Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982448)

I have. And I grew a pair instead of bleating “you’re only doing/saying that because I’m disabled”.

---------- Post added at 17:53 ---------- Previous post was at 17:51 ----------



:clap:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982454)

Good for you, meanwhile others have ended up committing suicide, started self harming, developed mental health problems etc.

Everything isn't all about you Russ.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982447)

Those that do this sort of thing will often deliberately look for people that they consider as weak, be it due to age, disability, mental llness/disability etc.

It isn't appropriate to start making this topic personal, however, your allegations are refuted. I have never asked to be treated as a "special kind of person" by any individual or organisation, merely that the law that a persons disability must be taken into consideration and that 'reasonable adjustments' should be made when appropriate.

If the law is not complied with and informal efforts to resolve matters prove to be fruitless (this is both sensible and a requirement of the courts), then legal action becomes the only option open to remedy matters.

In the vast majority if cases, it's down to thoughtlessness as opposed to malice. When people realise that they have upset somebody, they are horrified and amend their behaviour.

The rest (an even further minority) are subject to legal action in the hope that it will lead to an adjustment to their attitude. The cases where I have taken matters to court have either been settled (sometimes just before the hearing) or I have won. A proportion of the money received has been given to charity, for example, £3,500 was made available to CF members and an amount offered to help with the running costs of the site itself. The money isn't important to me as i'm lucky enough to be financially comfortable, it's changing attitudes towards the disabled that is the primary motivator.

If someone chooses to disclose their disability, often for practical reasons, and this is used like a red flag to a bull to certain individuals, then this new legislation will be a perfect solution.

Suggesting that those who defend themselves against abuse and innapropriate comments are "in their element" when they do so is a pretty dumb thing to say. Nobody would deliberately choose discord over harmony.

I accept that you may not want to use this new legislation if you start to suffer from harrassment, abuse etc (I suspect you haven't); you won't be compelled to use it if that is your decision.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982457)

It would be far easier to remove someone like you from a site than to pander around you in fear of offending you in some way.

And likewise in the real world, all you are doing is isolating yourself, making a rod for your own back. I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with someone like you in real life as you're too much of a liability. You're not doing yourself any favours even when you think you're doing the right thing.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982455)

Pot, meet kettle.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982465)

A pub landlord barred a disabled and facially disfigured customer because he was fed up of him complaining about the remarks of other customers; legal action ensued.

You again have nothing to offer the thread but personal and negative rudeness, so i'm bringing our discussion to a close.[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35982460)

I asked this a while back on this thread and it was just ignored. What happens when someone accuses you of something you've not actually done and then when asked for evidence were it was stated it was available would not be sent. How would one protect themselves against that? It's not just the vulnerable that need protecting. Anyone can suffer at the hands of others.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982468)

Sounds like you’re admitting self interest to be at least part of your motivation. “Interesting”.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982469)

Sorry I'm not being rude to you at all. But if you can't handle a discussion then feel free to walk away from it.

As for the pub user. Yeah I have some empathy for the person. But such is life. Did you think the landlord should have barred all his regulars instead? Or take the easy route and take the cause of the problem out of the equation. What is right or wrong and who's to say what is right or wrong.

It's people like you that do give people that need help a bad name. You don't quite grasp reality because you're wound up in your crusade.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982470)

It is myself and many others who have ensured that, going forward, people will have formal redress should they experience issues on the internet. It's going to happen whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982436)

I'm with Russ on this too.

I think it's a sad state of affairs. Then you get sites even like this one where you can't really say what you want. Can't mention Trump, can't mention guns. When you stand back and look at how sad things are it is quite worrying just how further it's going to go. What a bunch of snowflakes. Pathetic.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982473)

You're making things go backwards for everyone else. But you don't see that do you.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35982475)

What are you talking about?

Trump can be mentioned, as can guns be given we do have several threads on them, however posts which suggest actual living people should be shot, are definitely and quite rightly not permitted as the last time I looked, it was a crime shooting and killing people, you cannot have posts which allow people to suggest certain people should be shot, you have got a little mixed up with what is not allowed on here I think.

