Friday, December 21, 2007
Disabled Persons Independent Living Bill - important for Deaf?
Disabled Person Living Independent Bill - please click
House of Lords
Friday, 14 December 2007.
The House met at ten o'clock: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill [HL]
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time, in both senses—in the parliamentary sense of a Second Reading and in the sense that this is the second time that the Bill has been before the House. As noble Lords will know, it is the same Bill that was passed by this House last April. It was subsequently introduced in the House of Commons by Roger Berry but ran out of time there. The Bill is a high priority for those of us concerned with disability. I declare an interest as a disabled person, so there is a certain self-interest in this Bill being passed by both Houses.
Those of us who are interested in disability issues intend to make them a high priority in this country. Without that we will get nowhere, but with public support we can make progress. We are determined that this Bill should become law. It may not happen now, but it will definitely happen. A Government who support the Bill will find themselves in good favour in the country. They have been warned that if they reject this Bill or do not bother with it, somebody else may take up the cudgels.
I thank Caroline Ellis of the Disability Rights Commission for her magnificent help, work and support on this important Bill. I warmly appreciate it, as do millions of disabled people around the country. The Bill includes many things and all claims for it can be verified. It is a rescue operation for the victims of the worsening crisis in social care. It is a blueprint for the future, compensating for the many short-sighted policies and practices. It is a Bill that seeks to end the misery inflicted on disabled people and their families by an antediluvian system of care that is restrictive and inflexible.
The need for reform grows more urgent every day. It is staggering that three-quarters of councils are now refusing to support people with moderate needs and at least four councils provide support only if the person would otherwise die. You have to be dying to get any kind of help from councils and, of course, if you die it is no help anyway. Three-quarters is an outrageous figure. Unless you are dying, you need not bother applying. Those are the facts in Great Britain. Without support, people are left to deteriorate, carers cannot work and families are put under strain.
Pilots, reviews and warm words from Ministers are not what people want or hope for. They want a new law that gives them clear entitlements and guarantees them a chance to live an ordinary life contributing to their community. They hope that the Government will seize the opportunity offered by the Bill to bring
14 Dec 2007 : Column 424
about a real and lasting change. The House will listen with great care to the Minister who winds up. We are hoping for something that is positive, constructive and definite. Disabled people hope that the Government will seize the opportunity offered by the Bill to bring about a real and lasting change. If they do not, they must take the consequences, as we intend to make social care a high priority.
I remind the House of the main points of the Bill. First, it provides a set of guiding principles for the delivery of public service support to disabled people. It would prevent the everyday abuses of dignity and autonomy that we see today. Nowhere in the existing pattern of community care provisions will we find any reference to choice, control, dignity or equality. Disabled people are as much entitled to those as anybody else, but social services departments routinely make decisions that contradict those fundamental values.
The Bill would get rid of fragmented services and bewildering bureaucracy. It would place local authorities, National Health Service bodies and other key partners under a clear obligation to promote independent living. This goes hand in hand with greater strategic duties to co-operate and pool funds. Under this scheme, disabled people would be relieved of the nightmare of negotiating with a bunch of different agencies to try to get their needs met.
The Bill empowers disabled people to assess their own support needs, supported by an advocate if they need one. This gives every disabled person the right to be told up front what resources they are entitled to and to plan their own support package. It gives people a real choice between managing their budget with practical assistance, placing it with a trusted person or organisation to manage on their behalf or taking statutory services in lieu of cash. These are important changes.
Some councils only feed and clean, nothing else. In place of the insulting feed-and-clean-only approach, the Bill provides for holistic entitlements to support that extend beyond personal care. Disabled people would have clear rights to support for mental health and communication needs and for rehabilitation, as well as rights to support in bringing up children. These are things that the Government have pledged to deliver for disabled people by signing the United Nations disability convention. We thank the Government for that, but the catch is that they have yet to enshrine that in law. There is no point in saying how clever we are in singing the declaration if it is not legally binding, so the Government may be wasting their time if they do not pursue this further and make it mandatory. We want the law. I ask my noble friend the Minister, who I see is listening carefully, when disabled people can expect the Government to enshrine these provisions in law. It is a positive, constructive step, which I fully expect the Government to take without hesitation.
