The Regency

If - by - cuts.

2011-12-01T13:06:00.000-08:00

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:

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.

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.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

(With huge apologies to Judge Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_S._Sweat

State Television, BBC, Ignore complaints.

2011-11-18T00:39:00.000-08:00

The BBC have issued the following response to my complaint about their misleading hate propaganda:

"Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC One’s ‘Britain on the Fiddle’ on 3 November.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

"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."

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.

We believe the programme explored a subject which is clearly in the public interest and did so in a fair and impartial manner.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards

Stuart Webb

BBC Complaints"

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.

And notice that they did not answer either of the two points that I raised.

"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."

Abraham Lincoln.

My complaint to the BBC about Panorama.

2011-11-06T07:10:00.000-08:00

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:

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.

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.

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.

Link to programme:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b016lty2/Panorama_Britain_on_the_Fiddle/

Atos rebrand - a better look.

2011-08-26T12:50:00.001-07:00

From: http://www.dpac.uk.net/2011/08/fightback-against-atos-censorship/
With more logos.

Atos - an Organisation that carries out its Business in a Deeply Shameful Manner.

2011-08-21T08:09:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now this Atos corporate organisation has stooped yet lower (something which might seem impossible) by bringing out lawyers and trying to shut down parts of sites such as Carer Watch where disabled people and their friends and relatives find refuge to talk about Atos’ very bad behaviour.

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!

Why Ed Miliband’s Speech was worse than any Tory Offering.

2011-06-22T13:39:00.000-07:00

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 Miliband’s recent speech on responsibility. 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 HarpyMarx, but the disability angle alone is enough to exercise me.

Miliband opened:

“The issue I want to talk about today can be summed up in a couple of stories.

While out campaigning during the local elections, not for the first time, I met someone who had been on incapacity benefit for a decade.

He hadn’t been able to work since he was injured doing his job.

It was a real injury, and he was obviously a good man who cared for his children.

But I was convinced that there were other jobs he could do.

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.”

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.

This over-simplistic guess – ‘[b]ut I was convinced that there were other jobs he could do’ – conveniently ignores the following points:

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?

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 only 8% of employers are willing to take on somebody on Incapacity Benefit.

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.

Using the Law to Fight the Cuts.

2011-06-03T07:17:00.000-07:00

Here's a handy 'cut out and keep' post on judicial review by Adam Wagner at The Human Rights Blog :

Judicial Review.

Canute against Disablism.

2011-05-01T04:26:00.000-07:00

I’m a bit mentally frazzled at the moment, but it’s ‘blogging against disablism’ day, so I think I had better write something!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just how Appalling can the Condem Government get?

2011-04-08T03:44:00.000-07:00

Alison referred us to this on Twitter. If you can stand to, read it:

"Red Tape Challenge."

Disabled, Cuts, and Suicidal?

2011-04-05T11:30:00.000-07:00

Anne Novis asks:

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

Contact details: rowenna.davis@googlemail.com

BBC Ouch have been blocking discussion of this.

How the Tories Attack Disabled People.

2011-04-01T02:03:00.000-07:00

Here's a fuller list of the vicious attacks unleashed on disabled people by the Nasty ConDem Government. Thanks to Wheelthing from Ouch! for compiling it:

1. DLA to PIP
2. Possibility of 80,000 living in residential homes losing DLAMC
3. IB to ESA or JSA
4. Contributory ESA, paid only to those with sufficient NI contributions, is to be time limited to 12 months,
5. WCA
6. If migrated to JSA people losing disability status; thus, unable to access extra resources given to disabled jobseekers
7. ILF being scrapped
8. Housing benefit
9. The removal of security of tenure from social housing tenants disproportionately impact on disabled people
10. Eligibility criteria dropped for all but critical care support
11. Care packages cut
12. Access to Work is cutting back on items it will fund
13. Cuts to community transport systems
14. Removal of eligibility for Freedom Passes to people with mental health disabilities
15. TaxiCard’s subsidy is dropping; the contribution made by the user doubling; and, the two-swipe system being abolished. So, limiting the resource to around about a one mile journey.
16. Cuts in police budgets will see setbacks in their response to disability hate crimes.

A Fabulous Quote.

2011-03-21T05:15:00.000-07:00

Many people who have failed the WCA medical have appealed but the exact figures aren't easy to find on the DWP website. But a quick online search suggests 40% successful appeals. Let me quote a parent who spoke about his own experiences of caring for his disabled son, in a speech to the 'Research Autism' conference in 2009. He said: "The very painful thing about disability – whether your own or your loved one's – is the feeling that the situation is out of your control. When the system that surrounds you is very top-down, bureaucratic, inhuman, that can only increase your feelings of helplessness ... but I do believe there are moments of despair, helplessness and frustration that could be directly alleviated by the work of government."

His name? David Cameron.

Source.

Tory Morals.

2011-02-21T08:27:00.000-08:00

The Card-Players

Jan van Hogspeuw staggers to the door
And pisses at the dark. Outside, the rain
Courses in cart-ruts down the deep mud lane.
Inside, Dirk Dogstoerd pours himself some more,
And holds a cinder to his clay with tongs,
Belching out smoke. Old Prijck snores with the gale,
His skull face firelit; someone behind drinks ale,
And opens mussels, and croaks scraps of songs
Towards the ham-hung rafters about love.
Dirk deals the cards. Wet century-wide trees
Clash in surrounding starlessness above
This lamplit cave, where Jan turns back and farts,
Gobs at the grate, and hits the queen of hearts.

Rain, wind and fire! The secret, bestial peace!

Philip Larkin, 1970

Questions about Trevor Phillips and Unum.

2011-02-06T08:04:00.000-08:00

Please see this link:

http://tory.fringelist.com/event/9343ee3788a1e515fd06f0295ec43e62

'This time it's personal: Welfare Reform and the personalisation agenda.'

Now please see the following Wikipedia link about Unum and the 'Controversy' section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unum

1) What's going on here?
2) Why is Mr Phillips there? Isn't it a conflict of interest for him to be present?
3) Why is a company with this sort of reputation being used in reform that affects vulnerable people?

Any more questions that I should ask?

Disabled In The UK - The 'New Jews'?

2011-02-02T05:59:00.001-08:00

Disabled In The UK - The 'New Jews'?

Info re: poster: "This poster is from the 1930’s, and promotes the Nazi monthly Neues Volk (New People}, the organ of the party’s racial office. The text reads: “This genetically ill person will cost our people’s community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money. Read Neues Volk, the monthly of the racial policy office of the NSDAP.”

The Flaws of Economics.

2011-02-01T07:10:00.000-08:00

I keep hearing (not literally) this claim from George Osborne that the private sector will be there to provide jobs for ex-public sector workers. I don’t pretend to be any sort of economics expert, but that seems such a sloppy and wishful hand to play when betting on people’s livelihoods and future.

At the same time as cutting jobs, Mr Osborne is also cutting welfare (or at least trying to.) I wonder if it could be argued that welfare can also be seen as a sort of ‘quantitative easing’ – people are given money to survive and they spend that money on products and services provided by the private sector. So it helps to keep the economy ticking over.

If welfare is cut, people will no longer have the money to pay for these goods and services, so that can hardly be good for the private sector, can it? With business quieter, they will be less likely to create new jobs, not the other way around.

So what will be the effect of job cuts? These are people who might be buying things from certain parts of the private sector. If they are put out of work they will be less likely to continue this trend. So the private sector is hammered again. And of course, if all these new jobs turn out to be one big mirage, then isn’t welfare spending likely to go up rather than down?

Let’s hope that there are big thumping flaws in my logic.

Edward Woollard

2011-02-01T02:11:00.000-08:00

I had been meaning to write a blog post about Edward Woollard’s case, but I have been distracted by feeling a bit unwell. Having recovered a little, my motivation is also restored. Like many people, I was shocked at the severity of the sentence and I want to set out why I don’t agree with it.

Predictably, some right-wingers greeted the news of the sentence with delight. For example, Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes, who said it was ‘[a] good day for justice it seems. Edward Woollard who was revealed as the infamous thug who threw a fire extinguisher off the roof off CCHQ, narrowly avoiding killing a copper, has been sent down for 2 years and 8 months...’ Mr Staines was right at least in that something very bad could have happened in this incident. However, there is a maxim in equity that ‘he who comes to equity must come with clean hands.’ Mr Staines does not come with clean hands, having been convicted for drink driving, not once, but twice. I see no difference between hurling a metal container down towards where there are people in a reckless manner and driving a big and heavy metal container where there are people about, also in a reckless manner.

From a logical viewpoint, my argument so far would be unsatisfactory, as it is a tu quoque argument. Just because Mr Staines behaved in an equally appalling way does not mean that Woollard should not be punished. His was clearly an extremely dangerous and foolish act. I just make the point that it is not just Woollard who has done something like this and it is too easy to be judgemental. But the question remains about whether the punishment is fair and proportionate.

I conceded earlier that something very bad could have come of this reckless act, but the fact is that nothing did. Immediately after the incident, there were hysterical calls, mostly from the right, to charge the suspect with attempted murder, but that was downgraded to violent disorder. The required ‘guilty mind' for the former charge is an intention to kill, and that was never present. It was a reckless act by a young person caught up for the first time in extraordinary events. I vaguely remember when I was 18 and our little group of friends had a few of our own 'could have happened' moments. But we are punished for what we actually do, not what we could have done.

There are other reasons why the sentence was severe – his age, he is only 18, he has no previous convictions and his obvious remorse. He was horrified at what he had done and immediately turned himself in after talking with his mother.

There is one more reason why I think the sentence was severe – politics. The judge said that he wanted to issue a ‘deterrent sentence.’ You are in dangerous territory when you allow the justice system to be used for some reason other than to uphold the law. I agree with the argument of Deborah Orr on that - 'a disproportionate punishment to discourage others is unfair.'

What was it that Gandhi said about Western Civilisation? ‘I think it would be a nice idea. ' I do too.

Early Day Motion on Disability Living Alllowance

2011-01-26T04:00:00.000-08:00

Early Day Motion
EDM 1332

DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE CONSULTATION
24.01.2011

Williams, Hywel

That this House expresses concern at the presentation of the case for reform of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in the public consultation published on 6 December 2010; believes that the consultation incorrectly confuses correlation with causation between DLA claimants and employment levels or motivation to work; notes that DLA claimants tend to be older, less well-qualified, on benefits for longer and in poorer health than other disabled people; is of the opinion that many of the claims made in support of changing DLA are unsubstantiated in the consultation text or the supporting evidence; does not accept the argument that the identified problems with the present format of DLA are insoluble without the introduction of a costly new benefit; further believes that the presentation of the case for these reforms is highly flawed; and further expresses concern that the language used in the consultation may mislead readers when drawing conclusions from the evidence presented, and may therefore influence their response to the consultation.

Source.

The Return of Slavery

2011-01-24T08:33:00.000-08:00

They're doing these young people a favour really(!)

Cameron's 'Pathetic' Cuts.

2011-01-20T02:11:00.000-08:00

Even the Mail offers a bit of support:

'Mr Cameron said to me that if he became Prime Minister he wouldn’t do anything that would hurt disabled children.

'Clearly he’s gone against his word and it’s affecting vulnerable families across the country.'

And lets give credit to some of the Mail's readers - they ain't being fooled any longer:

How many others are in this very same position ? This isn't a ''one off'' case. Disabled and vulnerable people of all ages ARE being targeted . '' In it together '' my backside !

