#luxuryonthesick NOPE.

Nope . 

ESA+h/ben +council tax support for ME as a total, is below The poverty line which is 

" A family or individual is considered to be in poverty when post-tax income falls below 60 per cent of the national median – £367 a week, which is £220 a week." 

As all three added up is below that £220 definition. And With the contribution to council tax , thats a tax. So I am correct that ESA, for me,  is below the poverty line.

Media often is on about people Raking it in . *coughs* its a media myth. 

Mental Health failures in welfare system ...

UPDATE ON THE MHRN COURT CASE FOR THOSE WITH MHP's

WCA JUDICIAL REVIEW UPDATE.

There will be a three day hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 22, 23 & 24 July 2014 in an attempt to establish what the DWP is going to do to remedy the substantial disadvantage that people with mental health problems suffer when being put through the Work Capability Assessment. This will follow a directions hearing that will take place in May.

Everyone knows that the only real remedy to our plight will be when these mock assessments are abandoned but, until then, we will continue the fight to try to improve them.

The case centres around the importance of further medical evidence for a person with mental health problems and on who is responsible for obtaining this evidence. Both the MHRN and the judges believe that such evidence is vital and that the DWP should be responsible and proactive in obtaining it. For their part, the DWP don't want to know about medical evidence from a claimant's own mental health professionals because the WCA is not an assessment of a person's mental health condition but a dummy assessment that pretends that how a person functions can be separated from any condition they live with. The last thing the DWP want is real evidence from someone who might be qualified to comment!

It is possible that some kind of pilot study will be undertaken by? maybe Atos? to try to establish how they could go about obtaining this evidence. Under the Equalities Act, the DWP should be making reasonable adjustments to the assessment to accommodate our problems and it has been successfully argued that obtaining such evidence would be a reasonable adjustment. We can probably predict that they will try to show from a pilot study that such adjustments would be too expensive, unhelpful and unworkable, and therefore unreasonable. It will be for us to keep an eye on the progress of any pilot and to make sure they know that we are all watching them.

We will be in court and will keep you informed.

---------------

LEON gave me this. 

Expensive Meds? They wanna drop One for cost?

Latest consultant letter to my doc 

" I reviewed this pleasant individual in clinic today..." 

"..tolerating medications.." 

"nothing that we didnt already know..."
(summary of issues) 

 "Doesnt wish to change a working regime.."
"In view of this I have continued.." 

 "will review this in six months" 

The review bit is to remove one of my meds, due to cost. THEY TOLD ME ITS EXPENSIVE. 

I dont want that . I won this time, maybe not next time.

TRIBUNAL: Regarding IB/ESA claimant death figures - Mr M. Sivier

Diary marker

Tribunal – Law Courts, Cathays Park, Cardiff, April 23, 2014 at 10am

Incapacity benefits – deaths of claimants

A tribunal will decide whether the Department for Work and Pensions should be ordered to release its statistics on the number of people who have died while claiming Incapacity Benefit or Employment and Support Allowance, at a hearing next week.

The First-Tier Tribunal (formerly the Information Tribunal) will be hearing an appeal by Vox Political blogger Mike Sivier, against a decision by the Information Commissioner and the DWP to refuse a Freedom of Information request on the subject.

The DWP published an ‘ad hoc statistical release’ in July 2012, showing that 10,600 claimants died between January and November 2011. Of these, 3,500 – or 73 people every week – were either going through the assessment process or had been put in the work-related activity group, intended for people who were expected to recover within a year, when they died.

The revelation provoked outcry from people suffering from disabilities and long-term illnesses, and seems to have discouraged the DWP from continuing to publish the figures.

Mr Sivier made his request in June 2013, after learning that the DWP had refused previous requests. The department at first claimed there was no intention to release any further statistics, and the information would take a great deal of time and effort to gather and collate – this is not true. In fact, the DWP later admitted that it does hold the information, and could provide it within the cost limit.

The next excuse was that the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, accepted that there was interest in the figures and was considering how to publish them. This was claimed in August 2013. Since no plan to publish these time-sensitive figures after nearly nine months, we must conclude that, like the previous claim, it is not true. The figures are time-sensitive because it is important that the system be improved to prevent unnecessary deaths. Delays in publication mean the figures are unlikely to be used in that way.

Seeing that the DWP had brushed aside privately-made requests, Mr Sivier ensured that his was public knowledge by writing an article about it in his blog (at http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/dwp-refuses-to-provide-information-on-esaib-deaths-what-is-it-hiding/). As an afterthought, he included a line encouraging readers to follow his example, if they believed the issue was important, reasoning that the DWP may give more weight to it if it was known that there was general concern.