This new framework provides for national minimum guaranteed entitlements so that postcode lotteries are eradicated. To make freedom of movement a reality for disabled people, the Bill provides for portable support packages. With these, disabled people can move from one local authority to another for jobs or family reasons without the uncertainty of having to
14 Dec 2007 : Column 425
undergo reassessment and renegotiate a support care package from scratch. That happens. People who want to move for any reason find themselves having to negotiate each provision with different local authorities. Imagine all those bureaucrats lining up to tell you what you can and cannot have. It is a nightmare. The Bill would definitely eradicate that. I hope that the Government accept that without any discussion at all.
The Bill also fills the glaring absence in law of effective protection against unnecessary institutionalisation. This is an important point. It would be unlawful to institutionalise—a hell of a word, but you know what I mean—a person against their wishes or on grounds of financial expediency. For those in private and voluntary sector care homes, the Bill provides the full protection of the Human Rights Act.
A decent home is at the heart of independent living. The Bill places a duty on local authorities to establish disability housing registers to ensure that they make more efficient use of existing adapted or accessible stock and provide disabled people with real choice. All new homes would be built to lifetime home standards and an appropriate proportion of new homes would also have to be built to full wheelchair accessibility standards. Although we have not decided on a proportion yet, we will eventually decide on an effective and reasonable figure. That is important.
The benefits of the Bill extend not just to disabled people but to carers and whole families. The Bill would end the scandal of children as young as five carrying out adult support roles for their parents because the parents are so badly handicapped. That is a fact of life. Adopting this policy would free hundreds of thousands of carers to rejoin the labour market and enable women carers to find a way out of poverty and build up a decent pension.
I assure Ministers and their advisers that I am well aware of their objections to the Bill. I do not seek to brush those objections aside, although I do not agree with them. After all, we are all on the same side in wanting a fair deal for disabled people without massive expenditure. However, that does not mean no expenditure. Nothing in this Bill can be accomplished overnight or implemented all at once. I recognise that and the difficulties facing the Government, but we must begin to make positive advances now. We can and must begin a dialogue on the contents, timing and phasing in of the Bill. If the Government seek to get away with a blanket refusal, they are heading for serious trouble, but if they begin discussions, we will be on our way, seeking sensible solutions to long-standing problems that are damaging disabled people and causing increasing difficulties for the Government. Those difficulties will increase enormously if the Government give negative answers to these requests.
The Government have reservations about legislating for independent living. They say that they are not convinced of the need for new law. That is a ridiculous statement. They are surely aware of the leading community care law experts who say that the law is a dreadful mess. Even senior judges, the most cautious men in the world, express dismay at the law’s
14 Dec 2007 : Column 426
complexity and obscurity. All the major stakeholders in this debate, including the Local Government Association, believe that the time has come for root-and-branch reform. That is precisely what is required, not a bit of tinkering here and there, which the Government have been advocating for some time in the hope that they will not have to reform the law after this debate.
Ministers have also expressed concern about timing. There is more than adequate evidence of the benefits and feasibility of key provisions for us to move ahead confidently. These, such as self-directed support, are just waiting to be implemented. Indeed, the message coming from all parts of the Department of Health—I know that my noble friend the Minister is not from that department—to local authorities appears to be, “Please get on with self-directed support and individual budgets”. However, the Government are not providing the necessary duties or legal framework, so I hope that they will change their mind on that.
If the Government deny the need for urgent reform, this will become a long battle of attrition between us. However, I hope to elaborate, perhaps in Committee, on what I think would be a workable timetable for implementing the Bill. It cannot all be implemented at once; I recognise that there must be a staged process. That is particularly important, as it will be implemented in the context of the current, extremely tight financial settlement. I recognise the Government’s difficulties on that. We cannot work miracles overnight, but I hope that we shall start with miracles and move on to the major miracles. As I said, if the Government deny the need for urgent reform, it will become a long battle of attrition. I hope to get together with the Government to discuss the tight financial settlement that they are faced with and the way forward.
I am glad that the Minister is listening to this because cost is a crucial element for the Government. They have failed to deliver the kind of investment for which people are screaming out in social care. The Comprehensive Spending Review was a bitter disappointment. Apart from some positive pledges on short breaks for disabled children and their families and greater access to psychological therapies, there was precious little to rejoice in. A derisory 1 per cent increase in local government funding and a rise of just £190 million in adult social care funding from the Department of Health were announced. Frankly—and we need to be frank—the Government have failed to respond to the crisis.