Mother who met PM asks to put disabled daughter into care

Cameron to look at case of mother who asked for daughter to be put into care

Draft Letter to RNID Trustees

2011-01-17T11:08:00.000-08:00

Removed from the See Hear board for being 'off topic.' I think I'll put it up again.

Dear

I am a deaf member of RNID and I am writing to express my unease at a number of ways in which the charity operates. My first concern is that of accountability at RNID. The standard response that I have been given by independent parties is that I should liaise with the board. After asking John Low on how to go about this, he advised me to contact board members individually by post via Featherstone Street. This seems rather cumbersome and I think, in the age of internet, there are better ways to expedite a feedback process. I see the role of trustee as rather like that of an MP – where the interests of constituents are carried forward through surgeries/consultation and that is what I think should happen at RNID. Simply giving out information unilaterally in the form of impact reports is inadequate.

My other main area of concern is that of the employment of deaf and hard of hearing people at RNID in general and especially at senior management level. A lot of the vacancies advertised by RNID seem to carry a stipulation of at least two years experience. Whilst normally this would be fine, it is disregarding the fact, which is often shown through RNID’s own research, that deaf and hard of hearing people are less likely through no fault of their own to have this experience. The lack of deaf and hoh people at SMT (senior management team) level seems to contradict many of RNID’s claims and aspirations; it is a dramatic vote of no confidence in deaf people if they are deemed unfit to hold a single vacancy at the highest level of a deaf organisation. How can RNID champion our suitability to work at all levels in other organisations if their own record is poor? How can it be in the best interests of deaf people not to speak and act for themselves and control their own affairs?

I would respectfully urge you to take on board these concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Anne Novis MBE: A Push too far

2011-01-16T10:34:00.000-08:00

I will lose myself again.

Not due to an injury that was no ones fault but due to a society that is allowing a government to implement the most discriminatory harshest attacks on disabled people this generation has faced.

A society that is allowing those who can fight least to be targeted as the scapegoats for the financial mess they and the succeeding governments got us into.

Yes you, and you and you, all of you who stand by and say nothing or encourage such vicious and undeserving attacks are just as responsible for what is happening.

Get out of your comfort zone, disability living allowance cuts are relevant to all

2011-01-14T10:37:00.000-08:00

Get out of your comfort zone, disability living allowance cuts are relevant to all

More:

Disability living allowance cuts could confine disabled to homes, say charities

Groups warn against DLA funds cuts

Charities urge rethink on DLA mobility allowance cuts

Why more action is needed on cuts to disability benefits

Cutting the mobility allowance for disabled people is surely the meanest cut of all

David Chaytor - I don't get no satisfaction.

2011-01-07T13:33:00.000-08:00

I think I agree with Michael White, it's not hard to feel a bit sorry for David Chaytor

One word springs to mind - patsy. What about the flippers? What about, as White says, [l]ucky the financial sophisticates, MPs like David Cameron, who kept it simple by maxing out their allowances on a wholesome second mortgage.'?

Of course, just because others behave as badly as he did does not mean that he should not be punished. But it's the punishment that I take issue with. Is it really remedial or rehabilitative?

Those who wish to keep the society of the judgemental and vindictive can keep it; I want no part of it. Prison is often two wrongs pretending to make a right. A vile fake Victorian relic. Strip-searches, BOSS chairs.

Yes, sometimes prison is needed, but I am loath to condone things which distress and humiliate fellow human beings.

Tories Blaming and Punishing the Victims.

2011-01-06T06:37:00.000-08:00

Both the government and the DWP like to make great play of the alleged fact that people ‘choose not to work’ and take benefits as a ‘lifestyle choice.’ They will make long speeches about how to change people’s behaviour.

However, the truth is that only one person exercises a choice about whether or not somebody can work – and that is the employer. Please see the following link. Who would have thought it could get worse than 27%?

“…only 8% will accommodate a return to work for those whose Incapacity Benefit is withdrawn.”

Blaming disabled people for their own unemployment, when it is the behaviour of employers that is at fault, is intellectually barbaric.

(You may notice that I just put 'Tories' in the title and not 'Tories and the Liberal Democrats.' That was not an omission or error, it was a factual description.)

A New Year's Message from The Broken of Britain.

2011-01-03T08:22:00.000-08:00

This year was not kind to people with disabilities. 2010 began with a steady trickle of horror stories about Employment Support Allowance introduced by the Labour government in 2008 as the replacement for Incapacity Benefit, thus creating a draconian system making benefits conditional on work-related activity for most claimants. This conditionality is based on assessment by ‘healthcare professionals’ who are not doctors and may not be familiar with the variety of health conditions they face. The assessment is run by private sector provider Atos, who refuse to release the details of the test used to assess eligibility for reasons of ‘commercial interest’. There followed more disability charities lining their own pockets by colluding in the unfair system rather than fighting for those they claim to represent; and continuing doubts regarding the future of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) paid to help disabled people face the additional costs of disability.

Labour eventually backed away from DLA, and disabled people sighed with relief. Past Tory zeal for chopping at the welfare state and the Tory papers’ penchant for calling disabled people cheats has not befriended the party to us, but the Coalition Government was not totally objectionable. After all, David Cameron has experience of disability in his family, the Tories made an election promise to safeguard DLA, and the Lib Dems were not a party of unfair and discriminatory cuts. Early statements and the news of big changes to come caused some unease, but the first real signal of the Government’s intention came in the Emergency Budget, with George Osborne’s announcement of unnecessary medical tests for DLA claimants.

Since June, news of substantial losses for disabled people has come thick and fast. The axing of disability bodies doing useful and necessary work in the cull of quangos; a Comprehensive Spending Review which removed the mobility component of DLA from those in residential care to much anger; time-limiting contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance to 12 months in the same review; the cutting of advice on benefits; the fudged Harrington review of Employment Support Allowance which avoided the major points of criticism; the three-year extension of a contract worth over £100 million per year to Atos; all whilst disability charities continued to cheerfully pick the carcass of the welfare state. Then came the straw that broke the camel’s back – the Government decided to scrap DLA and replace it with a new, leaner system called Personal Independence Payment (PIP) - the public consultation n DLA reformcloses on February 14th. PIP will cut the DLA caseload by 20% using testing similar to that used for Employment and Support Allowance. The case for reform is badly flawed and there are several damaging changes hidden in the small print. For example, six-times London Marathon winner Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson could lose out because she uses her wheelchair too well.

The Coalition Government has heaped misery on disabled people in just six months, backed up by their tabloid attack dogs, targeting them more than anybody else. A week after breaking the camel’s back, the Coalition decided to bash its head into the sand by axing the Independent Living Fund. This money funds 21,000 people to live independently who would otherwise live in hospitals or residential care, at far greater economic and social cost. Maria Miller, Minister for Disabled People, justifies the decision by deeming the ILF to be “unsustainable”. On a personal note, my best friend relies on ILF to support her care needs. ILF enables her to live independently and employ her high skills. Her contribution to society, including the tax she pays, is enormous. I suggest the Minister try telling her that her support is “financially unsustainable”.

By targeting DLA and the Independent Living Fund the Coalition have gone too far. A number of new disability rights groups and websites have responded to the proposals with focus and determination and are organizing alternative protest and direct action. Whilst the disability charities busy themselves forming consortia worth £654 million to bid for Government back-to-work contracts, protesting for disability rights is coming from the grassroots using our skills to raise awareness of our fights and to build political alliances. Public sector workers have been unfairly targeted as well; students too are victims of cuts and broken promises; these and other Coalition targets are our natural allies. We are campaigning on many fronts and ask that you join us in doing so by signing our petition to stop DLA reform and supporting our DLA campaign, as have a number of Lords and MPs including Jon Cruddas and Hywel Williams. We are getting MPs to ask questions, start debates and table Early Day Motions on DLA, pressuring the Coalition to back down.

2011 will be a good year for disabled people as we petition this Government to withdraw on DLA and the Independent Living Fund, and to bring fairness back into Employment Support Allowance. David Cameron and Iain Duncan-Smith have picked the wrong fight.

- by Kaliya Franklin and Rhydian Fôn James

Source.

Rhydian's DLA Petition.

2010-12-15T09:59:00.000-08:00

Rhydian's well written DLA petition is here. Please sign if you agree with it.

We, the undersigned, urge the Minister for Disabled People to recall the Public Consultation on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) reform, and to cease work on reform of this benefit, due to serious flaws in the consultation paper. As such, the consultation questions are deeply skewed and any answers will be likely to support wholesale reform. This is both unfair and unwise, and will cause hardship for many disabled people.

The case for reform has been criticized, and then completely demolished, by the various disability rights groups fighting reform. They accuse the DWP of building their argument without sufficient evidence. The claims that DLA can act as a barrier to work, in particular, are robustly questioned. Questions are also raised concerning the accuracy of the representation of supporting data. For example, the claim is made that DLA claims have risen by 30% in eight years - without accounting for population growth of 5% in this period, a pronounced demographic shift, and increased awareness of DLA.

Most devastating to the case for reform is the critique of proposed amendments, leading one to ask whether augmenting DLA might not be a better, cheaper way of improving employment opportunities, rather than launching an entirely new benefit. It would seem that the costs of such rebranding are only justified when savings are made by cutting the DLA caseload by 20%. This figure is, in and of itself, questionable – how is it possible to know that this many people can be removed?

The Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appears to be a case of cuts dressed as positive reform. Disability rights groups and charities have uniformly condemned the proposals, warning of dire consequences. The list of those affected includes: people who are mobile with aids; people with disabilities so severe that they are unable to be very active; care home residents; those who receive local authority care packages. Most other disabled people will suffer through needless reassessments upon the introduction of PIP, and re-testing every few years even when a condition cannot be treated.

There is a strong feeling amongst people with disabilities that the Coalition Government have declared war on us, with a continual ratcheting of pressure on us since the Emergency Budget in June 2010. Announcements on Employment and Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, and Disability Living Allowance have made us feel that the Government is scapegoating us and removing the support on which we depend. Iain Duncan-Smith’s comments to The Sun newspaper [01/12/2010) suggesting that Incapacity Benefit claimants were partly to blame for a large fiscal deficit caused by a recession, a bail-out of the banks and quantitative easing. Whilst there may be ways to improve DLA, they do not involve replacing it with a new benefit, and neither do they involve removing anyone from the claimant caseload.

Further reading:

Source - Ouch!

Harpymarx - protest tomorrow.

The Government is simply bullying disabled people.

Jody McIntyre : Who’s apathetic now?

2010-12-15T09:57:00.000-08:00

Jody McIntyre : Who’s apathetic now?

:)

Another great interview here.

More Dodgy Pics.

2010-12-12T06:46:00.001-08:00

Bear in mind that I'm still armed with a mobile and yanked around by a dog that's gone crackers. Nant-y-Frith, a sort of 'warm up' before Llangollen.

Bleak House near Gwynfryn.

Horse and horizon.

Stephen Neary and DOLS

2010-12-12T04:52:00.000-08:00

Another horrible case of injustice, in my opinion.If you agree with this petition, please can you sign.

UN International Day of [Disabled People.]

2010-12-03T06:48:00.000-08:00

Today is the UN International Day of Persons with Disabilities, but I don't feel much like celebrating. There's been a great deal of talk and policy but I haven't really noticed much real progress. In fact, I feel tired, worried and stressed at the sheer hatred being stirred up against disabled people by, amongst others, Iain Duncan Smith, such as in the Sun and other places.

