dear MN HQ could you please be so kind as to explain to me publicaly why you allow thread like the super race one

[saint2shoes]

to continue? IMO it has some very offensive posts on it, but you still have not pulled it.

WHY NOT EMAIL THEM THEN?

errr, I think you'll find people did...

I can see how this applies to say a cinema that is required to have a ramp, disabled toilets and so on. That's perfectly reasonable.

The service Mumsnet provide (and let's remember that it's a free service. You're not paying them enough to employ disability consultants) is a space to discuss things with others. The discussion itself is 'supplied' by the other posters.

Anyone can make a homepage and then with a couple of clicks add a forum open to anyone. If it's true they must have "a disability policy based on expert advice, and basic disability training" then you will have to close down most of the internet.

Let's also remember that we're not talking about comments about disability in a cooking thread. We have people discussing disability in a thread about disability. There were bound to be opinions that differ from your own. The only way to prevent that would be to not allow any discussion of disability. For those who find certain topics very difficult mumsnet provide a hide button. People use it for example when they find news items especially distressing instead of wanting to ban the news.

You could make some kind of argument if you could show that people were posting only to insult people with a disablity,but I don't believe you can. Originally people were asked their opinions on screening and they gave them. It would have been amazing had they all had the same opinions as you and it would then have been a pointless thread anyway.

but onager, there is a vast difference between voicing the opinion that screening for disability/illness is an acceptable practice, (I don't have to understand the view but not everyone thinks the same on these things), and voicing the opinion that the country would be a better place without disability in it, and that it would be better for non disabled children if they were not faced with people with disabilities, which are comments that appeared on that thread and have been allowed to stand.

The former is a comment based on fear of the unknown. the latter is blatant bigotry and is not acceptable.

If I saw a terrible accident where a friend lost their ability to walk I'd be distressed. I would wish that it hadn't happened and perhaps demand that new safety precautions were instituted. I'd say "I don't want any more people ending up like that"

He would still be my friend (why would that change?) and I'd teach the kids that they shouldn't think any less of them because of it.
I would not say "it's a good thing he was run over". If their teacher told them it was a good thing and that he was not harmed by it, "just made different" I'd be angry.

In my opinion it would be better if people were not injured by cars, drugs or accidents of birth.

so out of interest, how would you explain dd's cp, caused at birth, to your child?

In much the same terms as the friend who had the accident.

Now answer one for me. If someone is run over and permanently injured, is that a good thing or a bad thing.

bad of course.
but as I have found with people like my uncle an cousen it hasn't made them less of a person, just different.

Then I think we might be in agreement. People with a disability are not bad. Disability is bad.

seems so as long as we remeber the disability is...not the person
shame the cock ups at birth can't be tested for....oh of course they can, the HCP could be better trained.

So Onager take the post '" i think the UK would be better off if few children with disabilities were born and also it would be nicer for children too?. I don't want them educated to think it's just as good to have a deaf child or child without legs who are just different?." ' which after a rough survey seem to be the most awful.

Do you think that was OK?

By JustineMumsnet on Mon 26-Jan-09 10:11:49 (from MNHQ)
Hi 2shoes,
We don't generally delete things on the grounds of likelihood to offend so long as we have no reason to believe the poster is deliberately stirring. If the motive is to discuss a difficult issue, then unless the posts actually break the law, we usually let the discussion stand. The reason is that if we didn't it would be extremely difficult to draw the line and be consistent. If we start deleting things that cause offence who are we to decide who's hurt is more or less valid - basically we'd end up deleting anything and everything. Eg I could imagine someone being very hurt about a knife crime discussion if their relative had just suffered a knife attack.

So we usually let things stand and encourage folk to explain why posts offend them - this often has the effect of educating people and making them more empathetic.

Eugenics is a contentious issue but a very current one and one that our generation is going to have to wrestle with. It seems valid to allow it's discussion on MN as MN is a discussion site.

With regard to your thread asking for an anti-disabled topic. Clearly we wouldn't countenance that a thread asking for it is asking for it as it's disablist in itself.

(We know you were being sarcastic but others who read it may not).

Best,
MNHQ

thought i would copy and paste this as it is soooooo far down

There is no intrinsic disadvantage to being black or gay. Other people may make life difficult, but that is a different situation and can't be compared.

Onager, you write,

"I can see how this applies to say a cinema that is required to have a ramp, disabled toilets and so on. That's perfectly reasonable. The service Mumsnet provide (and let's remember that it's a free service. You're not paying them enough to employ disability consultants) is a space to discuss things with others. The discussion itself is 'supplied' by the other posters.
Anyone can make a homepage and then with a couple of clicks add a forum open to anyone. If it's true they must have "a disability policy based on expert advice, and basic disability training" then you will have to close down most of the internet."

Yes, the laws absolutely do apply to websites based in the UK, especially those offering a service to people where people can join in.

Mumsnet is a limited company set up under UK law, which means the disability laws definitely do apply to it. It makes a profit from advertising etc, and therefore has a budget to pay its staff to have a couple of hours of disability training. Since it has staff, albeit for all I know voluntary, they too have to be cared for under the DDA, so mumsnet would have to know disability law or be in breach of basic employment law as well.

The last publicly available accounts for Mumsnet Ltd showed it was bringing in around £100k a year and making a £20k profit, so that would be a reasonable sum from which to pay for a couple of hours of disability training. They've been in operation since 2000 so they've had 9 years to do this. I'm sure therefore that they have.

It is not in any way the same as you or I setting up a blog or mini forum, BUT yes, if those are set up to be hosted on computers the UK and you are offering a service to the public even if that service is just people chatting, you really are liable under the DDA. It's just people don't realise it.