I have spoken for far too long, but I shall say that I hope that we may convince the Government of the benefits of investing in independent living. The Office for Disability Issues, an independent organisation, clearly understands those benefits and has done some excellent research showing the huge economic benefits of radically transforming the system. The money can be saved; it is there, if the Government act properly. The more we invest in independent living support, the bigger the economic savings will be as more people pay taxes and come off benefits and fewer people need acute healthcare. Why on earth
14 Dec 2007 : Column 427
have the Government disregarded this research? We do not need a massive injection of investment to get the reform process under way. The very process of transforming public service support for disabled people and their families in the manner set out in the Bill will free vital resources to tackle unmet needs. It is to some extent a question of redirecting resources to secure better outcomes for disabled people.
Stakeholders interviewed for the cost-benefit study commissioned by the Office for Disability Issues suggested that no less than 20 to 30 per cent of social services expenditure is wastage because it goes on inflexible block contracts and inflated agency fees. If we tackled that by implementing the Bill, the savings would be in the region of a staggering £3.8 billion. That is the amount that Derek Wanless said would be needed to extend support to 450,000 older people. Similarly, the Government have estimated that reducing the rate of institutionalisation among older people by just 1 per cent would save a further £3.8 billion, so the Bill’s provisions would save money and make it available for the Government to use in different ways.
I am sorry to have gone on for so long, but this is an important Bill. It is a blueprint for the future and will be acted on sooner or later. The sooner the Minister is able to act on it, the better for all concerned. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
---------------------------------
Deaf-UK Discussion Group
www.yahoogroups.com/group/deaf-uk
House of Lords
Friday, 14 December 2007.
The House met at ten o'clock: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill [HL]
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time, in both senses—in the parliamentary sense of a Second Reading and in the sense that this is the second time that the Bill has been before the House. As noble Lords will know, it is the same Bill that was passed by this House last April. It was subsequently introduced in the House of Commons by Roger Berry but ran out of time there. The Bill is a high priority for those of us concerned with disability. I declare an interest as a disabled person, so there is a certain self-interest in this Bill being passed by both Houses.
Those of us who are interested in disability issues intend to make them a high priority in this country. Without that we will get nowhere, but with public support we can make progress. We are determined that this Bill should become law. It may not happen now, but it will definitely happen. A Government who support the Bill will find themselves in good favour in the country. They have been warned that if they reject this Bill or do not bother with it, somebody else may take up the cudgels.
I thank Caroline Ellis of the Disability Rights Commission for her magnificent help, work and support on this important Bill. I warmly appreciate it, as do millions of disabled people around the country. The Bill includes many things and all claims for it can be verified. It is a rescue operation for the victims of the worsening crisis in social care. It is a blueprint for the future, compensating for the many short-sighted policies and practices. It is a Bill that seeks to end the misery inflicted on disabled people and their families by an antediluvian system of care that is restrictive and inflexible.
The need for reform grows more urgent every day. It is staggering that three-quarters of councils are now refusing to support people with moderate needs and at least four councils provide support only if the person would otherwise die. You have to be dying to get any kind of help from councils and, of course, if you die it is no help anyway. Three-quarters is an outrageous figure. Unless you are dying, you need not bother applying. Those are the facts in Great Britain. Without support, people are left to deteriorate, carers cannot work and families are put under strain.
Pilots, reviews and warm words from Ministers are not what people want or hope for. They want a new law that gives them clear entitlements and guarantees them a chance to live an ordinary life contributing to their community. They hope that the Government will seize the opportunity offered by the Bill to bring
14 Dec 2007 : Column 424
about a real and lasting change. The House will listen with great care to the Minister who winds up. We are hoping for something that is positive, constructive and definite. Disabled people hope that the Government will seize the opportunity offered by the Bill to bring about a real and lasting change. If they do not, they must take the consequences, as we intend to make social care a high priority.
