But there are some IB claimants that are not actually 100% incapacitated, in fact, there are not many who are 100% IB at all, it's just the aids/adaptations and working practices needed to allow them to access work are cost prohibitive.

Without getting into personal circumstances, the fact you can access RLFans means you are, [itechnically[/i, capable of some form of work.

(Note I said technically, please)

I doubt that very much. IB is £91.40 a week. People have this idea that benefit claimants lead the life of riley, have everything paid for them and get thousands a month. This is what the press want you to believe and I'm afraid it just isn't true. I'm luck in the fact my husband works but I have been in the situation when I was single with a mortgage to pay and getting less than £100 a week.

But if your circumstances were different you'd get different benefits (HB etc.)

Yes and I want to work and [iwill [/i work again some time when I'm sorted out. Yes I can come on RL Fans but the fact is, is that I can chose to do that and how long I can do it for. Some days I can't sit here for long periods so bob in and out all day in short bursts. How many employers would let me work around my condition, not many I don't suppose. I asked two of my friends, one a bank manager, one who has her own hairdressing business would they employ me with what they know about my condition and both said no, they couldn't afford to let me have "time out" when I needed to or be paid for half day hospital visits once a month.

I couldn't get housing benefit because I had a mortgage, I wasn't renting. When I was single I received IB and Income Support. IB was lower 12 years ago, so I received just less than £100 a week. To be fair I already received my discount on Council Tax because I was a single person, and I don't have any kids so no extra benefits claimed there either.

Which is what I said, but the fact remains that SOME people in your situation (indeed, many in far less serious circumstances) would not strive to get back into the workplace.

And we're not talking about genuine claimants of any benefit so far as I can tell, so much as those that are getting something to which they really shouldn't be entitled.

As another example, I know of a couple who are both in their 60's, have a nice house and cash in the bank, and yet they still get the winter fuel allowance, they don't need it, but they are still entitled to it.

It isn't just benefit that people claim that needs looking at, it's the money just handed out. Hull City Council say they have a £50m shortfall, fair enough, how much have they paid out in golden handshakes to retiring executives in the last 10 years, how many "investigative" trips abroad have there been, how much did we waste on bidding to host a WC game when we knew it wouldn't happen?

It doesn't matter what colour of politician you put in, the civil servants in Hull are fairly useless anyway (of course there are notable exceptions, as with everything), the politicians just make noise to cover the whirring of the machine beneath them.

And whoever told you that you couldn't get HB for your mortgage was either wrong, or it was a long time ago.

You don't have to justify yourself to people who think them, and them alone, are keeping this great nation of ours afloat.

Many of us pay taxes and show no belligerence, we just get on with it!

I'm not sure who is showing beligerence, but then I haven't read all of this thread.

What most people think (and I'd wager you included) is that the tax take in the UK is fine, it's where those taxes go that is questionable, I certainly wouldn't resent people in genuine need getting the hs help they need and deserve, but I do object to some of the things that local administrations get away with, from Parish Councils upwards.

It was 12 years ago. I actually went to Oriel House down High Street and sat down with them and they went through everything with me.

But I believe you would have been entitled to a minimum of the interest on your mortgage at that time, anyway, it's not relevant now as your circumstances have changed. But it is an example of how the civil service (and not just in Hull) is inconsistent, I do audits fairly often and find people on benefits they shouldnt be, and others not being given what they should. And as someone else has posted (possibly Rock God), there are many (mainly elderly people) who do not claim anything at all.

I've been working in and around the system at a fairly high level for 9 years now, and I have come to the conclusion that it will never, ever, be anywhere near perfect, what does need root and branch reform is how people become councillors and then, once they have, how their spending and decisions are monitored.

I'm thinking of doing some voluntary work to see what I can and can't do, all legit of course, getting DWP permission and a referal from my GP but it can't have come at a worse time and I'm worried people will think I'm supporting Dave Camerons "Big Society" plan when in actual fact its a goal I'm working towards and have been for a while

You beat me too it.....

Well you're not perfectly healthy then so it doesn't apply to you

"The Big Society" is just a sound bite, we all know a fairly big society already exists, you only need look at places like RLFans/Facebook/Twitter to realise it's not as broken as some would have us believe.