Duncan Smith's hate mongering has been soundly rebutted here, here and here.

So thanks to those people for putting the facts right.

Some "Christian" Duncan Smith is. It is the likes of him who make life threefold more difficult for disabled people. Thank goodness for friends who support and reassure us.

What they said....

2010-11-29T10:37:00.000-08:00

189. In evidence, the Secretary of State said that the Department had no intention of moving existing claimants of incapacity benefits onto the ESA. He argued:

"I do not think you should set about these sorts of reforms, as it were, by tearing up people's entitlement to benefits. […] I do not think it should be part of our agenda to retrospectively change benefit entitlement, […] it is likely to be the case in two or three years' time that the claimants who will be the hardest to reach and to place in the labour market will be people on old incapacity benefits, not people coming into new Employment and Support Allowance. But, again, I cannot see any alternative way of managing this process of change other than the way we have set out in the Green Paper."[211]

This is as it should be and by going back on this principle they have shown themselves to be unprincipled people. Now they also plan to retrospectively tear up people's entitlement to DLA too.

Source.

Winter pics - test!

2010-11-27T08:05:00.000-08:00

I'm lucky to live in a rural area. Here's a few pictures today. You'll have to forgive the dismal quality, I'm trying out my mobile while being yanked by a bad dog.

Coalition Government reintroduces Slavery.

2010-11-07T02:46:00.000-08:00

Here are the facts. There are just under half a million job vacancies in this country at the moment. (Click 'vacancies and unemployment' for a pdf file.) According to the coalition government there are at least 5 million people who are ‘economically inactive’ – the euphemism for being out of work.

Let’s be generous and assume that the 5 million figure is correct and all these vacancies are in the right places and they are filled. That leaves 4 and a half million people with no job to go to. But like with the argument for the existence of God, some people will insist that a lot of vacancies are not advertised. I don’t know whether we are expected to have faith that they are out there, never mind how we are supposed to apply for them if we don’t know they exist. But again, let’s be generous and assume that there are a million unadvertised jobs out there (and they’re in the right places, etc, etc.) That’s still three and a half million people with no job to go to.

But hang on a moment, isn’t the coalition government slashing jobs? Half a million jobs, to be exact. And do they not expect another half a million private sector jobs to fall as a result? Oops! Looks like we’re back at 4 and a half million.

It’s no wonder that this government adores the game of ‘blame the victim’ and wants to reintroduce slavery, feebly relabelled as workfare. It’s so much easier for the party of blame, stick and judgement to attack the poor for being poor instead of acknowledging the failure of capitalism and putting right its many vulgar faults.

More:

Harpymarx

Edit: The bully of disabled people, Danny Alexander, has declared that these spiteful reforms are not to punish and humiliate people. Yes they are - that is precisely what they are for - to punish and humiliate people.

Terms of Abuse.

2010-10-30T06:36:00.000-07:00

I thought I would just run through some of the ways I think terminology is used by politicians to bash disabled people and poor people. If the facts don't suit the Tory agenda, perhaps a few word tricks will.

Politicians try to slot disabled people into either one of two different groups – ‘can work’ or ‘can’t work.’ This is a false dichotomy because there is a third group which most disabled people fall into – 'can do some limited forms of work.' This 'black or white' falsehood is ruinous to disabled people for many different reasons. For example, if you can only do some limited work, but are treated as if you are fully fit, you may become overworked and/or have your health damaged. Also, it disregards the fact that it is much more difficult to get work if you are disabled and that fly-tips the blame and hardship onto the victim. Furthermore, it maligns those who are found ‘fit for work.’ Already, the right-wing press is stating that any existing IB claimant who fails the ESA re-assessment are ‘benefit cheats,’ ‘work-shy,’ ‘fakers’ etc. It really is the most black-hearted meanness and they are bare-faced lies to boot. The IB test was a different test to the ESA test; the first was tough, the second is draconian. This prescription only serves those who, for reasons of political and financial expediency, want to pretend that disabled people are not disabled.

Politicians also use the phrases ‘most vulnerable’ and/or ‘most severely disabled’ without defining them. This allows them to put on the fake gloss that they are protecting certain people, but in reality we are played off against a mythical non-existent group of people; it gives the coalition government a blank cheque to attack ‘semi-vulnerable’ people or those who are “just” disabled. As people in general are mostly good-natured, they often just take it on trust that these people are being protected.

Another false dichotomy that is used by the coalition government is the ‘Whitehall or welfare’ dilemma, implying that the only choice is between those two things. Such a prescription is nonsense because there are many other areas which can go – such as the costly and pointless Trident renewal. To just cause poor people to instantly go without on such dubious – and irrelevant – grounds is cruel and heartless.

Finally, the word ‘fair,’ as in ‘tough, but fair’ is meaningless in isolation; you need to qualify and quantify the statement rather than just expect people to take your word for it. A dubious equality impact assessment that doesn’t add up is not going to do the job.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of terms used to justify the unjustifiable, so please feel free to submit more examples.

Overwhelmed by the Cuts and Lack of Equality

2010-10-23T02:08:00.000-07:00

From Ouch!

SunshineMeadows said:

"Most everyone who is disabled will have times when they feel less of a person, like they are too much trouble to other people, like they wish there could magically be some way where they did not get made to feel a burden.

Right now I feel so overwhelmed by what the Cuts the tories announced are going to do to disabled people like myself and those worse off than me that it makes me feel like I am drowning, so I have been trying to distract myself and do other things. But it is not working so I decided to register here and make a post.

In making the cuts they have the tories have devalued the lives of ever sick and disabled person in the country including those who work. They have set a wrecking ball ready to crash into the lives of all the people who had there lives sorted, who had a place to live, a way of feeding and clothing themselves, of getting washed, of brushing their teeth, of being alive instead of just living, having a car to travel in, keeping pets, being able to afford books, a computer connection to see the world from their living room, to have a feeling of independence and being themselves and not a burden to be put in its small place.

Maybe if we tell our brief stories it will help (somehow).

I had to give up work because my employer could not accomodate me as a wheelchair user, I would find the disabled parking bays at work taken by able bodied people, the wheelchair access into the building became designated as the main access to everyone and for several months the electronic door opener was switched off and I could no longer get into the building without asking for another persons help, the disabled toilet was often occupied by people who went in there for various reasons including: being to lazy to walk to the men's toilets, needing to blow their nose, talk to a girlfriend on the phone, change into motorcycle gear, the list goes on. In term of the actual work it was a call centre and I did both call work and email support. I would find my phone log ins randomly changed, I would lose email access and my computer system would be up and down. The coffee machine I used was moved to 5 minutes wheeling away to the other end of the buildling. IAccess To Work had given the compnay I worked for over £10 000 to install electronic door openers to the internal doors so i could get around the building but other people turned them off by way of a switch on the top of the door. they did this because they did not like the doors being a bit heavier for them to push. This list goes on too.

The stress, the feeling of worthlessness and humilation, together with the physical distress meant I had to leave. I did bring a grievance which was settled (poorly) but the whole process nearly killed me and I went to counselling to sort my head out.

My ability to work was always very limited but even that has not returned and so I went the ESA route. More humiliation and feeling like crap because its all about trying to tell them what I can't do and why. When I went to the medical the fact there was a two way mirror in the waiting room so they could watch you waiting was a bit freaky.

I was given ESA only of the lucky 5% (est) and put in the work related group. More worry about what was going to happen, but it went okay 6 interviews at the Job Centre over about 7 months and then I was told that is it until 2013 phew.

Then the budget comes and I realise I might lose out later when I am reassessed for DLA. Lose out because the assessment process of being seen by a doc for a brief amount of time tells them little about me except yes I can just about pick up a coin.
I was upset about it but then said to myself okay think about it you have over two years before anything else is going to happen.

I tried to settle in to my life with my partner who has bipolar and barely hanging onto his job, which means my small income from ESA and DLA goes towards our mortgage. My sister also pays a third of the mortgage because she loves me enough to do so and she and I (when I was working) managed to keep the house by getting a joint mortgage.

Lsst year after a three year wait a very large disabled facilities grant was finally sorted and the building work was done. No more using a comode and not getting washed properly because they put in wider doorways downstairs, made all the floors level, no more stepsand put in a shower room toilet. There is even a wheelchair ramp into the garden smiley - smiley I felt so lucky but also broken because all that work meant I was not getting better. I would never be able to walk my dog in the local woods - pathetic a want I know.

I worked for what I have, with my effort, my sister, my partner and a wonderful Occupational Therapist I finally had some breathing space and my life was set for at least two years.

No comes the news of the cuts, I will probably lose my contribution based ESA which has propped up my partner's earnings which are often less than £700 a month because of sickness. My income form DLA has a big question mark over it. Since getting on ESA I tried to find voluntery work that would keep me in the habit of 'working' but no one around here wants someone as physically limited as I am, so what hope of finding a few hours of actual work.

My sister will continue to pay a third of the mortgage as long as she has a job, but she can't do more and I would not expect it either. This house is not just home it is a disabled access and adapted home, but if my loss of ESA results in arrears to the mortgage and we will lose the house. If we lose the house there will be other consequences because we are expected to pay part of the housing grant back if the house is 'sold' within ten years.

I will never be able to get the life I have now Back once it is gone. It took 7 long years to achieve after I left my family moved away to be alive and not just live.

I already said it's like a wrecking ball is posed to smash everything to bits and even in all this I will be one of the lucky ones because I already know there are a lot of disabled people who are worse off than me.

Sorry this turned out to be so long I hope people still read it and at least some reply."

British Justice Today.

2010-10-19T08:11:00.000-07:00

A woman dumps a cat in a wheelie bin and the story attracts international attention and outrage. Today she has been fined £250 and banned from keeping animals for five years.

Also in the news recently, but with less attention and outrage, is a story about a 17 year old boy with Aspergers. He was taken by three thugs and subjected to a three day marathon of torture. They kicked and stamped on his head, they repeatedly punched his chest, they beat him with a tennis racquet and they threw him down a steep embankment. They scratched his arms and legs with sandpaper, they pelted him with dog muck and they made him drink vodka and gin until he passed out. They applied tape to his genitals and then ripped it off. They filmed this ordeal on their mobile phones while laughing and joking and while their victim was begging them to stop hurting him.

All three of these nasty bullies walked free from court.

Ah well, he was “only” disabled and not a “proper” human being.

A good piece.

2010-10-12T11:05:00.000-07:00

Turd Meddlesome

2010-10-11T09:16:00.000-07:00

Turd Meddlesome today declared in defence of New Labour ‘It's an insult to those people that worked for the Labour Party, who voted for the Labour Party, to say to them that they voted for something that was fraudulent, useless or didn't deliver.’

Nah, it’s just the truth. The tip of the ice-berg.

As Turd Meddlesome is one of those mongers of hatred, blame and judgement - as he demonstrated by referring to 'welfare scroungers' - he should push off and join the Tory party, where I'm sure he'll feel right at home.

Ed Miliband

2010-09-25T10:19:00.000-07:00

The Guardian said:

Ed Miliband, the MP for Doncaster North, took the top position only after second-preference votes were redistributed, beating David Miliband by 50.65% to 49.35%.

I joined the Labour Party just in the nick of time to vote for Dianne Abbott, with Ed as my 2nd preference. It seems that there were others who joined me in the Blair Ditch Project.