I remind the House of the main points of the Bill. First, it provides a set of guiding principles for the delivery of public service support to disabled people. It would prevent the everyday abuses of dignity and autonomy that we see today. Nowhere in the existing pattern of community care provisions will we find any reference to choice, control, dignity or equality. Disabled people are as much entitled to those as anybody else, but social services departments routinely make decisions that contradict those fundamental values.
The Bill would get rid of fragmented services and bewildering bureaucracy. It would place local authorities, National Health Service bodies and other key partners under a clear obligation to promote independent living. This goes hand in hand with greater strategic duties to co-operate and pool funds. Under this scheme, disabled people would be relieved of the nightmare of negotiating with a bunch of different agencies to try to get their needs met.
The Bill empowers disabled people to assess their own support needs, supported by an advocate if they need one. This gives every disabled person the right to be told up front what resources they are entitled to and to plan their own support package. It gives people a real choice between managing their budget with practical assistance, placing it with a trusted person or organisation to manage on their behalf or taking statutory services in lieu of cash. These are important changes.
Some councils only feed and clean, nothing else. In place of the insulting feed-and-clean-only approach, the Bill provides for holistic entitlements to support that extend beyond personal care. Disabled people would have clear rights to support for mental health and communication needs and for rehabilitation, as well as rights to support in bringing up children. These are things that the Government have pledged to deliver for disabled people by signing the United Nations disability convention. We thank the Government for that, but the catch is that they have yet to enshrine that in law. There is no point in saying how clever we are in singing the declaration if it is not legally binding, so the Government may be wasting their time if they do not pursue this further and make it mandatory. We want the law. I ask my noble friend the Minister, who I see is listening carefully, when disabled people can expect the Government to enshrine these provisions in law. It is a positive, constructive step, which I fully expect the Government to take without hesitation.
This new framework provides for national minimum guaranteed entitlements so that postcode lotteries are eradicated. To make freedom of movement a reality for disabled people, the Bill provides for portable support packages. With these, disabled people can move from one local authority to another for jobs or family reasons without the uncertainty of having to
14 Dec 2007 : Column 425
undergo reassessment and renegotiate a support care package from scratch. That happens. People who want to move for any reason find themselves having to negotiate each provision with different local authorities. Imagine all those bureaucrats lining up to tell you what you can and cannot have. It is a nightmare. The Bill would definitely eradicate that. I hope that the Government accept that without any discussion at all.
The Bill also fills the glaring absence in law of effective protection against unnecessary institutionalisation. This is an important point. It would be unlawful to institutionalise—a hell of a word, but you know what I mean—a person against their wishes or on grounds of financial expediency. For those in private and voluntary sector care homes, the Bill provides the full protection of the Human Rights Act.
A decent home is at the heart of independent living. The Bill places a duty on local authorities to establish disability housing registers to ensure that they make more efficient use of existing adapted or accessible stock and provide disabled people with real choice. All new homes would be built to lifetime home standards and an appropriate proportion of new homes would also have to be built to full wheelchair accessibility standards. Although we have not decided on a proportion yet, we will eventually decide on an effective and reasonable figure. That is important.
The benefits of the Bill extend not just to disabled people but to carers and whole families. The Bill would end the scandal of children as young as five carrying out adult support roles for their parents because the parents are so badly handicapped. That is a fact of life. Adopting this policy would free hundreds of thousands of carers to rejoin the labour market and enable women carers to find a way out of poverty and build up a decent pension.
I assure Ministers and their advisers that I am well aware of their objections to the Bill. I do not seek to brush those objections aside, although I do not agree with them. After all, we are all on the same side in wanting a fair deal for disabled people without massive expenditure. However, that does not mean no expenditure. Nothing in this Bill can be accomplished overnight or implemented all at once. I recognise that and the difficulties facing the Government, but we must begin to make positive advances now. We can and must begin a dialogue on the contents, timing and phasing in of the Bill. If the Government seek to get away with a blanket refusal, they are heading for serious trouble, but if they begin discussions, we will be on our way, seeking sensible solutions to long-standing problems that are damaging disabled people and causing increasing difficulties for the Government. Those difficulties will increase enormously if the Government give negative answers to these requests.