Hell, we even exercise an element of care in the community on this very board!

just a question - in the uk,if you are registered 'handicapped' or 'disabled' (I don't know what the correct word is nowadays) are you still allowed to work ? In france my good lady is registered 80% handicapped and NOT allowed to have a job of any kind,which is silly as she is quite capable of sitting at a desk for 40hrs per week if required.Is this just a french thing or has it become a European directive ?

I once met a quadroplegic who ran his own web development business. Very inspiring guy who had overcome massive difficulties

I don't pretend to have all the answers. Equally, I don't go around making stupid knee-jerk suggestions that clearly haven't been given any thought whatsoever. Just because I don't profess to know what the answer is, doesn't mean I don't know a ridiculous idea when I see one.

handicapped is not a term used in the UK anymore, disabled is still widely used, there was a move to try and refer to people of "differently able" but it crashed and burned (thank fully), in terms of your availability to work, most UK organisation would refer to what level of benefit you are in receipt of.

As for your observations about working in France and being "handicapped" then it would (if still true) go against various European legislation, in fact the law and classification system dates back to 1915 [url=http://www.ilo.org/safework_bookshelf/english?content&nd=857170193Case Study, if you are interested[/url The system was largely implemented to support service personnel coming back injured from the First World war and has been amended ever since, it's still far from ideal, but that can be said of most of the French socialist system.

I never said they were the answers i said what i would like changing. my suggestions may admittedly have been a little short sighted but that is also a little down to people, like you, taking them far to literally and thinking i meant wipe it out!!

Alot of ideas start with something a little silly and you take the good bits out refine it and end up with a finished article!!

Yes you can still work. When I was very first diagnosed I was working and it was suggested to me that I claim for Disability Living Allowance, a blue badge and to become registered disabled by social services. I now have a green card that I carry around with me to say I am registered disabled. The only two things though that I see it could benefit me are I can get a free bus pass like OAP's but I don't have one because buses are a nightmare for me and if you go for a job especially within a big company and you are registered disabled you are more likely to get an interview (assuming you meet the criteria they are looking for).

Whitestar , I was under the impression the green card scheme ended in 1999 ?

I'll remind you what you posted on page 6 of this thread:



Then on page 8:



There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity to these suggestions. They only way they can be taken is literally.




They were totally short sighted, knee-jerk suggestions made without giving any thought whatsoever to their potential consequences.



See above. You can't blame other people for taking your ideas literally - there's no other way they can be taken. If you say you think people should have to work for 'x' number of years before being eligible for any benefits, how do you suggest people should interpret such a suggestion?



Care to give an example of when an idea as daft as yours has been turned into a workable suggestion?

Not particularly.. I'm not paid to come up with these schemes.

In regards to taking things literally, for example the x years thing i meant that you should have to work for so many years before you can then go and claim a job seekers allowance or something along those lines. Obviously the genuinely disabled people wouldn't come into, but you were putting the whole thing into one group!! Your views are just as short sighted as you think the system is fine and rosey!!! Don't see you jumping on everyone elses back for their suggestions!!

Well, I registered in 1999 through social services and the green card has just been in my purse ever since. I'm pretty sure you can still be registered disabled though.

From Direct gov website:
[i
Registering as a disabled person

If your disability is 'substantial and permanent', you can register as a disabled person with your local council.

It is not necessary to register to get local council services, but it may help in getting concessions such as reduced fares for public transport. It should also help your local council plan their services.

Your local social services department should be able to help you complete the registration form if necessary[/i.

You're not. But you did assert that good ideas can come from silly ones, so I thought you might have an example of when that has happened.



I never once mentioned disabled people. Not once. I said your suggestion that people should have to work for a set number of years before claiming any benefits was stupid. And not for any reason to do with disabled people. So your assertion that it's my fault for taking your suggestion too literally is, quite frankly, nonsense.



I haven't once suggested that the system is 'fine and rosey' (sic). The current system is, however, a good deal better than either of the ones you have suggested.



Show me another suggestion as ridiculous as either of yours and I might do.