Illness, mental and physical

Bags, I agree that mental health issues shouldn't be stigmatised.

Ken ought to know better on several levels. He said he didn't know that Kevan Jones had experienced mental health problems when he made his offensive remarks. Ken was pushed on radio 4 at lunch time to apologise. He said he would, but only if KJ apologised first for suggesting Ken wasn't the right appointment (what did KL know about defence etc). Ken responded by saying he was brought up in a rough area where if someone was rude to you, you were rude back. Subsequently, JCorbyn told Ken to apologise, so he tweeted an unreserved apology.

I absolutely despair at all of this. Ken behaved appallingly, to suggest someone needs to see a psychiatrist and must be depressed because they don't support your appointment to a job is outrageous. Vampirequeen is right, it's the kind of abusive, controlling behaviour often used by abusive and controlling individuals.

I could rant for a while about my concerns (as a Labour party member) about all of this, but I'm sure relief all round when I say - over and out.

I didn't 'twig' that this was all about the Ken Livingstone remark. In that context it was meant as an insult and the reason why people don't talk about mental health problems. Admit you have/had some, even if it was temporary and totally resolved, and it will always be flung back. It's like the 'time of the month' taunt that some obnoxious men use to belittle a woman - it's pathetic and irritating and cheap. I'm very glad that Ken Livingstone has had to apologise - I doubt he meant it but he was made to do it and that must have hurt!

My worry is that if people keep being offended by remarks such as KL's and demanding apologies, then people will keep on stigmatising mental health problems because there's obviously something to get upset about, whereas if someone says you should take yourself to a doc about that cough or rash or constant headaches or whatever, people just shrug and say, yes, maybe you're right.

If KJ had just told KL to fuck off I think it would have been better.

I know it's not as simple as I'm putting it here. I'm just trying to break through a taboo barrier because I think that will help change stupid attitudes in the long run.

But that has to be balanced by the fact that people cannot be allowed to effectively bully a person who might be ill.

He also diagnosed him. Perhaps utterly wrongly.

I agree bags - he should have told him to fuck off. He admitted in an interview that he was retaliating with an insult. Jeremy Corbyn instructed him to apologise and it's been reported that, since making a 'that's all he's getting' remark about not apologising properly, he has now apologised unreservedly. I didn't think KL would stoop to such insults, but he's gone right down in my estimation.

thatbags, I accept you're desire to break through a taboo barrier in order to change stupid attitudes in the long run. I don't feel this particular incident meets that need.

I don't agree that if KJ had told KL to fuck of that would have been better. KL sadly spoke as do many people (often men) of his generation. He'd forgotten that Kevin J had spoken openly about his depression at a time when a number of MP's did so, for the same reason you set out.

If KL had made similarly inflammatory comments about race/faith/gender I suspect he'd have been roundly condemned and rightly so.

I've just watched the two of them interviewed on channel 4 news. Ken came out of it, imo, very badly.

Bags
"If KJ had just told KL to fuck off I think it would have been better."
KJ would have put himself in the wrong by descending to KL's level - why should he compromise his integrity by resorting to the language of the school playground?
I don't think the offence was caused by the reference to the psychiatrist per se, but by using it as a way to deliver an insult.
It was the fact that KL chose to insult a colleague that was offensive, rather than the content of the insult IYSWIM

I've read that KL felt insulted (or at least annoyed) by KJ's remarks to him (about his suitability to be on the defence committee or something). Was that not rude too? I didn't see the TV thing with the pair of them but it sounds as if it didn't do Labour any favours.

I'm not defending KL, btw. He was definitely rude. It doesn't bother me if he had to apologise, though I have doubts about the meaningfulness of forced apologies.

I do get what people are saying about KL insulting KJ. But if KJ had refused to be insulted (which is what I meant by retorting Fuck Off or its 'polite' equivalent), I think that would have been a stronger response and, in support of de-stigmatising mental illness, far better for the purpose.

Is there nothing at all that anyone can say to you that would make you feel insulted thatbags?

yes I agree bags the grown up response by KJ would have been to ignore KL and turn the other cheek.

Put it this way, soon, I think insults damage the insulter more than the insultee, as this case with Ken Livingstone shows.

You're right about the damage to Ken Livingstone bags. I've never been a huge fan but this incident shows him to be an insensitive bully. As he has now been forced to acknowledge, it's also the kind of behaviour that Jeremy Corbyn says he wants out of politics. If so, he needs to be a lot more careful about the people he's appointing to key jobs, as well as the way he goes about it. For Angela Eagle to find out about Ken's appointment on twitter is another own goal for JC

I agree iam.
Just been listening to David Blunkett on the Today programme (just before the 8 o'clock news) putting the knife in to KL and giving it several turns.
He also said JC had 18 months to make up his mind whether he wanted to be PM or a remain a revolutionary dissident and in his first 8 weeks he hadn't got very far.

