tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-61832465872735537212024-03-05T19:26:09.797-08:00The RegencyOn 'disability' and politics.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-85956889593396897342019-02-10T13:43:00.001-08:002020-01-24T10:09:13.700-08:00Whoa, Tim has his own definition of ‘deaf community.’<br />
<br />
So, some people were saying to me recently that not all deaf people identify as members of the deaf community. That seems like a bit of an oxymoron, doesn’t it? How can you be deaf, but not a member of the deaf community? I’m not going to pretend I don’t know what they mean, though - they mean ‘deaf community’ equals ‘culturally deaf,’ with a little collection of exclusive entry requirements. However, we live in a democracy where we all have different opinions. Just because a group of people have unilaterally decided that their bespoke definition of ‘deaf community’ is the one that applies, doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to yield to it. It affects us too. Nor does it mean that the opinions of some deaf people can be picked up and used as a stick to beat down other deaf people. That’s called ‘playing deaf people off against each other.’<br />
<br />
It’s true that the words ‘deaf community,’ formerly with a capitalised D, are used by a lot of people in the way described above.<br />
<br />
I have a different use of the term and use ‘deaf community’ to refer to all deaf people collectively, however they might choose to identify, because I believe in diversity, interaction and inclusion of the sub-groups within our group. We all share common social norms, even between the most opposite ends of the spectrum; norms such as lip-reading, subtitles, hearing aids. I don’t ‘celebrate our differences,’ I celebrate the things we have in common. Again, there’s no dichotomy, but a spectrum. Deaf culture is much more diverse than some people pretend and all deaf people are culturally deaf. To claim otherwise is to other some deaf people and strip them of their deaf identity.<br />
<br />
Although it’s true that not all deaf people identify as members of the ‘deaf community,’ this seems to be because they are simply giving way to the traditional definition of ‘deaf community.’ The discussion began with this idea that on one side there is a group of people who are ‘culturally deaf’ and on the other side, a group who are not. I don’t think it’s nearly so neat a divide. It’s a false dichotomy. In fact, BSL-English interpreters were at pains to insist to me that they have met with, worked with and talked with people who don’t identify as part of the deaf community at about the same time as they mix and work with people who do. But apparently, I’m supposed to pretend that there is some big wall between the groups. I get that these interpreters are being sensitive and respectful to the consensus agreed upon and passed to them by the deaf people that they most closely deal with, but not all of us think the same way.<br />
<br />
I completely respect how other deaf people choose to identify, that’s their right. But I refuse to meekly yield to the traditional definition of ‘deaf community’ in the process. That’s my right.<br />
<br />
What I am saying is that I see the ‘deaf community’ not as an exclusive group with stringent, narrow entry requirements, but as a broad, diverse and inclusive place where all are welcome. I’ve seen it happen at my local deaf clubs. <br />
<br />
Well, that’s how I want to see it. Maybe you’re thinking ‘well, ok, but the deaf people we know tell us that SSE, for example, is an imposition of English on our beautiful language, BSL, and SSE is not a language.’ Things like that. You’re thinking this way because you’re respectful of deaf people. The trouble is that there are some of us who also identify as deaf, but do not tick all the boxes demanded by the picky cultural high command. You don’t get to stick your nose in the air and wave us away with the back of your hand, as if we’re irrelevant second-rate deaf people, whose feelings and experiences don’t count. Some of us would tick all these ‘right’ boxes if it were not for oralism. Oralism is oppression and I for one am not going to let it get in the way of who I am.<br />
<br />
And nobody else has the right to let it get in the way of who I am, either. Unless you fancy being known as somebody who colludes in oralist oppression.<br />
<br />
I’ll make my own mind up what I consider to be a progressive convention. If you want to try and change my mind about anything, great, but nobody gets to speak over me on things that affect me. That’s the thing about autonomy - everybody has it, even the deaf people who have been snobbishly dismissed as unworthy. <br />
<br />
If some deaf people are isolated, then doing things that further isolate them is very wrong, no matter how well-intentioned and right-on you think you are.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-81471877353575480652016-02-25T11:26:00.000-08:002016-02-25T11:29:10.211-08:00Your Disability Living Allowance is ending.<br />
<br />
So I received the letter from the Department for Work and Pensions telling me that '[my] Disability Living Allowance is ending.' It begins by saying:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>You may already be aware that Disability Living Allowance (DLA) will end soon for most claimants, including you. This affects you even if you have an indefinite award of DLA.<br />
<br />
A new benefit called Personal Independence Payment (PIP) has been introduced to help with extra costs if you have a long term health condition or disability.</blockquote><br />
I am angry about this. I think that the DWP's actions are both immoral and unlawful. My DLA was awarded to me on an 'indefinite' basis by an Independent Tribunal - a proper court - after a number of years' dispute. I consider it to be for the DWP to follow this decision.<br />
<br />
Instead, they and the Conservative government have come along and unilaterally and retrospectively cancelled the decision of the tribunal.<br />
<br />
I think it is open to the government to create a new benefit for new claimants. I do not think it is open to the government to create a new benefit and impose it on existing claimants, replacing the old benefit, but with different rules, rates and conditions. This is moving the goalposts to disqualify people who previously qualified.<br />
<br />
This is why they <a href="http://tim-theregency.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/what-they-said.html">used to make sure that new rules for new benefits would 'not affect existing claimants.'</a> It was consistent with the legal principle of non-retroactivity.<br />
<br />
