Well done Lawrence Fox!

Please, do start a very interesting discussion on ableism and the rights of disabled people- and could we here stick to the OP. Please. The link is there, I can see- but mixing both is just not helpful. Thanks.

Chestnut your post just beautifully illustrates your complete inability to hold a reasoned, rational, informed discussion on ableism. And can’t Opal post for herself?

suziewoozie you are not reacting, you are overreacting, and adding your own interpretation on what Opal said, spouting a whole load of misinformation which is utterly dreary to read.

And he can’t even sing in tune. He really is a joke, isn’t he?

Lucky I was reacting to Opals post which portrayed in a very ableist manner a stereotype of disabled people as being passively dependent on able bodied people. As you say, disabled people who are not economically productive are not to be dismissed either. My point is much wider than being able to work, as important as that is, but about all aspects of a disabled person’s life being as full and enabled as possible. Ableism impedes this.

Being economically productive is not the purpose of life - people whose disabilities make it impossible for them to be economically productive are not to be dismissed as mere recipients of society's largesse.

And here is more food for thought how some are even discriminated against by those purporting to support and celebrate disabled sportspeople.
www.mencap.org.uk/press-release/paralympics-exclude-people-learning-disability-over-three-quarters-sports-mencap

So he truly has a problem then

The car crash that is LF is one of the more entertaining aspects of the media atm. He has berated the director of 1917 for including a Sikh soldier calling it institutionalised racism. Some of us just call it for what it is, a factually correct representation of the huge number of soldiers from the Indian sub continent who fought for his freedom to be a complete prick.

Can't stand Lawrence Fox, and I thought he was very arrogant on Question Time.

Opal your post is ableist, ill informed and intellectually and factually lacking. Just for starters, it wasn’t able bodied people who fought for rights for disabled people but disabled peope. Your post demonstrates that you simply don’t get the fact that many many disabled people are able to live more independent lives and earn a living because of changes in legislation fought for by disabled people. There is much more to do for example ensuring the implementation and monitoring of legislation but your post portrays disabled people in a very negative, patronising way as the passive recipients of the benefits accruing from the hard work and efforts of able bodied people. I can’t speak for all disabilities as I said previously but I know from my lived experience that there are things that I’m able to do ( or have been able to do) because of legislation and many other things that I would be able to do/experience if either legislation were enforced or if people like me had been involved at the planning stage.

Please remember that "able-bodied" people are also the lifeblood of the British economy and provide the ideas, enterprise, funding and manufacturing that permits, protects and enhances the lives of disabled people in this country every f***g day too

Particularly concerned about the use of the word ‘permits’ here. What on earth do you mean by that?

And the lecturer called herself black, when she is obviously mixed race.
I was told to “look to my privilege” on a classical music forum by an American woman who knows nothing about me.(Facebook) In fact I grew up near the docks in a two up two down with a violent father and a rotten education. Lol

Baggs Thanks for providing your summary of Libby Purves's article.

I don't find the points she makes particularly insightful or compelling. She talks of her concern that the issue of racism is becoming an "obsession" - just another type of bigotry.

She refers to the UK as "a nation that stands out for its tolerance and diversity". That may well be the case so far as comparisons with other countries are concerned, but not everybody has experienced the UK in that way. As I have already pointed out, there is still significant discrimination in employment, housing and other areas of public life. These disparities in access and opportunity are longstanding and yet some people become very agitated when it is suggested that systemic racism exists and needs to be addressed.

She refers to online conversations about racism as being "terrible and neurotic" - but people who engage in Twitter spats tend to express highly polarised and excessively aggressive opinions - not just on racism but on every contentious issue. Twitter is well known for it and that is why many people steer clear of it.

As she points out, on Question Time LF did say he deplored 'real' racism, I don't know why LF considers himself an expert on what "real" racism is. He seems to be implying that when people say they have experienced racism, it should be viewed with scepticism, because so much of what is complained of is not "real" but "imagined" or "perceived" racism. (It seems to have been largely ignored, but LF also made some angry comments about successful "working class" actors campaigning about increasing class bias within the industry).

Purves goes on to say it is the "sickness in perception" and the"determination to be offended" which is the cause of the "serious problems in our society" - that conversations about racism have become "more quarrelsome and emptier even while legal protections have increased.

She then admits "we are not perfect" (that's pretty generous of her - and who, incidentally, is the "we" she addresses - presumably her target audience which does not include the "quarrelsome" element of the population to which she refers).

She then acknowledge that: there is significant discrimination in many areas of public life, which have a serious impact on minorities; and that there are "bigots" and "vandalisers" who threaten the psychological and physical security of minority groups.

But then, having raised these serious issues, she appears to reserve her disdain for the alleged "self-promoting activists" [endlessly] repeating that Britain is racist.