On Trump, we are a UK based forum, I am not having a forum thread dedicated to him through his entire tenure of President of the United States - we did not have one for Obama, and Bush, we are not having one on Trump. Anyone is free to bring up Trump in a topic, we're just not having an entire forum thread on him forever and this decision is final.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982474)

So could it be that your disability clouds your judgment and means you (incorrectly) assume that any criticism aimed at you is purely because you have said disability?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982482)

It's certainly possible, which is why I always get a third party to check what has been written before taking any action. Criticism can certainly be disability discrimination if no account is taken of the persons disability when they express themselves.

Since learning that you have autism, I view you and what you say differently, in the same way that I would have more compassion and understanding for someone with dementia who constantly repeated themselves ad infinitum (as opposed to doing it on purpose).

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982484)

Oh dear.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982481)

It's okay Mick. Everyone is aware your decision is final. We all pander around you and your ways. Please don't take that the wrong way. Just an honest reply.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982482)

It's certainly possible, which is why I always get a third party to check what has been written before taking any action. Criticism can certainly be disability discrimination if no account is taken of the persons disability when they express themselves.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982482)

Since learning that you have autism, I view you and what you say differently, in the same way that I would have more compassion and understanding for someone with dementia who constantly repeated themselves ad infinitum (as opposed to doing it on purpose).

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982477)

Nope, because you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35982486)

No it is not okay - You have not answered my question - why are you suggesting something is not allowed on here when it is and if you're really pandering to me, (that's a new one on me, as I have never experienced such a thing ever on here) then I would like an answer???

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982487)

Yeah you might want to sack that person.

And the fact you see nothing wrong with what you’ve just posted is a fantastic example of why so many people find it difficult/impossible to take you seriously in this.

---------- Post added at 19:26 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------



#CircularReasoning

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982494)

I have every confidence in the people who help me and, to press, they have served me well.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982494)

An explanation of what you mean by your second paragraph would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982490)

If I treated you like anyone else or if anyone else did how long would they last here. Kind of apt for this discussion. And if it's new to you then that's a new one on me.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982470)

It was ignored because this matter was resolved last August; if you still have an issue with this, I suggest that you contact Mick.

I do agree that anyone can suffer at the hands of others (and there are remedies open to those that do), but, it is more likely and is more problematic for the vulnerable in society.

---------- Post added at 18:04 ---------- Previous post was at 18:03 ----------



Of course it is, I am severely disabled and have suffered from harrassment etc.

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------



Parliament is the place that decides what is right and wrong and legislates accordingly.

If a black man is subject to racist comments, should an establishment get rid of him if he complains?

It is myself and many others who have ensured that, going forward, people will have formal redress should they experience issues on the internet. It's going to happen whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982481)

It's okay Mick. Everyone is aware your decision is final. We all pander around you and your ways and no we can't say what we want. Please don't take that the wrong way. Just an honest reply.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982436)

Then you get sites even like this one where you can't really say what you want. Can't mention Trump, can't mention guns.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982499)

If you feel you need someone to “filter” your posts can you honestly say that makes you a good judge of whether they’re successful?

If you genuinely need an explanation then I’d say it’s pretty likely you’ll never understand. Some people (not myself) would be insulted and offended at what you posted. Perhaps they’d be able to use this new legislation against you for it?

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982500)

RichardCoulter - Hence my Oh dear. Yet you can't see it can you.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982507)

I don't use a third party to filter my posts. I deem them to be successful because of the cases where I have have taken matters further, I have been succeeded in getting things changed.

If you aren't prepared to explain what you're talking about and why a particular post could be construed as insulting/offensive then I am unable to help you with this any further.

The legislation will be open to you as well as everyone else, but you will obviously be expected to state exactly what the issue is

---------- Post added at 19:01 ---------- Previous post was at 19:00 ----------



See what? Are you able to explain exactly what "it" is?

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982481)

It's okay Mick. Everyone is aware your decision is final.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982507)

I don't use a third party to filter my posts. I deem them to be successful because of the cases where I have have taken matters further, I have been succeeded in getting things changed.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982507)

If you aren't prepared to explain what you're talking about and why a particular post could be construed as insulting/offensive then I am unable to help you with this any further.