As a result, I wrote to the DWP, requesting a mandatory reconsideration of their decision to end my DLA. I am not an expert on social security law, but I understand that you are entitled to appeal <i>any</i> decision about your benefits.<br />
<br />
This was about a month ago and I have still not heard back from them. I asked them on Twitter if they had an e-mail address that I can contact them with, <a href="https://twitter.com/DWPonDisability/status/696657270927712257">but they said that they do not offer such a facility.</a><br />
<br />
How can it be right for the DWP to discriminate against Deaf people like this? They cancel my benefit and then make it almost impossible to contact them to discuss the matter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-9098000688079163822016-01-13T12:28:00.002-08:002016-01-13T12:41:56.370-08:00Petition calling for the Speaker to tell Ministers to answer the question.<br />
<br />
I've just <a href="https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/118388">set up a new petition</a> and the idea behind it is fairly simple.<br />
<br />
We keep seeing David Cameron answer a question at Prime Minister's Questions with something other than what he was asked.<br />
<br />
For example, <a href="http://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2016/01/06/cameron-shrugs-off-floods-response-attack-by-taunting-jeremy-corbyn-on-reshuffle/">Jeremy Corbyn asks about flood defences and Mr Cameron replies with mockery</a> about the Shadow Cabinet reshuffle.<br />
<br />
So my petition is to try and dissuade or prevent Ministers from changing the subject. I think that this is important because MPs ask questions on behalf of their constituents and we are anxious to hear what the government is doing about our problems and whether they are taking them seriously.<br />
<br />
This is why my petition calls for the Speaker to have the power to direct Ministers to answer the questions put to them in the course of Parliamentary business.<br />
<br />
If you support my petition, please sign it and share it, thank you!<br />
<br />
<a href="https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/118388">Link to petition.</a>Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-86081590906068109192014-11-28T08:51:00.000-08:002014-11-28T08:53:56.912-08:00On Tony BlairIf Tony Blair did not think that he needed a second UN Security Council resolution for permission to invade Iraq, then why did he first set out to get one?<br />
<br />
As Robin Cook said in his <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030317/debtext/30317-33.htm#30317-33_spnew0">resignation speech</a>:<br />
<br />
"I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. <b>Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.</b>"<br />
<br />
Blair cannot go with the law when it suits him and then go against it when it does not. He knew going to war was against the law and he should be tried at the Hague.<br />
Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-90464356442373059902014-10-15T01:00:00.001-07:002014-10-15T01:00:23.256-07:00The UK in the European Convention: fudge, or a shining example?<br />
<a href="http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/10/09/the-uk-in-the-european-convention-fudge-or-a-shining-example/">The UK in the European Convention: fudge, or a shining example?</a><br />
<br />
My response:<br />
<br />
The idea that the signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights intended to be anything other than fully bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights is absolutely ridiculous. As if the European Court of Human Rights is just some sort of advisory or guidance body and not a proper court.<br />
<br />
Clever people come along and try to smuggle the European Union 'subsidiarity principle' into the debate and muddy the waters in all sorts of other convoluted ways, but they can’t bat away the point that I’ve just made above.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-29073412765462169982013-09-28T12:32:00.000-07:002016-02-27T08:59:16.517-08:00Some more thoughts on 'medical model' terminology used to refer to Deaf people.<br />
Since my last blog post I have thought some more on the issue of ‘medical model’ terminology and after reading <a href="http://limpingchicken.com/2013/09/27/charlie-swinbourne-hearing-impaired-hard-of-hearing-its-hard-to-find-the-right-term-to-deafine-yourself-i-should-know/">Charlie’s thought-provoking blog post</a> and having a good Twitter discussion with him, Alison and others, I have decided that I am going to have to retract part of what I said, to quote: <br />
<br />
“The new terminology around ‘loss’ is strictly medical model and while I have no problem with people seeing and describing their own deafness this way...”<br />
<br />
This seemed pretty reasonable to me when I said it. It was about respecting differences of opinion and perception, and the right to self-determine. As Charlie had quite fairly questioned, ‘is it right to tell other deaf people they shouldn't call themselves something?’ However, I don’t think anybody is quite doing that; people will use whatever terms that they like, as they are entitled to do so. I think it is more about just debating which terms are better and hopefully agreeing on something that is not damaging or oppressive to Deaf people and then encouraging their use.<br />
<br />
So what is the problem with people describing themselves as ‘hearing impaired’? That’s their choice, right? Yes, but I think there are two issues here. Firstly, it could be argued that the term is oppressive or even abusive and that it is biased, of the medical model and imposed on us from a hearing perspective. ‘Impaired’ is in the same bracket as 'loss,' ‘broken,’ damaged,’ ‘defective,’ ‘lacking,’ etc. If somebody self-harms, we wouldn’t just shrug our shoulders and say ‘well that’s his choice’ and then leave it at that. We might encourage him to seek help, etc. So is somebody psychologically self-harming by referring to himself in such terms? I used to do this sort of thing and it didn’t feel at all good for me.<br />
<br />
Secondly, Alison referred to John Donne’s famous quote that ‘No man is an island, Entire of itself, Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main.’ If you give people the OK or nod to use oppressive terms to describe themselves, or you just let them get on with doing so, doesn’t that have implications for the rest of us? It may be self-perpetuating, giving other people the impression that it’s acceptable to refer to us in this way.<br />
<br />
I am glad this debate is now underway, as I think we need to push away the old oppressive terms.<br />
Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-77931955142158461762013-09-06T12:01:00.003-07:002013-09-06T12:54:24.637-07:00Why RNID's re-brand was a disaster for Deaf people.<br />
