To think a lot of MN are ableist?

Is that the reason they gave when you asked for a MR? I should probably be surprised but I'm not.

My child is well behaved but was awarded high rate care and high rate mobility. Well behaved disabled children can absolutely get DLA too.

Who made you the thread police.? Jog.on.

it's clearly defined in the equality act 2010. which part of the definition do you think is unclear and too broad???

It still means the same. Do say how the meaning has changed.

Agreed, that is exactly what I am saying. The school was at fault, not a disabled child with unmet needs.

I think one problem is that the word 'disabled' has expanded so much and now includes so many conditions. It no longer seems to mean what it used to.

That is not PPs concern.
PPs concern is her own child who wasnt being protected at school

i remember the post. the language used by a multitude of posters towards a 5 year old with very high support needs which clearly were but met was horrendous. The OP received a lot of good advice on this threat.

But I don't understand how people's take away from such threads is that disabled children are to blame when it is very obvious that the issues are systematic and that education as a whole is underfunded.

A child like this isn’t having the provision he needs and it’s not his fault.

It’s not enabled, if a school does enable such behaviour it’s the school at fault again.

There is not a lot of threads where disabled people or children are hurting others. That is simply not true and you’re trying to stir up unpleasantness towards disabled people. Do not try to infer that disabled children are impacting other children as a rule, they’re not. One or two are not getting the provision they need which impacts others. It’s not their fault. Trying to whip up a massive problem is scaremongering against disabled children and very unpleasant.

If you had to pull out your child, you need to blame the school. It's not the disabled boy's fault the school failed in their duty to safeguard your DD. Its that simple really.

I also assume your DD is elsewhere now and unlike so many disabled children isn't left without access to formal education?

Yes there is a lot of ableism on this forum.

Unfortunately people are believing the toxic narrative peddled in part of the media and by many politicians about disabled people faking or exaggerating their conditions so they can claim benefits or about mental health issues, ADHD and autism not being real conditions.

It is really upsetting.

'No disabled child takes away resources from non-disabled children.'

this isn't strictly true. I had to pull my little girl from reception last month as an artistic boy was attacking and assaulting her and meeting his own poo on her. His disabilities (if his behaviour was due to them) caused my daughter to not have a right to a safe education.

there are a lot of threads at the moment where a disabled person or child is causing direct harm on others. And it's very much enabled because the child is disabled. And people (like me) are quite sick of it. It doesn't mean we're ableist, it doesn't mean we hate all disabled people. I'm ND myself. But it doesn't mean we wash over poor behaviour and the safety of others in the name of 'Inclusion.'

the thread you're on about OP the boy was hurting the little girl and hugging her and the OP literally thought it was fine and found it funny. That is not ok

I'm autistic, both my kids are autistic - one has comorbid dyspraxia/DCD and inattentive ADHD and the other is waiting for an ADHD assessment.

DD2 CHOSE to try ADHD medication herself to try to improve her ability to focus at school - she's a beautifully behaved people pleaser - close to top in the school positive behaviour points awards last year but she knows that things don't stay in her brain long enough for her to do them properly.

As for benefits... because she was so well behaved - DD2 got turned down for DLA (that was the literal reason given). I get nothing - not even child benefit as we're over the income threshold for that, I claim nothing, I work full time and get no benefits for the kids' additional needs. I drive a clapped out Corsa I paid for myself with a huge dent in the side of it (no BMW here) and I'll be driving that till it falls apart (which given I work in community healthcare and the state of the bloody potholes - is likely to be sooner rather than later). I work my fucking arse off at work because I know people have preconceptions and would love to complain I was taking more than I'm entitled to... so I work harder to prove I'm worth the job and earn respect.

I realise I won't ever stop people taking potshots though - society currently has engineered some socially acceptable people to have as "outsiders" and it's people like my family.

No, of course it isn't. It's about acknowledging that the world is grey and you can look at your own struggles and think that they are incomparable to a disabled person but sometimes the distinction or difference isn't as significant as you imagine when it comes to disabled and supposedly non disabled people.

