Disablism

[BishopBrennansArse]

Shiny new thread.

Hopefully won't get derailed.

Do you mean NT people eith EBD?

So how can you not see disablism in that there was an assumption made? There were negative assumptions made AND normal behaviour of people was negativised due to LDs?

Opportunity for me to learn

Do NT people with challenging behaviour, and secondly, people with learning disabilities, have different sets of rights from each other?

Or for that matter different sets of rights from anyone else?

^ I was using 60s terminology

Everyone should have same rights, and some regard for how their actions will effect others. Same as anyone else. Sometimes other people may have to make those calls for them in appripote ways, though often for those with Disablites their rights are screwed to unfairly balance rights or feelings of non disabled people. Eg LD group may want to go out pizza, manager thinks othe customers/staff might feel uncomfortable about sight/or minor behaviour shouts/movements so says they are busy instead.

I'm a wheelchair user can think of countless examples where my rights are not same as able bodied people. For example care agency want weeks notice of shifts I need covered, I can't plan to go on a different time or date or emergency dentist. I can't get taxi or train without 24h notice this isn't normal for people. Society isn't in hurry to balance things up we are accused of expecting to much or causing trouble

Owllady feel free to explain why you object to my terminology

Auser all the critical comments referred to antisocial behaviour; one of the few that mentioned people with LDs was critical of NIMBYism eg petty complaints about unobjectionable behaviour

60sname first off that's not an accurate representation and secondly haven't you heard of hidden disabilities?

I see the usual happening on other thread.

Frankly disgusting comment made then when someone addresses it they are met with a wall of people saying they are the SN brigade and have an agenda etc.

From past experience reporting would achieve nothing either.

Reporting this from the other thread (without ballsing it up this time)

Section 26 of the equality act 2010 -

Other prohibited conduct

26Harassment

(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

Mumsnet at the minute you are 26(ii) for those of us who have a vested interest in disability equality. I have a disabled child and I feel 26(ii)

What are you going to do about it ?

Awh fuck. Balls.

REPOSTING

Will avoid making a TAAT

But it's such a predicable script.

I'm anything but fucking fantastic

Thank you Aus.

I was quite sure we all had the same set of rights, just wanted to check.

Antisocial behaviour as a definition is subjective isn't it.

Deciding whether something is antisocial can depend on an awful lot of factors.

Nasty thread the NIMBY one. I've added a few reports and a comment.

Its so you may exist but don't breathe near me. Oh i dont mean really disabled people like your DS just the naughty ones.

That post is to HQ as a service provider. Not to any specific poster but how have an obligation as a business which they are.

HQ

Sorry. Angry typing plus phone makes me balls up.

HQ. You have a slew of posters telling you that mumsnet is

Hostile

Intimidating

Offensive

Unwelcoming

To those of us with disabled children who are disabled or who have an interest in disability equality.

As such, there's a real chance that reaches the equality act provisions.

What are you going to do about it?

*breaches

It's really just a waste of time effort and energy, isn't it?

What are you going to do about it?

If the thread from the other day is anything to go by, where the two posters who both needed support were left until the next day, then there is likely to be a whole lot of things which breach the equality act left unsorted in a very disgusting manner.
I'm afraid after that there is no way i believe HQ has anyones interest at heart.

Was worse is that a member of MNHQ was posting on the thread at the time it was happening and should have intervened. No We didn't get the reports excuses can be used when the moderator was posting on the thread.

Exactly.

The thread is odd.

People get ENRAGED on here if disability is mentioned and I'm not sure why.

Someone pointed this out to me ages

If a founding member of MNHQ was posting disablist comments then we'd have a case to call them on it.

But I feel if we want to change attitudes and perceptions we need to attempt to not get too personal by calling out individuals (unless comments are demonstrably disablist) when hopefully we will bring about collective change of thinking by showing that mob bias on a thread causes a discriminatory effect on a protected characteristic.