Tim – shaping the future of British Politics (!)

The right-wingers have lost the argument. They can pack up, ship out and join the Tory Party. It says on the back of my Labour Party card – ‘The Labour party is a democratic socialist party.’

I hope Ed does not forget - he got this job because of lefties - he needs to look after us.

Get that red flag out and restore it to the mast.

"Morality."

2010-09-21T03:57:00.000-07:00

In Victorian times, prats in top hats and tails would pull silly faces of righteous indignation while sending little boys up chimneys or down t’ pit for tuppence a week – if that much. This was considered to be promoting a nobel moral virtue, it seems, called the ‘work ethic.’

And today this claptrap persists in slightly altered forms, carried on by the right. You only have to read certain right-wing rags and you will see that they think they hold to the highest moral standards – this chirping on about ‘hard-working’ people and how the ‘work-shy’ are such moral slobs.

But where did this principle come from and by what authority was it established? It seems to me that it was dreamt up out of thin air – a petitio principii – and treated as if it is gospel by a bunch of arrogant, self-righteous knows-it-alls who in fact know nothing and are themselves the worst of moral slobs.

After all, an employment contract is supposed to be a quid pro quo, a bargain in which two sides are meant to put something attractive on the table to exchange. The worker puts hard work on the table and in return, the employer is supposed to put a decent living wage on the table. If he doesn’t do that, he is the one with the questionable morals.

The ‘work-shy’ don’t exist in the huge numbers that some would have us believe; it is often those tight-fisted slave-driving employers and their mealy-mouthed apologists with their meanie-mum wage who are the moral slobs.

They splutter on, wearing their cheap masks, about ‘doing the right thing’ and ‘taking responsibility.’ Since when was agreeing to enrol for slavery ‘doing the right thing’ and ‘taking responsibility?’ If the wage doesn’t pay the bills, wouldn’t that be failing to take responsibility? But let’s attach no blame to these innocents – the slave driver, aided and abetted by endless oppressive governments, deserve it all. Their smug, squalid and squeamish play-acting does not impress me one jot.

Matthew 23:1-4

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

What is the difference...

2010-08-15T12:10:00.000-07:00

between this:

"This poster is from the 1930’s, and promotes the Nazi monthly Neues Volk (New People}, the organ of the party’s racial office. The text reads: “This genetically ill person will cost our people’s community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money. Read Neues Volk, the monthly of the racial policy office of the NSDAP.”

Text and poster from here.

and this:

Almost a million people on sickness benefit for a decade.

According to figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions, 889,000 people have spent the last ten years on sickness benefits, costing an average of £4.2billion a year.

Another great post...

2010-08-13T13:43:00.000-07:00

From Ouch! Wheelthing said:

I thought New Labour had plumbed the depths of depravity with their attacks on disabled people; attacks which gave a green light to rags such as the Daily Heil to run what are nothing more than an open-season on disabled people.

It transpires that New Labour has merely given pointers for this nasty coalition to really attack us. We are now living under a constant barrage of vicious attacks; these attacks are being led by ministers and people high up in power.

They are completing the demonization of disabled people. If this isn’t incitement to hatred then I’m not sure if I understand the term. This government is whipping people up into a frenzy of hatred and resentment of disabled people; we’re being blamed for the collapse of the economy and the deficit – which by the way this government is milking for all it’s worth; this country has got through far worse economic issues than this in the past 65 years.

Just as Osborne understood the difference between DLA and Incapacity Benefit before the Budget. He still went along with the expedient device of conflating the two in order to score a cheap political advantage; and, get large swathes of the voting public behind the draconian measures that they, the ConDems, intend raining down on largely defenceless disabled people – sorry if I’m painting disabled people here as vulnerable victims; but, that’s exactly what this inhuman government is doing.

Similarly, newspapers know full well the differences between DLA and ESA and IB. They are fully aware that DLA is not means-tested and can be claimed whilst working. Yet, it suits their nasty Nazi-like agenda to conflate the take-up and entitlement of all disability benefits because it makes for more sensational reading.

Why cuts won’t work.

2010-08-08T08:32:00.000-07:00

If lots of public sector workers lose their jobs, they will go on benefits and the welfare bill will go up. They will also have reduced spending power and so the private companies that directly or indirectly depend on their custom will fold. As more and more people are put out of work, the welfare bill will mushroom and there will be a vast pool of people with reduced spending power not paying income tax. I suppose it’s comparable to climate cycles – you interfere with them at your peril.

I hope I’m wrong.

Tory Government breaking Equality Laws?

2010-08-04T02:47:00.000-07:00

It is a legal requirement for the government, when making policy, to give due regard to equality duties. Even Theresa May recognises this and has written to the chancellor about his Budget. They were supposed to carry out 'equality impact assessments.' Were any done?

I hope somebody will take the government to court for their failure to give due regard to their disability equality duties when drafting their vile budget.

All hands on deck, ladies and gentleman, let us spare no effort to wipe the smirk off Osborne's face.

Further reading:

Budget cuts could break equality laws, Theresa May warned chancellor

Fawcett Society in legal challenge to 'unfair' Budget

Factoring in gender equality can prevent costly errors

How to Divide and Rule.

2010-07-27T02:02:00.000-07:00

A great post from Ouch! I asked:

I can't get my head around it - it's always the *super* rich who despise welfare so much, the likes of H.L. Hunt. If you're so well off as that, why does it matter to you if somebody gets welfare?

Sunny Clouds replied:

It's because if you want to stay rich, you want to exploit ordinary people. The best way to do that without them all revolting against you and overturning your power is to do two things that overlap - set one against the other and make some look down on others.

Think about it.

Two people - benefits claimant and working man.

Working man is made to feel that benefits claimant is ripping him off. He is barely better off than benefits claimant (or so he thinks) and he is encouraged to resent benefits claimant.

Whilst he is busy venting that resentment, he is not demanding better pay himself. He is too busy lambasting benefits claimant for getting almost as much as he does on minimum wage to join together with other working men to demand better wages.

Meanwhile, benefits claimant has been portrayed as a lesser being, so if he speaks out about his position, no one wants to be seen to side with him. The venom heaped upon him by working man makes him an incentive for others to keep working so as not to become another benefits claimant themselves. Again, working man is so desperate not to be seen as a benefits claimant that he will accept minimum wage.

To reinforce this divide, benefits paid to benefits claimant on no other income or little other income are described as handouts. That he may have paid many years tax is is not mentioned. The importance of supporting the most needy in society is not mentioned. The risk of working man at some point needing benefits is not mentioned.

However, some benefits are paid to middle class man. If he is not wealthy, he's described as a benefits scrounger and reclassified as benefits man. If he's wealthy, he's not. He's paid his taxes so he's entitled to his child benefit, although he probably won't mention it very often. If he's wealthy, his child benefit will never be described as a handout, nor will his bus pass or winter fuel payment.

Divide and rule has a long history. It is very effective at making rich people richer and poor people poorer.

Note, however, that it is important that not too many people starve. It is also important that working man has just enough to enjoy himself with. Bread and circuses as the Romans would have it, or Booze and television as we would have it. If you take that away, there is a risk that working man will unite with benefits claimant and revolt.

Portrait of a Tory Voter.

2010-07-24T07:49:00.000-07:00

Why I hate the Tories.

2010-07-23T11:55:00.000-07:00

First, they do absolutely nothing to help disabled people get into work. Any attempt to that end is sneered at and abruptly dismissed as ‘political correctness gone mad,’ ‘social engineering’ and ‘he only got the job because he’s disabled.’ They pretend that they are going to ‘help’ disabled people into work and waffle about it, but that is all.

Second, it is them and their mates who would not dream of employing disabled people (see above.) They’re ‘not social workers’ or ‘charity,’ it’s always somebody else’s responsibility to hire disabled people.

So do they at least leave disabled people alone and let them claim Incapacity Benefit?

Of course they don’t, don’t be daft.

They point fingers and say accusingly ‘you could be doing some sort of work!’ Yes, that’s right, the same work that they and their mates would not dream of giving us.

So they humiliate and stress disabled people with yet more testing carried out by a greedy private company which results in those disabled people being dumped onto job seekers allowance where they will stay until they die or get to pension age.

And these vindictive clowns step forward and claim to be protecting the most vulnerable.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"

Question Time

2010-07-19T08:42:00.000-07:00

I've found what looks like a very promising website, which appears to have been designed to promote dialogue between the public and public figures, such as politicians. I don't think it's quite there yet, but it operates on good principles of transparency and accountability - the way things should be. Feel free to join in and ask your own questions. Here's some of mine.

Emotional Recovery

2010-07-10T13:11:00.000-07:00

I've been pretty depressed lately. So many people charged with the responsibility of defending deaf and disabled people from persecution, who instead let us down so badly. RNID, the EHRC, the Liberal Democrats and Danny Alexander. Sheesh, I'm minded to quote a bit of St Paul, even as a soft atheist who is no great fan of his.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Danny Alexander

2010-06-30T12:40:00.000-07:00

The Tell-Tale Heart.

Even those of us who sniffed the Liberal Democrats' distant death on the first fragrant breeze of coalition must be gagging today at the gangrenous stench. Their failure to counter the most poisonous instincts of their senior so-called partners has rushed them to the thin line between coalition and collaboration. They seem to have one foot in Vichy already.

Equality and Human Rights Commission master Fakers.

2010-06-26T12:08:00.000-07:00

As the RNID have, in my opinion, been woefully delinquent in protecting deaf people from the evil menace of welfare reform, I have been forced to take up the matter with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Unfortunately, these fakers seem to care even less than RNID. Below is my final correspondence:

My Letter:

Dear [EHRC],

Background.

I recently wrote to you by e-mail to inform you of three developments
in relation to Employment and Support Allowance and welfare reform. In
my first e-mail I passed on a report by the Citizen’s Advice Bureau
entitled ‘Not working. CAB evidence on the ESA work capability
assessment,’ which was endorsed by 18 disabled people’s organisations
and highlighted grave concerns about the WCA. In my second e-mail I
passed on a ‘Benefits and Work’ blog post entitled ‘Thousands will
lose benefits as harsher medical approved,’ which warned that more
people with limited capability for work will be passed as fit for
work. In my third e-mail I passed on a press release from the
Disability Benefits Consortium entitled ‘New benefits assessment
system needs thorough rethink.’

I have not had a response to any of those three e-mails.

In addition to the information above, many disabled people have been
reporting bad experiences and expressing deep fears about welfare
reform in relation to ESA on the Ouch! disability message board and,
before it was closed, Yourable.

Freedom of Information questions.

With the background in place and taking into account the Commission’s
duties under the Disability Equality Duty, I would like to ask the
following questions as part of my ‘freedom of information’ request:

1) It is clear that the issues relating to Employment and Support
Allowance are considered a very high priority by disabled people,
disabled people’s organisations and at least one independent
organisation, CAB. Why has the Commission not accorded this matter the
same high priority in their work on disability?

2) Does the Commission intend to accord this matter high priority? If
not, why not?

3) What action is the Commission taking to protect disabled people
from, inter alia, being placed on Job Seeker’s Allowance without the
proper support that they need to get into suitable work?

I should be grateful if you could provide this information within 20
working days.

Yours sincerely,

Reply:

Dear [Tim]

Firstly, as has been confirmed to you in previous correspondence from my colleagues, you may be assured that the matters which you have raised are taken seriously and are being considered by the Commission’s policy team.