I've mentioned in loads of threads for example that the Broader Autism Phenotype exists for example which is almost a subclinical form of Autism. Someone on the extreme end of this will have a similar level of 'autism' to someone that only just meets the threshold for an autism diagnosis. Brain scans show similar patterns and some traits can actually be experienced more acutely by someone with BAP than an Autism diagnosis. Someone with BAP absolutely wouldn't be committing some whataboutery crime to want their struggles acknowledged and to feel resentful that because they lack the lack of having Autism they aren't considered disabled at all.

The same goes with sight loss. You have to have a specific amount of sight loss to be considered partially or severely sight impaired and to be considered disabled. The idea though that sight loss below this level wouldn't have any adverse impact on your life is of course nonsense.

So in short, no a disabled person's life isn't always significantly harder than a non disabled person's if you just look narrowly at how our health impacts our life and you look at people around the threshold. The world is grey. 40% of people have chronic health conditions. Almost everyone has ND traits that adversely impact our lives. 20% of people experience pain every day and not all of these people are considered disabled. Some people are considered disabled that believe that their condition is an enabler to their lives (look at the autism threads to see posters reflect this). It's messy and nuanced and certainly not something that can be considered in a binary manner.

A million percent OP. My child is Autistic and I’m physically disabled - the passive aggressive shit I’ve had thrown at me on here about my ‘suitability’ as a parent being disabled, is appalling. Completely ignoring the context I’ve given as to how I actually became a lone parent and how my disability has progressed since.
I’ve also seen posters ever-so-subtly imply that they now refuse to allow their kids to play with Autistic children since it came out that the Southport monster is autistic….. 🫩 I think that’s about as offensive and deeply hurtful as humanly possible. Yet MN let it stand…. 🤷🏼‍♀️ Not once have they actually deleted anything ableist that I’ve reported to them.

"Boomer " tends to be bandied around here sometimes. Blaming the boomer generation for all the world's ills and thinking that we had it easy.
No we didnt, as it happens!!

I would rather not live in a country where the wholesale murder of disabled children is mandatory, or even legal. That does not sound very humane to me and I am alarmed you are hailing it as a 'good decision', I find your attitude quite chilling in fact.
I do not know the law on euthanasia in Denmark but I would be extremely surprised if it allowed for the blanket killing of profoundly disabled children. This is very different from a family making the heart-breaking decision to remove life support from a terminally ill baby. I cannot imagine that any civilised country in modern times should allow for the former, though I seem to remember there was a political regime in Europe, some time in the last century, who were quite keen on such a eugenicist approach to removing 'undesirable' groups from society. I don't quite remember how it all worked out but I am sure history remembers that particular regime and its activities very fondly.
I find comments like yours, which seem to view the removal of disabled children from society as a wise and fiscally prudent decision a government could make particularly distressing, as I hope, would anyone with even a shred of humanity. However, this is particularly personal for me as I was once a severely physically disabled baby, born without eyes and with multiple joint deformities, someone whose life, according to some of the awful cruel posters on MN was never going to be worth living and who would always be a drain on society. Fortunately, I survived and thrived. My wonderful parents ensured I had a brilliant childhood and education. I did very well at school, got a first class degree from a good university, have a rewarding job I enjoy and am very happily married with a beautiful baby. Still severely disabled but living a great life and glad I had the chance to live and that narrow-minded people, incapable of seeing any value in the life of a disabled baby, didn't get the chance to 'put me out of my misery' when I was first born.

The example you gave sounds like a troll.

I think most people are compassionate, but their compassion has been stretched by a broken welfare system that can’t distinguish between severely limiting disabilities worthy of support from taxpaying neighbours and much milder conditions that are part of the natural variety of life. When people feel financially squeezed they are less tolerant when they feel their money isn’t being spent wisely. We also forget that there are many different ways a society can be structured. Centralising and nationalising welfare isn’t the only one. Our country used to operate differently - with large numbers of friendly and benevolent societies and a social compulsion to contribute. There might be a different model again in the future. But I think it’s normal to care about the vulnerable.

I think you proved your point with this thread, OP!

This makes no sense. Do you not want disabled people to receive benefits?

it isn't derailing at all. This thread is about ablism, and that includes discrimination because we're in receipt of benefits due to our disability.

If people want to go 'i wish i had that sort of money' then it follows they clearly wish they had the disability to go with it, because we wouldn't HAVE those benefits without the disability.

What part of that don't you understand?