The DWP refused the request, claiming it was “vexatious” under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Officers had visited the blog and concluded that the last line, “I strongly urge you to do the same. There is strength in numbers,” constituted a co-ordinated campaign of harassment against the department.

Mr Sivier believes this is nonsense and appealed to the Information Commissioner on this basis. But the Commissioner was persuaded by the DWP and upheld the decision, forcing Mr Sivier to take the matter to the tribunal.



UPDATE HERE: http://t.co/WUNO2cmcRL

Scrutiny in Parliament? A little dig under the surface...

Myself and Wayne were chatting regarding the Maria Miller what can only be called ...  debacle .

Wayne raised a few questions that spurned his research, I , as is Wayne, am TOTALLY gobsmacked by what came out of both of our questioning of this. 

Wayne agreed to write it up. All I'd add is that the whole thing absolutely reeks , I'll let Wayne explain below. 

As many of you already no doubt are aware, Maria Miller, Conservative MP and Culture Secretary, was today slapped rather tamely on the wrist, ordered to apologise and repay £5,800 after being found to have overclaimed the money on her mortgage in 2009.  Despite a hugely critical report by Kathryn Hudson, Standards Commissioner, Ms. Miller is still in her job and in the Cabinet.

Needless to say, I think the decision is ridiculous and Maria Miller, at the very least, should be resigning immediately from both the Cabinet and Parliament.  But what really astounds me is that the decision was made by a group of her peers - ie. other MPs who sit on the House of Commons Committee on Standards, and not an independent body or the Police.  It’s frankly ludicrous that this group was allowed to decide on this matter.  So it got me wondering, who exactly sat on this Committee?

Well, thanks to this document (Page 5) I can tell you that the current membership of the Committee is as follows:

For some reason that I cannot explain, the list set off some alarms bells in the deep recesses of my brain.  Whether is was something I’d read during the expenses scandal, or something more recent, I’m not sure, but a couple of the names jumped out at me.  So, at a little after midnight this evening, I decided to do a little Googling and see what I could find on these members of the “Standards Committee”.

And I was astounded at what I found.  Let’s go through them one by one, shall we?

Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP (Chair)

Mr Barron claimed £1500 a month to rent from a colleague, as reported by the Telegraph here.  This is the man who sits as CHAIR of the Standards Committee, and yet is found to be doing this.

Sir Paul Beresford MP

Sir Paul, one of the most influential dentists in the country, designated his West London home, which included his surgery, as his second home on his parliamentary expenses.  He claimed thousands on this “second home” according to the Telegraph here.

Mr Robert Buckland MP

Mr Buckland was elected to the House of Commons in 2010.  This, of course, means he was not part of the expenses scandal that we all saw in 2009.  He has, however, been criticised for claiming energy bills on expenses (see the comments at the bottom for details of his claim).

Mr Christopher Chope MP

Well, where to start?  Mr Chope not only claimed over £800 to strip down and recover a sofa, he also claimed £10,000 to re-roof a property owned jointly with his wife.  He claimed £136,992 in 2007/08. The report is here.  And he sits on the Standards Committee??

Rt Hon Mr Tom Clarke MP

Mr Clarke designated the Sloane Club in Chelsea as second home, and claimed about £1,500 a month while in London. Claimed £400 a month for food, according to the Telegraph.

Mr Geoffrey Cox MP

Whilst Mr Cox has been quite open and transparent regarding his expenses claims, questions have been raised about the amount of money Mr Cox earns from his second job.

Sir Nick Harvey MP

Sir Nicholas Barton Harvey claimed money for renting a property in London whilst also renting out his own property, as the Huffington Post revealed here.  He also, shamefully, accepted £7.20 in expenses forattending a Rememberance Sunday parade.

Fiona O’Donnell MP

In 2010 Ms. O’Donnell had to defend expenses that were the highest in Scotland, with over £14,500 in a three-and-a-half month period.  She was elected in 2010.

Heather Wheeler MP

Mrs Wheeler was elected in 2010.  She was criticised over claiming energy bills last year.

Dr Alan Whitehead MP

Dr Whitehead claimed mortgage interest payments of up to £730 per month on his second home in London. Also claimed £1,942.98 for a replacement boiler according to the Telegraph.

Annette Brooke MP

Mrs Brooke has been criticised in her local press for having the highest expenses claims in Dorset.  She also claimed expenses for fizzy drinks and chocolates, despite leading a fight against obesity.

