To wonder why the Conservative party felt it was appropriate to appoint who has been as the Minister for Disabilities?

[JoanHickson]

"Get out of your wheelchair and stop being lazy, you are too young to be disabled"

Posted by his constituent on a disability group. The complaint response from Tory HQ was "He has been dealt with appropriatly".

Where did I say it was untrue?

I said the reasons in this thread were either untrue (if it turns out the post was made up) or not valid (on the basis i recognise that parliamentary voting is driven by a huge number of factors not necessarily an individual's viewpoint)

Neither of those say you are making this up. My concern with your post is that you presented hearsay as fact. Which you subsequently agreed with.

Sounds like a great suggestion sunshield.

Those labour MPs weren't dismissed though were they. speaks volumes.

I'm not a labour supporter, all the labour comparisons in the world are irrelevant. Which kills about 90% of tory argument, no?

Maybe she is currently speaking to the press. She only recently discovered his ministerial appointment.

At which point it becomes newsworthy?

Surely an MP making such comments should be newsworthy regardless of his ministerial duties?

Pretty sure the guardian would have run with it before his appointment.

Like I said, I've no reason to dispute whether he said it or not. Just that you ought to tread carefully reporting hearsay, pretty sure you would be on the hook for libel for repeating it if it was untrue (not that I am any sort of libel expert, just going on previous threads on here).

Not sure I understand your post beyond?

I have undergone far worse than label litigation.

"I'm not saying the conservatives aren't bad news for the disabled. They almost certainly are in the short term. (My opinion is they are good for them in the long term because they want to provide support that is sustainable, but that's a separate thread)"

Fucking hell. Could you be any more patronising?

I knew I shouldn't have clicked on this thread

I'm not being adversarial Joan, genuinely. Just wary.

I'm rubbish at label litigation, can never figure out the symbols except the ironing one

Go on the yesidid, what is patronising about that?

Libel.

For starters?

"The disabled"

"The blacks" "the gays" ... For example. Have a think ffs.

Need I go on? That whole post was incredibly patronising, let alone your use of "the disabled". As a disabled person, I know what support I need, I'm almost tempted to ask you what support you deem acceptable but fuck it, I'm hiding this thread instead as I don't want to engage any further with people like you.

I think anyone who sees people with disabilities as "them" rather than "us" is unfit to comment on the issue of OUR needs.

(so people without disabilities who recognise that we are all "PEOPLE" and therefore an "US" may comment.)

Well, apologies if "The disabled" caused offence (not that you'll read this having gone stomping off to get offended somewhere else).

I wasn't aware it was an issue. I would use the term "the black population" to describe black people and I don't think that is racist or patronising. In future I will always refer to it as "disabled people" and tick this as a learning point.

In fact, sod that. I just googled "the disabled"

You need to be gunning for The Guardian who used it this morning 4 times, Dogs for the Disabled and about a billion other sites, including numerous disability activist sites, not me.

As for the rest of my post. Take a look at Greece, Google it. Disabled children are being kept in cages in hospitals because there isn't the staff to cover and these children are imprisoned to make it manageable.

Yes there may be further cuts under this government, but in my opinion the economic mismanagement of your preferred parties is not the solution, unless we want history to repeat itself here.

Am at any criticism of the current government apparently being mitigated by cries of "But Labour did something worse", "But Labour started it", "But Labour would have done the same if they got in". So fucking what? Suppose you're up before the beak for purse snatching, exactly how far do you think you'd get with a defence of "M'lud, the prisoner who was up just before me robbed a bank so you cannot judge me"?

Can you point to any strategies for long-term support, bot? From my viewpoint, it looks more like the rug being pulled out from people's feet.

My point, postingbot?

Well...

"It's a non-story his voting past. He wasn't minister for the disabled and voted in line with party instructions. Just like left wing politicians do, we could easily find similar contradictory stances for previous labour ministers based on following their own party orders."

"Or, if we ignore logic and pretend that it is, then every labour chancellor in history is 10 times more guilty of hypocrisy than Justin Tomlinson is."

"Those labour MPs weren't dismissed though were they. speaks volumes."

Fair point marbles. It did read like that. That isn't my view and you are quite right that I'm not qualified to comment on the needs of disabled people as I don't understand what you face and the support needed.

But I didn't comment on that. I commented that the OP had some legal red flags and that i didn't believe voting history was that relvant to the appointment. I went onto say that there is a bigger picture of economic management to consider. I firmly believe the welfare system should be geared up to meet all of the needs of disabled people. But unless the economy is managed better and the welfare system given a root and branch review to redirect funding to those that need it most then that goal is not achievable.

I also completely agree that the disabled minister should either be someone who has faced disability either themselves or within their family.

... is "mitigated" the right word there? Probably not. Hopefully you know what I mean. Fairly countered, sort of thing, I think.

Annie summed it up a tad clearer. Apologies, i'm one of those disabled.

Ok, agreed beyond and Annie. But in a way you are agreeing with my original point.

I'm not defending / mitigAting the likely negative impact of conservative policies. Im saying that the OPs argument on voting history isn't relevant to the appointment.

The better argument is why didn't Paul Maynard get the job. Or what experience or knowledge does justin Tomlinson have that qualifies him for the role. I'm happy to kick Tomlinson all day if the more knowledgeable on these matters can point to better alternatives or valid reasons why Tomlinson is not appropriate.

Some hearsay based on a forum that none of us have seen and voting history are not relevant in my view. For starters Paul Maynard voted exactly the same way that Tomlinson did, does that make him unsuitable now?

On the other hand, the new Code of Practice 2014 legislation for schools is much tougher on inclusion, is very clear that children with disabilities are protected, their access must be ensured and their legal rights must be respected, and are giving much less wiggle room to preschools and schools on direct or indirect discrimination. That was definitely a step forward rather than a step back.

I doubt the best MP available is selected for a particular job, ie a teacher must lead Education, a disabled MP must lead the dept for disability, it's Cameron selecting his inner team and then allocating them to the jobs available. The guy will be an administrator. Arguably it would be great if every dept was run by someone with actual job experience in the field.

Crapping myself quite frankly just generally about having the disability hating Tories in power untempered for another 5 years

I have a disabled daughter.

My only hope is that they won't get re-elected after this term and the damage will be limited at least by other parties blocking them in cutting disability benefits at every opportunity

also completely agree that the disabled minister should either be someone who has faced disability either themselves or within their family

David Cameron has experience of a disabled child..... I need say no more.