A few years ago, the Royal National Institute for Deaf people (RNID) re-branded, changing their name to Action on Hearing loss (AOHL.) I think this was a disaster for Deaf people and here I will set out why.<br />
<br />
The old word – Deaf – is perfect in terms of diversity and inclusion. It includes people who espouse the medical model of disability – seeing Deafness as a problem and/or tragedy. But it also includes people on the opposite end of the spectrum, those who espouse the social model of disability and Deafness and who embrace Deaf community, culture, and language. It also includes everybody in between. The word is entirely neutral. This is why it is still easily my preferred term today. ‘Deaf’ is also the best term for an organisation that wishes to represent all deaf people, because it doesn’t leave anybody out while still respecting difference.<br />
<br />
The old terms that came with ‘Deaf’ – ‘making the world a better place for Deaf and hard of hearing people’ were superior to their replacement for a number of reasons. They were about respecting and including people. Such words made it clear that Deaf people were part of society and had an equal stake in society. The new terminology around ‘loss’ is strictly medical model and while I have no problem with people seeing and describing their own deafness this way, they have no business imposing it on others. Who has the right to come along and declare or make out that my deafness is a disability, a loss, a tragedy that is in need of ‘action’ to correct it? Apart from being factually incorrect in my case – I never lost anything, I can see myself how I like and if I choose to see myself as a Deaf person who likes his Deafness, community, culture and language, who has the right to object?<br />
<br />
How can it be good for Deaf people and Deaf children to tell them that they should not be proud of who they are, that they are defective, and that they have a ‘problem’ that requires ‘action’ in order to be ‘fixed’? How is that good for their psychological well-being? Isn’t that just a hearing person’s perspective? To me the idea of suddenly becoming hearing is probably just as horrible as the idea of suddenly becoming deaf is to a hearing person.<br />
<br />
People often say that you should be positive and not negative. I think you need to find a balance. And isn’t my view of Deaf people here positive, while AOHL’s is negative? Yet who is supposed to be at the crease batting for Deaf people? RNID’s re-brand was a disaster for Deaf people engineered by hearing people with a negative view of Deafness. These new words in their name are for their benefit, not ours.<br />
Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-57960756880417756482013-08-08T06:23:00.000-07:002013-08-09T11:22:34.177-07:00Action on Hearing Loss ignoring Deaf people?Recently on the Action on Hearing Loss (RNID) general discussion forum somebody <a href="http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/community/forums/deafness-and-hearing-loss.aspx?g=posts&t=9099">drew our attention to a Private Eye story</a> about a <a href="http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1345">Deaf person who was ‘tested’ for deafness in a very crude manner by Atos.<br />
</a><br />
Action on Hearing Loss did not see fit to comment on this story on their forum, so I <a href="https://twitter.com/TimRegency/statuses/365095219844222977">tweeted</a> them yesterday, asking if they were concerned about this crude testing, but I got no response. Surely Atos should be conducting proper hearing tests using the right equipment and getting accurate results printed onto audiograms?<br />
<br />
Thinking that perhaps AOHL may simply have missed my tweet, I tweeted them again with an identical question the following day (today) and still got no response. <br />
<br />
It’s bad enough that Atos use such methods without being allowed to get away with it by the people/charity who are supposed to defend Deaf people. Atos are paid to assess people properly and AOHL are paid to act in the interests of Deaf people. Yet one bullies Deaf people and the other does nothing about it – ignoring Deaf people who ask for their help.<br />
<br />
<b>Update:</b> AOHL have now responded to my tweets, promising to reply to the concerns raised on their forum regarding Atos . Lets hope that we can have a bit of good news in respect of challenging this bullying behaviour.<br />
Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-10220009162248498332013-07-11T13:57:00.000-07:002013-09-01T06:53:37.082-07:00Malcolm Bruce : The ultimate betrayal of Deaf people part IIIf you are Deaf, you may, like me, have been sad and disappointed when one of our alleged supporters, Malcolm Bruce, voted to unleash a whole load of vicious social security cuts against Deaf and disabled people. Sad because of the misery and distress it will visit upon them, disappointed because Bruce holds a number of positions in relation to Deafness, including former trustee and current Vice President of Action on Hearing Loss. Vice President of the National Deaf Children’s Society. He also heads the All Party Parliamentary Group on Deafness and used to appear on See Hear.<br />
<br />
Well, neither your sadness nor disappointment will be soothed by the latest news that <a href="http://dpac.uk.net/2013/07/for-fellow-extremists-everywhere-how-your-mp-voted-on-the-cumulative-impact-assessment/">Bruce has voted against carrying out a cumulative impact assessment on the effects of cuts on disabled people.</a><br />
<br />
Let us be clear what was being asked for here. They were not asking for the suspension or reversing of any cuts, but simply that the impact of all these cuts on disabled people be measured – that is all. If the government is satisfied that they are doing the right thing by disabled people, why would they have any objection to this sort of request? Why would they not want to reassure disabled people who are concerned for their future and well-being?<br />
<br />
If that was not bad enough, Bruce and his fellow bullies of disabled people voted in favour of an amendment praising the government’s record on disability. So, basically, they are saying ‘we don’t care what you, disabled people, think about how you are being treated, we have decided that we are treating you very well.’ To put it mildly, the principle of ‘involving disabled people’ seems to have been lost.<br />
<br />
I don't know about you, but if I had to cast a vote that directly affected other people - especially people who could be said to be vulnerable and seldom heard - I would want to ask them what they think. Remember they were asking only that the impact of all the cuts on disabled people be measured. Mr Bruce chose not to do that and stuck his nose up in the air and swapped their judgment for his own. Now that takes a particular brand of contempt and arrogance.<br />
