|This article was re-written in its ENTIRETY to accommodate this picture|
Munchhausen's Syndrome can be described as a desire for attention, but specifically through faking or even inflicting harm, illness or injury on yourself. This explains the mysterious popularity of boy and girl pop groups.
But Munchhausen's By-Proxy is where these compulsive urges are off-set onto another individual, which oddly does not actually often result in a great increase in attention or concern for the victim but instead creates positive reinforcement to the person orchestrating the ruse in order to fulfill their need. The major partner in the Coalition government specifically said they would not change DLA in their manifesto all those centuries ago before the last general election. They changed their minds pretty sharpish; they had a need for headline-grabbing attention and for it to be positive. Hurting someone, especially those who have ready-made conditions already was just logical in its own twisted Munchhausen way.
|These three men with Munchhausen's By-Proxy set fire to each others groins to gain attention for themselves. Unfortunately none could fulfil this compulsive need for each others attention because they all had Munchhausen's By-Proxy|
|The government case has never risen above Contradiction|
For a short time following the announcement to cut an estimated 20% from DLA, it was claimed rather frequently that it had never been reviewed. After this the claim morphed into 'many claimants have never had their cases reviewed', which then became 'there is no systematic re-assessment' and now it's gradually working its way to 'most claimants are not regularly assessed' because those with fixed awards most certainly are re-assessed, systematically so. So ministers try to raise the issue of the 71% of total claimants who have 'indefinite' awards and then mislead on it.
They began their attack on DLA or 'disability benefit' by saying how much better off claimants were on it than in work, confusing it with an out-of-work benefit repeatedly. Then once they actually started reading anything about it(mainly Miller doing the reading), they said the problem with it was that it was widely mistaken for an out-of-work benefit.
|The man misunderstands the purpose of Galactus and the DLA that he claims. Galactus maintains cosmic consonance but has an insatiable appetite similar to symptoms of Prader-Willi Syndrome and he must eat planets to survive.|
|Iain Duncan-Smith speculated gangs were the primary cause but a ring-leader was never identified|
The Social Security Advisory Committee published a response to the DLA reform consultation. Their response can be condensed as 'they couldn't find any basis or reason for radical reforms to DLA' and the purpose only seemed to be to reduce the number of working-age claimants.
Keep in mind that around those times back in early 2011, there was not a peep from ministers about '£600 million overspend' or '71% have indefinite awards'. They didn't get round to reading about those until much later yet going by what they brief the press and the sound-bites they use now, you'd think these were the main issues all along. They are very much making up their case as they go along, which is why the advisory committee were not able to find any case at the time. When one talking point gets taken down, they find another to replace it and once the media goldfish have forgotten, they'll sometimes recycle an old one knowing it won't be questioned.
|Unlike the government case, historically arguments have become more poignant as they got simpler and more specific|
When I got a look at it, I spotted why Miller was being weirder than usual.
"The recent thing that looked at the very complex matrix of law, relating to adult social care. And what they found out is exactly what we found out that the way law has changed over time, it has been an iterative process, it has been layer, upon layer, of different requirements on local authorities for what they provide for people who are in receipt of social care, and this is again what we found with mobility. It's unclear, it's complex and it's inconsistent in the way that it is dealt with on the ground."This was the Law Commission review into adult social care. I'm not entirely sure when Miller and her colleagues became aware of the specific matter; but the Law Commission found the basis for care home residents claiming DLA Mobility was a case law precedent. They weren't originally allowed to claim because they were considered 'hospitalised'. A judge eventually ruled this to be unlawfully discriminatory. I'm kind of in the mind that the government already knew about this but wanted as few people knowing as possible. But Miller was struggling through her interview and needed to seize on some piece of evidence and blurted out some of the Law Commission stuff before realising someone might read the whole damn thing(hallo thar) and realise what would happen to the case law history if DLA were to be replaced with a brand new benefit.
Well gee, if that had gained any traction anywhere else, David Freud would not be trying to move amendments tomorrow that have no other purpose or effect except to make sure the plan stays in the bill and he's even aligned it to make sure Lord McKenzie doesn't thwart him. But the Coalition case for reforms is patchwork, has always been and is invented as they go along following the path of least resistance to get what they want. This is the behaviour of someone with Munchhausen's By-Proxy.