Pink Stinks - like a rose?

The BBC London evening news just ran a story about the Pink Stinks campaign. Although the news article mentioned that the campaign is about persuading marketers and toy makers to provide more toys aimed at girls that are more positive and not just about beauty, clothes or looking after babies. The news item then just focused on the question "Should girls have pink toys?" This involved interviewing lots of little girls in Hamleys', garish pink "girls floor." Of course all the little girls said that they loved pink. They wouldn't be in the pink girls floor of Hamleys if they disliked it.

Sadly, I think the Pink Stinks campaign asks for this kind of treatment by the media though, because of its name. Great marketing, grabs attention but the media aren't inclined to dig deeper. I am all for promoting more positive role models for girls and young women. I think the media really needs to sort out its act when it comes to how it portrays women. The trouble is the pink stinks campaign alienates all those girls and women who do like pink particularly when treated shallowly by the media. I was a real "tom boy" until I was about 5. What a loaded statement that is? A tom boy, what do we mean by that? Well it was sometimes used to describe me because I only wanted to wear trousers or dungarees, I had shortish hair for a while, my favourite toys were cars, I was always climbing trees and getting myself in a mess. But I liked cuddly toys and dolls too.


When I got a bit older I went to the other extreme, I wore long skirts, grew my hair long, loved pink, played with my Cindy dolls. I still climbed trees, built dens, played football with the boys and even cut the hair of one of my Cindy Dolls so she could be Cagney from Cagney and Lacey. (Pretty strong, if dysfunctional role models for me there!)

But in my childhood, during the 70s/80s the marketing men and women hadn't got their teeth into exploiting the under 16s as they do now, and certainly not the under 10s. What for the girls of today?

My oldest niece went through a pink phase for a couple of years, everything had to be pink, but she is now 6 and her favourite colour is red. She is fascinated by volcanoes, likes to pretend to be a vet rescuing animals in danger, she also like dancing and looking at the pretty dresses worn by the dancers on Strictly Come Dancing. She doesn't just want to wear those dresses though, she wants to design them. She has a self assuredness that many girls of her generation and a little older seem to have. They do feel that anything is possible. When she plays with cooking utensils it is because she wants to be chef not a slave to the kitchen.

So things look positive for my niece's generation, unlike my Grandmother's and my mother's generation, she won't have to fight for basic rights, to work, to have a family, to carry on working if she wants etc. Unlike my generation she won't have the burden of being the first to make full use of these rights, to test the waters and push and fight against those slow to change. My nieces generation won't have such burdens.

So what am I worried about? Why aren't I denouncing the Pink Stinks campaign as superfluous?
It's not superfluous but the message for me seems skewed. I'd rather see a message that says Pink is for anyone! Boys and girls who want to wear pink, play with pink toys, live in pink rooms should be allowed to and their choices valued. Boys and girls who want to play with cars and Lego should be allowed to and their choices valued.

What worries me by the Pink Stinks title for the campaign is that it devalues and ridicules a choice of expression that many girls go through, and many boys would like to if they weren't discouraged for being "sissy" or some other insult. Yes the market is saturated with pink and pretty gifts aimed at girls, there needs to be more variety and choice. I believe that no one has the right to say that dressing up, making up and wearing pink is wrong what ever age or gender you are.

Being interested in beauty or appearance does not equal shallow or valueless, (Just look at Dolly Parton) buying into that message only perpetuates stereo types about women as air heads, and bimbos. We need balance and we need to value people even if their choices are not the ones we would make. The saturation of pink toys and goods certainly doesn't promote diversity and we need more positive goods available. But attacking the toys and goods that already exist and those who enjoy them only divides girls, boys, women and men.

Strong, successful, creative and intelligent women are everywhere; some are interested in fashion and beauty, some might never wear as much as lip gloss, some might work as scientists and doctors one of these wonderful women might be your cleaning woman or your Mum.

Does disability language matter part two...

I did not really tackle the language of charity, in my last entry. It relates to the whole special needs thing in a way. I shall blog about it tomorrow. In the mean time I'd like to thank @Katitkatetweets for posting this excellent example of the charity model of disability language brought right up to date in the 21st Century. It's about Lewis Hamleton, and he's cool! I think this style of language and attitude in the article is the one I find most difficult to deal with but more on why tomorrow...

Does disability language matter or is it all just PC nonsense?