<br />
<b>More:</b><br />
<br />
Sue Marsh on <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/09/disabled-people-cuts-cumulative-impact">Disabled people's lives will be ruined by sweeping cuts to services.</a><br />
<br />
Michael Meacher on <a href="http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2013/07/the-commons-debate-on-atos-government-treatment-of-the-disabled/">The Commons debate on Atos & government treatment of the disabled.</a><br />
Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-44444841901189158592013-06-05T01:00:00.000-07:002013-06-23T06:28:36.299-07:00"Labour 'must' go for contributory welfare, not more means testing."My response to <a href="http://labourlist.org/2013/06/labour-must-go-for-contributory-welfare-not-more-means-testing/">Labourlist</a>:<br />
<br />
I hope any new crackdown on lobbyists will treat "think-tanks" as lobbyists - because that is precisely what they are.<br />
<br />
"What is the big idea? Focusing scarce resources on the most needy, as yesterday’s announcement suggests, or strengthening ‘the old principle of contribution’ as Liam Byrne promised not so long ago?"<br />
<br />
Questions like this, apart from being a 'false dichotomy,' are strong evidence of amorality - more specifically, Social Darwinism. A diluted form of 'If you can't work, tough, starve.'<br />
<br />
I asked both Demos and O'Leary on Twitter how many disabled people Demos employ; both chose not to answer. If you care about the relevance of my question with regard to contributions, see:<br />
<br />
http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/1018801/employers-ill-prepared-incapacity-benefit-review<br />
<br />
Demos must be treated for what they are: corporate lobbyists - and be shown the door.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE</b><br />
<br />
I e-mailed Demos about three weeks ago and asked:<br />
<br />
"Hi,<br />
<br />
Please may I ask how many disabled people Demos employ, expressed both as a number and percentage.<br />
<br />
Thanks,"<br />
<br />
I received no reply. Another reason, as if another were needed, that organisations such as this should have no say or influence on public policy.<br />
<br />
Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-20099076879357346402012-11-18T14:54:00.002-08:002013-03-18T02:13:24.813-07:00The big lie about Disabled benefit claimants.I’ve seen a lot of talk on the internet recently about libel and how it is unfair to wrongly and without truth bring down somebody’s good name. Yet disabled people who rely on benefits have the same thing done to them and it is treated as if it is all right.<br />
<br />
This is done in a lot of different ways, including portraying things in a way that is not true. For me one of the biggest lies is this idea that disabled people fall into either one of two neat groups – fit for work or not fit for work. This ‘either or’ fallacy ignores a large grey area – limited capability for work. The fallacy is put forward by the hateful media, but it usually begins with the government itself. I know it is wrong for all sorts of reasons that come up in my head, but I can think of two officially recognised reasons too:<br />
<br />
The fact that there are provisions relating to people doing ‘permitted work’ while on Incapacity Benefit and now ESA means that it is officially recognised that it is not as ‘black and white’ as being either ‘fit for work’ or not. This is like an accidental confession that the DWP and government are aware of this.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the fact that there is a ‘Work Related Activity Group’ of ESA in between the support group and JSA shows the same thing – that it is not as ‘black and white’ as being either ‘fit for work’ or not.<br />
<br />
Yet the media and even the government keep putting forward this ‘false dilemma’ even though they know that it is not accurate and that it promotes suspicion and even hatred of disabled people. It is a ‘libel’ against a large group of (often very vulnerable) people.<br />
<br />
The sad thing is that this witch-hunt does not help anybody. It just causes a lot of stress, worry, poverty and illness which push people further away from the workplace.<br />
Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-34018301706469104722012-06-20T12:56:00.000-07:002015-06-26T11:32:14.359-07:00Malcolm Bruce : The ultimate betrayal of Deaf people.<br />
<br />
I used to think that there were few things that could really shock me. That was, until Malcolm Bruce voted for social security reform to go forward without it even being softened and made fairer by Lords amendments. What made me particularly aghast and disappointed was the context:<br />
<br />
Mr Bruce has a Deaf daughter; he is a former trustee and current Vice President of Action on Hearing Loss. He heads the All Party Parliamentary Group on Deafness. He used to appear on See Hear and was involved with the Deaf community in all sorts of different ways. This seems to be a person who will do everything in his power to defend and protect Deaf people and the best interests of Deaf people. Yet what he has done seems to be completely at variance with this:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://beyondclicktivism.com/2012/02/01/liberal-democrat-wall-of-shame/">Voting to impoverish Deaf people.</a><br />
<br />
Let’s be clear about just what Mr Bruce has supported.<b> He has supported more impoverishment, stress and humiliation of Deaf people.</b> This at a time when disabled people already suffer a lot, if not the most impoverishment, stress and humiliation. So Mr Bruce attacks the very people whom he makes out that he supports.<br />
<br />
He voted for the Bedroom tax, to abolish DLA, to cut disabled child credits in half, limit ESA to one year for those who had made NI contributions, to abolish the premium for disabled people living alone and many other things in the Welfare Reform Act. This is the safety net that catches Deaf people who have been let down by the education system and shunned by employers.<br />
<br />
<br />
Is this the ultimate betrayal of Deaf people? I would say it comes very close.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-30692301927432943322012-05-19T06:44:00.002-07:002012-05-19T06:44:45.221-07:00Hate Pamphlet betrays its own hateful mind.<br />
<br />
The Sun reports:<br />
<br />
"WOUNDED war heroes are to keep their disability benefits for life after the PM stepped in to halt a bid to cut them. <br />
<br />
Worried veterans — including soldiers who lost limbs in battle — had been facing humiliating re-tests that could have seen them stripped of crucial cash.<br />
<br />