So, despite a couple of notable exceptions, all of the so-called House of Commons Committee on Standards have previously had their own issues with expenses and parliamentary standards.  Not exactly the impartial group you’d want to be conducting this sort of investigation into one of their peers, is it?  And it’s also noteworthy that over half the Committee are Coalition members, who I have absolutely no doubt will have wanted to support their colleague.

It’s simply not good enough, and there are definite questions that need to be answered here.  

Not least being why the hell is the Committee on Standards made up of people who have fallen so badly foul themselves of the rules on standards themselves?



4th April, Guardian, had this to say > http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/04/maria-miller-expenses-claims-referred-police-labour-mortgage

Digital Inclusion - A few thoughts

Much speak of digital inclusion flies around training people to use stuff.

PLEASE STOP.

If people havent got stuff, and net access theres really little point to that.

Whats needed is a social utility, part of infrastructure.

How simple is , for instance ...
Wifi to estates / let property as PART of the portfolio of provided services, an outcome//benefit/service associated to and run by the landlords?

If landlords provide the wifi by whatever means, tenants wont be spending money on broadband instead of rent when things get tough.
(thats for those who can actually GET contracts, lots cant)

It then removes one obstacle to digital inclusion that is rarely spoken of.

One simple investment infrastructure that effectively enhances contact and engagement with tenants. With the wider social benefit of one hole in digital inclusion being filled.

Wider, working with councils to provide to all?

What do you think? Ubiquetous Wifi?

Luxury on the sick? NOPE

I need one of these. Cant afford though > http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/External-Battery-Charger-HP-6720-6730-491278-HSTNN-IB51-/400216443724?pt=UK_Computing_LaptopAccessories_PowerSupplies&hash=item5d2ec24b4c

Or i need a new charging port, but thats likely over 150 quid.

So thats impossible on the money I get for ESA, but everyone wants Digital, and I do stuff digital.

So mr IDS and all media. THIS ISNT LUXURY and yet its stuff you all can DO without blinking.

So luxury on the sick? Get real will ya.

How little I knew about : Epilepsy

So people Dont know about this, I didnt until a lady who has epilepsy told me about it. 

Strange how people know so little about illnesses. And they panic too if they see fits. Someone who lives quite close has epilepsy and I whats commonly called "boned up" on what to do if I see him fit. 

I realised I didnt know about it at all, even though I know several who have it. More shame on me. 

"There's so much more to living with epilepsy than having seizures. There's depression, insomnia, low self esteem, low self worth, no confidence, sexual issues and more."

So 

In support of awareness: 

Courtesy of : Epilepsy Action 

The definition of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP)

The causes of SUDEP
Risk factors of SUDEP
Ways to reduce the risks of SUDEP if you have epilepsy
Ways to reduce the risks of SUDEP for someone who is having a seizure
Further information about SUDEP

Introduction 

Epilepsy Action believes that it is very important for people with epilepsy and their families to be aware of the risks associated with epilepsy. This information is about one significant risk, and that is sudden death due to epilepsy.

It is important to remember that the risks of dying because of epilepsy are low. There are also things you can do to make the risks even lower.

Many people who knew somebody who died due to SUDEP have told us they wished they had known more about the risks, before the person died. Therefore, the aim of this information is to raise awareness of the risk of sudden death associated with epilepsy. It also offers practical advice and suggestions on ways to reduce this risk.

There have been many studies carried out into SUDEP and research is continuing. However, SUDEP is still not fully understood by medical professionals. In this information, we can only tell you about the current understanding of SUDEP.

If you would like to discuss anything to do with SUDEP, you could speak to an adviser on the Epilepsy Helpline, freephone 0808 800 5050 (UK only). You could also contact your family doctor, epilepsy specialist, or epilepsy nurse.

The definition of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP)

If a person with epilepsy dies suddenly and unexpectedly, and no obvious cause of death can be found, it is called sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Sometimes, it is called sudden unexplained death in epilepsy.

The causes of SUDEP

SUDEP has been shown to be connected with seizures. The exact cause is not known and there may be no single explanation. However, it is thought that seizure activity in the brain may sometimes cause changes in the person’s heartbeat or breathing. This could cause the person to stop breathing or their heart to stop beating.

Risk factors of SUDEP

It is estimated that SUDEP happens to one in every 1,000 people with epilepsy. There is no way of predicting who will be affected by SUDEP. However, some people with epilepsy have a higher risk of SUDEP than others. The single most important risk factor is uncontrolled generalised tonic-clonic seizures. This is a type of seizure that causes the person to lose consciousness. Their body goes stiff and then starts jerking.