So this morning I was having a twitter conversation about language and disability. So I thought I would blog about it. You can't really say everything in 140 characters! This entry has turned out to be very long and meandering and hasn't tackled what I thought it would but I hope it isn't too boring :-)

I have a real love of language, I have studied the English language, literature and even felt able to teach English in secondary schools for a short while. I do not claim to be an expert I just love studying how we use words. As many of you know I have also recently started learning Japanese a language very different to English, thrillingly different in my humble opinion! I am also disabled, I am partially sighted, always have been. I'm also a bit mad, or have a mental health condition. So the language of disability has always been of interest to me.

That old rhyme of "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me" is just baloney. As a child I soon learnt that if someone hit me I could hit them back harder, but it was the brutality of words that really had the lasting impact on me. It was the teasing words that haunted me. When my class mates would call me "Triple glazing" or shout "Fit the best fit Everest" at me because of my thick glasses, it was annoying sometimes hurtful but sometimes I could see the funny side. (Those too young to remember the Everest line was from a popular 80s double glazing ad.) What really hurt was if someone called me a "spaz" or a "Joey" and they didn't just call me this, these were popular insults of the 1980s British playground. (As gay seems to be now, sadly.) For me though the words were loaded, I knew they referred to disabled or "handicapped" people as they said back then. That was me, that was my uncle with muscular dystrophy, it just seemed so unfair to me as a child for those words could be used as insults.

Kids love bad words, and can be viciously cruel with language. It isn't just kids though. The English language is a rich and wonderful one. It's a myth that the Inuit have 100 words for snow, but the principal of the myth is true. We give many names and euphemisms to the important things to us culturally. In English we have boundless words for the concepts of being drunk, death, sex and rain to name a few.

Lets take being drunk you could be plastered, sozzled, bladdered, squiffy, pissed, inebriated, tired and emotional, sloshed, wasted, tipsy, and so I could go on. We give many names to things that are important, or taboo. For death the words are more euphemistic so we don't actually mention the d word, passed on, passed over, in a better place, even kicked the bucket is a way of avoiding saying the d word.

So language can be loaded with many meanings, we can use it to hide things, avoid things, to hurt and of course to empower as well. When the civil rights movement talked of black power and black is beautiful they were claiming the word black and empowering each other with it.

Disability language is full of euphemisms, and words that hide or cover up something that society is afraid to approach head on. It is also full of words generated in fear that are used consciously or unconsciously to distance the user from the issue they are afraid of; to make the user feel more powerful than the person or people they are talking about.

The best examples but not the only are the myriad words to describe madness, from nutter, crack pot, psycho, schizo, to loony, doolally, barmy, crazy, loopy and bonkers. I think in that list you can find the words which are used harshly and crudely and those we use every day now to describe people who have no kind of mental health condition at all. Madness terrifies people and society greatly. On an individual basis none of us like to be faced by someone behaving in an unusual way, which is distressing to them or others. We like people to behave in the same way we do. Organised society, certainly in the west, is afraid of madness because mad people are unpredictable and may not behave in the structured way the society dictates. (Personally I think societies should just get over it and let people behave as they like as long as they aren't hurting anyone or themselves.) I am not going to go on about Christianities role in how we talk about or see madness or disability, that is a whole new blog entry. I also think that everyone on a personal level is also afraid of confronting the issues of madness because they know it could happen to them, it is very real we need to be distanced from it.

Fear has lead many societies to do many terrible things to the people or things that they fear. So with mental health we have had centuries of mad people being locked up, promoted as hate figures or comic figures to be feared or mocked. Society will keep them in their place, locked up, or terrified but they won't be rocking society's boat or upsetting our sensibilities. Even now the media is obsessed with stories about people with mental health conditions such as schizophrenia being potentially violent. Even though every statistic points to the fact the overwhelming number of people with schizophrenia are more likely to harm themselves than any other person, the media ignores this. "Nutter on the loose" stories sell papers, generates clicks to websites.

Mental health as I said isn't the only disability to be portrayed in this way. People with learning disabilities have been subjected to centuries of being labeled stupid, the village idiot, simple, weak in the head, or called names like mong. All though not feared in quite the same way as mad people, and I would argue that is because society does not see people with learning disabilities as much of a threat as mad people. People with learning disabilities may not submit completely to all of the subtle rules of society but those in power have thought that they are unlikely to undermine these rules in the way a mad person might. They aren't going to form and army and rebel. (Or so the people in power think...) Many other disabilities are feared in similar ways but I think mental health and learning disability are the easiest to reference.