But David Cameron has now slapped down MoD bureaucrats and ruled that anyone left disabled by military service must be exempt from benefit cuts.<br />
<br />
They will also be exempt from a new scheme to re-examine all claimants aged 16 to 64.<br />
<br />
The PM intervened to help Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who has been fighting civil servants over the issue since December.<br />
<br />
Mr Cameron said: “I made a promise to our forces that they will get special treatment, and I intend to stick to it.”<br />
<br />
The Government plans to replace Disability Living Allowance with a new benefit called the Personal Independence Payment for all working age people with serious difficulties.<br />
<br />
Incredibly, MoD bureaucrats were insisting that wounded heroes get the same grilling as suspected cheats and scroungers — because they feared their cash-strapped department would be left to pick up the bill for administering the payouts.<br />
<br />
Mr Duncan Smith is now drawing up plans for wounded personnel to get their own tailor-made support package when they leave the forces.<br />
<br />
The Royal British Legion welcomed the move, saying: “We applaud the PM and Iain Duncan Smith for standing up for our wounded heroes."<br />
<br />
Note the facts that they accidentally reveal: That people are 'worried' about cuts, that retests are 'humiliating' and cause people to be 'stripped of crucial cash.' I'll leave you to work out the many things that this disgusting rag is letting slip, including their dumb 'deserving/undeserving' "logic.<br />Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-71119465672547868652012-05-08T04:20:00.002-07:002012-05-08T04:26:04.159-07:00Leveson's part in Disability Hate Crime.An excellent article by Katharine Quarmby reproduced in full below and original link at bottom.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
When the select committee on culture, media and sport wrote in its recent report: "In failing to investigate properly, and by ignoring evidence of widespread wrongdoing, News International and its parent News Corporation exhibited wilful blindness, for which the companies' directors – including Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch – should ultimately be prepared to take responsibility", I couldn't help but smile. We all look to Lord Justice Leveson to clean out our stables in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal – after all, he is investigating "the culture, practices and ethics of the press" – arising from it. Yet he, like Rupert Murdoch, also appears to be "wilfully blind"; he too is failing to investigate properly; he too is ignoring evidence – in this case that some journalists, fed by unscrupulous politicians, are whipping up a perfect storm for disabled people.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The organisation Inclusion London, along with 10 disabled people's groups, the Disability Hate Crime Network and several individuals, including myself, submitted evidence to Leveson, arguing that media reporting on benefits reform has started to affect disabled people. (The journalist John Pring and I also submitted evidence on this to the NUJ, which has core participant status – but the union failed to mention hostile media reporting on disability in any significant way in its submission to the inquiry.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Submissions on disability from members of the public to the inquiry outnumbered those from any other equality strand, such as transgender, migrants and refugees, except that of women. Yet the Leveson inquiry decided that no disability organisation or disabled person would give oral evidence, we were told late last week. Four women's groups, one transgender group and one refugee group gave oral evidence. I'm really glad they did. But I'm astonished that disabled people were not invited to do so, given the number of submissions – and the salient fact that, unlike any other group, they have been targeted by newspapers in an orchestrated way. Indeed two newspapers – the Sun and the Express – have launched campaigns against "scrounging", in which they encourage the public to shop people they judge to be disability benefit fraudsters.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The government has played its part in this too. Lies, damn lies, and statistics are being peddled – such as claiming that 75% of people on incapacity benefit are faking it, when the real figure is likely to be less than 1%. Such lies have an effect – focus group research from Glasgow Media Group confirms that the general public believes that 50-70% of those on disability benefits are fraudulent (they also found that there has been a tripling in the use of words such as "scrounger" in the last five years in media reports). This campaign of misinformation is having its intended effect. When the Treasury website invited comments from the public on how to reduce welfare spending in 2010, the comments about disabled people (which were not moderated) were vicious. One argued that all disabled people should be sterilised. Another suggested that disabled people should be used as weapons of war: "Those who can work that upon rigorous medical examination turn out to be just thick or bone idle to undertake intesnive [sic] course in employability, where they will learn to be punctual, meticulous, smartly dressed, articulate, and gain working attitude. Those who repeatedly fail the course to be deployed in Afghanistan as IED deterrents." No government ministers have apologised for this. Nor have they disassociated themselves from pernicious rhetoric linked to the government crackdown. Leveson should therefore question ministers too, in module three, for their part in whipping up this dangerous mood.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It is not surprising that this climate of suspicion and hostility is feeding through to actual abuse. One mother, who is deaf, told me that another mother, in front of other parents, had accused her of faking her condition. She no longer attends school events, such as her child's assembly. Then there is Peter Greener, who has MS and who was harassed for three months by his neighbour, who called him a scrounger because he had once been seen walking. Recent polling by the charity Scope found a 50% increase in verbal abuse and intimidation on London's public transport – in the last two years – around the time that the coalition launched its campaign for welfare reform, backed by certain newspapers. Coincidence or not?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It's wrong that the government won't denounce this poisonous campaign against disabled people that they have kickstarted. It's appalling that some journalists have joined in the witch-hunt. Someone has to challenge this. It should be Leveson, and Inclusion London, and many other groups, are asking the inquiry next week to reconsider – and hear the voice of disabled people.