Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Welfare Rights / Re: My call-up papers have arrived
« Last post by auntieCtheM on Today at 09:41:02 PM »
Hi Monic.  I am grateful for your advice.  It peps me up and gives me the mojo to carry on.  It would be so easy to give up now, it really would.  But I am going to soldier on.

In light of your advice i will tell the DWP that paperwork has been delayed but that I will get it to them asap when I submit it next week.
2
Disability Talk / Re: Disagreements - an apology
« Last post by auntieCtheM on Today at 09:36:08 PM »
Hi Sunny, don't feel bad about what is going on.  We love reading what you say even if we do not join in with your discussion.  You have very interesting views and I would be sorry if you did not pop back every now and then, and join in with whatever is going on.   >hugs<
3
Disability Talk / Re: Disagreements - an apology
« Last post by KizzyKazaer on Today at 05:48:33 PM »
Thanks for posting that, Sunny - and I echo what Monic said.

Disagreements/misunderstandings between people is probably inevitable on occasions whatever the size of the posting membership on a message board, but I feel it should not be a reason for anybody leaving.  There's not much that can't be sorted out once those involved have had a chance to take time out and think about things - and as I said in Management Feedback, I feel this is one of the safest places on the Web to do so.  Anyway, we keep trucking on  :-)
4
Disability Talk / Re: Disagreements - an apology
« Last post by Monic1511 on Today at 04:02:18 PM »
Hi
Iím sorry you feel you need to withdraw but appreciate that itís what you feel is best for you.
I hope when you pop in you will continue to contribute even if itís not getting involved in debates.
Take care
 >bighugs<
5
Disability Talk / Re: Paultons Park
« Last post by bub1 on Today at 02:32:43 PM »
We all agree to disagree,
6
Disability Talk / Disagreements - an apology
« Last post by Sunny Clouds on Today at 01:26:32 PM »
I am posting this here since some people will not have read what I have posted elsethread.

Whilst I have had disagreements with others, and some of my feelings about it are very strong, my problem is with how I feel about those disagreements, i.e. it is my reactions I need to address, not other people's behaviour or comments or whatever.

I disagree very strongly as to what I understand to be the views and/or ethics of some people here in respect of various matters, and I get the impression that othes here would say the same in reverse.  But I do not know most of you in RL or else-site and there are always gaps in what we know about one another on a messageboard, which may give a very misleading picture.  We do not socialise with one another and do not have to like one another or agree with one another. 

I enjoy, I think, a different sort of debate from quite a few others here.  Anywhere, on- or off-line where people discuss and debate, there will be disagreements.  However, I think that if there are only a few people discussing it can be problematic if they are seeking different things from the discussion.

I think that I have been slow to recognise that for me this has become more of a problem with the number of posters on this site dwindling so that the sort of debate I enjoy is not the norm here now.  I believe that I should have recognised that and seen that I am out of synch with many others.

I apologise for disruption that may have caused, and as I have stated elsethread, will now be withdrawing from debates, save for the tail-end of my goodbyes, and then just popping in from time to time.





7
Disability Talk / Re: Paultons Park
« Last post by Sunny Clouds on Today at 12:49:20 PM »
I know you weren't trying to attack me and my problem is with my reaction to what you said, not with what you said.  I apologise for not making that clear.
8
Disability Talk / Re: Paultons Park
« Last post by ally on Today at 12:11:35 PM »
I had no intention of attacking you.  I was actually trying to defend your views on the disability criteria for Paultons park.  Before fizz posted I'd never heard of the  place.   Now I wish I'd never heard of the place at all.  Sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intention. 
9
Disability Talk / Re: Paultons Park
« Last post by Sunny Clouds on Today at 11:26:30 AM »
I think that I have been misrepresented but I do not argue that that has been done deliberately.  The issues I raised about what adjustments Paulton's Park should or shouldn't make revolved around the issue of reasonableness, including what adjustments (not mentioned in the OP) they already make, and what evidence they might reasonably ask for of the need for further adjustments than they already make.  I did, for example, make suggestions as to two further adjustments they could make (seeking some sort of evidence as to inability to walk from ride to ride, and giving a discount for those needing supervision). 

The rates of PIP I do or don't get are totally irrelevant to the issue of what adjustments Paulton's can legally be expected to make.

I have absolutely no idea why anyone would think that I look at life in black and white, since the aspect of me that most often seems to drive people potty is the fact that I don't, that I see the 'yes, but...' in everything.  I'm the one who when drafting policies for organisations have to sleep on it and then go through my own drafting removing clause after clause that I had inserted to allow for the exceptions and variations; the one who, when debating something sees the things that aren't all or nothing, yes or no, black or white.

I get the impression that what is being confused here is whether it is my thinking that is black and white or the law that I am commenting on.  The law is open to interpretation by the courts, but it says what it says.  It says says Paulton's Park has to make reasonable adjustments, that doesn't mean they have to make unlimited adjustments, complicated adjustments, disproportionately expensive adjustments.  Thus I would enjoy debating what is or isn't reasonable, but if I say that Paulton's Park has to make only 'reasonable' adjustments, that is the nature of our legislative process that is black and white, not my thinking.

Thus my point about wheelchairs is not as to whether it is right or wrong for someone not to have one, but whether as a matter of reasonableness Paulton's Park could take the view that the ability to get from car park to entrance and thence to wheelchair hire is indicative of an ability to get from ride to ride.  My issue is as to where the threshold should lie and as to what evidence Paulton's Park could realistically be expected to accept that their existing adjustments to the rides do not suffice for the purpose of the legal requirement to make reasonable (and only reasonable) adjustments. 

However, it seems to me that there are very different views here and more to the point, different approaches to debating such points.  It is clear that Fiz has taken my approach to discussing these issues as a personal attack, and various things said to me have felt like a personal attack.  That being so, I do rather feel that this thread has gone pearshaped because we're looking for a different sort of debate. 

I apologise if I came across otherwise than intended and I hope that the above explanation will enable you to see my perspective, as I have endeavoured to see that of others.  I will leave you to discuss Paulton's Park and pop in elsethread from time to time to say hello.
10
Welfare Rights / Re: My call-up papers have arrived
« Last post by Monic1511 on Today at 09:59:39 AM »
If you have already asked for an mr then you have a month from that date to get it in on time. You can do a late mr as long as you give the reason for lateness - I had to wait on several medical professionals providing additional evidence.

Because most mr go to appeal we operate on a get the mr in and if you donít get evidence before you get a decision then present the evidence at appeal. Not the best but keeps claimants within the rules.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10