Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Bern - I am surprised at you for not realising just how hysterical, out of proportion and silly it is to introduce eugenics and Hitler to a discussion about ways of helping disabled people into work. The suggested solution might not be to your taste but it deserves a sensible consideration. Having read what Peter posted I am sure you feel how wrong you knee jerk reaction was.
It isn't a matter of taste, BarryW. I am distressed to find that, after all this time, after all the "lessons learned" over the centuries about the outcome of discrimination and the assumptions made about people based on spurious "facts" and prejudices, we are still talking about groups of individual people as homogenised blobs, some of whom require less equality than others. I do not think my response was knee jerk - it was an appalled response to unforgivable prejudice and complacency.
Peters post was a welcome addition, but the guy making the statement revealed his true colours on R4 when he continues to spout about "them" and make assertions he had no right to make. He simply confirmed his unacceptable position.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
he has certainly got the publicity he craves, at least his constituents will know he has been busy.
when asked about the reaction he was getting he blamed "left wing hysteria", always a cheap get out.
Exactly.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Another problem of course is that the benefits system actively discourages genuinely disabled people from seeking work because they will lose certain benefits if they do. I would suggest that only half those benefits ought to be withdrawn with the other half being used to subsidise the employer, for a certain period, at least until their employment rights have vested.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
This is a seperate issue - the benefits system is deeply flawed although rooted in good intentions. But I enjoy your sensible approach.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#24 spot on Howard
Audere est facere.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
that man needs to be taken down to parliment square and publicly flogged to an inch [2 centimetrs] of his life.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought it was more like "2.4 centimetres" brian, i will acknowledge though that you are more clued up than me on matters european.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
For those that might have misunderstood my earlier post, it is a shame that hysterical reaction has taken over from sane reasoning.
The mentally handicapped are slower to do things, a fact which can not be ignored, that does not mean they should be paid less than anyone else.
The incentive I spoke of is to encourage more employers to employ all kinds of disabled people. A ramp or lift might be needed, disabled toilet to be provided these are the kind of thing that an employer needs help to cover the cost.
Finally I am disabled myself with a paralysed arm from polio I had as a child and now have leg problems, so I know what life as a disabled person can be like. Most of us do not want to be treated differently but possibly with a little more patience as we may be slower doing things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Davies' speech was all about people with learning disabilities, in other words mental health issues, not physical issues. Stephen Hawking is therefore irrelevant as his disabilities are entirely physical; indeed he has one of the keenest minds of our time.
Also his speech was all about helping disadvantaged people get a foot on the employment ladder, not exterminating them. Comments about Hitler are therefore also irrelevant and deeply offensive to those trying to carry on a reasoned debate on the subject.
Read the speech not the edited soundbites.
Rant over.
PG.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
He doesn't have to talk about extermination to be trivialising. He meant well, I am sure, but the dominant attitude of prejudice and assumption is a one way street. I don't imply for a moment that this guy was saying disabled people are worthless or need to be killed. That WOULD be hysterical. But I am sure you are bright enough to get the connection between trivialisation, assumption, and reduced perceived worth. The words we use matter as they direct the attention in a particular way. We should have learned by now that without vigilance attitudes and social boundaries slip. What's that saying? It only take sone good man to do nothing for evil to triumph...? If we are complacent and collude with unhelpful attitudes we allow things to slide.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
The Tory party are already distancing themselves from his comments so it's not likely to ever be taken seriously or become policy so it;s not worth wasting any more time discussing.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
BUT - that may be the case with this little twerp, Davies, but it is worth reminding ourselves that it doesn't take much to marginalise and reduce groups of people, and that that is a bad thing.
But I appreciate your lovely peace-building, Marek!!!
BTW - isn't "twerp" a grand word?! I have just re-discovered it. Love it!
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Bern
Twerp love it he had a famous brother Wyatt.
I'm bedridden, a bit under the weather so really in the great scheme of things...plus I've got a Frank Sinatra movie to watch..
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I like the word twerp Bern. I also love the word balderdash, a word that sums up the knee jerk reaction from the left over this issue.
Brian's comments that people who say something that is unacceptable to his should be flogged in parliament square seems to be typical of the intolerance of the left.
What this does of course, alongside the way the left try to cry racism to stifle debate on legitimate issues is to demonstrate just how insecure they are in their views and how opposed they are to free speech. All I hear from so many of you is that only approved views can be expressed.
We need more MPs like Davies who are willing to say what to some is the unspeakable.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
To para-phrase Barry, balderdash, a word that sums up the knee jerk reaction from the right over some issues.
We do not need more MPs like Davies who open their mouths without thinking through the ramifications of what they are saying, a bit like this forum at times.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok - one last time: Davies was not saying anything clever, innovative or helpful. He may have meant to do so, but he failed. What he did do was feed into prejudices and collude with those who would like to reverse the gains made in recent years in promoting the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable - and they are not one and the same! It matters very much that we are free to debate race, disability, whatever, and free speech is dear to us all - a bit like the NHS, really. That means it is precious and worth protecting but is not set in stone! Free speech does not mean the freedom to say any old thing, it means the freedom to debate responsibly and to disagree and hold controversial views. It does not mean causing offence or trivialising others, it does mean expressing sometimes challenging ideas freely. Davies fails all the tests.