacity benefit was. Stuff happens in life thats unexpected and life itself is a lottery.

Clearly to me the reason this excemption was made is to win votes, political. Newspapers like the sun love the army, because the wealthy also love the army because the army does the dirty work on foreign policy.

I think you have misunderstood what we saying.

 

its not that we saying they dont deserve help, but rather everyone should be getting the same treatment.

 

eg. when I was working full time at 18 years of age I had no thoughts in my mind of claiming benefits either, I didnt even know what incapacity benefit was. Stuff happens in life thats unexpected and life itself is a lottery.

 

Clearly to me the reason this excemption was made is to win votes, political. Newspapers like the sun love the army, because the wealthy also love the army because the army does the dirty work on foreign policy.

It sounds to me that you don't like the armed forces and so you would like them to suffer under the pretext of 'fairness'.

It does matter what people have done. Do you think, do you really think, that, for example, someone who becomes disabled because he falls down some stairs while drunk deserves the exact same treatment as soldiers who put their lives on the line for their country? Don't you have any regard at all for the sacrifices those in the armed forces make?

It sounds to me that you don't like the armed forces and so you would like them to suffer under the pretext of 'fairness'.

 

It does matter what people have done. Do you think, do you really think, that, for example, someone who becomes disabled because he falls down some stairs while drunk deserves the exact same treatment as soldiers who put their lives on the line for their country? Don't you have any regard at all for the sacrifices those in the armed forces make?

I think that is an unfair unsumption.

I have the up most respect for soldiers who fight for their country and agree they should be treated fairly, however you can not class a man falling down a stairs drunk and a soldier. It dosnt matter how you became disabled the fact is you are. Every one with a disability should be treated fairly no matter what walks of life they come from or how they became disabled. No one asks for their disability, I know I didnt ask for mine.

However it could be argued that a soldier knew that this could be the out come for working in the armed forces. If that is the case then there should be a special pension for all those who have been made disabled, thats if there already isnt, I dont know that. In any case the armed forces should look after those who have suffered.

But then it could be argued that when you get in a car there is a possibility you could have an accident.

There are many arguments to this. Every one should be treated equally but as individually as required.

Agreed.

It sounds to me that you don't like the armed forces and so you would like them to suffer under the pretext of 'fairness'.

 

It does matter what people have done. Do you think, do you really think, that, for example, someone who becomes disabled because he falls down some stairs while drunk deserves the exact same treatment as soldiers who put their lives on the line for their country? Don't you have any regard at all for the sacrifices those in the armed forces make?

I was born with brain cysts. This has caused me to develop other disabilities, including seizures; which at the age of 11, left me with a head injury. Why should the solider with similar injuries to mine be treated more favourably? I didn't ask to have any of my disabilities. The soldiers know the risks.

It doesn't matter what people have done. And where do you draw the line?