The roll out of the changes in the welfare reform system is an issue for the Commission which we shall continue to consider across all seven ‘protected’ grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment. However, I think it is important to reiterate that we do support the principle that wherever possible people should be supported into sustainable employment.
Our strategic priorities

Within our 2009–12 strategic plan five strategic priorities were identified which set the direction for and guides all of the Commission’s work. They were developed through extensive consultation and involvement with over 1,000 stakeholders. Through our strategic priorities we aim to:

1. secure and implement an effective legislative and regulatory framework for equality and human rights

2. create a fairer Britain, with equal life chances and access to services for all

3. build a society based on good relations and foster a vibrant equality and human rights culture

4. promote understanding and awareness of rights and duties, and deliver timely and accurate advice and guidance to individuals and employers, and

5. build an authoritative, responsive organisation.

More detailed information on this consultation process can be found on our website at the following link: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-job/consulting-on-our-plans/

It is within these boundaries that our work is set and as part of this the Commission has already exercised its legal enforcement powers in relation to both the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus by carrying out an assessment under section 31 of the Equality Act, (the Terms of Reference are published on our website) and as we have previously advised you, we will be following up with them in August this year to see what they have achieved in terms of their Action Plan.

We are currently in the process of finalising the Commission’s Business Plan for 2010/2011, this will be published on our website and will give more detail around this year’s priorities for the Commission.

In your last correspondence you asked 3 specific questions:

1) It is clear that the issues relating to Employment and Support

Allowance are considered a very high priority by disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and at least one independent organisation, CAB. Why has the Commission not accorded this matter the same high priority in their work on disability?

2) Does the Commission intend to accord this matter high priority? If not, why not?

3) What action is the Commission taking to protect disabled people from, inter alia, being placed on Job Seeker’s Allowance without the proper support that they need to get into suitable work?

The Commission can uniquely approach your concerns on several fronts:

· It can respond to helpline requests if there is clear evidence of discrimination against individuals who wish to make a complaint

· Its policy function can build an evidence base and try to influence and persuade government and ministers to revise their policies although, as we have stated, we are in support of the underlying principles of the reform agenda. Inevitably, this takes time to do effectively, but the Commission has started that process

· It can use its legal enforcement powers against the DWP as it has done already through its section 31 assessment. However, these powers can only be used when there are compelling arguments to do so and the Commission must be able to show that it is acting in a proportionate and necessary way

We intend to continue our dialogue with the DWP as the reform package roles out, to ensure that it meets the needs of the protected groups, but please be aware that this may not result in high visibility activity or in us calling for any significant changes to the reform package.

I hope that this goes some way to explaining our position and therefore answering your three questions. I am afraid that is the only answer that we are able to give to you at this time.

The Commission staff cannot respond to every member of the public who draws their attention to interesting and relevant media articles. We do not have the resources to respond to individuals in this way, nor would it be an effective use of public funds to do so. I must therefore ask you not to e-mail individual members of EHRC staff as we are unable to engage in repeated correspondence of this kind. To do so is very resource intensive, and much as we appreciate your views and your concerns, it does not help us address these matters that are of great concern to us all.

Also we are advised by our ICT team that many emails, apparently including some of yours, are blocked by our junk mail filters. The reason for this is that we receive a great deal of unsolicited mail from many sources, and the system automatically filters these e-mails out. We apologise again for this, but as we cannot weaken this filter system we are unable to guarantee that it won't happen again.

Finally, I would suggest that if you know of individuals who have been adversely affected by the welfare reforms that you ask them to contact the Commission directly via our Helpline on the following numbers:

England 0845 604 6610 : Scotland 0845 604 5510 :

Wales 0845 604 8810

Yours sincerely,

Right(!) Fakers.

On Equality.

2010-06-07T07:51:00.000-07:00

I believe you will often see in modern life the habit of people putting forward a new principle of some sort and then simply carry on as if it is established and reasonable. One such principle is a naive and simplistic notion of ‘equality;’ the fanciful idea that it is fair to treat everybody equally and that will bring about equality of outcome. Will it? Let’s test it out.

Suppose a third of the population were benign vampires who would die if they ate garlic. Then suppose you passed a law saying everybody must eat garlic on Tuesdays. You are treating everybody equally, but as a result, vampires will be discriminated against because of the failure to factor in their problem with garlic.

It is an established fact that disabled people are discriminated against in employment recruitment. The statistics have proved it time and time again. One RNID survey said that employers are more likely to take on somebody with a criminal record than somebody who is deaf. Furthermore, deaf people are more likely to receive an inadequate education because of, amongst other things, poor access and inclusion. So disabled people, through no fault of their own suffer a double whammy when applying for jobs.

So applying “equality” without taking into account these unfair disadvantages is exactly like passing the equal law on garlic. It is using the pretence of fairness to maintain the status quo while allowing the perpetrators to falsely claim the moral high ground. And RNID is one organisation that loves to use this little trick. They are discriminating against deaf people with this false equality.

We should not confuse equality of treatment with equality of outcome.

See also: At the Rim.

How Labour will Crucify Disabled People.

2010-04-13T05:13:00.000-07:00

Benefits and Work link.

"The shock plans for ‘simplifying’ the work capability assessment, drawn up by a DWP working group, include docking points from amputees who can lift and carry with their stumps. Claimants with speech problems who can write a sign saying, for example, ‘The office is on fire!’ will score no points for speech and deaf claimants who can read the sign will lose all their points for hearing."

Has charity forgotten who it is for?

2010-02-03T09:06:00.000-08:00

You may be pleased to learn that the Third Sector now has a forum. I thought that it was only fair to be able to make my point there. Below is my latest response, please feel free to chip in; we could always do with some more support to ram-rod these points home.

The ‘best person for the job’ argument is a tired old chestnut that most certainly does not convince me. I think it is using the pretence of fairness to keep deaf people away from employment. We are rejected left, right and centre by other employers and then RNID uses that as an excuse not to employ us. Nice(!)

RNID was set up with the express purpose of helping deaf people, and their own stated objects include the ‘better training and employment’ of deaf people. If they are not going to be an exemplar employer in that respect, then how can they convince other employers that it is good to hire deaf people? What right would they have to lecture other organisations on the issue?

Secondly, the ‘best person for the job’ argument assumes that being deaf is irrelevant to working for a deaf organisation when nothing could be further from the truth. A first hand knowledge of deafness and the immediate implications should be considered a critical ‘involuntary’ qualification for understanding our needs and priorities.

Thirdly, there is the issue of self-determination – people should be able to speak and act for themselves, not have somebody else do it for them without their permission or involvement – THAT is what I call patronising! Imagine a Women’s organisation with no women in their senior management team and only 10% of their staff women. Outrageous!

Fourthly, there is the issue of taking advantage of people who have been held back. Rattling tins, saying ‘please help those poor deaf people!’ only to turn around and spend the proceeds on very well paid jobs for people who have never been deaf or hoh in their lives; sounds very much like taking advantage to me – I certainly feel used.

Fifthly, I do not think that they are attracting better people, but worse, people who are out of touch and want nothing to do with deaf people. If you do not consult with the people you work for, you cannot do a good job.

No, RNID has forgotten who it is for.

RNID's new focus: Hear to help themselves.

2010-01-17T12:27:00.000-08:00

It was reported in the Third Sector in November of last year that RNID intends to refocus its corporate strategy, concentrating more on the prevention of hearing loss. This raises a number of interesting questions:

Why did we find out about it after the fact? Deaf people have communication difficulties so I would have thought that it would have been politic to first consult with them, asking ‘what are your priorities? What would you like us to focus on?’ and then implement those priorities. Instead, RNID unilaterally decide what they are going to do, as if deaf people are external to the process. It is no wonder I use the word ‘arrogant’ so frequently when discussing this organisation. I am a member of this organisation and I did not know about it until it was done and dusted.

Have they succeeded on their other objectives first? Let’s take a look at RNID’s stated objects, lifted from the charity commission website:

“RNID’s objectives are to promote and encourage the prevention and mitigation of deafness and the better treatment, education, training, employment and welfare of people who are deaf and hard of hearing, and generally to promote, safeguard and protect the welfare of such people.”

Keep in mind that deaf people have been asking RNID for the better training and employment of deaf people at RNID for many years and they have stubbornly refused. I presume that ‘better’ training and employment does not mean your ordinary run of the mill training and employment, but something of higher quality, such as that of senior management level. So not only does RNID unilaterally decide what it is going to do, but they also ignore deaf people’s specific and repeated requests to adhere to their own stated objects! Does this sound to you like an organisation that is serious about making the world a better place for deaf and hard of hearing people?

Why are they now focussing on prevention? Maybe it’s because you don’t have to be accountable to people who do not know they are going to go deaf and it provides lots of opportunities to keep making money while doing as you jolly well please.

It seems to me that RNID are behaving like a spoilt child at the dinner table, pushing aside all the peas and other green nasties while gobbling down the fatty stuff. I do not think they want to help deaf people, I think they want to help themselves.

A Lesson in Social Justice.

2009-08-28T14:46:00.000-07:00

"Dear Tony,

'The Battle for Hearts and Minds - Gaining Social Justice and Inclusion"

The world is not and sadly never will be entirely fair or equal but true "Social Justice" should, and must be, achievable in any civilised society.

If you are listening Mr Blair, that is a legacy worth having, demonising those unable to obtain or simply incapable of work through illness and disability is not.

What you, and government as a whole, seem to have forgotten is that the value of an individual is not diminished by an inability to obtain, let alone be capable of, paid employment. Each and every one of us contributes something to the whole regardless of our situation in that regard.

The problem then is how we achieve acceptance, rather than merely lip service, to the notion that we should all be seen as equal members of society, each contributing according to their ability and each supported according to their needs.

What is needed, and I would argue Equality 2025 and the EHRC must be about, is not just establishing equality of opportunity in work and other aspects of society but, perhaps more importantly, ensuring an acceptable degree of minimum outcome sufficient to ensure true social inclusion for all.

Equality of minimum outcome is therefore how I would define "Social Justice" as it is the only definition that includes the need for full "Inclusion" as the ultimate goal of that "Justice".

Yes it is true that removing obstacles to work is the best chance for all disadvantaged groups, but especially the disabled, to escape from poverty.

Gaining decently paid, meaningful employment provides not just the financial resources necessary for social inclusion, but also helps individuals gain self respect and promotes the acceptance of their worth by society as a whole.

Removing disincentives to work is thus clearly part of the solution, but only a part. Other less obvious obstacles need to be overcome first. Not least of these is the need for such solutions to be applied in a way that doesn't serve to discriminate against those still unable to obtain, or are simply incapable of, such gainful employment.

The social inclusion of those able to gain paid employment can not and must not be at the cost of the social exclusion of those that can't.
The reality of Britain in the 21st century is that entrenched attitudes to the disabled will not disappear overnight. It will take years and maybe decades even to get those that can work into work.

It therefore is imperative that any welfare reform recognises this and that the disabled in or out of work are provided with the minimum funds required to allow a reasonable degree of social inclusion.

I believe this minimum level of support for all working age adults with disability whether working or not should be at least equal to that provided under the Pension Credit guarantee arrangements for those over 60, as in many ways our financial and physical situation is often on a par with non-disabled pensioners.

Working Tax Credit already achieves this for those fortunate enough to be both able to work and also the help a few receive to overcome some of the hurdles in finding and maintaining meaningful paid employment.