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/08/leveson-willful-blindness-disabled-people?CMP=twt_gu">Source.</a>Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-37105969975007871902012-02-18T10:02:00.001-08:002016-02-29T04:04:33.167-08:00Nazi UK 2010 onwards v. Nazi Germany 1930 & 40s: A valid and appropriate comparison of Hate Propaganda.There have now been a number of times when I have compared the disability hate propaganda used by the right-wing press in the UK today to the disability hate propaganda that was used in Nazi Germany. This often attracts strong, but misplaced indignation from some quarters, with the favourite response being that ‘we are not gassing disabled people today.’ That may be so, but it is only the propaganda that is being compared, not the follow through. In any case, I do not consider causing disabled people to commit suicide in high numbers to be morally better than gassing disabled people. It is Social Darwinism for cowards.<br />
<br />
The question of whether the Nazi comparison is valid is quickly and easily answered by looking at what is going on now and what went on in Nazi Germany. The papers mentioned below have been referred to Full Fact time and time again and found to be telling lies. It is extremely damaging to disabled people and the worst example I have come across is this:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3254131/We-are-living-in-a-shirkers-paradise-in-the-UK.html">Iain Duncan Smith on benefits Britain</a><br />
<br />
Here, Duncan Smith states:<br />
<br />
“What I cannot bear is the idea that this country was the workshop of the world. It gave everybody the free market, the industrial revolution. You think what we did to change the world. This was the place that everyone looked to.<br />
<br />
“Yet we have managed to create a block of people in Britain who do not add anything to the greatness of this country.<br />
<br />
“They have become conditioned to be users of services, not providers of money. This is a huge part of the reason we have this massive deficit. We have had to borrow vast sums of money. We went on this inflated spending spree.”<br />
<br />
Compare that with:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4">Action T4</a><br />
<br />
See the poster on the right of that link under the '[b]ackground' heading, which has the text:<br />
<br />
“60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People’s community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too.”<br />
<br />
The Government will try to limit or deny its culpability in all of this by saying that they are not responsible for what the press write. Yet their mode of operation casts doubt on this defence, with their constantly releasing, through their agents, the DWP, ‘twisted facts, manipulated statistics and distorted data to win support for its drive to cut costs..’ as Ian Birrell put it. They persistently release this information to all the usual suspects in the media – The Sun, The Mail, The Express and The Telegraph, even though they know perfectly well that these papers have a long and well-established propensity to stir up hatred against disabled people. They have their excuses; like they are legally obliged to give out such information at regular intervals, but the way they distort information and decide who they give it to mean that these excuses will not hold. I do not think it is any great exaggeration to say that the Government, the DWP and the right-wing media are engaged in hate crime against disabled people on an industrial scale.<br />
<br />
Thankfully there are some decent and principled journalists out there who are saying enough is enough and a stop must be put to this cowardly bullying of disabled people. In my list of further reading below you will find some superb articles by Sonia Poulton and Ian Birrell, The <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2102484/This-wartime-Nazi-Germany-Camerons-attacks-vulnerable-needy-stopped.html">latest written by Sonia</a> is especially relevant to this topic.<br />
<br />
Further reading:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2094805/Why-does-David-Cameron-insist-disability-cuts-sickened-party.html">Why does David Cameron insist on cuts that sickened his own party?</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2087784/Welfare-Reform-Bill-Where-national-conscience.html">Welfare Reforms: Where is our national conscienchttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gife?</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2084706/David-Camerons-Welfare-Reform-Bill-Hiding-truth-way-achieve-it.html">We all want benefit reform, Mr. Cameron, but hiding the truth is not going to achieve it.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/04/ian-birrell-prejudice-against-disabled">The demonisation of the disabled is a chilling sign of the times<br />
</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/16/crime-against-the-disabled">A whirlwind of hatred against the disabled</a>Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-61242102733134994202011-12-01T13:06:00.000-08:002011-12-01T13:56:10.786-08:00If - by - cuts.My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about cuts. All right, here is how I feel about cuts: <br /><br />If when you say cuts you mean taking meagre benefits and decent services away from the poorest and most vulnerable people in the land, cuts - a bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the cuts that destroy the NHS, the libraries, the public services and the pay and pensions of public servants, then certainly I am against it.<br /><br />But, if when you say cuts you mean taking vast amounts of money away from pointless Trident renewal, away from foolish, bloody and expensive wars, away from wanton boundless privatisation, away from greedy bankers, executives and assorted wreckers, then certainly I am for it.<br /><br />This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.<br /><br />(With huge apologies to Judge Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr.)<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_S._SweatTimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-36986217713481995962011-11-18T00:39:00.000-08:002011-11-18T01:22:59.696-08:00State Television, BBC, Ignore complaints.The BBC have issued the following response to my complaint about their misleading hate propaganda:<br /><br />"Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC One’s ‘Britain on the Fiddle’ on 3 November.