Hoist by his own Petard?

[worried33]

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 its you who have shown a lack of respect by using that as an example of how someone would become disabled if not army.

 

The fact is simple, if PIP was fair, there would be no problem having ex army been assessed by it, and yes I do believe everyone should be treated the same by the DWP.

 

If ex army should have some kind of deal with the government for been on the front line then it should be the MoD to honour that deal not special benefit deals with the DWP to cover up an inadequate disability support.

 

Incidently a guy called mindreader has made excellent points here, I think he is bang on the money where he says too much faith has been put in integrity of mionisters and the best way forward is concentrating on negative media and legal action.

 

http://www.mind.org.uk/blog/6853_welfare_where_to_from_here

[debt4get]

I am concerned this thread has led to arguments with posters on this site....no-one has posted anything derogatory about our service personnel...but has as been stated continuously disability is across a whole spectrum of people...how or when you became disabled should not make you exempt from laws that this odious govt is concocting.....as I have said in other parts of this discussion...I have a feeling that only the limbless ex-service personnel are going to benefit from this exemption...people who have been damaged beyond repair mentally I fear will be disregarded...eg post truamatic stress disorder...as its a disability you cannot see....whilst none of us would argue that ex-forces who have been injured..and by the way the proposed legislation is 'severely injured' so is severely 2 legs gone?....1 arm and 1 leg?....or will someone with 1 leg be deemed as not 'severely' injured...the system should be fair to all concerned not just the few....I also believe like the above poster...concentrating on negative media and legal action is probably the best way forward...whilst we continue to posture, argue, fight our own corner and listen to the views of this uncaring govt...we are all going to get nowhere fast...we need to seriously start trying to negate the propaganda coming out of the con/dem govt....and ensure a fair level playing field for all.....rant over

[ScarletPimpernel]

Agreed.

 

 

 

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?

 

With the greatest respect, a soldier wouldn't have similar injuries to yours; your issues are a result of a physiological condition present since birth, not the result of traumatic injury occasioned in the service of your country. This doesn't make anyone better than the other, but if you are going to make comparisons, at least try to make them sensible ones.

 

I am with the Brig on this one.

 

Suggesting that soldiers 'know the risks' and should, presumably just accept any injury as part of the job, is both facile and specious. Who does not think they are invincible at 19 and 20 years of age? As they get older, and more experienced, and the risks become apparent, this is when their bravery is tested. On my operational tours of Afghanistan (working in the R3 Hospital), I was awed by the ability of soldiers to go out on the ground again and again, when their friends are killed and injured around them. I can't describe the feeling of being on ops, but I know this: if you haven't been part of it, you are talking out of your hoop.

 

One thing that always strikes me about our wounded service personnel, not just when I see them shortly after they've been wounded; in hospital months later, having yet more surgery; at Headley Court as they learn to live with their injuries, and at PRCs and afterwards, is that they always talk about what they can do, and want to do, and not what they can't. Those who cannot do anything at all are few and far between; very many of them get jobs - real jobs, not ones specially designed for them - and get on with their lives. They actually don't want to claim benefits, because most of them perceive it as scrounging if they can do a job.

 

Should we treat them differently - yes; we all owe it to them, and they have paid for what they get in blood. If it were not for the courage and sacrifice of Service personnel those who criticise them would not be free to do it today.

[SWLABR9]

According to Grayling the testing is all about finding out - assessing - what claimants can do as opposed to what they can't do, this with a view to 'helping' them (by cutting off their benefits) back to work. Is it fair to the troops they should be denied this supposedly useful procedure? If you take Grayling at his word, then clearly it's unfair not to let them, and if you believe as many do he's lying and the tests are rigged against claimants then it's unfair on everyone else to not let them. Either way it's wrong.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I was at Windsor last weekend and

was humbled and impressed by the

young service men and women who

have overcome injuries and traumatisation

that very few in civilian life could ever understand

or contemplate what these young people have

endured my colleague Scarlet Pimpernel has

summed this up perfectly, I'm inclined to close

this thread soon as it now seems to be achieving

nothing.

[seanamarts]

With the greatest respect, a soldier wouldn't have similar injuries to yours; your issues are a result of a physiological condition present since birth, not the result of traumatic injury occasioned in the service of your country. This doesn't make anyone better than the other, but if you are going to make comparisons, at least try to make them sensible ones.

 

I am with the Brig on this one.

 

Suggesting that soldiers 'know the risks' and should, presumably just accept any injury as part of the job, is both facile and specious. Who does not think they are invincible at 19 and 20 years of age? As they get older, and more experienced, and the risks become apparent, this is when their bravery is tested. On my operational tours of Afghanistan (working in the R3 Hospital), I was awed by the ability of soldiers to go out on the ground again and again, when their friends are killed and injured around them. I can't describe the feeling of being on ops, but I know this: if you haven't been part of it, you are talking out of your hoop.