But what of those for whom these two vital criteria do not apply?

Interestingly, even before the detail of the Welfare Reform Bill became public last year (2006), I had proposed the following solutions as part of my contribution to the then DRC "Debate" forum. (The Disability Rights Commission now part of the new EHRC)

1. For those considered able to work, but as yet unable to overcome the barriers that already exist because of their disability, maybe what is needed is a special 'Disabled but looking for work' premium which reflects the desire to work but recognises it may take time to remove the barriers preventing that desire being fulfilled.

2. For those with no realistic prospect of ever being able to work, even if all the barriers could be removed maybe what is needed is a special category of disability that encompasses this added difficulty and adds a 'Disabled and unable to work' premium.

The reality is disability covers a broad spectrum of ability and there will always be individuals at every point on the scale from able to fully unable to gain paid employment due to that disability and so focusing just on getting people off incapacity benefit and back to work will never be a cure all.

3. Maybe what is needed instead is a new way of looking at individuals that recognises the disabled are, more often than not, simply doing the best they can, so perhaps a 'Disabled and doing the best I can' premium could also be introduced.

Welfare reform should also recognise the many other forms of direct contribution the disabled make to society as a whole particularly when they are parents. This includes the love they give their children but also the voluntary work they so often do for others.

For all groups though, the key welfare reform needed is a work and benefits system that truly allows the disabled and their children to fully participate as equal members of society with nobody left behind simply because of being unable to obtain paid employment particularly when this is due to disability.

The simple fact the current Welfare Reform Bill has the need to "protect" the benefit levels of those currently in receipt of Incapacity Benefit clearly indicates that neither the "conditional" work related activity supplement or the "support" element of the new ESA will make it equivalent to, let alone higher than, current levels of Incapacity Benefit.

Even this would still be nowhere close to the Pension Credit Guarantee figure I proposed earlier should be the absolute minimum considered as appropriate for working age individuals with what the DRC would call "Severe workplace disadvantage".

Sadly we already know, from your earlier refusal to answer my earlier simple questions about reforms that you are not prepared to even guarantee the net effect of the reforms will not simply be that individuals such as me actually continue to go backwards in terms of our social inclusion rather than forward as full and equal citizens of the UK.

Yours respectfully

Peter J Farrington ."

RNID: "Do as we say, not as we do."

2009-08-09T06:39:00.000-07:00

In order to be able to engage effectively with employers, the Department of Work and Pensions as well as local public authorities should be capable of acting as exemplar employers in terms of the recruitment, retention and progression of disabled people. Currently, the public sector has a poor record in this area, and RNID would like to see a strategic and measurable commitment to increasing the numbers of deaf people working across both DWP, Ministerial Government Departments and the public sector in general.

From: A Response by RNID (A pdf link.)

Charity Commission

2009-07-08T14:04:00.000-07:00

One of the particularly ugly hallmarks of the ‘New Labour’ government is their propensity to forsake established principles, such as non ‘conflict of interest,’ the ‘right to be heard’ and many others. One way in which they do this is to wave the word ‘debate’ around as if it is a magic wand that can make these pesky principles disappear. Wearing a mask of pseudo- innocent reasonableness they chirp and chirrup ‘I just want to start a debate!’ before elbowing established maxims and morals into the dustbin.

On the Charity Commission’s website, they make the following pious statement about what their role is:

“Whatever their size or purpose, an essential requirement of all charities is that they operate for the public benefit and independently of government or commercial interests. Our job is to ensure this happens.”

That’s strange; because I’ve noticed a large number of charities bidding for lucrative government contracts to carry out Welfare Reform objectives. The Welfare Reform Bill proposes to commit a number of human rights breaches against deaf and disabled people. I know this because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has written to the Secretary of State expressing concern that some things in the Bill are not compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations. Certainly to my mind, forcing disabled people into slavery, referred to euphemistically as ‘work related activity,’ is driving and reversing a Sherman tank over disabled people’s human rights.

Enraged, I wrote to the Charity Commission to point out this glaring conflict of interest. Charities are supposed to be looking after their beneficiaries, yet here they are, bidding for contracts which give them the power to force disabled people to attend ‘work-focussed interviews,’ to force disabled people into slavery and to cut the benefits of those who don’t comply, sending them even deeper into poverty than they already are! I thought that there was absolutely no way that a charity could claim to be operating independently of government and commercial interests at the same time as bidding for lucrative government contracts that allow them to piddle on the human rights of their beneficiaries. So I didn’t expect the lawyerly, weasel-worded reply that I got from the Charity Commission.

In their usual highly condescending tone, they explained that it’s up to charity trustees to decide whether or not these things are in the interests of their beneficiaries (!) I guess that we humble pawns, I mean beneficiaries, should just butt out then. Clearly it’s very important what the government thinks. It’s very important what the charities think. It’s very important what the Charity Commission thinks. But the people who are the ones who are supposed to benefit from all these shenanigans - the beneficiaries – well, who gives a rat’s behind what they think?

‘It is not illegal for charities to carry out their purposes by undertaking work under contract with government,’ the Charity Commission’s response chirped. For some reason I remembered numerous MP’s declaring that they ‘haven’t broken any rules’ over the expenses fiasco. Well, that’s all right then! It's easy for those who are a law unto themselves to abide by their own laws.

In the Charity Commission’s leaflet, Andrew Hind and Dame Suzi Leather (the CEO and chair) declare ‘[b]ut the last few years have seen increasing numbers of charities undertaking this work and the debate has certainly moved on.’

That ‘debate’ magic wand again!

I hope to return to strictly RNID issues in my next post.

Solidarity.

2009-06-25T10:45:00.000-07:00

I was reading a 'disability' messageboard recently and came across the following fine comment:

It is shocking how often the people who surround the disabled will attempt to exert power and be abusive. Power over what they will provide - even if you know of a better and cheaper option - power over how you are to be perceived and represented, even if you can do a better job yourself and are actually better qualified - power over how you are supposed to feel and express your emotions, and if you don't do as they expect you are unpredictable, abusive, dangerous and the all time favourite angry and Filled With Self Pity!

I couldn't have put it better myself. We have a right to be heard and one day disabled people will unite effectively and demand that right.

EHRC Ignoring Disabled People.

2009-06-19T03:21:00.000-07:00

Some time ago I wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission because I felt that they were not doing anything to make life better for disabled people. Here is my letter:

Dear Mr Phillips,

I recently e-mailed your off ices at Manchester on October 2 to express my concern about the EHRC’s approach to disability issues. Basically, I feel that disabled people are being treated as the poor relation in the equality movement; here is the content of my e-mail:

“Hi,

It was reported recently (see enclosed link) that the EHRC is not working for disabled people. It seems that many disabled people, including myself, agree with this sentiment. I would like to ask the EHRC if they have any comments or reassurances to make on this issue in the following discussion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbouch/F2322273?thread=5942747

Regards,”

Unfortunately, I have still not received a reply to my points, even though I received an automated response saying that ‘a full response will follow in due course.’

Please may I ask if you are concerned that some disabled people do not at present have confidence in the EHRC. It does not seem as if the EHRC is at all bothered that disabled people are underrepresented in politics, the workplace (especially at executive level) or even in their own organisations.

Yours sincerely,

I did not receive a response to that letter. I did receive a response to a later letter that I wrote to them about disabled people's human rights being abused by the Welfare Reform Bill, but they did not answer my questions or points.

So while disabled people are being neglected and ignored by the EHRC, what do they actually sit up and pay attention to? According to their website, they will respond with a full page when people decide to vote for the BNP.

Further reading:

Grumpy Old Deafies

At the Rim

Equality body 'failing Disabled.'

Debate and Logical Fallacy.

2009-05-28T11:07:00.000-07:00

One of the things that I find quite fascinating is the study of logical fallacies. You might very well think that I am a bit of a nerd and not share my enthusiasm at all, such is the nature of subjective things. However, regardless of whether you find it interesting, I think the importance will always hold. When somebody causes others to arrive at an improper conclusion through a crooked line of reasoning, then in the very least they are being quite reckless about whether or not the truth will come out. If somebody deliberately continues to use fallacies even after their mistake has been pointed out to them, that, in my opinion, comes very close to lying.

If you suspect that somebody has hoodwinked you in the course of a debate or discussion, it’s always worth doing a google for ‘logical fallacies’ and then running through the list to see whether one has been used. They usually involve a sneaky intellectual sleight of hand which misdirects the audience. There are many good resources to be found via google, such as The Nizkor Project.

To give you an example, I can remember an occasion when an RNID apologist packed not one, not two, but three logical fallacies into a mere two word portion of one sentence. You may think that my claim here is rather outlandish, but let’s see what you think after I have broken it down in a scientific manner. The speaker, in response to a criticism of RNID referred to the critics as a ‘vociferous minority..’
‘Vociferous,’ according to Chambers means ‘loud and forceful, especially in expressing opinions.’ The first question you should ask of such a statement is ‘how does this relate to the actual criticism it is addressing?’ The answer was that it did not; it was an irrelevant misdirection. If Solomon expressed his wisdom a bit louder, that fact does not make his wisdom less wise. The only thing that would make it less wise are the words themselves.

Secondly, the use of the word ‘minority’ is an argumentum ad populum; it is trying to say that because not all that many people share a view, that view must be wrong. There was a time when the overwhelming majority of people thought that the earth was flat and that the sun descended into the sea. In the 1930s many Germans thought that Adolf Hitler was the best person to lead Germany. The fact that many people thought something most certainly did not make it right. Conversely, the fact that not many people might think something does not make it wrong.

Finally, the two words combined, ‘vociferous minority’ is an argumentum ad hominem or personal attack - it is attacking the persons making the argument rather than attempting to refute the argument itself. This is a particularly unpleasant fallacy because it not only misleads the audience, but maligns the target. Even very clever people use this tactic because it gives them an ‘out’ – it’s a lot easier to shoot the messenger if you can’t deal with the message.

Watch out for those fallacies – they are nothing more than dirty tricks!

Communicating with Deaf People - RNID Style.

2009-04-23T02:09:00.000-07:00

One of the things that I have repeatedly suggested to RNID over the past few years is that they take advantage of the internet to communicate with deaf people. Does this not make sense? Deaf people can have communication problems; the internet is a useful and increasingly popular tool for communication and RNID is here to make the world a better place for us. So naturally it seems to follow that RNID ought to use such tools to assuage our communication difficulties and hear what we have to say so that they can work on our priorities.

It seems to me that RNID do indeed recognise the potential of the internet to make their message clear. In a web page forwarded to me by MM, Brian Lamb of RNID has been looking at this option to get around strict rules on political lobbying, see here. Not for the first time, RNID is at pains to develop ideas to improve communication on their own terms and for their own specific agenda.

What RNID are not at pains to do, however, is to put the same effort into setting up a general forum or e-surgeries or other internet tools so that deaf people can have a say.

It should be pointed out that Mr Lamb used to be Director of Communications at RNID before becoming 'executive director of advocacy and policy' yet it seems that whichever applies, his job has nothing to do with effective communication with deaf people. It appears to be all about leaving deaf people out of their own business and putting up good lines of communication between RNID and government or other parties. This is not about giving deaf people a voice or a vote, but sheer paternalism – deciding without us what is good for us.

To me, this is no different to snatching the crutches from a disabled person. Please note, that this is purely opinion based on some facts - if you think that I've got it wrong, please use 'comments' to explain how.

