How about a campaign where the users get MNHQ staff to take diversity training?

user1478350730 FFS get a proper name!

Is this better?

AF some basic decency would involve not labeling coherent and relevant engagement a wall of words because it doesn't interest you. If you would like to pontificate you should contribute first.

You clearly didn't read the part where I did indeed give relevant apology but that doesn't surprise me at all.

You're also trying rather obviously to make the thread about something other than the thread topic.

The problem with these threads is that any point the op's have at the start get twisted and the end result is so far removed from anything helpful that it bares (or is it bears?) no relation to the actual problems the site actually has.

And most of them do start out with a valid point, but they always end up as a jumbled mess.

I'm distracted, my cat has just had kittens.

No, I don't think people with disabilities need someone to speak for them. Didn't say they did. Nor do I think that some words should necessarily be banned because someone somewhere finds it offensive.

But no, in answer to your 'personal question', I don't think the existence of policies to facilitate inclusion or professionals who look at how they may be most helpfully applied is disablist in and of itself. I'm sure that there would be a way that support could be made available that would be unhelpful, patronising and disablist. But I have never thought that the possibility that something could be done badly says anything about its value when done well

Christ, you can't win with some people. HQ don't delete, then they get it in the neck. They do deleted and they still get it in the neck. It seems that people only want things deleted when it suits their own agenda.

slender here is some basic teaching for you around humility and basic decency:

When you fuck up you do say "I fucked up, I am sorry"

You don't launch a wall of words basically blaming everyone else for misunderstanding you

People skills 101

There's a lot of verbal diarrhoea on this thread.

Worra, you have endless patience... as well as being an oracle.

slender - Can I just ask you a question personally please?

You said that it should not be up to an individual employee to raise issues and it's better for a neutral professional to come in to assess key points etc... but many disabled people say that their disability is personal to them, that no blanket assumptions should be made, no two people are affected the same and you should ask them personally what would help.

How is anyone meant to get anything right without offending anyone ever? How can Poster A insist that Poster B's comment is disablist and warrants deletion when Poster C thinks it isn't, and all 3 might be affected by the same condition? Your comments that a disabled person needs someone neutral to speak for them could be seen as disablist. Is it?

Personal example. I have epilepsy. I have been told that the phrase "brainstorming" is (to use a word I have only ever seen on MN) disablist and offensive to people with epilepsy. I am more offended by someone telling me personally what I should find offensive than I am by what I consider to be an innocuous word. Just because I have epilepsy doesn't mean I can't think for myself or have an opinion on something. I don't need looking after. I find their attitude far more "disablist".

So while I wouldn't use an expression to someone who said to me "I don't like that phrase it upsets me." I would not call for it to be banned and deleted iyswim.

Mnhq would you explain why you have deleted my posts please? I am genuinely baffled and can only conclude you are using any excuse to make your position clear.

You deleted a post in which I asked someone if they were the oracle and another in which I said it was interesting that it mattered to a poster how her name was abbreviated (the valid point being that the names we use for each other and the language we choose matters).

I cannot for the life of me see how talk guidelines were breached?

Even the poster I was speaking to was confused.

Slender did.

I don't see why pointing to a framed certificate on the wall is anymore valid than, y'know, just quietly employing a range of people.
Credit to MNHQ for not rising to this demanding shite. Rebecca's post as copied above by Noel came after a prolonged series of attacks accusing them of all sorts, including direct PAs against Rebecca herself.
No, I don't think MNHQ are perfect. I think Justine's comments about diabetes were ill thought out and alarmist with no regard to the effect they might have on people with both types of diabetes or to the complex issues experienced by children in particular. However, she is not head of a diabetes organisation and she has allowed alternative views to be heard,
MNHQ do often say they will go and ask professionals in all kinds of areas the best way to proceed, which demonstrates a willingness to try and get it right.

'Token disabled employee' is just.......well, disablist. But if you've got The Certificate I guess it's allowed, right?

Wow; that's some professional goady fuckery on this thread!

The organisations goals and plans in relation to inclusion that is.

Worral fine with me, goodbye.

merry That's good news. I was not speculating about a specific employee, rather explaining why mnhq should not have brought her into it because it doesn't address the issue faced by clients and also trying to say that this is something disabled people sometimes hear in the context of a complaint, rather than goals and plans.

