Well done Lawrence Fox!

This whole thing gets more confusing when you consider how many types of disability there are. If someone is in a wheelchair, their problem is obvious, but a deaf person is also at a disadvantage which is not immediately obvious.
Therefore the term 'disabled' needs to be qualified.

I hope the term'learning difficulties' is on the way out, as it is totally meaningless. Someone with dyslexia has learning difficulties, yet is perfectly normal otherwise.

It is a very interesting discussion, but really deserves its own thread surely- and not get mixed up with Fox's comments and general perception of racism.

BTW - what does 'normal' mean?

I don’t think the word ‘disabled’ needs to be qualified in a general discussion - if provision for disabled people is being discussed in terms of policy development or service provision, then clearly the various types of disabilities need to be addressed. When I posted about disabled people being far too ignored, I meant all disabled people in general. Jura it might be nice to have a thread on disability issues and ableism - i think widening out the discussion following LF’s comments was really important because it does make the point that had he said to a Jewish person, it’s not a I-Semitic there would have been justifiably much outrage. Not sure what would have happened if he’d said to a disabled person that something wasn’t ableist. I think disability issues are still very neglected in the main stream.

Sorry anti-Semitic

Learning difficulties are only used in an educational environment though. It shouldn’t be used to describe a disability. Learning disability (although the term is gradually changing to Intellectual Disability) is something very different and can be very disabling.

suziewoozie As for the shooting in the face comment, one person saying that as shocking as it is does not have to result in mass shock/horror.
But it isn't one person. These types of death threats are commonplace now and I find them deeply disturbing. They indicate a society which has no soul. The idea that one person would threaten to kill another over a simple disagreement is much more concerning than what you call a disabled person. Previously offensive words are no longer in use and now it's just nit-picking.

FFS Chestnut your post is ableist in the extreme - you should be bloody ashamed of yourself. It’s not a binary choice to care about death threats OR the language used around disability, stop damn well trying to minimise or discount my lived experiences as a disabled person - how bloody dare you. And you could try reading what the posts of people like trisher and myself actually say. It’s nowhere near as simple as what you call a disabled person. Ableism is much more complex than that - and ableism where institutionalised or not restricts, limits, harms disabled people lives in this country every fucking day.

suziewoozie For crying out loud get a life. I truly can’t read anymore of your joy draining claptrap!

Whoa, who sprinkled the bitchy dust SW, as someone once said to me, calm down.

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.

This has been a truly disappointing read
I am appalled by posters actually applauding 'able bodied' people providing enterprise to benefit 'disabled ' people
I have to wonder what Stephen Hawkins would have made of that comment. ..
Shame on you

Because of course Opal 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. Have you read a Fucking word of what has been written?
The reason there are people not able to work is not because they have some impairment it is because society refuses to adapt or change to accommodate them. And your attitude shows exactly why that is, because you do not consider them as equals but as some sort of lower level of life that you have to support. It's not only bloody rude. It's bloody wrong. I really thought this was a battle that had been won and most people knew that people with impairment or disability, however they choose to define themselves, are working, are contributing and enriching our society at every level and many of them are cleverer and more valuable than a lot of the posters on GN.

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.

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

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 '

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Ooof!

This thread has taken a very unpleasant turn.

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.

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

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?