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35982510)

Really ?
To quote a recently well used phrase here "that's a new one on me" :sleep:

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35982503)

Actually I didn't take it as resolved. You personally accused me of something I didn't do and threatened legal action because I was asking you for evidence which you wouldn't provide (it didn't exist). I decided to leave the matter to the mods to deal with because I couldn't be bothered with the routine as I had other important matters to deal with. The point being, it's just not vulnerable people that need protecting and the case above which was my example proves this. I personally did nothing wrong and was threatened with legal action.

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:55 ----------



:tu:

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35982510)

Really ?
To quote a recently well used phrase here "that's a new one on me" :sleep:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982514)

Details of said comment have been kept on file...

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982509)

Okay, because you have an disability which makes you incapable of understanding certain things. I'll treat you really special like no other because you deserve it. - Does that sound offending to you or even slightly condescending in any way? What if the person wants to be treated like anyone else. Those that aren't defined by their disabilities and want to be well, just 'normal'. What you said was in fact bang out of order.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35982515)

It's really got me confuddled.com all this talk of pandering me*, you*, us*, (*delete as appropriate) in fact, we're so pandered so much, we didn't feel the need to introduce the timeouts recently for persistent infighting members.... ;)

Oh wait... :cool:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982511)

Yeah if that is indeed true I think you’ll find it’s likely you got your own way for other reasons.

Please don’t allow there to be any confusion in this so pay particular attention: it will be a cold day in Hell before I’d want, need or seek any help from you :tu:

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982518)

Just you Mick. Everyone else is cool.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982517)

People have a moral and certain legal duties to make adjustments when dealing with disabled people and their vastly varying conditions

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35982520)

Aww dang, we're really doing this playground stuff - I miss being coolest kid on the block. Not. :rolleyes:

And just checking - nope, my question has still not been answered, pandered not so much then. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982519)

I see that you are resorting to rudeness and (deliberately or otherwise) failing to convey what you actually mean, so I am now bringing our conversation to a close.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982512)

Well it's not like you say much here

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982512)

or overrule certain people is it. Only when required. Such as now.

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35982524)

So .... I have 22,267 posts, you have 4,128, so apparently I say about five times a much as you :dozey:


I only overrule when required ?? Wow, who would have guessed.

So wait ... you expect me to overrule when not required. :confused:

You are basically just talking complete nonsense.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982525)

Feel free to move on then.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982514)

If you didn't take it as resolved you should have raised it with Mick at the time instead of waiting for six months to do so.

You weren't threatened with legal action for your discriminatory comment, you were told to stop harrassing me by PM and refused.

Details of said comment have been kept on file...

I have already accepted and agreed that those in non protected groups have remedies open to them. In fact, this may be the only way for this to be resolved

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35982524)

So .... I have 22,267 posts, you have 4,128, so apparently I say about five times a much as you :dozey:


I only overrule when required ?? Wow, who would have guessed.

So wait ... you expect me to overrule when not required. :confused:

You are basically just talking complete nonsense.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35982527)

I let Mick make the decision, not that I thought it was resolved. The matter will never be resolved until you show me the evidence or apologise. I stated to you that I was willing to apologise to you if you could provide the evidence of what I said but you wouldn't. I've already stated why I let it go, I had more important things to worry about, these posts are an example of why I stated it's not just vulnerable people that need protecting. I'm glad you agree.

I know what I was threatened with legal action for which is why I said "and threatened legal action because I was asking you for evidence which you wouldn't provide". I wasn't harassing you, I was asking for evidence of something which you accused me of. Which goes back on topic of how am I supposed to protect myself when people like you who are threatening legal action when I want to get to the bottom of the accusation.

Details of no comment are on file Richard because I never once made fun of your disability. This is what I'm trying to do here, protect myself. You weren't willing to provide the evidence to either me or Mick yet still accused me of making fun of your disability then threatened legal action. How am I supposed to protect myself from that? I'm not vulnerable. So I think it's showing a bit of hypocrisy knowing your stance on the matter.

