Justin you tube, you say I talk rubbish and don't quote evidence, but how could YOU possibly know the following if you have never met me:
Hmmm?
I know a lot about the benefits system; I grew up in it and am surrounded by it; I know all the fiddles (although I have never practiced any of them).
There is a whole industry in communities like mine advising people of what to claim and how to claim it.
You think you have unearthed something new, you haven't!
You are talking rubbish and you are getting "evidence" wrong. You're on about the wrong benefit.
You show no more understanding than a maker of cherry bakewells.
None of your contributions on this matter which you claim you know about , have been even slightly useful.
You're a waste-of-time troll.
No I don't think I've unearthed anything new, muppet, it's been the same for 10 years more or less. What a bloody stupid thing to say.
But then that's your metier.
I never said it was new, I thought a lot of people here might not know/understand it.
Conny didn't,
Trazor didn't,
so I was right. How many more??
If you know it all so well, I'm sure you can
help, and fill in some detail, instead of criticising and taking the p. You've only written crap.
You suggested Conny have another go - he can't, which you should have known, shouldn't you. Busted.
i do think you are a bit unfair on justin his intentions are to help those that deserve often some off the most deprived???? his wording iff you are pedantic may look like claiming falsely by lying where as his actual intent is pointing out you need to swallow your pride and be honest rather than fiddle the best you can and scrounge to the maximum which we all think is wrong although some torries seem to think fiddling the system is normal
What I said/am saying, was that the assessors lie, they minimise and ignore bits of what you say. If you read the full conditions, like the speed at which you need to be able to walk in order for your walking to be counted as such, they don't hold to those parts of the judgments/case law.
So if ( a real example) you say you can walk 50m at 1mph but you have to stop twice and might fall over one try out of three, they say you haven't submitted any evidence from a falls clinic and ask if there's a problem with stopping. And that falling over is less than half the number of occasions, so, mostly, you can do it. And are you really falling or just stumbling?
If you go look at caselaw from when things get to a tribunal, that sort of stuff is turned over.
So it's a damned sight easier to say you can't do it and then you get the proper result.
In fact, if you can only walk at 1mph, according to the criteria they're supposed to use, the judgment should be that you cannot walk at all, because it's less than half normal speed.
Sometimes their bullying will win because they're practised at it. They will ask if you use an appliance, say to get on and off a loo. If you don't because there's a window sill end you can grab and a strong loo roll holder and storage box you put in there to prop you, and you say "no", they record that you don't need any appliance. Or they ask if you have a Doc "M" pack, which is the expensive set of handles and whatnot you see in disabled loos, that an O-T might suggest, and provide free. Again if you say no, then they sometimes probe deeper but sometimes move on.
So it's better to say you use supports, or a frame, or something like that.
I could give another half dozen examples.
Andy Pandy should be able to give dozens. We've had none.