SUDEP has occurred in people who had seizures very often, and also in people who did not have them very often. However, the risk is thought to be higher, the more seizures you have. The risk of SUDEP if you are seizure-free is very, very low. And, SUDEP is rare in people who are newly diagnosed with epilepsy.

Any of the following things are thought to increase a person’s risk of SUDEP.

Having uncontrolled generalised tonic-clonic seizures
Not taking epilepsy medicines as prescribed
Having seizures that are not controlled by epilepsy medicines
Having sudden and frequent changes to epilepsy medicines
Being a young adult (in particular male)
Having sleep seizures
Having seizures when alone
Drinking large amounts of alcohol
Ways to reduce the risks of SUDEP if you have epilepsy

Seizure control
The most effective way to reduce the risk of SUDEP is to have as few seizures as possible. If your seizures are not controlled, here are some ways that you can manage your epilepsy, to try and reduce them.

Always take your epilepsy medicines as prescribed.
Never stop taking your epilepsy medicines, or make changes to them, without talking to your doctor first.
Make sure that you never run out of your epilepsy medicines.
Ask your epilepsy specialist or epilepsy nurse in advance what you should do if you ever forget to take your epilepsy medicines.
If your seizures continue, ask to be referred to an epilepsy specialist for a review of your epilepsy. They may be able to suggest changes to your epilepsy medicines, or other treatment options, which may include surgery.
Keep a diary of your seizures. This can help doctors when they are considering the best treatment for you. It may also help you to see if there is a pattern to your seizures, or anything that triggers your seizures.
Avoid situations which may trigger your seizures. Common triggers include forgetting to take epilepsy medicines, lack of sleep, stress and too much alcohol.
If your epilepsy is very difficult to control, ask your specialist if you could be referred to a specialist epilepsy centre for treatment. Contact Epilepsy Action for more information about this.
Epilepsy Action has more information about epilepsy medicines, surgery, seizure diaries and seizure triggers.

Other ways to reduce risk

If your seizures happen at night, consider using a bed alarm, which can alert another person if you have a seizure. This will enable the person to help you. For example, they can put you in the recovery position or call for an ambulance, if necessary. (Be aware that bed alarms are not always perfect. They may sometimes miss seizures or go off without a reason. And it’s important to know that there is no proof that bed alarms reduce the risk of SUDEP.)
For information about alarms and manufacturers, you can contact Disabled Living Foundation’s equipment helpline. They provide information about suppliers of specialist equipment to help with everyday living.

Tel: 0300 999 0004 (calls charged at local rate)
Textphone: 020 7432 8009 (calls charged at standard rate)
Email: advice@dlf.org.uk

The Disabled Living Foundation's website is called Living made Easy.

Telecare (alarms linked to a help centre)
Website: livingmadeeasy.org.uk/telecare

Bed alarms
Website: livingmadeeasy.org.uk/bedroom

Tell people about your epilepsy and let them know how they can help you if you have a seizure. You may choose to wear identity jewellery or carry some form of epilepsy awareness card to make other people aware of your epilepsy.
Having seizures when you are alone is a risk factor for SUDEP. You may wish to bear this in mind when you are making plans for where you live and what you do. For example, you may choose to live with other people.
Some people who have sleep seizures use anti-suffocation pillows. These may be safer than ordinary pillows, although we don’t have any research that proves this. If you think an anti-suffocation pillow would help you, please talk to your epilepsy nurse or epilepsy specialist. They will help you to decide whether an anti-suffocation pillow would be a good idea for you. 
For details of where you can buy anti-suffocation pillows, contact Epilepsy Action.
Epilepsy Action has more information about safety and epilepsy, identity jewellery and epilepsy awareness cards.

Ways to reduce the risks of SUDEP for someone who is having a seizure

You may be with someone when they have a seizure which causes them to lose consciousness. Here are some things you can do to help them recover. Your actions may also reduce the risks of SUDEP.

Remember ACTION for tonic-clonic seizures:

A Assess
Assess the situation – are they in danger of injuring themselves? Remove any nearby objects that could cause injury
C Cushion
Cushion their head (with a jumper, for example) to protect them from head injury
T Time
Check the time – if the seizure lasts longer than five minutes you should call an ambulance
I Identity
Look for a medical bracelet or ID card – it may give you information about the person’s seizures and what to do
O Over
Once the seizure is over, put them on their side (in the recovery position). Stay with them and reassure them as they come round
N Never
Never restrain the person, put something in their mouth or try to give them food or drink
The recovery position

The recovery position

Call for an ambulance if...