The Government have reservations about legislating for independent living. They say that they are not convinced of the need for new law. That is a ridiculous statement. They are surely aware of the leading community care law experts who say that the law is a dreadful mess. Even senior judges, the most cautious men in the world, express dismay at the law’s
14 Dec 2007 : Column 426
complexity and obscurity. All the major stakeholders in this debate, including the Local Government Association, believe that the time has come for root-and-branch reform. That is precisely what is required, not a bit of tinkering here and there, which the Government have been advocating for some time in the hope that they will not have to reform the law after this debate.
Ministers have also expressed concern about timing. There is more than adequate evidence of the benefits and feasibility of key provisions for us to move ahead confidently. These, such as self-directed support, are just waiting to be implemented. Indeed, the message coming from all parts of the Department of Health—I know that my noble friend the Minister is not from that department—to local authorities appears to be, “Please get on with self-directed support and individual budgets”. However, the Government are not providing the necessary duties or legal framework, so I hope that they will change their mind on that.
If the Government deny the need for urgent reform, this will become a long battle of attrition between us. However, I hope to elaborate, perhaps in Committee, on what I think would be a workable timetable for implementing the Bill. It cannot all be implemented at once; I recognise that there must be a staged process. That is particularly important, as it will be implemented in the context of the current, extremely tight financial settlement. I recognise the Government’s difficulties on that. We cannot work miracles overnight, but I hope that we shall start with miracles and move on to the major miracles. As I said, if the Government deny the need for urgent reform, it will become a long battle of attrition. I hope to get together with the Government to discuss the tight financial settlement that they are faced with and the way forward.
I am glad that the Minister is listening to this because cost is a crucial element for the Government. They have failed to deliver the kind of investment for which people are screaming out in social care. The Comprehensive Spending Review was a bitter disappointment. Apart from some positive pledges on short breaks for disabled children and their families and greater access to psychological therapies, there was precious little to rejoice in. A derisory 1 per cent increase in local government funding and a rise of just £190 million in adult social care funding from the Department of Health were announced. Frankly—and we need to be frank—the Government have failed to respond to the crisis.
I have spoken for far too long, but I shall say that I hope that we may convince the Government of the benefits of investing in independent living. The Office for Disability Issues, an independent organisation, clearly understands those benefits and has done some excellent research showing the huge economic benefits of radically transforming the system. The money can be saved; it is there, if the Government act properly. The more we invest in independent living support, the bigger the economic savings will be as more people pay taxes and come off benefits and fewer people need acute healthcare. Why on earth
14 Dec 2007 : Column 427
have the Government disregarded this research? We do not need a massive injection of investment to get the reform process under way. The very process of transforming public service support for disabled people and their families in the manner set out in the Bill will free vital resources to tackle unmet needs. It is to some extent a question of redirecting resources to secure better outcomes for disabled people.
Stakeholders interviewed for the cost-benefit study commissioned by the Office for Disability Issues suggested that no less than 20 to 30 per cent of social services expenditure is wastage because it goes on inflexible block contracts and inflated agency fees. If we tackled that by implementing the Bill, the savings would be in the region of a staggering £3.8 billion. That is the amount that Derek Wanless said would be needed to extend support to 450,000 older people. Similarly, the Government have estimated that reducing the rate of institutionalisation among older people by just 1 per cent would save a further £3.8 billion, so the Bill’s provisions would save money and make it available for the Government to use in different ways.
I am sorry to have gone on for so long, but this is an important Bill. It is a blueprint for the future and will be acted on sooner or later. The sooner the Minister is able to act on it, the better for all concerned. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
---------------------------------
Deaf-UK Discussion Group
www.yahoogroups.com/group/deaf-uk
Monday, December 10, 2007
Deaf Eugencis : Response to Alison Bryan
Response to Alison Bryan, no excuses. This blog is about the main cause of the war zone in deaf community and need to be stopped.
---------------------------------
Deaf-UK Discussion Group
www.yahoogroups.com/group/deaf-uk
www.deaf-uk.com
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Eugenics, Deaf & Disability Capital Conf 2007 on deaf genetics and end warning
Deafread, please add this as this is amended document with including English translation.
I say thanks to everyone who worked hard to fight for keeping deaf genes.
Thanks to Betty to support myself this week and will support to her. I have said that I have annouced to Deaf Community on 13 August 2007, when UK Community were aware of this.