I am64 I agree and quite frankly I don't believe KL as a politian didn't know about KJ's history of talking about his experience with mental illness. Donkey's years ago I used to quite like KL, but he has no place in today's politics and the fact that he thinks using mental health problems as an insult proves this. Angela Eagle should have allowed to get on with the job.

No one would accept it's OK to use having an amputation, diabetes, cancer or heart condition as a form of insult but it's OK to use mental health. We shouldn't stay quiet when we're insulted in this fashion. We should shout long and loud to draw attention to the fact that this sort of insult is wrong no matter what the provocation.

janeainsworth I thought David Blunkett spoke well - as usual.

But if KJ had refused to be insulted

I agree with your post of 00.38am, but if a person feels insulted at that moment in time, they feel insulted. I dont see how they can "refuse". I dont think anyone can stop that feeling at that precise moment, but feelings and ways of handling things can be worked at at a later time.

Personally when a person says FO, I always definitiely assume that they feel insulted.

He also said JC had 18 months to make up his mind whether he wanted to be PM or a remain a revolutionary dissident and in his first 8 weeks he hadn't got very far.

What a very valid point David Blunkett made. Common sense seems to be in short supply on the Labour front bench and if Labour wants JC to be the next PM that starts NOW (or should have started already.)

Why should someone hide the fact that they've been insulted? If we did that in the past then racism and homophobia would still be OK.

vq you can say something is objectionable or unacceptable without being or feeling insulted.

In fact being or feeling insulted lessens your case because you are bringing your own emotions in to
play instead of using objective truth and logic.

Ken Livingstone just shot his nasty little mouth off without a thought for the other man's feelings. Sadly typical.

Being a bit pedantic I think it's Maria Eagle , not Angela Eagle who is Shadow Defence Secretary and so far she has scored 100% for pragmatism and spin but 0% for agreeing with her 'Leader'.

I think the spat between Kevan Jones and Ken Livingstone became the story it did because so many fellow MP's were annoyed and supported Kevan Jones and once it was picked up by the public and the media the story was widely covered. It became a bigger story than both men probably thought it would and once the box was open they both had to face the media scrum that followed.

Kevan Jones was absolutely right to square up to Livingstone and he could have have told him to FO and forget it but he chose not to , his decision. The excuses and words that Livingstone has used during every interview I have seen/heard leads me to think he 'did' use mental illness as a tool to take a swipe at Jones and he deserves all he is now getting because the 'context' of what he said cannot fail to be seen as the idiot finding mental health a way to insult .

This is a specific case but it is deflecting from the OP and I still say 'No' it is not offensive to tell somebody to visit a doctor/psychiatrist if you think they are showing signs of needing help and providing the 'context' is correct I am not starchy knickered to know when no harm nor intended insult was meant if one makes an off the cuff comment .

Beg pardon bags - I had not spotted that part of your post contained a link, so no I had not read it.

The comments were not acceptable, as they were intended to be insulting and to imply that someone was not up to their job.

In general however I think it depends how comments are intended. I would not wish someone with untreated bipolar disorder to be in charge of decisions about pressing the nuclear button, any more than I would want someone who is using a wheelchair to be employed to save me from a burning building. Clearly illnesses, both mental and physical do impinge on one's suitability for certain jobs and this has to be taken into consideration.

During my depressive illness, for which I am still under treatment, I decided that there would be no pretence, and I was treated with nothing but kindness by everyone around me.

I'm glad to hear what you say in your last sentence, lucky. That is how it should be. Would that it were always. I also agree that quite often a professional judgment of a person's capability, based on their limitations (of whatever cause; we all have limitations) is not unreasonable, but it should be and can be done properly and without being insulting.

Sadly some people will feel insulted however careful others are. That's just how people are.

soon, I think you are right about people's feelings. My point is the same as janea's: one doesn't have to let the insulter know one feels that momentary stab of their insult, and after that has passed one realises that the insulter is the one with the problem.
I did once feel hurt by an assumption that someone who should have known better (did! know better; he was a fellow scout leader) than to make about me. I challenged him in due course and then realised that he would feel ashamed because he had lost some of my respect, at least temporarily. He was the loser in that instance, not me; I did not lose any self-respect because someone had done me an injustice.