• 1 Replies


  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328


  • on: 24 May 2018 01:18PM

Another report by Frances Ryan for the Guardian.
Bless 'em all, bless 'em all,
The long and the short and the tall.

Sunny Clouds

  • *
  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4746

Re: Assessment

  • on: 24 May 2018 03:48PM
I agree with the views expressed in the article, by the woman that's the main focus of the article and by multiple comentators that at some level this is deliberate.

It may be that they did not intend the centres to be inaccessible, that they just didn't get their act together to include that in their plans or whatever, but not fixing a longstanding problem like that must be deliberate.

I take the same line as I do with IDS's UC project.  I believe he thought it would be his great legacy.  I neither know nor care whether he actually cared about the people he said it would help.  I believe that he thought that his great project would help.  Where I consider him either evil or close to it is in not doing his homework and not making sure it worked.  There I differ from those that thought that he wanted it to go wrong.  Quite frankly, if he'd really wanted it to go wrong, I think he'd have set about it differently and taken more care over how it was set up to make sure it did so but not so patently.

And so it is with these issues like access to centres.  It's not the starting point of how the problem arose I judge the government and leading politicians on, it's what's done about it.

It's like when Cameron was faced on television just before an election with the case of a diabetic who died after his benefits were cut off.  Cameron said he could have got hardship payments, which his government had changed the rules on so that the man wouldn't have been able to get them soon enough to prevent his death.  It matters not one jot to me whether he knew what he said was untruthful, because either he lied, or he delegated to others without bothering to pay attention, secondary legislation that could cost lives.  There's another aspect that was what I judged him for most - that he brushed it off instead of saying he'd look into it.  That says a great deal.  He could have got kudos by investigating.  That he didn't take that line tells me that he either didn't care that his government's changes were causing people to die, or that he engineered it, and to me it makes no difference.

And so with this.  Why there was no access isn't to me what matters.  It's the fact that the problem wasn't rapidly fixed.  That to me is deliberate.  Windrush-targets.  And where's the Windrush-style outcry from the public?  Nowhere.  I don't resent the response that Windrush people are now getting, I support it.  I just feel distressed that disabled people aren't getting the same.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)