I agree with her that "self-flagellation doesn't help". What is needed is action - action to address systemic discrimination in recruitment, in the workplace, in housing, and in many other areas. And fewer white people telling black people what "real" racism is.

Ooof!

This thread has taken a very unpleasant turn.

I can't even believe what I have just read...
This is beyond disgraceful

Sure. After ranting at Chestnut, SW then posted ableism where institutionalised or not restricts, limits, harms disabled people lives in this country every fucking day. My post was in response to her very aggressive tone, about the fact that there are restrictions in workplaces resulting in disabled people's lives being limited or restricted or harmed. Sometimes restrictions are there for safety reasons, or necessary financial reasons, or health reasons. However, the fact that any restrictions that are there, whether rightly or wrongly, is NOT the fault of able-bodied workers and they should not be blamed for being able to do something that others can't.

Able-bodied ARE the lifeblood of the British economy, simply in terms of numbers. There is a vast amount more able-bodied workers than disabled, FACT. That is not to say, though, that disabled people don't contribute to the economy, of course they do! But it is the able-bodied who are far greater in numbers, and therefore far greater in their contribution to the economy. And it is the UK economy that provides the finances to protect and enhance the lives of disabled people, and support them when required. The UK has come on in leaps and bounds in recent years/decades, when it comes to providing for and supporting disabled people and their families, in their lives, their employment and their facilities, and rightly so. But don't get aggressive with other people for having an opinion, just because it may not be based on experience of disability, or be the same as your experience. The sneering and disdain in some of the examples on here is shocking, as is the "attack" mentality, and should be challenged when it rears its ugly head.

Opalwould you liketo explain what you meant by Please remember that "able-bodied" people are also the lifeblood of the British economy and provide the ideas, enterprise, funding and manufacturing that permits, protects and enhances the lives of disabled people in this country every f***g day too?
Because the. only meaning I can get out of that is that disabled people need to be supported and cared for by others. If that's not what you meant please explain further.

I find your post offensive in the extreme suziewoozie. You started the whole disabled discussion by nit-picking about exactly what word should be used. I made no comment whatsoever about disabled people other than that I would use the word 'disabled' rather than other words. Yet you pour abuse, accusations and bad language over me as if I'd committed some unforgivable crime. What an unhappy and vindictive post.

Then trisher takes up the baton with the comment disabled people are unable to work, earn their own living or contibute in any way to the economy or life of this country or indeed the world. Yes, trisher it was you that said that, no-one else! So shame on you, ha ha.

I have just watched The QT incident. LF was saying that Harry should have told Megan that life would be difficult being married to a royal and Rachel Boyle said let’s just call this what it is, it’s racism. LF said no it’s not it’s not racism.

He did not say it has nothing to do with racism. Rachel Boyle did not say I think racism may have something to do with it.

If Rachel Boyle had said racism may be part of the problem and LF had said racism is nothing to do with it then I agree that would be wrong but that is not what happened. Rachel Boyle made it sound as though the only problem was racism just racism and no other reason and LF said no it’s not.

What point were you making? That because people contribute economically they can say what they like. Your post was very unclear to me.

Another one that mis-construes - did I mention you in my previous post Dollymac? No I didn't. So I think it's safe for you to assume that "pack hunter" was not directed at you.
And your interpretation of my post is your problem, not mine, I know the way in which it was intended.

I worked for many years with the disabled/impaired. Sadly, many of those would have been unable to hold down a job no matter what society put in place for them - exactly Oopsminty and that fact supports the point I was making earlier. But some posters just want to bite before considering what is being said. So sad really, if it wasn't so bloody annoying.

Opal, I don't consider that your post was ambiguous in any way. You were perfectly clear, as I hope was I, with my response
Oh and to be clear, I am not and never have been a 'pack hunter '

I just wonder what Laurence Fox would have to say

There's some posters on here using rather fruity language

I worked for many years with the disabled/impaired.

Sadly, many of those would have been unable to hold down a job no matter what society put in place for them

It's ridiculous to get so irate

I'm disabled.

I managed to hold down a job for years

I don't really like this level of altruism

It's unnecessary

Why do the "pack hunters" on here always deliberately mis-construe and twist what other posters have said, into something which hasn't actually been said at all? It happens all the time on GN, you are the ones who should be ashamed of yourselves. Where did I say trisher that "disabled people are unable to work"? I didn't. I do consider disabled people as my equals, I have worked with many, and have had two disabled people in my family. So you can wind your neck in. But the FACT is that the vast majority of working people in this country are "able-bodied" and it is therefore reasonable to assume that they provide the vast majority of the benefits, both financial, physical and otherwise, that continue to support the disabled community. As usual, SuzieWuzie condemns and berates others who have no doubt contributed to the wealth in our country, simply because they have not experienced disability themselves!
So may I ever so politely suggest you both pull your heads out of your a***s and stop accusing me of saying things I haven't said, simply because you both have a vindictive way of putting a nasty twist on what others have written.