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35982526)

As suspected, no actual answer, just duck out. Ok. :dunce:

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982531)

I don’t actually specialise in this area and is obviously way off-topic but I’ll just say this the once, always happy to give non-committal legal advice on certain matters :tu:

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982522)

What can I say. You won't like what I have to say and above all you won't accept anything I can say. So what's the point. Just live with the fact that we do.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35982534)

But you do not, or whoever this "we" is, as previously explained.

You're making up stuff by saying something is not allowed on here, that is simply not true or accurate.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35982535)

Technically it's true. You've stated in here we aren't allowed threads about Trump?

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982532)

Or just strength in numbers.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982532)

You butted in for no reason and now you're joining in.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982532)

13 years a member and yet you still wonder how things are the way the are.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35982532)

I'm happy to leave it as it was. It's a pointless exercise to get involved. It's how it is and that's that.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35982536)

Quite right - There is a massive difference.

Discussing Trump has not been banned which is what peanut was suggesting, Trump can be brought up that forms part of a discussion but we are not having an entire thread on him, we had one for 3 years and that was enough.

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35982537)

What numbers :confused:


Its a forum, you made an incorrect statement in a post - I replied. Thats how a forum works. :dozey:

Ive been a member 15.5 years.
You have been a member 13 years, so perhaps you mean yourself ?


I have work to do so sure.


Remember, If you are so unhappy here, you can always leave, no one is stopping you.

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35982538)

So something isn't allowed here then. I get the point he might be able to be mentioned in different topics, but I bet that topic would be soon moderatored for being off topic if it went on too long. Seems a silly rule to have that we aren't allowed a thread on him, yet your allowed to call people all names under the sun because you don't agree with them (not forum related, just people in general to do with the EU). I think that's partly were peanut is going with this and I agree with him if it is.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35982542)

No it's not a silly rule to have, none of our rules are silly.

If I gave the nod for a new Trump topic, within the week, it would be hundreds of posts of argumentative hate, "Trump's a moron, Trump's a orange buffoon, Trump's an idiot and so on...

Boring. The forum can do without that kind of crap and I rightfully closed the Trump thread because of the following:

My thread.

And.... the following clause in our sites terms of use:

We may, for content management purposes, close a thread. This would usually be because the discussion in the thread is not moving along, users are not covering new points, or that the discussion is going around in circles. We would also consider whether the discussion is interesting or motivates participation in the context of the forum subject matter.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35981404)

A regulator to oversee foreign sites hosted on foreign servers by foreign companies beyond UK jurisdiction?

One can really see that working. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35980389)

Whatever people's views on the way that Katie Price conducts her personal life, she has been doing some marvellous work behind the scenes to put in place measures to protect disabled people (and others) from online abuse:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46951232

MP's have concluded that self regulation does not work (my own submitted evidence showed how it's more likely to be the disabled person that is labelled as a trouble causer, too thin skinned etc). The result is that it's more likely to be the disabled person who is driven off the site (which is often their only means of social interaction), than the perpetrators of the harrassment, discrimination etc.

MP's are now supporting calls to make innapropriate online comments (often thinly veiled, but purposely crafted to be as dehumanising, derogatory and degrading as possible) to the disabled a hate crime and a criminal offence. It is noted that much of what is written online by these cowards wouldn't dare be said verbally or face to face; 'keyboard warrior syndrome if you like. I assume that they still think that the internet is totally anonymous and that they can hide behind a username.

If would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who signed this petition, you really are helping to make a difference to the people whose already difficult lives are blighted by these vile individuals; thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982641)

Earlier this evening on 'Do The Right Thing' (Channel 5), Esther Rantzen and a charity worker from 'Skills for People', said that over 80% of those with learning disabilities (things like ADHD, autism, dyslexia etc) had experienced bullying in all it's forms, mentally, physically, sexually, and financially.

This bullying has taken place online and offline at places like bus stops etc.

