[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Call to replace carer's allowance - Page 3 -Carers UK Forum

Call to replace carer's allowance

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
Carers have the right to ask fro flexible working hours, the employers have a right to say no, or, sorry but you are fired. Carers are entitled to ask for an assessment, no one HAS to give the services that carers then are classed as needing, wow, fantastic. Any more legal "rights" you care to enlighten me with? any legislation regarding carers is either toothless or unenforceable.

Actually the DWP are there to do as the government tells them, for someone so clued up you aren't very accurate.

Oh, by-the-by, you will find the real figures regarding the number of disabled people and carers here http://www.workandpensions.gov.uk/lifee ... r07-08.pdf perhaps you can explain WHERE the 6 to 7 million caers comes from when there aren't 6 or 7 million disabled
1.Carers have the right to say they do not wish or intend to continue caring. That is enforceable. The employer cannot fire you for no good reason if you have worked there for more than a year. That is enforceable. Bear in mind that, unless you are receiving services under the Disabled Persons Act 1986, nobody has a duty to provide an assessed service. Carers come under the 1986 Act too, at least regarding ensuring that they are able to continue caring. The NHS and Community Care Act 1990 carries no such enforceable duty for anyone.

2. The DWP said they were not "persuaded that it is necessarily the right way to go." (that is, to scrap Carers Allowance) While it is by no means an unequivocal denial, it is the nearest thing you will ever get from a government spokesperson at the time of the review.

3. As the figures you provided show, there are over 4 million in receipt of DLA or AA.

This does not include those who do not know about the benefit, do not wish to claim the benefit, have been refused (wrongly) the benefit, or who are too scared by the forms. Age Concern estimates that benefits are under-claimed to the tune of up to £13bn. The government admits that the under-claim of DLA and AA stands at around £3bn a year. Assuming that every one of those not claiming DLA or AA would get the higher rate (thus keeping the potential numbers of additional disabled people as low as possible) that accounts for over 800,000 people - bringing the number of disabled people up to 5 million - using official figures, rather than the Age Concern figures which include Pension Credit and Housing Benefit under-claims. However, many carers provide support for people who do not qualify for DLA or AA but could not manage without their help. This would easily hit the 6 million and more besides. So by all means ignore those carers. I won't, and CUK doesn't. They all count. They all contribute. We are all carers.

You say that CUK doesn't represent all carers, and yet they encompass every carer - they are campaigning for the 24/7 carers and for those who give less time (but none the less important) - but can you honestly say that any group that ignores such large numbers of genuine carers can represent all carers? Or are you saying that those people are not carers?
1- prove it and supply verifiable numbers of carers that have done this

2-the DWP do as the government tell them, that is a fact, they do NOT make decisions

3-3 to 4 million people claiming includes those on lower rates so not classed as needing/qualifying for a carer. Any organisation uses the erroneous figures this charity have made up/guessed/used a census question where people other than carers have said they have caring responsibilities IE foster carers. You reasons don't add up/aren't realistic/follow carers uk (as usual) poorly researched. There would need to be 2 to 3 times the number of people AT THE QUALIFYING RATES than are at present, that is not realistic and cannot be taken as a serious argument, it damages your credibility to say so (except in the eyes of this charity)

4- they encompass every carer? have you seen some of the replies on here or do you just read the ones that suit you/carers uk?

I'm saying that carers uk are using terrible wrong figures based on research it asked a university to do using said wrong figures, or would you say people such as foster carers are the same type of carer?

Carers uk choose who they want to represent, I would trust an individual carer rather than a charity whose wage bill has gone up over £100.000 this last year for 44 staff members and they are being aided and abetted by people like you who see no wrong in it
1. As you well know it would be impossible to provide verifiable figures of carers refusing to care, as they are not kept by any department. That does not mean that it doesn't happen ( I know for a fact it does) and it does not change the fact that carers have a legal right to refuse to provide care. This right has existed since at least 1995. I don't need to prove what I have said about the law: get hold of a copy of Luke Clements' excellent book "Community Care and the Law." It's all in there - it's where I got it from.