I have attended to Disability Capital 2007, and there were 30 deaf people (highly professional) including representatives from BDA attend to the event about 1 to 2 months ago. I would like to thank to David Moris from London Greater Authority for organising Disabled and Deaf People under Attack? Old Eugenics New Genetics.
Two important people: Edwin Black, and Teresa Blankmeyer-Burke - I have just said in my blog on 13th I have attened to WFD to see Teresa's presentation, it was great to see her again where she come to UK to give a talk.
I remember in the Deaf and Disablilty Conference that they will have webcast, where they filmed the presentation and will put on the Internet. So I went and research and found them. Please press click on Sign Language or palantypist.
Credit to Disability Capital 2007 - signing via BSL interpreter
http://mediazone.brighttalk.com/comm/disability/4ae7987d48-5231-1184-4876
For palantypist or whom want to see English subtitles
http://mediazone.brighttalk.com/comm/disability/6a3538fd2e-5224-1184-4869
At the end of message, I say Alison Bryan and Jen Dodds (Grumpies Old Deafies) have thief information, from me. I said Copyright.
I said I remember Dorothy Miles. Her work have been thief from deaf community, and she died from this effect from deaf community. I said Stop Audism! Work together now.
Copyright(c) John Savva 2007
---------------------------------
Deaf-UK Discussion Group
www.yahoogroups.com/group/deaf-uk
www.deaf-uk.com
I say thanks to everyone who worked hard to fight for keeping deaf genes.
Thanks to Betty to support myself this week and will support to her. I have said that I have annouced to Deaf Community on 13 August 2007, when UK Community were aware of this.
I have attended to Disability Capital 2007, and there were 30 deaf people (highly professional) including representatives from BDA attend to the event about 1 to 2 months ago. I would like to thank to David Moris from London Greater Authority for organising Disabled and Deaf People under Attack? Old Eugenics New Genetics.
Two important people: Edwin Black, and Teresa Blankmeyer-Burke - I have just said in my blog on 13th I have attened to WFD to see Teresa's presentation, it was great to see her again where she come to UK to give a talk.
I remember in the Deaf and Disablilty Conference that they will have webcast, where they filmed the presentation and will put on the Internet. So I went and research and found them. Please press click on Sign Language or palantypist.
Credit to Disability Capital 2007 - signing via BSL interpreter
http://mediazone.brighttalk.com/comm/disability/4ae7987d48-5231-1184-4876
For palantypist or whom want to see English subtitles
http://mediazone.brighttalk.com/comm/disability/6a3538fd2e-5224-1184-4869
At the end of message, I say Alison Bryan and Jen Dodds (Grumpies Old Deafies) have thief information, from me. I said Copyright.
I said I remember Dorothy Miles. Her work have been thief from deaf community, and she died from this effect from deaf community. I said Stop Audism! Work together now.
Copyright(c) John Savva 2007
---------------------------------
Deaf-UK Discussion Group
www.yahoogroups.com/group/deaf-uk
www.deaf-uk.com
Legal Aid in D.D.A. case - danger?
Douglas Silas Solicitor firm is well known in deaf community, and deaf people do go that firm to use D.D.A., but one deaf person been have a good case of D.D.A. and approach to them. This person is on low income and need Legal Aid. The firm have said they can claim legal aid but from January 2008, the firm decided not to take Legal Aid scheme, and told the deaf person to pay about 200 pounds per hour, and the case might cost thousands of pounds.
Meaning no legal aid for DDA for this firm? Already deaf people complain DDA is not good for deaf people, reasonable adjustments make worse for deaf people. Will this future making deaf people to sue for discrimination?
Need your comment.
Copyright(c) John Savva 2007
---------------------------------
Deaf-UK Discussion Group
www.yahoogroups.com/group/deaf-uk
Monday, December 03, 2007
Genetics British Deaf Association and Tomato: Audism
From: "Tomato Lichy"
Subject: GLDA
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:54:58 +0100
Hi John
As you know, I'm trying to relaunch the GLDA. As you and betty have
shown your passion and commitment to activism and campaigning, I'd like
to ask you to be a part of it.
I have put your names up for committee, but many people have said they
find it difficult to work with you and Betty (which you probably
already know!) so your names didn't go through, sorry.
I sympathise with you and Betty, as in the past I also had a reputation
for being difficult to work with!