But language isn't just used to put, keep and reinforce people's positions in society's grand scheme of things. With disability, language has been used to label disabled people in medical terms. Disabled people had no say in how these words were used to label them. Maybe 60, 70 years ago a child was told by a Dr they had Polio and that they would be a cripple. That was the language used. For disabled people in the 1970's and 80s language was a big thing because they only had at their disposal medical language dolled out by professionals which quite often meant nothing to anyone else or the age old terms for disability which had been developed out of fear and pity such as cripple, handicapped, simpleton or madman or any of the other words listed else where in this blog.

The social model of disability revolutionised the language of disability. So medical terms for impairments would firmly stay describing the impairment, whilst words relating to what disables a person would focus on society's barriers and the adjustments made to overcome those barriers would be positive, hence a person is "a wheelchair user" their wheelchair is something they use to get over the barriers society creates. Trouble is no one told the rest of the world about the social model of disability. Trouble is many disabled people don't agree with all, or want more from it or just don't know about the social model of disability either. So we ended up in a world post 1990 when this change in language in terms of disability was swept up along with the whole PC "movement" and tarnished in many people's minds as being all a load of PC madness. (PC Madness, a bit like PC World but somewhere I'd feel more at home I'm sure! You can by a manic Mac or a depressed windows 7 Sony laptop :-) )

Which gets me on to the word special as in "special needs," why was this voted in the top 10 of most hated words by disabled people? I think it was because yet again it was word given to disabled people by a group of non disabled people. Most disabled children since the mid 80s will have come across this label in school. "Special Needs" covers everything from children who have a physical or learning disability to those who have "Behavioural problems." Every child I hope knows that they are special and that their parents think they are the most special child in the world. No child needs to be told on an institutional basis that they are special or have special needs. Kids are not stupid, they sniff out a euphemism straight away. They will mercilessly rip a euphemism and untruth out and use it on who ever they like. So special needs now is bandied about by kids as an insult.

I was teased a lot at school but every child in my class knew I was partially sighted, never did they chant "partially sighted" at me. Why? I think it was because it isn't a loaded statement, it isn't a euphemism. But special needs, and derogatory terms for disabled people were shouted at me. I have to say us visually impaired people do come out of the language thing fairly well. Blind as a bat is as bad as it gets or "window licker" - which when I first heard as an adult made me laugh. Once on the tube a guy tapped me on the shoulder and said "I thought you were being dead brazen snorting cocaine off your book in front of everyone on the tube, but you're visually impaired aren't you?" He said it so sheepishly with a devilish glint in his eye that I just had to laugh. I don't feel so self conscious now when reading in public, nose glued to my book.

So I think what I am trying to say is that:

Language is important because it is used so subtly but profoundly as a tool to disempower or empower
The language of disability is complex and evolving
The social model of disability needs to be more widely understood
If you aren't sure how to refer to someone or to something concerning disability, ask the person involved! They will know how they want to be referred to!

London calling

A friend and colleague of mine has alerted me to this article about how Boris Johnson has been criticised for letting down disabled Londoners by dropping all mention of disability hate crime from his equality framework. This is particularly saddening as I worked with David Morris for Ken Livingstone to pull together Another Planet which highlighted amongst other things that 50% of disabled Londoners experienced harassment or bullying in the community (so excluding work based bullying) on a frequent basis.

This article reminded me of something the gypsy and travellers were saying yesterday - that a few years ago there was a lot more innovative projects and work happening but none of it has been followed up on. I can't help but wonder if my work for the previous Mayor of London will have the lasting legacy it seemed destined to have.

We worked hard to get 100% of buses accessible. I certainly can travel more independently now that most buses (and trains) have audio announcements on them. I can't express what freedom that gives me to travel to unfamiliar places at night. But recently there have been calls by a Tory politician for less audio announcements because they interrupt his commuter snooze!

Now we find that good evidence from disabled Londoners and the Met Police is being ignored and forgotten.

I'm not surprised by this but still saddened.

