The purpose of the benefit is clear - it is there to support people to undertake activities without being impeded by their disability.
That is not the same as paying for the activity like some kind of treat!
So parents of disabled children should only be allowed to use the money to pay for government approved activities?. As that's the only way I can ever see your statement working. Pretty much any activity the money is used for would probably be a "treat" otherwise.
For the record I don't have a problem with your dislike of children, I am not a fan myself and would rather be able to eat out at a restaurant without someone else's kids running around annoying people (it's rare, but it does happen unfortunately).
But you do seem to have an irrational hatred of people worse off than you.
You think its acceptable at a time when the taxpayer is unable to fund as many treats for themselves, having earned the money that their taxes are used as an entertainment fund?
That is preposterous.
Well, I think you're being silly to be honest, but keep digging.
Being supported to do the things their disability preculdes them from. Benefits are not there to pay for treats or entertainment - that is YOUR responsibility.
Benefits are not pocket money. If you have enough to treat it as such then you clearly are recieving too much.
Please carry on making a fool of yourself.
DLA isn't means-tested and it's not for me. My son, if he's able to, can ask for whatever he wants with it and if I think he's hungry and we have time, I will take him to a restaurant. Whilst there, he will behave very well.
So parents of disabled children should only be allowed to use the money to pay for government approved activities?. As that's the only way I can ever see your statement working. Pretty much any activity the money is used for would probably be a "treat" otherwise.
Parents of children with disabilities can spend THEIR money on whatever they like - benefits have specific purposes.
DLA is about supporting a person to participate in day to day life without being impacted by their disability - i'll repeat - it is not pocket money or an entertainment kitty.
DLA isn't means-tested and it's not for me. My son, if he's able to, can ask for whatever he wants with it and if I think he's hungry and we have time, I will take him to a restaurant. Whilst there, he will behave very well.
My ex got this DLA i think. All he has is a dodgy arm and hip from a car accident and he gets a free car and regular money and a blue badge out of it which is quite frankly ridiculous and he can do normal day to day things.
You think i'm being silly by expecting people to use taxpayers money for the purposes it was intended?
What a sad state of affairs.
What I find sad is someone begrudging a disabled child dining out. The money is paid to do with as they deem fit - you don't think the child would benefit socialising?
Well it all boils down to the parents and how they bring up their children. But I can't help wondering what happened in citizenx's childhood / upbringing to cause such bitterness towards families and children.
Parents of children with disabilities can spend THEIR money on whatever they like - benefits have specific purposes.
DLA is about supporting a person to participate in day to day life without being impacted by their disability - i'll repeat - it is not pocket money or an entertainment kitty.
But for many disabled children one of the best things a parent can do is to help their child socialise and interact with others, and a big part of that is these so called "treats". I get the feeling you'd rather they were all locked away in institutions as they were in the past, or kept at home, like your "good old days".
You think i'm being silly by expecting people to use taxpayers money for the purposes it was intended?
What a sad state of affairs.
It's not for you or anybody else to decide how any benefit claimant spends the money, especially monies paid to the disabled and / or their carers. Your responsibility ends when you pay the decreed tax, just like everybody else.
Where is this list of activities and things that DLA etc. is supposed to be used for?.
"Disabled people do not always understand what DLA is for. In a very crude and simple way they often believe it is a compensation for their disability. 'If I have this level of disability, I ought to have this level of money'. Whereas what DLA is about is not actually a compensation for their disability, it is not even a straight medical read across from their disability to their money, it is about a meeting of the costs for which care and mobility serves as a proxy to enable them to manage their disability"
It's not for you or anybody else to decide how any benefit claimant spends the money, especially monies paid to the disabled and / or their carers. Your responsibility ends when you pay the decreed tax, just like everybody else.
It is for the state to decide, i trust the information i've just posted from a Parliamentary Committee will satisfy you and others.
My ex got this DLA i think. All he has is a dodgy arm and hip from a car accident and he gets a free car and regular money and a blue badge out of it which is quite frankly ridiculous and he can do normal day to day things.
The car isn't free or owned by the DLA recipient.
We're going off topic a little now. I'm just trying to ascertain to what level a child has no damned rights in a restaurant.
That's still not a list, just a statement. Come on, you seem to think the money is only for a set of activities and these activities must not be seen as some kind of treat, and you say that is backed up. So back it up with a list of "approved" activities.
But for many disabled children one of the best things a parent can do is to help their child socialise and interact with others, and a big part of that is these so called "treats". I get the feeling you'd rather they were all locked away in institutions as they were in the past, or kept at home, like your "good old days".
Not at all. I'm simply stating the benefit should be used as it is intended which is to facilitate day to day life, not be used as pocket money or for treats.
By all means treat your kids, what parent wouldn't?
DLA exists to allow those treats to take place for a disabled child as they would for an able bodied child. Where it stops being appropriate is when it is used to fully fund the treat - not simply facilitate their participation.
That's still not a list, just a statement. Come on, you seem to think the money is only for a set of activities and these activities must not be seen as some kind of treat, and you say that is backed up. So back it up with a list of "approved" activities.
Don't be so ridiculous. It is quite clear the intent of the DLA which is exactly as i've explained to you on numerous occasions now.
You're being obtuse because you've been clearly shown something you don't want to accept.
