Universal credit for continous cruising licence

[nbfiresprite]

 

28 minutes ago, Clodi said:

I thought 'Universal Credit' was a benefit paid to those in the UK who qualified for whatever reason, I didn't realise the amount paid out depended on where you lived!

With mooring fees it does as it is based on the lowest local mooring fee, as it always has done. With licence fees when it was done as part of housing benefit it did depend on which local council as to wether they paid for the licence fee, many did not. 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

 

With mooring fees it does as it is based on the lowest local mooring fee, as it always has done. With licence fees when it was done as part of housing benefit it did depend on which local council as to wether they paid for the licence fee, many did not. 

I guess we were fortunate that the council paid the Mooring, BSS and licence for my friend. It was a real battle and took the best part of a year to cross the t's and dot all the I's.

 

I know things have changed with the new UC.

[Athy]

Though thankfully I have no need to seek it, I'm puzzled by this "Universal" Credit. The name suggests a very positive and simplified approach which will be good for claimants; yet, from what I'v e read, it's universally late being paid and universally difficult to get in the first place. What, if any, are its advantages for the claimant?

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Athy said:

Though thankfully I have no need to seek it, I'm puzzled by this "Universal" Credit. The name suggests a very positive and simplified approach which will be good for claimants; yet, from what I'v e read, it's universally late being paid and universally difficult to get in the first place. What, if any, are its advantages for the claimant?

 

I think you've hit on why it is so named. 

 

I however am more puzzled by the use of the word 'credit'. I'm sure it isn't credit in the normal use of the word, i.e. that it becomes a debt that needs to be paid back. 'Benefit' would seem more accurate, but even that is a euphemism for financial support, I suppose....

[Athy]

13 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

 

I however am more puzzled by the use of the word 'credit'. I'm sure it isn't credit in the normal use of the word, i.e. that it becomes a debt that needs to be paid back. 'Benefit' would seem more accurate, but even that is a euphemism for financial support, I suppose....

The dole office (as we used to call it) doesn't seem to like the word "benefit" nowadays: what was "Unemployment benefit" has more recently become "Job Seeker's Allowance" for instance. Is is, I must agree, an odd use of the term "Credit".

 

My parents told me that, many years ago (when first introduced?) it was called "National Assistance" which was, to me, a more accurate term. A bloke who was out of work was said to be "On the National".

[MtB]

Yes National Assistance seems both accurate and honest, dunnit. 

 

I dislike this tendency we have to rename stuff with layers of euphemisms. Universal credit is a good example. The slight social stigma of receiving National Assistance gets disguised by calling it Unemployment Benefit. The stigma creeps back in so they change it to Job Seekers' Allowance, and so on. 

 

The same happened with disability. ISTR as a child people in wheelchairs being honestly known as cripples, because that is what had happened to them. No disrespect ever intended but then it became 'disabled', now its 'wheelchair users'. 

 

   

[Tumshie]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

No disrespect ever intended but then it became 'disabled', now its 'wheelchair users'. 

Disabled is still an acceptable term but it is a blanket term covering more than just wheelchair users which is why you get the more specific terms too.  

 

Handicapped is a term that grates on me, it commonly used in America so you see it a lot online but it just smacks of being patronising to me and quiet lacking in sensitivity to the people being talked about. Unfortunately it seems that lots of once acceptable terms become uncomfortable when used incorrectly or some sort of social stigma is involved. 

 

There's a lot of shame involved with being unemployed and on benefits but I don't think that's why the governments at the time changed the names of then, would it not be because the changed the benefits in some way?  

 

 

[nbfiresprite]

interest

9 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I think you've hit on why it is so named. 

 

I however am more puzzled by the use of the word 'credit'. I'm sure it isn't credit in the normal use of the word, i.e. that it becomes a debt that needs to be paid back. 'Benefit' would seem more accurate, but even that is a euphemism for financial support, I suppose....

You found the next stage of the UC Project, When it changes from a benefit to a loan to be paid back when the claim ends. Mortage interest payments since the 8th April 2018 are now a loan. Unless your a MP, when it is expense claim   

[Markinaboat]

11 hours ago, Tumshie said:

Disabled is still an acceptable term but it is a blanket term covering more than just wheelchair users which is why you get the more specific terms too.  

 

Handicapped is a term that grates on me, it commonly used in America so you see it a lot online but it just smacks of being patronising to me and quiet lacking in sensitivity to the people being talked about. Unfortunately it seems that lots of once acceptable terms become uncomfortable when used incorrectly or some sort of social stigma is involved. 

 

There's a lot of shame involved with being unemployed and on benefits but I don't think that's why the governments at the time changed the names of then, would it not be because the changed the benefits in some way?  

 

 

Isn't disabled "impaired mobility" now? Similar in that the term 'Dwarf' is not regarded as PC and is replaced with 'person of restricted growth' ... aka PORG ? 

[LadyG]

14 hours ago, Athy said:

Though thankfully I have no need to seek it, I'm puzzled by this "Universal" Credit. The name suggests a very positive and simplified approach which will be good for claimants; yet, from what I'v e read, it's universally late being paid and universally difficult to get in the first place. What, if any, are its advantages for the claimant?

Why would there be any advantage to the claimant? I don;t think that is the plan.

[Graham Davis]

15 minutes ago, Markinaboat said:

Isn't disabled "impaired mobility" now? Similar in that the term 'Dwarf' is not regarded as PC and is replaced with 'person of restricted growth' ... aka PORG ? 