Some good news on disability hate crime

Just to illustrate that lessons are being learned and positive moves are happening: the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued a press release yesterday saying that they will be reviewing how public authorities respond to disability hate crime. The EHRC also published their disability work plan which I haven't had time to look at yet but look forward to reading!

we can't all install electric fences

I was going to blog about the Cornish pensioner who is so sick of harassment and the threat of burglary he has erected an electrified fence around his bungalow. He has been driven to do this by the lack of response from police and local authorities to his initial complaints. Funnily enough after the news being dominated by the tragic Pilkington case, now that the pensioner has gone to the press he is expecting a visit from the local mayor and the police tonight, to look at solving the issues he is facing, being targeted and harassed by thugs and criminals (he has been burgled in the past.)

Anyway I was going to just mention that news story but today I was at an event with the gypsy and traveller communities. It was an incredibly interesting, illuminating and in some ways inspiring way to spend my day. The women who attended - they were predominantly women - had a wealth of experience, wisdom and strength to share with one another. The event really brought home the message that only exploring real people's experiences and really involving people whether young, old, disabled, travellers or anyone, will develop a true and useful understanding of everyone's needs. This is where policy development should begin.

When I worked for the Mayor of London (Ken that is) it was the approach we took. If people with learning difficulties told us they weren't being listened to or understood by the police we would ask people with learning difficulties to get to gether and we would provide police officers of all levels to meet with them. The police wouldn't be allowed to leave until they had come up with some actions to improve things.

So what I am saying is that we all have powerful voices and so I am going to start by sharing some of my experiences of disability related hate crime, bullying, harassment - what ever you want to call it. I am incredibly lucky that I have never experienced persistent serious harassment or abuse, but my experiences I think are quite telling, I also think that it is important for me to be honest. I have a successful career being Head of Equality and Diversity for a large regulator, but I still experience many barriers and bad attitudes from society.

My first experience of disability related bullying of any kind was when I was 6 or 7. I wasn't expecting it one bit. I had been accepted by my peers at nursery and primary school. So I wasn't prepared for a gang of local big kids - they were about 12 - turning on me in the local swing park. I was with an older friend and my house was opposite the park. The gang of kids started hurling abuse at me, calling me names, then they started throwing huge clods of mud and stones at me in an attempt to smash my glasses. My glasses were the proverbial jam jar glasses. The kids eventually drove me and my friend out of the park, muddy, bloody and tearful. I was totally bewildered to why this had happened but for the first time in my life I felt that my disability could cause me shame, embarrassment and I felt very, very different.

It wasn't for another 20 odd years that I realised that what happened to me is a great illustration of how the social model works. I wasn't disabled as a child, I had a visual impairment but my environment was adapted for me I didn't feel any different to anyone else. But as the mud and stones hit me and I ran for my life, that's how it felt, I was disabled for the first time. Not long after this incident I was knocked over by a bicycle on a quiet road and the combination of these events led me to delve into myself and not want to leave the house. Eventually a mobility officer had to work with me to build my confidence of getting about I was scared of roads but I was more scared of other children. I didn't breath a word to my parents about these fears though. After that if anyone tried to bully me I hit them back and got into a lot of trouble for fighting every now and again.

The last time I experienced any significant (I'll get back to this later) disability related abuse was on London underground. I was finding it particularly difficult finding my footing on the steps out of an underground station. I was suddenly pushed hard and purposefully from behind and a woman yelled "Get a move on - are you f*****g blind" I turned to look at the woman, she turned out to be a city type in a sharp suit and stilettos, I tried to calmly say "yes I'm partially sighted" but my voice was shaking. She just shoved me one more time hissing "For F***s sake get out of my way - you're a menace." Interesting turn of phrase she had.

Now, even I can get cross at slow walking pedestrians not that I'd shout at anyone I hope. What was interesting was that when I explained I was partially sighted she was either so shocked, horrified, appalled or all three, that she continued to abuse me even more viciously.

I said "significant" above because on an occasional but constant basis local teenagers will pass me in the street or super market and find me incredibly amusing. Whether it is the jam jar glasses, my nystagmus or because I am holding something close to my face to read that amuses them they make it quite clear that I am hysterically funny, as they mimic me. Petty and low level but when I'm not feeling too good its enough to make me not want to go out. Sometimes I can't bare to be seen wearing my glasses when I am feeling low. I fixate on my glasses being the issue when I know they aren't.