It's not for you or anybody else to decide how any benefit claimant spends the money, especially monies paid to the disabled and / or their carers. Your responsibility ends when you pay the decreed tax, just like everybody else.
Oh if you are familiar with citizenx and his posts in other threads, he thinks it is absolutely within his rights to dictate what anyone in receipt of any benefit does with that money. I suspect he also wishes that the unemployed and disabled, and parents who receive child benefits, should bow down to him and kiss his feet as thanks for his bounty.
Oh if you are familiar with citizenx and his posts in other threads, he thinks it is absolutely within his rights to dictate what anyone in receipt of any benefit does with that money. I suspect he also wishes that the unemployed and disabled, and parents who receive child benefits, should bow down to him and kiss his feet as thanks for his bounty.
Aww diddums. I'm so sorry for being right, it must really hurt your ego.
Oh if you are familiar with citizenx and his posts in other threads, he thinks it is absolutely within his rights to dictate what anyone in receipt of any benefit does with that money. I suspect he also wishes that the unemployed and disabled, and parents who receive child benefits, should bow down to him and kiss his feet as thanks for his bounty.
Don't be so ridiculous. It is quite clear the intent of the DLA which is exactly as i've explained to you on numerous occasions now.
You're being obtuse because you've been clearly shown something you don't want to accept.
Such is life.
I have no children so really couldn't care less and have no desire nor need to accept anything.
I just do not see how you, or a government, can decide what constitutes an activity to help a child and what is a "treat" without some form of approved activities.
Comments
So parents of disabled children should only be allowed to use the money to pay for government approved activities?. As that's the only way I can ever see your statement working. Pretty much any activity the money is used for would probably be a "treat" otherwise.
For the record I don't have a problem with your dislike of children, I am not a fan myself and would rather be able to eat out at a restaurant without someone else's kids running around annoying people (it's rare, but it does happen unfortunately).
But you do seem to have an irrational hatred of people worse off than you.
Well, I think you're being silly to be honest, but keep digging.
Please carry on making a fool of yourself.
DLA isn't means-tested and it's not for me. My son, if he's able to, can ask for whatever he wants with it and if I think he's hungry and we have time, I will take him to a restaurant. Whilst there, he will behave very well.
You think i'm being silly by expecting people to use taxpayers money for the purposes it was intended?
What a sad state of affairs.
Where is this list of activities and things that DLA etc. is supposed to be used for?.
Parents of children with disabilities can spend THEIR money on whatever they like - benefits have specific purposes.
DLA is about supporting a person to participate in day to day life without being impacted by their disability - i'll repeat - it is not pocket money or an entertainment kitty.
i`m going to take a wild guess that the child in question doesn`t go for a meal alone.
My ex got this DLA i think. All he has is a dodgy arm and hip from a car accident and he gets a free car and regular money and a blue badge out of it which is quite frankly ridiculous and he can do normal day to day things.
Most children don't eat alone. Most parents have to pay for their childrens food.
You still haven't actually highlighted a need beyond that i've already discussed.
What I find sad is someone begrudging a disabled child dining out. The money is paid to do with as they deem fit - you don't think the child would benefit socialising?
But for many disabled children one of the best things a parent can do is to help their child socialise and interact with others, and a big part of that is these so called "treats". I get the feeling you'd rather they were all locked away in institutions as they were in the past, or kept at home, like your "good old days".
It's not for you or anybody else to decide how any benefit claimant spends the money, especially monies paid to the disabled and / or their carers. Your responsibility ends when you pay the decreed tax, just like everybody else.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmsocsec/641/64106.htm
It is for the state to decide, i trust the information i've just posted from a Parliamentary Committee will satisfy you and others.
bolded: what do you mean exactly?
The car isn't free or owned by the DLA recipient.
We're going off topic a little now. I'm just trying to ascertain to what level a child has no damned rights in a restaurant.
That's still not a list, just a statement. Come on, you seem to think the money is only for a set of activities and these activities must not be seen as some kind of treat, and you say that is backed up. So back it up with a list of "approved" activities.
Not at all. I'm simply stating the benefit should be used as it is intended which is to facilitate day to day life, not be used as pocket money or for treats.
By all means treat your kids, what parent wouldn't?
DLA exists to allow those treats to take place for a disabled child as they would for an able bodied child. Where it stops being appropriate is when it is used to fully fund the treat - not simply facilitate their participation.
Don't be so ridiculous. It is quite clear the intent of the DLA which is exactly as i've explained to you on numerous occasions now.
You're being obtuse because you've been clearly shown something you don't want to accept.
Such is life.
Oh if you are familiar with citizenx and his posts in other threads, he thinks it is absolutely within his rights to dictate what anyone in receipt of any benefit does with that money. I suspect he also wishes that the unemployed and disabled, and parents who receive child benefits, should bow down to him and kiss his feet as thanks for his bounty.
I asked you to identify the NEED being covered by paying for a meal out of DLA.
As i already explained to you, DLA is there to facilitate participation - not fund every aspect of a persons life.
You disagreed that supporting a person to go for a meal was a need, i asked you what you felt the "need" was but have failed to respond.
Aww diddums. I'm so sorry for being right, it must really hurt your ego.
Oh right, I see now.
I have no children so really couldn't care less and have no desire nor need to accept anything.
I just do not see how you, or a government, can decide what constitutes an activity to help a child and what is a "treat" without some form of approved activities.