Your Letters – November 2011

UKDPC: our line on Low

Regarding your editorial (“Ideology: who really matters”, Disability Now, September 2011), I am writing to say that UKDPC (United Kingdom Disabled People’s Council) has not condemned the Low Review nor have we ceased in our complete rejection of the proposed cuts to the Disability Living Allowance mobility entitlement of disabled people living in residential care. If we maintain an unwillingness to participate actively, it is purely that it is valid for our Chief Executive to raise points of difficulty and contradiction that could obstruct our participation and may impede the progress of the Review itself. At all times he was merely stating UKDPC’s operational policies and procedures and said clearly that we are disappointed at the lack of Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) taking a lead part in the inquiry. This is completely in accord with our aims and continued work to support Independent Living within a rights-based framework.

We have not created a “rift” between ourselves and the larger charities providing services for disabled people; that has come from other sources. What we have done is to restate our conviction that  any dialogue about the broader concerns and the details of our daily living needs to be directed and led by those who are living the experience.

We will not be distracted by media bullying from our own continued support of member disabled people’s organisations and their struggle in these difficult times to ensure that their voices are at the heart of any discussions, consultations and campaigns about us. This has not wavered since the early calls of “nothing about us without us” that featured so heavily at the heart of earlier campaigns within our movement.

Over the last few years, we have, like other DPOs and larger charities, tried to find a common ground of agreement. We will continue to campaign and participate at every level to attain that end, moving alongside colleagues and friends from time to time, as we believe that we can make an impact together.
Julie Newman, Acting Chair UKDPC, by email

Court of protection does the right thing

I am the last person in the world to want to defend the dictatorial, secretive “Court of Protection” (“Big threat to dignity in living,” p14, Disability Now, October 2011), but for once a brave judge has made it worthy of its name. 

On 28 September Mr Justice Baker refused, for excellent reasons, to sentence Patient “M” to death from thirst and hunger, as he was expected to do.

If this judge had acted according to official policy, “M” , who is “minimally conscious”, would have been the first of thousands of patients with the same diagnosis to be caused to die in order to save money.

If this seems too scary to be true, read the judgment, which can be seen on the Internet, and take notice especially of paragraphs 200, 205 and 206.
Elspeth Chowdharay-Best, Hon. Secretary. ALERT, by email

Disability invisible in Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland the One School of Thought campaign recently presented an open letter to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive calling for educational reform so that children of all faiths and none, and regardless of ethnicity, cultural and social back­grounds, learn and be taught together in their local schools.

This campaign was featured widely in the media and was backed by high-profile celebrities, writers and politicians.

Laudable though this is, however, it is incredible that this campaign ignores the issue of disability.

Disabled children are the most socially excluded of all groups here in Northern Ireland and those who are involved in formulating policy, working or campaigning with regard to disability, some of whom are signat­ories to the One School of Thought campaign letter  are well aware of this fact, yet disability does not feature in this campaign at all. Do policy writers not read their own words?

The prejudice, ignorance and mystique surrounding disability is pervasive in Northern Ireland, where ingrained attitudes are passed on from one generation to another. Special schools are regarded as “national treasures” and children with disabilities are perceived simply as objects of charity and inspiration donors.

Those running this campaign are asking for all stakeholders to get involved but have failed to recognize that disabled children (and their parents), whether in special or mainstream schools, are stakeholders too. There is simply no excuse for not involving disability in this campaign. There is nothing to fear about disability. Let’s get it on to the agenda. If we go on ignoring disability we are all complicit in contributing to segregation – the very reason why this campaign started in the first place.
Bernie Drayne, by email

Brown pips Blunkett in disability charts

I enjoyed reading Ruth Patrick’s article on disabled MPs (“No benefit from wel­fare reform”, p12, Disability Now, October 2011). She describes David Blunkett as “perhaps the most famous disabled politician of recent years”. Has she forgotten Gordon Brown? He is partially sighted and surely much more famous than David Blunkett!
Sarah Ismail, by email

Another case of the Blue Badge blues

After reading Tony Wyer’s letter on hospital parking abuse (p28, Disability Now, September 2011), I ran into the same problem while visiting my local hospital.

Although there is a large number of disabled parking spaces, they always seem to be fully occupied by people who appear to be able walkers.

I pointed this out to the parking staff and suggested that a number of spaces be allocated for wheelchair-users only, with a stiff fine for abuse, but was told I had arrived at a busy time of the day.

The attitude in general from parking wardens is “if you’ve got a badge, that’s OK with me,” unlike the more comprehensive checks made when an area is targeted by the police.

I also stand by my recent letter stating that disabled people should pay parking charges, as the primary reason for the badge is ease of access to and from a vehicle and convenient distance to the place visited, not financial gain.
Mick Higham, Woodhouse, Notts.

Tony Wyer implies that I had written in my previous article there was “no evidence” that family and friends were abusing the Blue Badge scheme to any great extent. I was in fact referring to the Motability scheme in this statement, not the Blue Badge scheme.

I thought my statement “I am very much in favour of Blue Badge fraud investigators as this is a scheme where fraud is rife” would have made this clear. 

Funnily enough the article was about confusion between the two schemes! 

I know there is terrible abuse of the Blue Badge scheme and anyone who reads my column regularly is probably sick of me going on about it. 

I’m sure that if Tony re-reads my article he will see that I didn’t write what he thinks and that I am fully aware of the abuse the scheme is suffering from.
Helen Dolphin, Director of Policy and Campaigns, Disabled Motoring UK