I was aware that those with these conditions faced this treatment, but am shocked that it's this high :shocked:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35982645)

Bullying in any form is unacceptable. Regardless of who it’s aimed at

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35982655)

Depends how you phrase the question.

For example if you ask "Have you ever been bullied in any way because of your condition?" you inevitably will get a very high figure.

Compared to "Have you been bullied because of your condition in the last week?"

Obviously bullying in any way is reprehensible.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35982645)

Bullying in any form is unacceptable. Regardless of who it’s aimed at

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982659)

True, but the effects are obviously worse for someone with a mental disability or illness. Those with learning disabilities stand out more because of how they look or conduct themselves and tend to attract bullies.

Mencap had a day out for adults with learning disabilities in Blackpool recently. Whilst outside Wilkinsons one member of the party was pushed to the ground. She suffered superficial cuts etc and had to be checked out by the hospital because she banged her head, but the mental and emotional scars will take much longer to heal.

Her carer tells me that she keeps mentioning it all the time and trying to work out what happened and won't go out on her own to take the dog out as she used to. Her little piece of independence has been taken away from her because some youths wanted a cheap laugh.

The police say that it has been logged as a hate crime, but there's little they can do because she is nearly blind and there were no CCTV cameras in the area.

If anyone wants to see the article that was on last night, it's here and, IIRC, it's about halfway through:

https://www.my5.tv/do-the-right-thin...on-2/episode-5

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35982661)

Sorry but I disagree with the it’s obviously worse comment. There are many people who suffer from both mental or physical disabilities who are a lot tougher than so called able bodied people.

Stop stigmatising that the bullying of people who suffer from disabilities is somehow worse, it’s not. As before it’s abhorrent in all its forms

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35982660)

Well I'd like to know if anyone of the public intervene? That's when I step in..If I come across it. Doesn't happen in this seaside village because we welcome everyone to come and spend their money and there are a fair few people of all ages living here who are disabled in some way. We also welcome those with mental disabilities as well as those with assistance dogs.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982662)

It is worse for the reasons outlined and the law recognises this; downplaying it helps nobody. If you watched the programme you will have seen that Mencap are calling for the extension of Hate Crime legislation to deal with internet abuse.

I do recommend that you take a look and hear from those affected and the professionals that care for the disabled.[

---------- Post added at 09:29 ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 ----------



:tu: If more people were like the people in your village Maggy, many, many people would have a better quality of life.

Nobody intervened, but I don't know if passers by ignored the incident or if it's because there wasn't any other members of the public present at the time.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35982661)

Stop stigmatising that the bullying of people who suffer from disabilities is somehow worse, it’s not. As before it’s abhorrent in all its forms

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35982688)

And what about those that aren't disabled?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982700)

The programme segment that I recommended to the poster (to hear what it's like first hand from those with learning disabilities who have been attacked both on and offline) and referred to was specifically about disabled people.

I agree that it's unacceptable for anyone to be bullied, but my point is that the effects are likely to be worse for someone who has difficulty understanding the world at the best of times.

If two people were mugged/attacked, one disabled and the other not, it must be far more upsetting & frightening to someone who is nearly blind with a cognitive issue as opposed to someone who can see and process the situation.

About a year ago a friend, who is almost blind, got mugged for his mobile phone. He begged them for his SIM card for his contacts and they gave it back to him.

He promptly went to the police station and the police were able to locate them because their fingerprints were on it :D

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982700)

The programme segment that I recommended to the poster (to hear what it's like first hand from those with learning disabilities who have been attacked both on and offline) and referred to was specifically about disabled people.

I agree that it's unacceptable for anyone to be bullied, but my point is that the effects are likely to be worse for someone who has difficulty understanding the world at the best of times.

If two people were mugged/attacked, one disabled and the other not, it must be far more upsetting & frightening to someone who is nearly blind with a cognitive issue as opposed to someone who can see and process the situation.

About a year ago a friend, who is almost blind, got mugged for his mobile phone. He begged them for his SIM card for his contacts and they gave it back to him.