<br /><br />We have received a wide range of feedback about this programme and feel it’s worth highlighting that considerable correspondence to us has been generated by online lobby activity. Bearing in mind the pressure on resources, the response below strives to address the majority of concerns raised but we apologise in advance if not all of the specific points you have mentioned have been answered in the manner you prefer. Please be assured we’ve raised your concerns with the programme and have done our best to issue a substantive response.<br /><br />Panorama's ‘Britain on the Fiddle’ looked at a number of issues surrounding public sector fraud, including benefit fraud, the nature and extent of the unlawful subletting of council properties, the issue of identity fraud and the misuse of blue badges. The programme also followed the work of some local authority fraud investigators and by doing so revealed how time consuming and costly inquiries into suspected fraud can be.<br /><br />The programme made it clear that fraud effectively takes money from all of us, especially those in genuine need. On benefit fraud, including incapacity benefit specifically, the programme stressed that most people on benefits really need them and don't cheat the system.<br /><br />Far from concentrating on the economically deprived, the programme featured, for example, the case of a man claiming benefits to pay for a council flat whilst owning and running a pub business many miles away - travelling between both destinations in a luxury car.<br /><br />Furthermore, the film featured fraud investigators tackling the misuse of blue badges. Many people have since written to Panorama to express their gratitude to the programme for highlighting the problem which causes them distress and much inconvenience.<br /><br />We don’t agree that the cases featured in our film were extreme or were not broadly indicative of instances of benefit fraud. That is not the experience of the local authority fraud investigators who were kind enough to allow us to film their work. Dr Mark Button, from the Centre for Counter Fraud Studies said in the programme:<br /><br />"I think a lot of organisations are not realistic about the levels of fraud that they face because in any organisation there are large levels of fraud that are undetected. So if they rely on detected levels of fraud they are not getting the picture of the levels of fraud within their organisation."<br /><br />Emphasising this, it is important to note that just recently the Audit Commission released its most up to date figures for detected fraud against local government which explains that these figures are only the tip of a very large iceberg.<br /><br />We believe the programme explored a subject which is clearly in the public interest and did so in a fair and impartial manner.<br /><br />Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.<br /><br />Kind Regards<br /><br />Stuart Webb<br /><br />BBC Complaints"<br /><br />So, using "undetected" fraud as the basis of a theory that there is widespread fraud and then treating it as fact? Do you see a fraud in there somewhere? 'Undetected' means precisely that.<br /><br />And notice that they did not answer either of the two points that I raised.<br /><br />"It is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him."<br /><br />Abraham Lincoln.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-77095252219788447972011-11-06T07:10:00.000-08:002011-11-06T10:18:55.411-08:00My complaint to the BBC about Panorama.This programme had very serious problems with misleading information and reckless language. These problems are too numerous for me to set out in full, so I will provide two examples: <br /><br />Firstly, the programme referred to a figure of 'twenty-two billion pounds.' This not only conflated fraud with error but also included fraud across all government departments. This is grossly misleading. <br /><br />Secondly, the programme implied that disabled people cannot play sports such as golf and claim disability benefits. In fact, many disabled people, such as those with deafness, autism or diabetes, for example, can play golf and other sports. <br /><br />Along with using inflammatory language such as 'on the fiddle' and 'swindle,' the misleading impressions given by this programme could contribute to the rise in hate crime against disabled people, which the Equality and Human Rights Commission recently reported as already a very serious problem.<br /><br />Link to programme:<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016lty2/Panorama_Britain_on_the_Fiddle/Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-4388253315592867202011-08-26T12:50:00.001-07:002011-08-26T13:01:03.840-07:00Atos rebrand - a better look.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5Ier0OH1E4Brrvf02W_JzxSWVZXecOhqn2vBgJl_QpE1OTitM-gMm-gJAk1or9Zt5z4DjmDjOcz9aBov2lSqqcu-h-UjCYcel6hxkDQywDscWwrSZvTSYP3h1nZNgkdxWiUAmnIwvDM8/s1600/atos_logo_kills.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 325px; height: 118px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5Ier0OH1E4Brrvf02W_JzxSWVZXecOhqn2vBgJl_QpE1OTitM-gMm-gJAk1or9Zt5z4DjmDjOcz9aBov2lSqqcu-h-UjCYcel6hxkDQywDscWwrSZvTSYP3h1nZNgkdxWiUAmnIwvDM8/s400/atos_logo_kills.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5645257142760783778" /></a>
<br />
<br />
<br />From: http://www.dpac.uk.net/2011/08/fightback-against-atos-censorship/
<br />With more logos.
<br />Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-23446754997267826812011-08-21T08:09:00.000-07:002011-08-21T10:37:27.805-07:00Atos - an Organisation that carries out its Business in a Deeply Shameful Manner.Many years ago at school there was a small group of us in what was known as a PHU or ‘partially hearing unit.’ This was a specialist classroom for the deaf and hard of hearing kids. During playtimes and lunchtimes we would go out into the ‘general’ areas – the playground, canteen, etc, and mix with the hearing kids.
<br />
<br />One day there was a minor incident in which a deaf kid was teased by a hearing kid. During the next assembly, the elderly head-teacher reprimanded this child, pointing out that ‘bullying is bad enough as it is, but bullying a deaf child is disgraceful.’ I agree with this principle set down many years ago by an educated and well-respected man with an old fashioned sense of right and wrong.
<br />
<br />Now fast forward 30 years or so and we see that for once David Cameron is right about moral decay – except not in the way he made out. There are few things more immoral than the way Atos bullies disabled people.
<br />
<br />It would make for too long a blog post to catalogue the main abuses committed by Atos against disabled people. Unfair and badly-done assessments. False information recorded. Non-accessible testing centres. All this has been well documented and widely reported.