RNID - Co-op "Charity of the Year"!

2009-03-12T14:33:00.000-07:00

Now that RNID have been chosen as charity of the year, not by deaf people, of course, but by the CO-OP (who didn’t ask us, of course,) they have launched a fund raiding pack with details of what the money will pay for. They have left out a few details, so I have helpfully filled them in for you at the end of the list.

£50 Provides a basic toolkit for a Hear to Help volunteer to show new hearing aid users how to maintain and clean their hearing aid.

£100 To visit someone in their home and talk to them about making the most of their hearing aid and how to maintain it for themselves.

£250 To visit five people in their homes for a quick hearing aid check and a chat.

£500 To carry out thirty hearing aid maintenance tasks, such as battery changes, at community centres

£120,000 To pay the hearing chief executive’s salary for one year.

£160,000 To pay the salary of 2 hearing members of the first division of the senior management team for one year.

£210,000 To pay the salary of 3 hearing members of the second division of the senior management team for one year.

£490,000 To pay the salary of the all hearing senior management team for one year.

Please bear in mind that the above are conservative figures using the bare minimum according to RNID’s annual report and financial statements for 2008, page 25.

As Fintan has pointed out in his blog, all the things for deaf people in that list are already available on the NHS free of charge. So the taxpayer is being asked to pay again for something that they already fund.

The next time you are accosted at the Co-op by people in fancy dress and pyjamas wielding buckets and asking you to toss your loose change in, point out that you have enough trouble covering Sir Fred Goodwin.

Have you ever challenged a person's or an organisation's attitude to hearing loss?

2009-02-24T09:09:00.000-08:00

At the RNID website they have a page entitled ‘Have you ever challenged a person's or an organisation's attitude to hearing loss?’
The answer to that question is a loud thumping ‘yes’, I most certainly have. In fact, this blog was set up for that very purpose – to challenge RNID’s appalling attitude to hearing loss. Their page goes into a bit more detail about what information they are looking for:

Perhaps you challenged the attitude of a shop manager, your town council, a member of your family, a neighbour or a friend. We would like to know what action you took (i.e. did you write a letter, speak to someone in person, attend a meeting, call or email?) and what the outcome was.

Superb questions! Here are my answers. I challenged the attitude of RNID. They have an appalling lack of respect for our ability to work at our own organisation (especially at senior level) and our right to have a say in our own affairs The action that I took was to become a member and write many e-mails and letters to various members of RNID staff over the years (a fact that was kindly acknowledged by former RNID CEO, Dr Low.) I also lobbied the trustees and set up various discussions on the internet. The outcome, unfortunately, has been very poor, with no improvement whatsoever. I have, however, been ignored, attacked, vilified and made to look like a villain.

This script appears to be unfolding in the form of an uproarious comedy, but let’s be serious for a moment. Here the RNID is, encouraging us to take action to challenge attitudes to hearing loss, whipping out the ducking stool, stocks and rotten fruit, wildly nodding with bright eyes mouthing ‘YES!’ However, if you follow this advice to the letter and challenge the “wrong” organisation i.e. RNID, all of a sudden it’s a crime. Do the RNID think they have some sort of diplomatic immunity from criticism? Perhaps they think that their “royal” pre-fix confers such an honour? Perhaps we are “not allowed” to do this because of the circular logic that they help a lot of deaf people because they say so and because they say so, they must help a lot of deaf people?

Now it’s time to do an impersonation of Mr Gradgrind. Fact: RNID boldly proclaim in capital letters in their raison d'être, their stated objects, that they strive for our better treatment, training and employment. Fact: RNID have no deaf or hard of hearing people on their senior management team. Fact: Only 10% of their staff are deaf or hard of hearing. Fact: Jackie Ballard has said on See Hear that she is not going to start a senior management training programme for deaf and hoh people. Fact: RNID have scrapped their general forum where deaf and hoh people could have a say. Fact: RNID have resisted requests for a system by which deaf people can express their concerns better to the trustees. Fact.

The double standards going on here are truly astounding. The next time an RNID apologist tries to make out that you are a bad person for challenging RNID, show them their own page which encourages us to do just that. And there is no rule that exempts RNID from that principle, except in their imagination.

Consultation, RNID style.

2009-02-10T05:13:00.000-08:00

There’s been a bit of brouhaha in Deaf Wales recently because from February 6th 2009, ITV Wales plans to stop broadcasting British Sign Language (BSL) headlines in its news programme Wales Tonight. Some Deaf people decided to kick up a fuss about this, contacting their AMs, prompting a discussion at the Welsh Assembly and organising a petition. I’m sure you will agree that this is a good example of Deaf people taking charge of their own issues, speaking and acting for themselves – self-empowerment.

However, some time well after the fact, now that the issue has hit the press, RNID have got into the act and are, as one Deaf person put it, ‘all over it like a rash.’

We could be kind to RNID and assume that they were merely putting the weight of their support behind a campaign that they only recently became aware of, but here are a few points that need clearing up:

1) Are RNID now covering themselves with the glory of a knight in shining armour after Deaf people did all the work off their own bat?

2) Now that RNID have got involved at this late stage, are the Deaf people who kicked up the fuss in the first place going to be invited to the arrangements/meetings to sort this out? Or is it going to be another case of ‘everything about us, without us’?

Even if those points were satisfactorily cleared up, there is still the main issue -If Deaf people were properly represented at RNID i.e. representing ourselves, we would surely be able to do it much more effectively than this. We have the knowledge, the local knowledge, the personal and contemporary experience, a first hand understanding of what’s what.

But not only are we made to suffer the indignity of not being allowed to represent ourselves, RNID have not even set up a decent system of second-hand representation – a system by which they can contact and liaise with us so that our priorities can be taken forward in a timely manner. On the contrary, RNID has scrapped the ideal vehicle for doing this – their own general forum!

This snatching at the coat tails of every passing Deaf bandwagon does not help our dignity or empowerment.

The Royal National Institute for Women.

2009-02-06T14:19:00.000-08:00

Hello, allow me to introduce myself. I am Tim, the chief executive of the RNIW (the Royal National Institute for Women.) We are the largest charity representing the 40 million women in the UK. We aim to make the world a better place for women.

I acknowledge that my RNIW appointment has caused a certain amount of consternation among some ranks of the charity's membership indignant about another "him" being chosen to lead the charity. "Of course I expected those opinions to be expressed one way or another," says Tim. "And, of course, if there was an equally capable candidate who was a woman, the job should have gone to them. But the trustees have a responsibility to appoint the person they think best suits the role, and they thought that was me."

Although we have no women on our senior management team, we are pleased to declare that 10% of our workforce are women. Our stated objects include the better treatment, training and employment of women.

Although our trustees would very much like to hear the views of women, it is difficult for them to do so because of the sheer number of women and the trustees have very demanding jobs and due to the voluntary nature of the role, we feel it would be unreasonable to ask them to do so.

Your gift will help us to make the world a better place for women. Alternatively, you may like to remember women in your will.

Note: Women are not allowed to criticise RNIW because we help a lot of women.

Regards,

Tim, CEO (Salary £120K)

Bob,
Doug,
Derek,
Trevor,
Archibald,
David.

Senior management Team (Salary £80K)

Any objections?

RNID and Discrimination.

2009-01-11T02:39:00.000-08:00

One of the principles that RNID like to adhere to is that of non-discrimination. They tend to state that they will always pick the ‘best person for the job irrespective of disability.’ Outwardly this sounds very noble and high-minded, but of course the real test is whether or not it withstands a close examination based on facts and reason. Once you have peeled away the gold plating, is this approach really as good as it sounds? Let’s see if ‘discrimination’ really is such a dirty word when placed in the context it is being used.

I would have thought that RNID saying that they pick the ‘best person for the job irrespective of disability’ is a bit like saying that we will pick the best person for the job of doctor irrespective of medical qualifications! It presumes, incorrectly, that the ‘disability’ – deafness – is irrelevant to the job. On the contrary, personal experience of deafness is a critical involuntary qualification. Put simply, if you are deaf, you will know better about deaf matters.

But even if deafness were irrelevant to the job, would this approach be fair? I think not. All the evidence, including RNID’s own research has shown that deaf people face glass ceilings at every level of employment, thanks to discrimination. So by insisting that we compete with those who don’t face such discrimination, they are actually discriminating against deaf people!

And isn’t RNID supposed to discriminate in favour of deaf people? Where does it say in their stated objects that they are working for the ‘better treatment, employment and training’ of everybody, ‘irrespective of disability?’ RNID are very selective about when they are a charity. They insist on their right to exist as a charity and certainly to collect money as a charity, but all of a sudden they suspend their charitable status when it comes to giving out the jobs, especially the best jobs! This is why I have said time and time again that deaf people are being used.

On the surface, RNID’s ‘non-discriminatory’ approach seems noble and high-minded. But a quick examination of it in context shows that it is counterfeit, sham, bogus, phoney. I am not advocating that deaf people should be charity cases, but if RNID are going to insist that we are, they cannot pick and choose when to be a charity as it suits them.

RNID New Trustees.

2008-12-11T03:12:00.000-08:00

RNID recently announced the arrival of five new trustees onto the board. I don't seem to recognise any of these names from the deaf world. Can anybody enlighten us? Are they deaf or hoh? What is their connection/interest to/in deaf people?

From what little information there is, it doesn't sound as if they have that grassroots empathy with deaf people and thus an understanding of our issues and priorities. Do they know what it's like to be treated as inferior or ignored because you are deaf and/or don't hold the "right" opinions? Do they know what it's like to spend years on the scrapheap? Or to be made to feel that your voice counts for nothing?

If this is yet another extension of paternalism then it won't be enough to say that RNID are not listening to deaf people. It would be fairer to say that they are deliberately ignoring deaf people, even some of their members. After all, we have in many different ways been expressing our discontent about this 'everything about us, without us' approach for years.

If you have any information or comments, please let us know.

Edit: Here's the response from RNID: Of the five trustees, two have hearing loss, one has a deaf brother, one is a Professor of Audiology and the other owns a nightclub chain and has worked with RNID on protection of hearing for his employees and customers.

Whether or not that is satisfactory is, as always, a matter for deaf people. My opinion is that it could be worse, but I would like to see at least a few people from more humble or grass root backgrounds who understand things like disempowerment and unemployment.

Different rules for Deaf People?

2008-12-06T11:19:00.000-08:00

When people talk about the importance of better representation for minorities or women, it’s very clear exactly what they mean – to actually increase the numbers of the relevant people in the places where they are underrepresented. So if there are not enough women or ethnic minorities in Parliament, for example, they will try to increase the numbers.

Yet when it is shown that deaf people are underrepresented in Parliament or even their own organisation, all of a sudden the rules change. All of a sudden it’s not all that important to increase the numbers of the people who are underrepresented. It is now acceptable to water down that principle and have third parties representing us instead. It’s suddenly acceptable to have somebody who is the father, the mother, the grandson, the sister or the brother of a deaf person step in and do it for us. Sometimes the connection is even looser.

So why is there one rule for deaf people and another rule for everybody else? Could it be because some people have decided that we are ‘not good enough’ to represent ourselves? If so, that is not genuine representation, it is paternalism.

If somebody was a true friend of deaf people, wouldn’t they want the same things for deaf people as everybody else? Wouldn’t they want deaf people to have the fishing rod and fish for themselves rather than keep them dependent, throwing little fish at them from time to time? Wouldn’t they want deaf people to do things for themselves, to act and speak on their own behalf?

