Your Letters - May 2009

Facing prejudice and discrimination

The article in your latest issue (Guest column, Disability Now, April 2009) written by Chris Burke made me angry and reminded me of the prejudice, ignorance, hostility, fear perhaps, even hate against anyone who does not fit into the so-called norm. That a man who is educated, polite and only wants a job and not to be pointed and jeered at, should encounter such obstacles is unacceptable. Your various campaigns are certainly needed.
Nora Reid (Mrs), by email

I was very shocked to read of the abuse and discrimination experienced by Chris Burke. With his good computer skills I would have expected him to be snapped up by voluntary groups. I assume there is no active disabled people’s group in his area that would provide support and solidarity in achieving his rights. I wonder if it would be possible for him to begin forming a cross-impairment campaign group. I imagine other local disabled people are also being subjected to hostility and would welcome such a group. It's disgraceful that his talents are not being used. I suppose he has offered to tutor others in computer skills. He writes very well and I wonder if there is a local writers/arts group that might not be so uncivilised as others in his town are. I wish I could suggest a sure-fire way out of his situation. Frankly, I wonder if he should move but perhaps
that is not practical.
Elsa Becket, London E7

Motability boom hits punter choice

Helen Smith’s assertion (Roadtest, Disability Now, April 2009) about the relatively buoyant financial position of Motability is based on the fact that the organisation has achieved good growth in recent years, exceeding its target of 500,000 vehicles on live contract.

What isn’t made clear is that the means by which this was achieved – providing adapted vehicles at no cost to the user and encouraging conversion companies to compete aggressively on price – is now having an impact on the market, and is in turn affecting those people who rely on a car to get around independently.

Whereas in December you could have chosen from over 20 different wheelchair-accessible vehicles at no advance payment, there is now not one. Deposits are rising across the board, as Motability tries to re-coup some of the losses arising as a result of its previous ambitious growth strategy.

For example, a Renault Scenic, which used to need a deposit of about £1,000, now apparently requires a down-payment of more than £3,000. For a VW Touran, one of our site visitors was recently quoted an advance payment of £6,000.

Nobody in the industry expects deposits to go anywhere other than up, so disabled motorists can only look forward to Motability vehicles getting ever more expensive, while it tries to dispose of, and realise some value from, large numbers of adapted vehicles that are coming back as their leases end, at a rate of 500 a day.

Ironically, the “no upfront payment” boom effectively wiped out the secondhand market (why would anyone pay for a used car, when they could have a new one for nothing?), yet this is the very arena that Motability must now depend on to mop up all those surplus vehicles.

It is widely assumed that Motability must be the best, if not the only, place to go for an adapted vehicle. These days, a disabled driver may well be better advised to strike an individual deal with a car trader (particularly if they have a trade-in to offer), and benefit from VAT exemption on the price. And clearly, with the glut of fairly new, lease-end cars waiting to be sold, haunting the auction rooms may be the answer to finding a bargain.
Frances Leckie, Editor, Independent Living

Cheeky parkers

So David Girling (Your Views, Disability Now, April 2009) thinks it’s alright to use a disabled parking bay due to his self-assessment, despite being a non-badge-holder. Although I sympathise with Mr Girling’s problems, where do we draw the line with this self-assessment? To admit to the misuse of parking bays is bad
’m sorry but the rules are rules, and so: no badge no space.
Michael D Higham, Notts

Saying ‘the disabled’ isn’t acceptable

I’m one of those awkward people who hate to be referred to as one of “the disabled”. It’s a small thing but I’ve always considered myself a person first and disabled last! Unfortunately, I’m noticing more and more that disabled people them­selves are using this term. You’ve always managed to correct this when it happens but this is slipping now. (See pages 20 and 38 of your April issue.)

Otherwise, thank you for your magazine. It’s always informative and a good read. The only slight problem is that with rheumatoid arthritis, I need two hands to read it, which I won’t have after my shoulder operation at the end of the month. Any chance of using staples to bind it, rather than the current method?
Bonnie Salmon, Penzance, Cornwall

Editor’s note:
It is absolutely our policy not to use this expression in relation to our community. In the two instances you quote, one was terminology used by the former government of Czechoslovakia, the other was the phrase used in a letter to our panel of experts.

Cerrie fills a gap

Cerrie Burnell must stay on CBeebies (Mediawatch, Disability Now, April 2009). To date we’ve had reassuring news about her post but as a disabled person I can’t agree with those who say we should ignore what happened and that it was making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s important that we do react to the reality of such appalling prejudice. There was and still is serious anger in the large disabled community in this country and it would be remiss not to make a valid point about what we continually fight for: the destruction of popular ignorance and the missing image of disability in TV and film. Children aren’t stupid: they get taught to fear disability, so the campaign against Cerrie says more about parental attitudes and real discrimination. One of the crucial ways disabled people are changing the world is by being seen in public roles and being ourselves.
Stephen Brookes, Blackpool