I pulled this out from the comments to the "over 55?" thread as I want it to have more prominence.

"Unfortunately, this review - whilst under the guise of removing non genuine claims to DLA, whatever they may be - is unconstitutional if one refers to the letter of the law in this matter.

It is a blatant violation of human rights as well as the Disability Discrimination Act as this has not been repealed or amended to exclude HIV being defined as a Disability.

My view on this is that, unless your consultant gives your current medical diagnosis as AIDS rather than seropositive, you are on shaky ground in terms of your award remaining unchallenged.

I would be interested to see if the statistical evidence from people who have lost their awards bears this out.

I would contact NGOs such as CRUISAID as they have legal contacts who would organise a challenge to the government and are not gagged in the same way as THT. 

THT is part government funded and so is limited as to the powers that they have, other than simple advocacy.

Their remit seems to be focused on prevention of HIV rather than actual direct assistance to those living with HIV. Perhaps they fear that direct involvement, a legal challenge or letters to the DWP secretary, would endanger their funding. One can understand their reluctance to take action, even if one disagrees with it.

They were, nonetheless, consulted, as were Disabled Rights, prior to this reform's introduction.

One wonders what case they argued, and why the DWP has decided to take such a draconian line?

It is also curious that this reform comes at a time when all the gay rights pressure groups have disbanded, and NGOs gone into administration.

I note with interest that there is a pending proposal, to be ratified this year, to enforce information sharing between the DWP and CAB. This removes any impartiality that the CAB holds as it obliges them to disclose their files to the DWP if they ask for information about an individual. This violates confidentiality and privacy.

Never mind the cases where patients, dealing exclusively with their consultants, have been outed to their GPs as the DWP have not had the patience to wait for the consultant to fill in the medical forms.

In terms of a legal challenge, a law firm with a strong brief in Human Rights will mount a challenge if they can find more than 5 individual cases. Costs would likely be pro-bono as a firm would take such a case to enhance its reputation. However, this is a lengthy process and it is unlikely that, even if a motion was filed before the European Court of Human Rights, a case would be heard much before 6-12 months, and that would be after any individual arbitration of people's decisions permanently removing their DLA award.

The court has to track an action, having arisen from a decision on that course of action - a chain of events if you like, and the definable consequences of that action, before deciding if there is a case to answer.

I rather think that this is where all this is heading, in any event, as I do feel that this so called "welfare reform" is an outrage. Targeting the most vulnerable people in society who don't have a voice in parliament is, quite frankly, disgusting. As is forcing people, already in strained circumstances, into abject poverty with no hope of redemption.

There is clearly a case for differentiation. Those treatment exhausted individuals whose current medication may be working but not excluding AIDS defining illnesses, such as various cancers, are in a separate category to people newly diagnosed who have the benefit of 10 years of antiretroviral success, whose long-term survivors have paved the way, and in some cases, paid the price as their own options are now reduced.

After all, these are people's lives and no-one should simply stand down!

I would urge everyone to fight, even if you don't think you'll win. The principle has to outweigh the consequences. We elected these policy makers and they are acting in a way severely detrimental to our lives. Not right or good."