<br />
<br />Now this Atos corporate organisation has stooped yet lower (something which might seem impossible) by bringing out lawyers and <a href="http://carerwatch.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/carerwatch-discussion-forum-taken-down/">trying to shut down</a> parts of sites such as Carer Watch where disabled people and their friends and relatives find refuge to talk about Atos’ very bad behaviour.
<br />
<br />Disabled people – the people whose opinion really counts – have little doubt that Atos carries out its business in a manner which is deeply shameful. Bullying is bad enough as it is, but bullying disabled people is disgraceful. It’s not enough for them to devastate our lives; they also want to prevent us from talking about the devastation that they cause!Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-61691195273096704722011-06-22T13:39:00.000-07:002011-10-08T08:19:46.887-07:00Why Ed Miliband’s Speech was worse than any Tory Offering.Just under a year ago I joined the Labour Party partly because I was clinging to the desperate hope that Ed was red and that there was still a truly left-wing element within the party. Although since then there have been various assorted things that have dealt mighty blows to that hope, none were more effective than <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/06/13/ed-miliband-responsibility-speech-in-full">Miliband’s recent speech on responsibility</a>. Now numerous people have already conducted a more decent and thorough post-mortem on this speech than I could hope to do, for example over at <a href="http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/mister-eds-love-of-anecdotes-and-saying-responsibility-33-times-in-his-speech/">HarpyMarx</a>, but the disability angle alone is enough to exercise me. <br /><br />Miliband opened:<br /><br />“The issue I want to talk about today can be summed up in a couple of stories.<br /><br />While out campaigning during the local elections, not for the first time, I met someone who had been on incapacity benefit for a decade.<br /><br />He hadn’t been able to work since he was injured doing his job.<br /><br />It was a real injury, and he was obviously a good man who cared for his children.<br /><br />But I was convinced that there were other jobs he could do.<br /><br />And that it’s just not right for the country to be supporting him not to work, when other families on his street are working all hours just to get by.”<br /><br />What makes this more sinister than any Tory product so far churned out by their hate factory is that Miliband is quite clearly ‘going for’ a genuinely disabled person. He tries to sugar-coat it by calling him a ‘a good man who cared for his children,’ but he nevertheless effectively encourages the audience to scrutinise disabled people and second-guess their fitness for work. It is not difficult to see how this can lead to grotesque unfairness – it is a McCarthyist/Orwellian society that promotes such uninformed and unqualified guesswork. Disabled people have enough things to deal with without this nonsense on top.<br /><br />This over-simplistic guess – ‘[b]ut I was convinced that there were other jobs he could do’ – conveniently ignores the following points:<br /><br />Even if he was able to do the work Miliband thinks he should be doing, there is the small matter of actually finding this work. How many people can afford to be fussy about the type of jobs they can apply for in the present climate?<br /><br />Even if he did find this particular work, there is the further small matter of whether the employer will actually take him on. A survey has found that <a href="http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/1018801/employers-ill-prepared-incapacity-benefit-review">only 8% of employers are willing to take on somebody on Incapacity Benefit.<br /></a><br />This is why Miliband’s speech is worse than anything put forward so far by the Tories. He is stirring up hatred against disabled people for things that are not even their fault.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-55231520638523176212011-06-03T07:17:00.000-07:002011-06-07T10:01:06.806-07:00Using the Law to Fight the Cuts.Here's a handy 'cut out and keep' post on judicial review by Adam Wagner at The Human Rights Blog :<br /><br /><a href="http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/01/a-cut-out-and-keep-guide-to-judicial-review/">Judicial Review.</a>Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-90194172832397077742011-05-01T04:26:00.000-07:002011-05-01T05:12:55.113-07:00Canute against Disablism.I’m a bit mentally frazzled at the moment, but it’s ‘blogging against disablism’ day, so I think I had better write something!<br /><br />Sometimes hate propaganda can cause the victims to start to believe what is stated. If such propaganda is constantly drummed into you with little or no challenge, this can happen quite easily. Feelings of fear and shame can make it more difficult to challenge it.<br /><br />One thing that is constantly drummed into us is this ‘black or white’ definition of ‘disability’ – if you can work you are "not disabled," but if you can’t, you are.<br /><br />But does that definition square with reality? You could be deaf, blind, have downs syndrome or CP and in each case, you could do some sort of work – but you are also most certainly disabled. It's never as simple as the right-wing hater would have everybody believe.<br /><br />A bit of thought tells you that this ‘black or white’ definition of disability is a false definition that has been imposed on us for political and financial ends. It is pure oppression and used for blaming and bullying disabled people. It is despicable and I reject it.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-65417864394846622392011-04-08T03:44:00.000-07:002011-04-08T03:49:53.783-07:00Just how Appalling can the Condem Government get?Alison referred us to this on Twitter. If you can stand to, read it:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/equalities/">"Red Tape Challenge."</a>Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6183246587273553721.post-29051365317125112562011-04-05T11:30:00.000-07:002011-04-05T13:35:48.336-07:00Disabled, Cuts, and Suicidal?Anne Novis asks:<br /><br />HI everyone a Guardian journalist is seeking to interview disabled people who are considering or feeling suicidal due to government cuts for an article about this issue. If interested could you let me know here please, I will get their contact details for you asap. I know its difficult and I don't want anyone to feel they should or have to do this but even if its just an anonymous message this can be used to articulate the dreadful misery being inflicted on so many of us. Thank you<br /><br />Contact details: rowenna.davis@googlemail.com<br /><br />BBC Ouch have been blocking discussion of this.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06323704027686670553noreply@blogger.com5