He promptly went to the police station and the police were able to locate them because their fingerprints were on it :D

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35982703)

What about elderly or children? There are some what you would consider normal adults who after a mugging or bullying are not the same person for a while if at all. I dislike this labelling of people as it just segregrates people even more.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982705)

What experiences do you have of someone with learning difficulties being attacked?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982662)

It is worse for the reasons outlined and the law recognises this; downplaying it helps nobody. If you watched the programme you will have seen that Mencap are calling for the extension of Hate Crime legislation to deal with internet abuse.

I do recommend that you take a look and hear from those affected and the professionals that care for the disabled.

---------- Post added at 09:29 ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 ----------



:tu: If more people were like the people in your village Maggy, many, many people would have a better quality of life.

Nobody intervened, but I don't know if passers by ignored the incident or if it's because there wasn't any other members of the public present at the time.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982720)

Examples have already been provided.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35982723)

How do you know that I don’t suffer from a disability?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35982723)

How do you know that I don’t suffer from a disability?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982728)

None then.

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------



Posts in this tread are seemingly powered by assumptions.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35982733)

Richard you don’t seem to appreciate or understand that the way you’re talking, it comes across as someone who thinks able bodied and those that suffer from disabilities should be treat differently. Something that the vast majority of people who suffer from disabilities simply don’t want

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982730)

Examples were provided today, I suggest you read them.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982737)

So you have no experience of being someone with learning disabilities getting attacked? Have I got that right?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35982733)

Richard you don’t seem to appreciate or understand that the way you’re talking, it comes across as someone who thinks able bodied and those that suffer from disabilities should be treat differently. Something that the vast majority of people who suffer from disabilities simply don’t want

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35982739)

Being disabled myself you are very correct in your assumption.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982738)

I do not propose to repeat myself again.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982740)

Are these personal opinions/assumptions or do you have verifiable evidence that the majority of disabled people don't want to receive help?

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35982742)

Disabled people from my own experiences and l know many of them want to be treated just the same as any able bodied person.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982740)

Have you never accepted help from someone in connection with your disability?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982741)

Why not now? Feels like you’ve been doing exactly that for the past 3 years on here.

I think the problem is people with certain conditions are sick to the back teeth of being told how we ought to feel, how our conditions affect us and what we ought to do about it.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35982744)

l have a carer plus l have family members and friends who help me but the great thing about them is they treat me the way l want to be treated and that is like any normal able bodied human.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982745)

In relation to your conditions, there will be certain common traits unique to every person with ADHD & autusm. However, every individual is different because different people have different severeties, handle & react to their conditions differently, have different reactions to medication and these can vary over time.

I don't, therefore, think it appropriate for you to be told how to feel or how these conditions affect you. These are severe, lifelong & incurable conditions, so it's probably useful to listen to what experts have to suggest, but it wouldn't be professional for a member of staff to tell you what to do about it*, but rather give you a variety of options that you may or may not wish to take up.

* Those in receipt of certain benefits may be required to carry out certain tasks or they could face negative sanctions.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------



If you have a carer, then you aren't being treated in the same way as an able bodied person by definition. This isn't always a bad thing, when I was a child I used to offer to do jobs to help elderly and dusabled neighbours, but I didn't do it for those able to do it themselves!

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982747)

“Severe”? RC you really do know nothing. It’s comments like that from your type who assumes to know everything (or even something) about a person’s condition that builds up resentment. Stick to looking after your own life rather than imposing your own ideas on others.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982750)

Ignorant, arrogant and delusional.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982750)

Ignorant, arrogant and delusional.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35982755)

That would be because I don’t buy in to your BS about being a self-appointed “expert” on matters about disabilities.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982720)

The elderly and children are also classed as vulnerable.

---------- Post added at 14:43 ---------- Previous post was at 14:42 ----------



Examples have already been provided.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35982749)

Yes, severe because of the significant difficulties posed by the development disorder. You seem to be in denial about your disabilities, this is the case with some people who feel embarrassed or inferior because they have a disability (hardly surprising given the way that some members of society treat us), but I do urge you to speak to someone about this.

This forum has a wealth of information and support resources, which I hope is helpful :)

https://wrongplanet.net/forums/