2. Please read what I said. I did not say that the DWP had made a decision.

3. You seem to be ignoring most of the figures I picked up on. Please remember also that it is at the lower end of caring that people are less likely to claim DLA. In any case, they are not classed as not needing a carer. Otherwise the government would not have added them into the census figures. They are classed as not requiring a carer for 35 hours or more a week. That is not the same as not needing a carer, and you do a disservice to those carers by ignoring them. My credibility is my problem. If people find me incredible, I'll live with it. I'm afraid it's your figures that don't stand scrutiny: university research is peer-evaluated. The foster carers element of your post is a red herring as you have no proof. However, I'm glad you find me incredible. My wife feels the same way.

4. Ok, perhaps my wording was off but you know that I meant "encompass every kind of carer", not only those at the 24/7 end, which clearly you don't agree with.

I've seen almost every reply on these boards and most are unhappy with the government and want CUK to take action - sometimes in different ways to those they have employed. I for one have suggested or supported alternative ways forward. But the vast majority offer each other support, help and advice. Which is something that a few carers on these boards have forgotten about in order to have a go at CUK and anyone who puts their head above the parapet. They are the ones who end up banned because they deliberately misrepresent CUK and/or act in a manner which is disrespectful of other carers. Which is unacceptable. Threads like this serve only to upset those carers who are seeking information and support because they are hijacked by people with an anti-CUK axe to grind - the upset caused to those carers is also unacceptable. Please remember the rules of this forum.

I'm saying that having looked at the figures very carefully, the 6 million is as close as we're going to get to the true figure. I haven't even begun to look at the issue of young carers not being counted, so I'd guess that if anything the 6 million is an underestimate of the true position. That is NOT the view expressed by CUK as far as I am aware. It is mine, and mine alone, although there may be others who would agree with me.

No, foster carers are not carers. You're missing the point. You've ignored too many real carers.

Can we get back to the purpose of this web forum now?
Charles wrote " Can we get back to the purpose of this web forum now?"

It is becoming more difficult to remember the purpose of this forum as each thread seems to turn into attack and defence of CUK.
This trend is perpetuated by the fact that CUK representatives either haven't the time or the inclination to answer the questions posted to them.
I know it is the holiday season and everybody (except carers) are entitled to some holiday, but lets face it, how long would it take to open a laptop at home and answer a post?

It is difficult to believe that CUK have no idea what is being proposed for later this year, with representatives attending all the meetings etc they must , surely have formed some idea of where things are heading.
This is supposed to be our voice, but at present it seems intent on being a voice heard by everybody except us,.

Regards Ken
I have answered about Carers UK's input into the National Strategy on another thread - it has n't changed since I wrote it. You can read about what carers have said needs to change here.

http://www.carersuk.org/Getinvolved/Res ... report.pdf

We are basing our contribution o n that.
1- prove it and supply verifiable numbers of carers that have done this

2-the DWP do as the government tell them, that is a fact, they do NOT make decisions

They don't make the law that is true, but they are subject to challenge in the courts or through tribunals
3-3 to 4 million people claiming includes those on lower rates so not classed as needing/qualifying for a carer. Any organisation uses the erroneous figures this charity have made up/guessed/used a census question where people other than carers have said they have caring responsibilities IE foster carers. You reasons don't add up/aren't realistic/follow carers uk (as usual) poorly researched. There would need to be 2 to 3 times the number of people AT THE QUALIFYING RATES than are at present, that is not realistic and cannot be taken as a serious argument, it damages your credibility to say so (except in the eyes of this charity)

I think you are referring to research carried out by the University of Leeds for Carers UK. They used census figures based on the number of people who answered the question about whether they cared. These are official figures, not Carers UK figures. They provide a break down by the number of hours spent caring reported by respondents. There are about 1 million people providing over 50 hours care. The research methods employed by the University of Leeds are rigorous - that is why Carers UK commissioned them to carry out the research so it would be robust.
4- they encompass every carer? have you seen some of the replies on here or do you just read the ones that suit you/carers uk?

