• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
  • We seem to be having technical difficulties with new user accounts. If you are trying to register please check your Spam or Junk folder for your confirmation email. If you still haven't received a confirmation email, please reach out to our support inbox: support.forum@diabetes.org.uk

Some good news about PIP for me

Taffyboyslim said:
So basically all of it
Click to expand...
I’ll try and break it down. Can you understand the first bit that 34% is less than 43%? And therefore that that means a part of 34% is also less than 43%? Or is it the numbers that you’re confused by?
 
Taffyboyslim said:
Once the DWP start giving us statistics I know it's designed to confuse us and make us think they are doing a good job

So basically all of it

Regards
Click to expand...
I just looked a couple of pages discussing the issue including this one https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ary-2025#England-and-Wales-PIP-claim-activity

That's definitely confusing and I have a degree in statistics.

Also has to be said that if you have a process where you have either a 34% or 43% chance of overturning the decision on appeal, then it doesn't really matter which one is accurate. The system is just basically not fit for purpose.
 
Last edited:
Rob Oldfield said:
Also has to be said that if you have a process where you have either a 34% or 43% chance of overturning the decision on appeal, then it doesn't really matter which one is accurate. The system is just basically not fit for purpose
Click to expand...
The point trying to explain isn’t whether the system is fit for purpose. It’s whether more people are awarded pip at first application or on appeal. At appeal awards move up and down it’s not just people who didn’t get an award that go to appeal. Just one part of 34% is so very clearly less than 43% so I’m baffled as to how multiple people seemingly can’t understand that.
 
Lucyr said:
The point trying to explain isn’t whether the system is fit for purpose. It’s whether more people are awarded pip at first application or on appeal. At appeal awards move up and down it’s not just people who didn’t get an award that go to appeal. Just one part of 34% is so very clearly less than 43% so I’m baffled as to how multiple people seemingly can’t understand that.
Click to expand...

And my point is that it really doesn't matter and is distracting from people discussing the effect it's having on their lives.
 
Rob Oldfield said:
And my point is that it really doesn't matter and is distracting from people discussing the effect it's having on their lives.
Click to expand...
If someone on a diabetes forum can’t understand 34 being less than 43 then it’s really important we help them to improve their understanding in any way we can, which means understanding first exactly which bit they’re stuck on. Numbers are vitally important in diabetes.
 
Taffyboyslim said:
I listened to that awful woman Liz Kendal saying people with long term chronic illness wouldn't face further testing



Bunch of liars , just like the last lot
Click to expand...
Not sure but think she said people with 10 yr awards would only have a light touch review, IE a phone call with the question are you still alive.
You still have to have the 4 points in one category though at renewal after 2026 no matter what length of award.
 
If I can throw in twopenny worth....the same that anybody having a background in QC/QA might appreciate.

If you are going to have a welfare system then it comes with an immediate problem. However hard you try you will not get every decision "right", particularly when the boundary between pass and fail is a bit blurry. You have two choices.

If you want to make sure that everybody who deserves help gets included then you have to accept that a lot of grifters will alsoget included - false positives.

If you want to make sure all the grifters get excluded, then you have to accept that some deserving help will also get excluded - false negatives.

A welfare system can only minimise the number of false outcomes. As any QA/QC person will tell you the more you spend on inspection, the lower the number of false outcomes but it will never be zero.

The left thinkers prefer every deserving person gets included. The right thinkers want all the grifters excluded. Neither wants to pay the colossal amount on the system needed to get any where near an outcome where all of the deserving get supported and all the grifters excluded.

It does not help when politicians of all hues claim they are going to sort things out. Like all those who confidently claim that they will do the thing that can't be done....they will not be able to do it.
 
Pumper_Sue said:
Not sure but think she said people with 10 yr awards would only have a light touch review, IE a phone call with the question are you still alive.
You still have to have the 4 points in one category though at renewal after 2026 no matter what length of award.
Click to expand...

I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth

She's worse than the last lot when it comes to welfare , absolutely appalling
 
Docb said:
If I can throw in twopenny worth....the same that anybody having a background in QC/QA might appreciate.

If you are going to have a welfare system then it comes with an immediate problem. However hard you try you will not get every decision "right", particularly when the boundary between pass and fail is a bit blurry. You have two choices.

If you want to make sure that everybody who deserves help gets included then you have to accept that a lot of grifters will alsoget included - false positives.

If you want to make sure all the grifters get excluded, then you have to accept that some deserving help will also get excluded - false negatives.

A welfare system can only minimise the number of false outcomes. As any QA/QC person will tell you the more you spend on inspection, the lower the number of false outcomes but it will never be zero.

The left thinkers prefer every deserving person gets included. The right thinkers want all the grifters excluded. Neither wants to pay the colossal amount on the system needed to get any where near an outcome where all of the deserving get supported and all the grifters excluded.

It does not help when politicians of all hues claim they are going to sort things out. Like all those who confidently claim that they will do the thing that can't be done....they will not be able to do it.
Click to expand...
That's too complicated for me

If the reason for welfare reform is to slash the welfare bill .....and this is clearly the case .....then genuine people ....95 percent of claims ...will in some way get shafted

Moving the goalposts to make it more difficult to get support does NOT make those difficulties or conditions go away

It means people who had support this year will next year not got support if they don't meet the criteria...what a joke .....and people who become unwell next year won't get the support people do now

All due to new rules on how ill you are which are being brought in to save money

I think going after tax avoiders and increasing the tax on amazon and all the big boys would be far better

But who am I to be disgusted with these proposals

As far as some people are concerned we are all faking it anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top