Your Letters – October 2011

Well done UKDPC for boycotting Low Review

Disability Now‘s September 2011 editorial criticised the UK Disabled People’s Council (UKDPC) for boycotting the Low Review.

Regard, the organisation of disabled lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and trans­gendered (LGBT) people, is not in a position to boycott the UKDPC, because we haven’t been contacted or invited to participate. This despite the fact that there is a higher proportion of LGBT people within the disabled community than among the population at large. We are also more likely to be users of residential and social care than other disabled people.

Regard wouldn’t object to Leonard Cheshire Disability (LCD) leading the review, if all LCD’s representatives were residents of LCD facilities.

There are LCD residents with extensive experience of government and quango committee work, even if their participation has not been facilita­ted or encouraged by LCD.

Regard does though object to charities “for” disabled people believing that they can do a better job of representing the silent majority than we can. The Commission for Social Care Inspection established categorically that people living in residential care do not feel able to speak openly about their lives in front of staff and managers, and will often only open up to other disabled people. We can only learn from the experts, the residents themselves, if we remove all possibility of retaliation. Take a walk in my shoes, or a roll in my chair, before claiming to understand our experiences better than we do or know better what is best for us. That’s plain insulting.

So is the idea that depend­ency on government funding in the form of grants and benefit payments does not affect the opinions of the organisations leading the Low Review one iota.

I am sure that Regard is not the only disabled people’s organisation that thanks UKDPC for taking its principled stand. “Nothing about us without us” should be on our terms, not everyone else’s.

And let there be no mistake, the status quo on consultancy and representation suits the Government just fine.
Ju Gosling, Co-Chair Regard, by email


Appearing in TV soaps is worthy aim

In “The politics of humility” (Disability Now, Sep 2011), Mike Oliver says “our main ambition now seems to be getting more disabled people into soap operas” as if that’s a lower ambition than his heavy politics of 30 years ago, but getting on TV is a stage we need to go through. As it is, nobody notices us. Not until disabled people are regulars on TV soaps will we discover that we have achieved equality.
Susan Quick, Artistic Director, Enabling Radio Drama


Slipping through net

I think it is shameful that disabled people should be dragged into the dock over the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) just to see if those on the lower rate can justify the expense of keeping them on the lower rate, given that they may not be thought sufficiently disabled to qualify forthe allowance anymore.

I have been disabled since birth and I’m on lower rate DLA. I was promised the day when I applied and got this benefit that regardless of my situation and outside issues, I would retain this benefit as long as my disability persisted.

Now they want to take it away from me, and it’s the only benefit I get, apart from Jobseeker’s Allowance which I have to renew every six weeks.

Apart from that, I get no other state assistance and I am being driven to the brink of despair. I have no hope, due to my age and the nature of my disability, of ever working again and as far I’m concerned I’m finished and all washed up. I will probably lose my home and have to sell my belongings in order to survive and will wind up destitute and living on the streets. All this stuff that politicians spout about looking after the more vulnerable members of this so-called caring society is lip service. People like me are slipping through the net.
Stephen Morgan, by email


Amy Winehouse death reveals media blindspots

Amy Winehouse’s death prompted a number of stories in the media, all of which focused on her addictions, but not once have I seen a mention of the fact that she was diagnosed as having bipolar disorder, which often leads to over indulgence of alcohol and misuse of drugs.

Winehouse allegedly refused treatment, fearing it would dull her creativity, a form of denial that friends and relatives of anyone with this condition will recognise.

It seems a wasted opportunity to highlight the dangers and difficulties inherent in a common condition, and I can’t help but wonder how much of this stems from the wish to avoid the sense of shame that people feel when admitting that their nearest and dearest are mentally ill.

There are parallels with the media’s portrayal of physical disability. In essence, the current crop of stories demonising Incapacity Benefit claimants is accusing a vast swathe of individuals of being deceitful, thereby managing to sidestep the more serious issue that many people actually do have to live with life limiting conditions.

Amy Winehouse has been treated sympathetically by the press but the real cause of her death (mental illness) has been largely ignored.

The media really do seem to have difficulty portraying disability accurately whether those disabilities are mental or physical.
Paul Lamarque, Birmingham