When Jackie Ballard was in Parliament, she worked to improve the representation of women. She has been described as a feminist and in one website, as ‘one of the driving forces in campaigns to get more women into Parliament.’

Now Ms Ballard is in the best position to do the same thing for deaf people in Parliament and especially at RNID. I hope she will do it.

RNID agrees with us!

2008-12-02T13:17:00.000-08:00

I was thinking recently about the few times that RNID have commented on the specific things we complain about and the strange thing which occurred to me was that they actually agree with us. One of our main complaints is that they do not employ enough deaf and hoh people at senior management level. At present they only have one (allegedly.)

When John Low was interviewed on Read Hear (BBC2 Ceefax pp640-5) he said that one of his biggest disappointments was that he did not have any deaf or hoh people on his senior management team (he left with that problem unfixed.) Much later, Jackie Ballard told me in an e-mail that she ‘agree[s] that there should be more deaf and hard of hearing people in our senior management.’

So if RNID agree with our complaint, why do we often get hostility in the form of curt and frosty replies or are just ignored? To be fair, I got no such hostility from Jackie Ballard, who replied in a way which I thought was sympathetic, nice and polite. Low, on the other hand, criticised me personally, saying things such as ‘[y]ou have been asking about the number of employees who are deaf or hard of hearing for many years,’ as if that is a heinous crime. But why was Low being curt and frosty to me for pointing out something which he agreed with? I can only guess that he wanted to deflect criticism away from himself and instead shoot the messenger. After all, that’s a lot easier for him to do than actually fix the problem.

I should point out at this stage that even if RNID did not agree with our complaint, they still have no right to ignore us or attack us personally. I have spoken before about the wrongness of personal attacks, which are described on one political website as an ‘intellectual cheap shot.’ Even if it could be argued that complainants were rude, that is likely to be because of valid anger and frustration about the injustice not being fixed.

This shooting of the messenger is the wrong thing to do for various reasons. First, the RNID have acknowledged that the message was valid. Second, it maligns a person for committing no worse crime than delivering that valid message. Third it maligns people who the charity is supposed to care for. Fourth, it causes members of the public, RNID staff and trustees to treat genuine deaf complainants as villains or pariahs.

This is a sorry and shameful case of injustice. If Jackie Ballard wants to know why some of us are reluctant to approach the RNID with our concerns, she may find some of the answers here.

UK Council on Deafness 2008 Annual Conference - speech by Jackie Ballard - 07 November 2008

2008-11-11T11:05:00.000-08:00

If you were disappointed by the Ballard Interview then I’m afraid Ms Ballard’s latest speech will not provide much relief. She opens by saying that RNID ‘has a proud and long history as an organisation,’ which makes me wonder if she has read ‘Really not interested in the Deaf’ by Doug Alker, a former chief executive of RNID. I don’t want to get too distracted by the issue of Alkergate, but here’s an excerpt from the resignation letter of Jim Toohill, RNID’s former head of strategic planning:

“We might also note the irony that RNID declares itself to be striving for Equal Opportunities and an organisation which is ‘honest with others and with itself’. I for one would find it very hard to convince staff that the publicly held values of the organisation are other than sham.”

You might like to read the whole letter (worthwhile) pp179-181, or even better, the whole book, but the words ‘proud history’ do not really spring to mind.

However, let us take what little we can when Ms Ballard makes concessions. She goes on to state that RNID ‘often attracts the most attention and the most criticism, which in [their] case has sometimes been deserved.’ Although this is somewhat guarded, it is significant. If you accept that a criticism was deserved, it means that you are acknowledging the integrity of the critic's intentions. Therefore it's time to put away the personal slights against the critics.

Unfortunately that appeared to be as good as it got. Ms Ballard did go on to talk about making partnerships, but it sounded more like platitude than principle, as RNID have shown a rigid propensity to dictate terms. It is not a true ‘partnership’ if your so-called partners have to yield to everything that RNID want. RNID bulldoze aside anything that does not sing in harmony with their own scripted song sheet.

The vast bulk of Ms Ballard’s speech seemed to have the flavour of the old RNID arrogance dressed up as new reasonableness, a British Empire in India approach to deaf people. There were certainly some genuinely reasonable intentions, such as with young deaf people and employment, but there appeared to be various intellectual gymnastics designed to allow RNID to have several cakes and to eat them. For example, Ms Ballard seems to want anybody who feels that RNID does not represent them, such as cultural Deaf or those who espouse the social model to go away and be represented by some other organisation such as the BDA. Yet at the same time she wants to retain the “right” to claim to work for and more importantly, collect money on behalf of us all. Well no can do.

Instead of asking ‘May we represent you? How can we represent you? What are your priorities?’ RNID just go steam rollering into anything deaf related as if they have a divine right to be there and just say ‘this is what’s going to happen’. This is not respecting or fulfilling deaf people's autonomy, it is paternalism and bad paternalism at that. It is all about keeping us objects of pity, charity cases to make money out of.

Thanks to MM for the heads up.

The Ballard Interview – the Mother of all Disappointments.

2008-11-05T06:42:00.000-08:00

I had hoped to be pleasantly surprised by the Ballard Interview, but instead we got the same old predictable mish-mash of evasions and excuses. Ms Ballard certainly did not come across as the champion of deaf people who fights tooth and nail for our voice and empowerment. She came across as somebody who has jettisoned the high principles she held when she campaigned for better representation for women in politics. She came across as somebody determined to keep us out, to keep us quiet and to keep us dependent. I will need access to a full transcript before I can comment in detail, but here are a few initial thoughts.

Her excuses for not reinstating the general forum were dismal. Predictably, we got the ‘abuse of the forum’ get-out-of-jail-free card. Anybody with a basic knowledge of the internet knows that there are going to be flare ups on every forum from time to time. The trick is to simply have a decent system of moderation. This has worked perfectly on Ouch! where we have been discussing RNID for years. Next we were told that there are many different types of feedback, not just the internet. This is exactly the same ‘divide and rule' tactic as the claim ‘we represent many different types of deaf people’ – it is designed purely to suppress our voice. Ms Ballard failed to give any real reason why she could not maximise the potential of the internet so that deaf people could have effective dialogue with RNID. Deaf people have communication difficulties – RNID is supposed to help them get better, not compound them.

We were also treated to a raft of flimsy excuses as to why RNID have still not after all these years managed to bring a single deaf or hoh person into their senior management team. Ms Ballard chose to plead ignorance, saying that she has no idea why no deaf or hoh people are getting into the senior management team. A couple of tips that I could give Ms Ballard is that RNID are neither training them up effectively nor appointing them. RNID have had research in their possession for years, their own research, which tells them that deaf people are discriminated against and face glass ceilings. Even if this plea of ignorance was true – it is for them to care and find out why we are not being represented very well at our own organisation.

In my eyes, Ms Ballard has gone from being a potential heroine for deaf people to just another monotonous oppressor.

Feedback from the Trustees.

2008-10-28T13:28:00.000-07:00

If you look to your left, there is a link named ‘Ouch!’ under the heading ‘The Issue.’ The first post was a letter that I sent to all the RNID trustees some time ago which identifies my two main areas of concern. The first paragraph talks of the need for deaf people to have a say or suffrage at RNID. In respect of feedback on this issue I have some good news and bad news. Unfortunately the bad news is more recent, so I’ll start with that.

Somebody suggested to me that I contact RNID trustee, Malcolm Bruce MP because nobody amongst all the trustees is more likely to understand the importance of democracy and having a hand in your own affairs. Incidentally, Jackie Ballard has compared her role to that of an MP in the last ‘one in seven’ magazine.

My e-mail was as follows:

Dear Mr Bruce,

I'm not sure if you have received my letters to you in your capacity as RNID trustee at Featherstone Street. I am a deaf person who, amongst others, have been concerned about the disenfranchisement of deaf and hard of hearing people at RNID.

There has been some discussion of this matter by deaf people here:

Draft letter to RNID Trustees

RNID claims to represent all nine million deaf and hard of hearing people of the UK, but does not give us a say or a vote in matters which directly concern us. This excerpt from the above site explains what I would like to see implemented:

"I think, in the age of internet, there are better ways to expedite a feedback process. I see the role of trustee as rather like that of an MP – where the interests of constituents are carried forward through surgeries/consultation."

I would like to ask whether you agree that deaf people should be able to have a free say on matters which concern them and, if so, whether you will press for deaf people's suffrage at RNID.

Yours sincerely,

Although I received a very nice reply from Mr Bruce’s assistant informing me that Mr Bruce will respond, that e-mail was sent on October 12^th (over two weeks ago) and I have still not heard back from him. This means that I will have to take the provisional view that Mr Bruce does not think it’s very important for deaf people to able to have a suffrage or say at their own organisation.

However, there is some good news too. Another trustee, Dr Judith Langfield, instructed the executive assistant to the chief executive to write to me to say that she will bear my comments in mind. The most promising and enthusiastic response came, unsurprisingly, from Jeff McWhinney, who thanked me for my efforts and gave me some good news on the training of deaf people at RNID senior level.

So there you have the catch so far – a bit of a mixed net.

RNID “Your say.”

2008-10-24T03:19:00.000-07:00

I was looking at the RNID’s website recently and came across a brand new glossy page with the slogan ‘your say’:

Member Community

My first thought was ‘oh my goodness! Could it just be possible that RNID are finally listening and giving deaf people or at least their members the right to express their opinion?’ It was certainly worth investigating further. I eventually found a page where I could comment on an issue which concerns me:

Your say

The question was ‘what can we do to involve you better in all RNID’s work and campaigns?’ So I filled in their form and answered the question – they could involve us better by creating a general forum so that we can share our concerns and perhaps create e-surgeries so that the trustees can become aware of our priorities and implement them at RNID.

However, I noticed a caveat at the bottom of the form – ‘NB We reserve the right to withhold any comment from publication.’

It will no doubt shock you to learn that my comment has not appeared on their website yet. There was a comment from Tim, but unfortunately it was the wrong Tim. Could it be that we are only allowed to ‘have our say’ as long as we sing from the same song sheet as RNID?

LATE EDIT: I've just had an e-mail from RNID saying that they would like to include my comments in their next 'one in seven' magazine. Are RNID cleaning up their act? I'll report back when the magazine is out and just maybe we'll get a response to what seems like perfectly reasonable asks.

The Relationship between RNID and Deaf People.

2008-10-23T07:21:00.000-07:00

I think it’s worth considering the dynamics of the relationship between deaf people and RNID. On a superficial level, I suppose some would say that RNID are our kind helpers to whom we ought to be eternally grateful. That, however, is a subjective view only held by some. Those of us who don’t subscribe to such ‘crying clown’ sentimentality might have a more objective or factual picture of what each party in the relationship actually is. Once that has been determined, we can decide what each party’s rights and responsibilities are.

I would argue that deaf people are equal private individuals who go about their lives minding their own business.

The RNID, on the other hand, have taken it upon themselves to represent us – to speak for us, to act for us, to collect money for us and to spend it for us – all without our permission, all without our proper involvement, all without our proper say and all without our genuine suffrage.

So I would have thought that it is very clear from those points that deaf people do not have to justify themselves to the RNID or it’s supporters. The RNID, however, do have to justify themselves to us. To borrow from Rousseau, the RNID are our agents, not our masters.

I hope to put forward more news items and commentary rather than opinion in my later posts.