You know it is the person’s first seizure, or
The seizure continues for more than five minutes, or
One tonic-clonic seizure follows another without the person regaining consciousness between seizures, or
The person is injured during the seizure, or
You believe the person needs urgent medical attention
Further information about SUDEP

SUDEP Action

SUDEP Action offers support and information for people affected by SUDEP and other bereavements related to epilepsy. They also promote research into the causes of SUDEP.
Tel: 01235 772 852
Website: www.sudep.org

This information was written by Epilepsy Action’s advice and information team with guidance and input from people living with epilepsy and medical experts.

If you would like to see this information with references, visit the Advice and Information references section of our website. See SUDEP.

Code: F006.03

Epilepsy Action would like to thank Dr Lina Nashef, consultant neurologist at Kings College Hospital, UK for her contribution to this information.

Dr Lina Nashef has no conflict of interest to declare.

DYSTOPIA

In Wisteria Kingdom where one party controlled everything.

There were many forms to work.
Many forms for support to live payments.

Work and support were both available, the forms were so proliferate.

And people were confused over forms and fell by the wayside.

And The Sub leader of Forms said to the leader, Theres too many supports. Lets make it ONE support.

And so many more forms were designed, confusing people even more.

The Leaders of Wisteria rubbed their hands as less money went from the coffers that were , rightly , set aside.

That led to accountant of Wisteria setting a zero based budget.

And no one in departments or advice services knew what zero based budgets were, and underbid for necessary funds.

Then there were loads of forms, all justified for either work entitlement or support.

This cloggeed the system.

They tried to solve it, the clerks, but couldnt.

The Housing Clerks collecting rent were very out in a far corner of the offices.

The people getting the one Support payment had more disposable income than the previous system had seen , and as NONE of the system provided fair life, they claimed it themselves, leaving the housing collectors short.

The housing collectors spoke to the governance, who spoke to the overlords who said collect.
FROM MILLIONS

The Justice department were engaged. "these people need to pay their occupancy fees" was the edict.

The Housing collectors failed to engage newly enabled populace of Wisteria and collected pittance... leading to the Justice Department looking at either mass apply for evictions and deal with millions of displaced people. Or Cancel new system.

The Justice department then said : Let them live there.

Other departments were clawing with their forms and intent to get the money they were told they should extract.

It all fell apart and failed.

What this Govt Think About calling early elections:

REGARDING those petitions calling for an early election: I repeat this info FROM your beloved govt: - 



Govt Comment on the Legal Lock of fixed term parliaments : Your Government writes :

The Government will not seek to dissolve Parliament before 2015. We came together at a time of crisis to fix the country and ensure our long term prosperity. We intend to secure a country in a better state than when we came into office. Although we know that not everything we do is popular, we know it is necessary for Britain to rebuild and compete in the world. We are making progress and keeping our promises by cutting the deficit, cutting crime and immigration, reforming our welfare and education systems to help people work hard and get on. We have cut corporation tax and are slashing red tape to make Britain a good place to do business, and have increased the personal allowance to cut taxes for millions of low and middle income earners, frozen council tax and cut fuel duty to help families with the cost of living.

Practically, the Fixed- term Parliament Act 2011 abolished the Prime Minister's prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. The Act provides that Parliament can only be dissolved early if a Government is unable to secure the confidence of the House of Commons within 14 days of a no-confidence vote, or where at least two thirds of all MPs vote for an early general election. The legislation established five year fixed terms for the UK Parliament. The next General Election is therefore planned in law for 7 May 2015, and polling day will ordinarily be the first Thursday in May every five years. A debate in Parliament on an e-petition is unlikely to result in legislation to undo this legal lock.

Why Bowel Disease can be scary...

Do you want to know why bowel disease can be scary every time you feel an ouch?

Trigger Warning: This contains complications can be experienced with one of my invisible illnesses. 




This is for information, as often I have people disbelieve me of its seriousness so here it is: 


The most common complication of sigmoid diverticulosis is diverticulitis, 

which occurs when the diverticula become infected and inflamed. 

This causes a fever, intense pain in the lower left abdomen, a fever, nausea, and increased urination if the infection is near the bladder. 

If diverticulitis is left untreated, it can cause peritonitis, a condition in which waste from the intestines enters the abdominal cavity, causing severe inflammation and infection. 

Once this happens, infection can spread to other parts of the body through the blood, a life-threatening condition known as sepsis.


Tell me i'm not ill..... nope.... you cant.