Curiously, if you use a US website-hosting service, you're not liable under the DDA unless you claim that you are using UK laws. But you'd be perhaps liable under US libel laws instead, which are not fun.

Interesting, isn't it.

So, in summary, yes mumsnet would know they are required by law to be reasonably disability-accessible (in exactly the same way as if they ran a shop as a drop-in information centre as a charity or business).

Those who run their own websites and blogs etc should make haste to check them out. Easy way to do it is to have a look at the RNIB website which gives handy hints on how to make it accessible with basic cost-free changes. Read info on charity sites about how to help those with disabilities - it's free! Or if your budget will stretch to it, spend £6 on (for example) the totally excellent guide available through a charity such as "Through the Roof" about how to make things accessible for just about any disability. You can even get free sample disability policies off the internet. It's not really a question of big money if you're a tiny website. Loads of help out there.

Examples of items for a disability policy for websites:

If you know someone has a disability, remember to be respectful if asked to help them. You must not ignore the person, nor make them wait for help longer than other people have to wait, nor be rude to them about their needs. If you cannot help because it is too much work or would cost too much, point them to a service that can.

Make sure the text on your website is at least 12 point, or can be changed to that easily.

Use a clear font e.g. Arial or Comic Sans

Keep your background plain, perhaps a cream colour. Don?t put text on top of pictures or drawings.

Don?t use flashing, flickering or fast-moving items on the screen.

If there are important pictures, explain them in words too so that those with a visual impairment using a text reader can also understand what you are trying to show.

Keep your words shorter and your sentences shorter if you can. Microsoft Word even comes with its own wording checker, the Flesch Reading Ease tool. This means you can check whether you are only being understood by University Professors. Remember that one person in five in the UK has difficulty with reading.

Don?t use expressions like ?it?ll cost you an arm and a leg? or ?it was a complete red herring? if you can help it. Those are very hard work for those on the autistic spectrum (ASD): They may not realise you don?t mean them literally. Sarcasm is also almost impossible for many people with an ASD to recognise.

Be prepared to explain something if asked to by a person who does not understand it the first time.

If someone has a writing difficulty, they may not be able to spell well or write fast, so be sure that they are not criticised or mocked for this.

Those with ASDs or mental health conditions may be very fearful of overly aggressive or fast-paced situations and need encouragement or support to be able to understand the social dynamics and join in. As they are four times more likely to be bullied than those with other disabilities, be watchful for bullying behaviour including mocking, belittling or excluding them.

Those with ASDs may not be able to quickly remember information about someone from their names or work out social dynamics or the ?right thing to say?. If necessary, guide them, rather than be impatient or assume that they are being awkward or rude through choice.

A list of charities that can help people can also be readily available for staff, so that if there is a disability question and they don't know the answer, they can ring up for free advice.

Onager I have a similar issue with my eysight; glasses just about work (but my eyes are dteriorating and you have a minimum 15 years on me age wise (just thought I'd get that in..... pwink]). Have also worn glasses since a year, as has ds1. It's severe astigmatism with additional long sightedness for me.

It is a PITA (my degree involved lots of tiny text in manuscripts etc)and i'd rather be without it but I am just as good. 'I dont want people educated... to think just as good' (rough paraphrasing, long night)

No I want people educated to think I am just as good, and that instead of looking at me with my inpairment (not a disability) I want them to look at me, or mroe pertinently ds's 1 & 3 not with a view to seeing their disability and making any judgement at all bar a few minor adjustments (such as chatting by email rather than phone for ds1).

There is nobosy without some form of impairment: dh is not disabled but has real mental health issues; my Mum has traits of AS; my Dad has a leg without nerve sensation from the knee down; my sister has had PND morhing into severe depression since her premmie baby was born a few years back- I cannot think of one person without some issue, of some sort. Thus defining people as anything else bar equal is silly, it's just that some need different measures put in place is all. If we sto looking at definitions and start looking at what we can do to make things a bit easy for anyone amazing things could happen.

Just an example of how disbaility is a label: Mum and Dad have mobility issues- dad as described before; Mum has a pelvis that collpases and means she cant walk, neither drive. My sister pulled over in a disabled aprking sapce just to let them out of the car and was threatened with a ticket.

yet if they went to the DWP they'd get a blue badge like a shot, but as they travel in cars so rarely there's no point in their minds.

Riven, are you really saying that 'disabled people' is correct and that by saying 'person with a disability' Amber has got it all wrong?

Amber, it's a good thing that my forum is on a webserver in california then though I have a backup copy running on a server at home that I can switch to in an emergency which would then be liable.

Actually I think the law was probably meant well, but in many cases will be irrelevant. How for example would you make a wallpaper download site suitable for a visitor who might be blind? A silly example perhaps, but the idea that websites (or indeed shops) could be made suitable for every disability is ridiculous.

Are you really saying that all UK websites (since they might have a disabled visitor) must use use a clear font? I know one that does images for halloween etc that has a spooky font.
It has a black backround to so they are in big trouble.

There are probably lots of UK websites (more than 5 even) that use flashing, flickering or fast-moving items on the screen.

'How for example would you make a wallpaper download site suitable for a visitor who might be blind? '

Irrelevant: reasonable adjustments required!

'How for example would you make a wallpaper download site suitable for a visitor who might be blind? '

Irrelevant: reasonable adjustments required! (oh and yes text reader 'flocked in pale blue with medium size florecent green gerberas alternating at six inch intervals with terraqcotta daises' etc)

Peachy, want a job? I do in fact have some wallpaper on my site and I can't write in the text since I wouldn't know a gerbera from a gerbil.