I'm saying that carers uk are using terrible wrong figures based on research it asked a university to do using said wrong figures, or would you say people such as foster carers are the same type of carer?

Carers uk choose who they want to represent, I would trust an individual carer rather than a charity whose wage bill has gone up over £100.000 this last year for 44 staff members and they are being aided and abetted by people like you who see no wrong in it
This accusation regarding Charles47 is totally inaccurate. It is disrespectful and breaking the rules of this forum. Please withdraw the comment.
1-aint that handy, thousands and thousands of carers refusing to care and not one media source picks up on it. You are talking out of an exterior orifice, with all the cut-backs in care services there is no way carers can refuse to care and YOU know that to state otherwise is similar to politico-speak and an attempt to 'spin' information and insulting the intelligence of the carers on here. Your argument is "there are carers refusing to provide care but you will have to take my word for it" It's similar to "there are people being abducted by aliens but there is no proof you will have to take my word for it" To me both statements look ludicrous.

2-You use the DWP then say you don't use the DWP, please make your mind up. You state you believe the DWP's figures one minute and disagree the next

3-You are ignoring the statistics not me and your adherence to the census question argument is pretty nigh bordering stupid, it doesn't reflect the true number of carers as you well know, as carers uk well knows, as the government well knows as CARERS well know. So if someone does not need a carer it's THEIR carer that is not being taken into consideration by me!!?? The census question was/is a joke that doesn't differentiate between carers/foster carers/parents and is still being clung to out of desperation by this charity AND YOU. It has no bearing or accuracy regarding carers and the hourly rate was another white elephant. 6 million carers is an extreme over estimation no matter how you count it. If this charity concentrated more on the truth rather than blundering idiocy such as this then it might be worth regarding as slightly worth taking seriously.

As for your credibility (which is questionable because I have seen you bow out of debates like this after a couple of posts stating you won't get into a flame war, it's a ploy used by people to avoid losing an argument though in this thread you have carried on with your undying allegiance to this charity) I find you have none, as for being incredible.

Also "Can we get back to the purpose of this web forum now?" Do you mean praising it regardless of how it sides with the government? OK, well done carers uk for not going after what carers EVEN AT YOUR OWN SUMMIT was asking Ivan Lewis for
Getting back to the original topic of this thread about Carers Allowance.I thought that was what we were all wanting,for it to be changed.There is not one person anywhere on any forum/member of any carers centre that will say it is a fair benefit for the amount of care involved.

Since August, the opportunity has been there for us all to have our own voices heard,not only through this site but also applying to attend the consultation events,to contact Julian Oliver at the Dept of Health,to put pressure on our MP's.

There are links on both Dept of Health website and here, that details some of the proposals.

http://tiny.cc/carers

They also give a summary of carers feedbacks.

There is going to be a final event in January which I posted on a different thread.Maybe we can get some more information from that one about the proposals being considered.

I can understand the anger from us all,the frustrations, but arguing amongst ourselves solves nothing at all.

On a personal note, and I know it applies to others from emails received this morning, but when I read a posting that includes personal attacks to a fellow carer I switch off, therein any valid points raised are lost along the way.
I think you are referring to research carried out by the University of Leeds for Carers UK. They used census figures based on the number of people who answered the question about whether they cared. These are official figures, not Carers UK figures. They provide a break down by the number of hours spent caring reported by respondents. There are about 1 million people providing over 50 hours care. The research methods employed by the University of Leeds are rigorous - that is why Carers UK commissioned them to carry out the research so it would be robust.
So are carers uk saying that there are as many disabled people NOT claiming DLA or AA as those that ARE? Do you REALLY think this is the case? Tell me which carers you are including IF NOT the ones that provide care for those that officially require it as I'm intrigued here as to what other sorts of carers there are.

How about the hourly rate when many 'paid carers' receive half the stated £14.50 an hour? Robust when it's wrong? The census question is not rigid enough to cover the definition of a carer.

Before I can retract or withdraw a comment I would need to know which one it was so please clarify before taking your usual heavy-handed censorship, oh, and if you do decide to ban me please remove my name from the membership list