I still want to have the new GLDA be more campaigning and I am hoping
to put a motion to the BDA AGM in January that will give us more
flexibility to campaign on issues for London Deaf people.
At the moment, it is still very early days, and when things get moving
a bit more, then we can have a campaigns project group, which you and
Betty might be able to join.
All the best,
xx Tomato
----------------------
From: "John Savva"
Subject: Re: GLDA
To: "Tomato Lichy"
Dear Tomato,
I feel this is definately all about audism, and favourism to be selective of deaf people. I feel you and other deaf people actually are audism. Deaf against other Deaf.
I already know there were a meeting with deaf people, and you did not actually invite me or Betty.
We are not being difficult to work with, it is actually "bad attitude" of deaf people including you among to us.
We already have been in GLDA with Tyron and Alan Murray and we already put our names, addresses and they assured that when GLDA relaunch, we will able to join, and we have not been informed you have replaced (no public votes) so there is favourism and audism.
I am copying this to Betty who should know about this.
John.
-----------------
From: "Tomato Lichy"
Subject: Re: GLDA
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:33:05 +0100
To: "John Savva"
Hi John and Betty
Yes of course you know about the meeting. I TOLD YOU ABOUT IT! Do you
not remember me coming up to you in the GLA round table meeting and
chatting briefly to both of you about the GLDA? I told you the same as
I told everyone else who i thought might be interested in joining the
GLDA committee.
I know it wasn't much info, that's cos I didn't have much info myself.
I have been struggling for months with BDA rules and bureaucracy, I
have had people from BDA central telling me I must get everything
approved by the National Board of Trustees, right down to checking how
many times I wipe my bum after taking a poo!
I didn't know betty's email address so I emailed john first, I know you
would pass onto betty. Now I have it, I am sending this to her too.
You are not the only people who didn't get onto the committee. Other
people were also rejected. I have to check names with Agnes Dyab, who
is my BDA board member for London. It has been very very difficult to
get things going.
It is important to remember it is a delicate time for GLDA, it's been
dead for a while, and everyone has to work together to bring it back to
life.
I actually wanted you to be involved in some way, cos of your
campaigning, but other people said no. A lot of highly skilled people
said they would withdraw if you were involved. I'm sorry, but that's
the reaction your actions have caused.
When we have our next AGM in 2008, there will be open elections, and
you are welcome to stand for chair yourself to replace me if you want.
We still need a gay, lesbian, bi and transexual subcommittee, and to
update policy on these issues, so when we are running more smoothly,
you can, if you want, apply to join these subcommittees.
( I am aware that some transexuals don't like being joined in with
GLBT, that is another area where policy needs to be updated, which
needs to be led by transexual deafs, not by me)
cheers xx Tomato
---------------------
From: "John Savva" <
Subject: Re: GLDA
To: "Tomato Lichy"
Dear Tomato,
1. You just asked me to join GLDA personally but you never asked Betty. I have said you should ask Betty to join, you were avoiding and explain it is very difficult situation, and you heard the wrong information about what happened in the past. I assured that you should ask us both. You were uncomfortable. That is your attitude and other people attitude linking to audism.
2. If BDA or GLDA have problem with us, they (Agnes or Chair of BDA) should set up a face to face meeting, and sit down and place issues on the table, and sort out issues directly with us but nothing happened.
3. Selecting committees are bias, judemental and favourism. No question asked. I do not want to involve in any committees even LGBT committees until because AUDISM ACTUALLY EXIST. There are lots of LGBT discriminate us and how can we work with them when lots of audism (both direct and hidden behaviours) exists???
4. We are not interested in personal, we just interested in campaigning and fighting for deaf people, always have been. and we alot have successful with campaigning. Deaf people do want us to succeed. That is the problem with your group.
5. You said "A lot of highly skilled people said they would withdraw if you were involved. I'm sorry, but that's the reaction your actions have caused." That is why many deaf people drop out, give up and not support GLDA, and BDA because of that attitudes (audism), that is why BDA now become weak and in danger.
You are in fact personally and professionally BIG RESPONSIBILITY OF THESE ACTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES IT HAS CAUSED IN PAST YEARS.
John.
After my email, Tomato or BDA did not contact me as they are audism.
John.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