No.
I'm classed as Disabled because I have impaired hearing. It is nothing to do with mobility.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Why would there be any advantage to the claimant? I don;t think that is the plan.

I thought the idea is you make a claim for benefit in one office and therefore it’s a universal claim. 

Rather than going to the dole office, then the housing benefit, then the whatever office and all the other offices. Instead one makes a univesal claim. Supposedly easy peasy. 

 

But I believe it ain’t proving to be so easy peasy. 

 

[LadyG]

6 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I thought the idea is you make a claim for benefit in one office and therefore it’s a universal claim. 

Rather than going to the dole office, then the housing benefit, then the whatever office and all the other offices. Instead one makes a univesal claim. Supposedly easy peasy. 

 

But I believe it ain’t proving to be so easy peasy. 

 

Well, I'm not sure, but to be honest, it would be a better idea if folks worked for a living if they were able, and those that weren't got support.

[Markinaboat]

14 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

No.
I'm classed as Disabled because I have impaired hearing. It is nothing to do with mobility.

fair point. I've had two hearing aids since November. Would hearing have to be extremely difficult, even with aids to be considered/accepted as disabled?

[matty40s]

22 minutes ago, Markinaboat said:

fair point. I've had two hearing aids since November. Would hearing have to be extremely difficult, even with aids to be considered/accepted as disabled?

pardon,

no batteries for a week

Edited May 8, 2019 by Athy
Removal of insult.

[Graham Davis]

11 hours ago, Markinaboat said:

fair point. I've had two hearing aids since November. Would hearing have to be extremely difficult, even with aids to be considered/accepted as disabled?

No. If you require hearing aids then you are classified as disabled. It is as simple as that.

[Tumshie]

12 hours ago, Markinaboat said:

Isn't disabled "impaired mobility" now? Similar in that the term 'Dwarf' is not regarded as PC and is replaced with 'person of restricted growth' ... aka PORG ? 

No, you have it a bit round the wrong way, again disabled is the blanket term and impaired mobility is the more specific term. As for Dwarf, It's midget that's the very non-PC word and they seem to prefer the term little people, but I don't know any little people so I can only relay what I've read online. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism

https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarfism/

 

[haggis]

39 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

No. If you require hearing aids then you are classified as disabled. It is as simple as that.

Oh, I didn't know that and I have worn hearing aids for years. What about wearing spectacles? If you have to wear them does that make you disabled too? 

 

Haggis

[Tumshie]

7 minutes ago, haggis said:

Oh, I didn't know that and I have worn hearing aids for years. What about wearing spectacles? If you have to wear them does that make you disabled too? 

 

Haggis

I think it depends why you have to wear the specs. You don't have to be completely blind to be classed as visually impaired but I don't know at what point you go from just needing specs because you have long or short sightedness to having an impairment. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Tumshie

[haggis]

Out of curiosity, I have just looked up definitions of disability in the Equality Act 2010 Guidance  and it states "A disability can arise from a wide range of impairments which can be: • sensory impairments, such as those affecting sight or hearing" However it also states "Whether a person is disabled for the purposes of the Act is generally determined by reference to the effect that an impairment has on that person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities". I take it from that that wearing hearing aids or specs do not make you disabled but if even with these aids your ability is impaired you could be classed as disabled. 

 

haggis

[Markinaboat]

29 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

No, you have it a bit round the wrong way, again disabled is the blanket term and impaired mobility is the more specific term. As for Dwarf, It's midget that's the very non-PC word and they seem to prefer the term little people, but I don't know any little people so I can only relay what I've read online. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism

https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarfism/

 

Yep, Graham pointed out above. I've worked with loads of little people and they really aren't fussed how they;re referred to. They are the happiest and most pleasant bunch I've ever met and they have fantastic lives working in the film industry! ?

[howardang]

2 minutes ago, haggis said:

Out of curiosity, I have just looked up definitions of disability in the Equality Act 2010 Guidance  and it states "A disability can arise from a wide range of impairments which can be: • sensory impairments, such as those affecting sight or hearing" However it also states "Whether a person is disabled for the purposes of the Act is generally determined by reference to the effect that an impairment has on that person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities". I take it from that that wearing hearing aids or specs do not make you disabled but if even with these aids your ability is impaired you could be classed as disabled. 

 

haggis

I was filling in a questionnaire the other day and one of the questions was

 

"are you Differently Abled?" which is yet another way of saying disabled.

 

Howard

 

 

[Machpoint005]

On 08/05/2019 at 07:11, Athy said:

What, if any, are its advantages for the claimant?

None whatsoever. It's all about the government saving money* and hang the consequences for the little people who don't vote Tory anyway.  

 

 

 

* Or being able to assert that it is doing so

[Alan de Enfield]

59 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

None whatsoever. It's all about the government saving money* and hang the consequences for the dwarves & midgets who don't vote Tory anyway.  

I've corrected that for you.

[Sea Dog]

2 hours ago, howardang said:

I was filling in a questionnaire the other day and one of the questions was

 

"are you Differently Abled?" which is yet another way of saying disabled.

 

Howard

 

 

Superman would be differently abled. The serious point being "differently abled" and "disabled" are surely not synonymous. If this sort of PC-based wordsmithing continues, even those who invent the terms won't know what they mean.