 

Yes they should accept that there is a risk to injury, they are going to war. Regardless of whether they think they are invisible or not they are trained to fight as that means that there are going to be casualties.

 

One thing that always strikes me about our wounded service personnel, not just when I see them shortly after they've been wounded; in hospital months later, having yet more surgery; at Headley Court as they learn to live with their injuries, and at PRCs and afterwards, is that they always talk about what they can do, and want to do, and not what they can't. Those who cannot do anything at all are few and far between; very many of them get jobs - real jobs, not ones specially designed for them - and get on with their lives. They actually don't want to claim benefits, because most of them perceive it as scrounging if they can do a job.

 

Should we treat them differently - yes; we all owe it to them, and they have paid for what they get in blood. If it were not for the courage and sacrifice of Service personnel those who criticise them would not be free to do it today.

 

Im my opinion, no, they shouldnt be treated differently. The same as I wouldnt want to be treated differently for getting an illness I didnt ask for.

 

As I have said there should be a special pension for when soldiers are disabled during combat.

[seanamarts]

I was at Windsor last weekend and

was humbled and impressed by the

young service men and women who

have overcome injuries and traumatisation

that very few in civilian life could ever understand

or contemplate what these young people have

endured my colleague Scarlet Pimpernel has

summed this up perfectly, I'm inclined to close

this thread soon as it now seems to be achieving

nothing.

 

As I have pointed out these people are trained and have or should have specialised counselling on return from duty. If they do not then the MOD should put something in place for that.

 

The disabled should be banding together on this not becoming divided.

[sadone]

The disabled should be banding together on this not becoming divided.

 

Agreed. It's just these kind of rows that Cameron's government adore. Conquer by division and all that. Don't fall into that trap. All disabled people should be treated equally imo.

[Nystagmite]

With the greatest respect, a soldier wouldn't have similar injuries to yours; your issues are a result of a physiological condition present since birth, not the result of traumatic injury occasioned in the service of your country. This doesn't make anyone better than the other, but if you are going to make comparisons, at least try to make them sensible ones.

.

 

I have a head injury; which funnily enough, wasn't there at birth. At least one of my other disabilities can be caused trauma to the head. They are sensible comparisons - do you know the exact disabilities I have and what can cause them? My issues aren't as a result of a psychological injury since birth - at least 4 of my disabilities can be caused by problems (including other disabilities) arising later in life.

[debt4get]

exactly everyone should be treated the same....this attack on other disabled people is abhorrent....you will be believing next that we marched in iraq because of WMD...oh yes non found......or that fighting the taliban is keeping the streets of U.K. safe....utter clap trap...who ever gave us permission to invade another country......but where ever the USA leads us we blindly follow....this and previous administration have made it far worse...all those lives sacrificed for absolutely nothing...we had no end game in a war we could never win.... all we will, and have managed to do is...breed more extremist groups than we can keep tabs on......I am ex military...and do not believe service personnel should be given any more special treatment than any other disabled person in this country....no matter how you ended up disabled......Camerons govt must be loving this.......

[honeybee13]

I'm closing this thread for now pending further consideration. As has been said, disabled people shouldn't be fighting each other.

[ErikaPNP]

As per honeybee's post above, the thread was closed and termporarily removed. This was done because what had begun as a healthy debate degenerated into arguing, which was of a rather personal nature in some instances. I haven't posted in this thread therefore I, as an impartial person, I volunteered to take a look at the issues which caused the thread to close.

 

Firstly I will say that there is no one person at fault here, there has been arguing from both Site Team and non Site Team members. Both have fueled each other and it is not acceptable from any party. The debates will remain, but the arguments have been removed - both that of site team and non site team. Posts which do not discuss the issue in itself which was raised in the original post have also been removed.

 

Secondly, I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that discussion threads such as this are not supposed to be in the benefit forum, which is outlined in the 'this forum' stickie in the benefit subforum. The benefit forum is here primarily to provide assistance to those who require help with their benefit entitlement and to bring forward information to benefit claimants about changes which may affect them, such as benefit uprating or a change in the ESA descriptors. Discussion threads belong in the Bear Garden. There have been occasions where we have allowed discussions to take place on the benefit forum however they are becoming so frequent of late that they are detracting from the main purposes of the benefit forum. For that reason, any discussion threads which began before today's date will be allowed to remain. Any new discussion threads must be started in the bear garden. If they are not they will either be moved there, or removed entirely.

 

Lastly, because of the degeneration of this thread, it is being opened for 30 minutes only, to allow for final contributions about the issue raised in the original post. Please keep a civil discussion. Any posts which are not civil or are not in relation to the original post will be removed.

 

This thread will close permanently in 30 minutes but will not be removed - it will remain viewable.

[ErikaPNP]

Thread closed