If you had any decency about you, you would self report and move on.

You would admit your 'satire' was way off the mark and apologise to the member of MNHQ staff in case they do happen to read it.

But since you appear to value your own opinions above any possible feelings they may have about why they are employed to do their job, I agree we probably shouldn't talk further.

It's clear to me anyway, that you're really not the best person to discuss the topic of disablist comments with, since you appear to be completely unable to spot one.

Well one that you've personally made anyway.

This is going all over the place now.

Slender, I couldn't agree more with you about the problems people with disabilities can face in the workforce but it's wrong to sit here and speculate about issues a member of staff could be having simply because they are disabled.

IMO HQ were just letting people know that they had people in the office with first-hand experience. Nothing more, nothing less.

From what I have heard they are getting advice from a disability charity organisation.

worral I'm glad to have obliged you by giving you a much-needed excuse to occupy some imaginary moral high ground, wilfully misunderstand some very coherent explanations and project in ways that are truly absurd. That seems to be exactly the kind of experience you were looking for on this thread and I'm not at all sorry our conversation is coming to an end. The decent thing in this case would be to engage with the important points that have been raised by many on this thread and, if you cannot feel that they are important, to move on rather than picking fights. It is also your responsibility to report a post as much as it is mine - I genuinely do not feel it's appropriate to do so and that is my honest opinion. Nothing about your behaviour or your assumptions makes me think you are the sort of person whose judgements and intentions I would judge above my own. So all I can do is suggest that you report whatever you wish to, as you should have done in the first place.

I suggest we don't talk further because I have done my bit and don't believe in being some kind of martyr for the cause. You have your think, I'll have mine :)

just before I go merry that doesn't fill me with joy because many disabled employees don't feel they can say what it's like to be disabled to their employer. They're far too busy trying to persuade them they can cope, or trying to get on with life as far as they can and forget they have a disability. To make inclusive changes within the structure of an organisation in an organic way and in a way that will have far-reaching effects, you need to have an indepth understanding of what it is like to have a disability and the unique challenges faced by disabled staff and clients in relation to your setting. Simply having a disabled person on staff could mean quite a lot or nothing at all in terms of developing the necessary awareness and responses.

Rather than hoping for one disabled individual to inform the practice of a whole organisation (even if it welcomed that employees efforts to do so),it's more effective and more professional to pay for a neutral professional to come in, assess what the key points are, offer training and possibly mediate, because many employees find it difficult to say 'I struggle with x and y' in case it looks like they're incompetent or lazy, and many employer struggle to say, 'I don't feel a stairlift (or whatever) is a justified expense and I'm struggling with the fact that you can't man the phones sometimes' without looking and feeling like a git.

I've seen it

I'm not engaging with the points you have raised because having read them, they're just desperate back peddling in my opinion.

Your 'satire' was disablist whether you care to admit it or not and your stubborn refusal to accept that, makes your whole stance come across as extremely hypocritical.

If I merely wanted to bicker I could pick literally 100s of other threads to do it on.

Your defensive, uncomfortable wriggling is bad enough, but trying to blame other posters interpretation of your disablist comment, just makes you look ridiculous I'm afraid.

Do the decent thing.

Self report and move on.

Noel I don't know. I think at the time many of us on the thread were heartily sick of many posters saying they knew exactly how awful it was to have a disabled child because they had known one once - I can only think it sounded like another example of that so I didn't file it as carefully in my memory as I could have done. Also, it didn't change much in terms of the dialogue (it was virtually irrelevant from my perspective and others) and wasn't what we were looking for in terms of dialogue with users and an action plan for change (which was not forthcoming). So I was remembering an exchange which left many of us feeling gutted.

That's the best answer I can give. I certainly don't feel obliged to say more.

And now I'm off to bed.

I think the purpose of bringing this person into the dialogue was pretty clear. It was a question of disability awareness at HQ.

They were simply pointing out that they had people there who are able to give input surrounding their own experiences with disability/disablism.

I think that's fair enough when people are saying none of them seem to have the first clue.

I understand there are organisations who would try and use their employment of certain minorities to their advantage but I see no evidence of MN doing so.