Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Disability Talk / Social needs assessment
« Last post by Fiz on April 20, 2018, 06:13:00 PM »
My CPN visited today at short notice and has told me that she's applied for a social needs assessment from adult services in the hope that I am enabled to leave my house and do things. I'm not confident it will lead to any assistance given the current government cuts as I've yet to meet or know of anyone with mental health needs that has been offered such assistance.

With me it's not 'just' anxiety but is mostly physical pain that prevents me leaving my home. I am currently in the middle of a 12 month funeral prepayment plan and my LA have already made it clear that my application for DHP is unlikely to be approved since I have taken this optional financial obligation on myself so I'm assuming any social needs assessment will come to the same conclusion, that if I can afford a monthly prepayment plan for a funeral I could have been spending that on transport. But my socialising problems are not just the ones that get me from A to B but the only mode of transport I physically can physically manage is by car means using taxis and I can't be enclosed in a car with an unknown male due to PTSD. I guess what I'm saying is I'm very grateful for my CPN applying for a social needs assessment from adult services, I'm not hopeful of it being a successful application. My CPN's words were it's worth a try.

Does anyone know of a helpful social needs assessment for someone with mental health needs?
12
I'm meaning nowadays it would seem governments are looking on or treating charities as just another department of the government.

Over the last few year, based on experience, disability charities that are supposed to be a help are a waste of time, they expect me to complain directly because they seem too scared to do it themselves.
it would appear my thread starter explains why.
13
Disability Talk / Re: Steroid injections?
« Last post by Fiz on April 20, 2018, 05:52:53 PM »
 >bleep< there needs to be an "ouch" smilie on the forum and I felt this the next best thing.
14
''...this government is doing its best to deter well-known organisations who may speak up for us from doing so, and a clause here and a clause there, added together to worry a charity...''

Sort of minds me of the way many benefit claimants are encouraged to drop any ideas about appealing a benefit decision where they may have been awarded, say WRAG, but feel they should have been seen as qualifying for ESA Support, claimants are warned fairly strongly that should they appeal a decision they stand a good chance of losing the benefit level they have been given. Yes charities which depend on the sitting government for a large part of the income that allows them to do the work they do will be concerned not to put such access to funding in doubt.

One thing that tends to bug me to some extent is from what I thought a charity was is, it would appear, different to how governments look on them, I'm meaning nowadays it would seem governments are looking on or treating charities as just another department of the government.
15
Welfare Rights / Re: Got my PIP Assessment Date
« Last post by bub1 on April 20, 2018, 04:37:17 PM »
Had text to say they had received my report and I should hear within 4 weeks
16
Quote
Were it not so, Sunny, there would have been no reason to include the statement in the terms of contract.

It seems to me to be a pretty bog-standard clause actually designed just to stop people who get government contracts from whingeing about the schemes they get the contracts for.  I don't say that's right - far from it - I'm just disagreeing with the proposition that it extends as far as the article you cite would suggest.

I see it as the sort of clause that's inserted in the hopes that it will deter, not least because a charity might be concerned with the cost of getting legal advice, or not want to lose their sub-contract etc.

I'm not disagreeing with you as to the potential effect and I wouldn't disagree, for example, as to the effect that the drafter may have hoped that the clause would have, I just say I don't think it would from a contractual perspective hold water in the way the article you link to implies.

But where I think we would particularly agree is that this government is doing its best to deter well-known organisations who may speak up for us from doing so, and a clause here and a clause there, added together to worry a charity, especially since key charities can vary  massively in size and resources to get advice, can make an enormous difference.

Personally, I think the government propaganda probably does a lot more harm than clauses like this.  I think you share my loathing of the whole concept promoted that lots of us are skivers and those that aren't would soon recover if only we got a job.  (I'm not sure how jobs fix stuff like Parkinsons or help people to re-grow legs or whatever, but never mind, if you think of any example, from the government's perspective, it's always an exceptional case.)
17
Disability Talk / Re: Steroid injections?
« Last post by JLR2 on April 20, 2018, 04:16:54 PM »
Thanks Sunny, I will tell my doctor when I see him on Monday. The feelings I'm having in my right hand come on quite quickly when my arms is at roughly the 8 numeral on a clock face.  As I'm sitting here just now my notebook is below my elbow level, it's on my wee coffee table, and I can feel something, sort of tingling, along my thumb, the knuckle of my index finger and the heel of my palm. I have to constantly sit back from the notebook and move my arm till the feeling subsides but again it returns within moments of me going back to typing or moving the mouse on its mat. Maybe I'm just experiencing the same thing that many folk who spend a lot of time at computers or in desk jobs, repetitive strain injury perhaps.
18
''to prevent the affiliates from doing things outside of that specific contractual relationship.''

Were it not so, Sunny, there would have been no reason to include the statement in the terms of contract.

If I've read things correctly these terms of contract were in place before McVile was given the job she has at the DWP and would have been applied to those whom held the position before her. It is perhaps because McVile is so toxic that these clauses in the terms of contract have been looked at more seriously.

This story reminds me of the report about one of Donald Trump's meetings at the Whitehouse where it was suggested he more or less refused to start the meeting until those at the table all uttered their 2 minutes of praise for him. Maybe McVile will be looking to see the same worshiping from any charity or company which looks to gain work from the DWP. I could just imagine the doorman at the HQ of the DWP being sacked because he failed to say, ''Good morning'' with a smile big enough to meet the required level as McVile enters the building. Gawld help the poor sod whom forgets McVile's birthday.
19
Disability Talk / Re: Steroid injections?
« Last post by Sunny Clouds on April 20, 2018, 03:20:41 PM »
JLR - unless you're any good at typing one-handed, please be so kind as to get that hand seen to.  I need people who keep me informed of the stuff that's being thrown at us by the powers-that-be, and I particularly value your willingness to address disagreements or queries so that I can learn.  So forgive me if I show more concern for my needs than yours, but one has to have one's priorities and mine include reading what you post.
20
I would say that the normal, everyday meaning of those words would be that they refer to what the contractors and their affiliates do in the course of carrying out the contracts.  If they were interpreted otherwise by a court, it could set rather an alarming precedent in commercial contract law.

Quote
And it warns that these promises apply whether or not the damaging actions relate to the Work and Health Programme, and it says they also apply to any of the contractor’s “Affiliates”.

There doesn't seem to be any quote of the specific wording, rather than an interpretation of it, and whilst it may well be that some charities would interpret the clause concerned in this way, it is clear that others haven't.

I don't say that the clause is acceptable, merely that I struggle to accept that in reality it would be interpreted by any court of law as acting to prevent the affiliates from doing things outside of that specific contractual relationship.

That doesn't mean that I would disagree, for example, with the idea that the government is trying to gag charities and other organisations that can act as a voice for disabled and disadvantaged people.  I'm quite sure that they do everything they can think of to achieve that.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10