I just hope that by sharing these experiences I have exercised a few demons for myself but also shed light on the kinds of abuse that disabled people often face on a daily basis for no other reason than the fact that we are disabled. I don't consider the examples I've given as being serious but after 30+ years of this and many more different barriers being put in my way it does build up.

Luckily for me I am certain this has made me stronger but it could so easily have swung the other way.

Disability hate crime

Whilst working at the Disability Rights Commission I worked on projects relating to harassment and disability hate crime particularly in relation to social housing, so this blog entry saddens me greatly. Whilst I was advising local authorities and housing associations on how to tackle disability related harassment, in Leicestershire the guidance was really needed but not getting though.

The terribly tragic deaths of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter Francecca has been headline news today. Fiona killed herself and her disabled daughter after being driven distraught by harassment and bullying from youngsters attacking her home, her garden, physically abusing her son and verbally abusing her family. The motivation for this prolonged (it lasted a decade) abuse was that the Pilkingtons were different, Francecca was disabled and her mother and brother experienced severe emotional problems because of the abuse. They were easy targets.

I listened this morning to a Radio 5 breakfast interview with the Pilkington's local MP and I just despaired. Firstly the MP tried to turn the interview into an opportunity to play party politics, Nicky Campbell even had to ask him not to do this! But I would expect that of quite a few politicians. What really got me angry was when he was asked if this was a disability hate crime. The MP replied that lessons needed to be learned because this has shown us that "people with special needs should be monitored more closely by authorities!"

OK everything in that statement is just wrong! Special needs always gets me cross! Saying special needs puts the emphasis on the disabled people being different, needing special treatment and completely takes the emphasis away from the perpetrators of the abuse. Then to say that the answer is to monitor disabled people more closely completely lets the abusers and harassers off the hook. This puts out the message that there is nothing we can do about preventing abuse against disabled people the only answer is to monitor the disabled people as if they are the ones causing the problems!

Can you imagine any MP saying that to tackle racism local authorities need to watch people from ethnic minorities more closely?

So here is the message to any MPs. Disabled people experience all kinds of hate crime in many situations. It is hate crime because the people who attack disabled people verbally and physically do so because the person is disabled. The perpetrators target disabled people for many reasons, some of which are that disabled people are seen as weak and easy prey, different and perceived as unnatural or frightening. Society still attaches huge stigma to disability even in this day and age 15 years on from the DDA.

Even the Prime Minster on Sunday's Andrew Marr show spoke about his own disability as a handicap as if it was something he was ashamed of. He had to keep emphasising that he acquired his eye condition from being fit and healthy playing rugby. He might as well have said "I've not always been disabled (or handicapped as he seems to prefer) you know."

As a PS I am not keen on the TV news vigilantism that seems to be targeting one of the families accused of harassing the Pilkingtons. This will only end up making martyrs of some people involved and yet again sweep under the carpet the real issues in this case. Why is disability hate crime happening at all and how can we stop it.

PPS a great article from the BBC on disability hate crime, thanks to Rich Watts for alerting me to it.

Jedi vs Tesco

This story is a week old but well worth a mention. Basically a bloke who is a follower of the Jedi religion, apparently he founded the international church of jedism, was asked to remove his Jedi hood when shopping in Tesco in Bangor. He accused them of religious discrimination. This prompted a lovely response from Tesco which I have pasted below:

Tesco said: "He hasn't been banned. Jedis are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods.

"Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood.

"If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers."

Amusing as this all is, and the statement from Tesco is very cleverly done, it does raise the question would Tesco ask a nun to remove her wimple or a Muslim woman the hijab? And if a Tesco store did would their head office issue a response that delved into interpretations of Islam or Christianity. I think not, they wouldn't dare. In the UK religion is either something to laugh about or steer clear of.

This rule is clearly sparked by Tesco not wanting "hoodies" in their shops. So they don't want kids in hoods in their shops. That in its self I have issues with, why can't kids wear hoods if they want to, but I'm not going to bang on about this. Tesco really should be consistent in their approach either ban all head gear that can obscure the face or find better ways to tackle kids hanging about shops.

There may be trouble ahead...

I haven't posted much lately as haven't been feeling too well and not really wanting to think about equality stuff when not in work and can't post at work due to firewalls etc.

But had to add this link to a BBC news story about more trouble at the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

I am making no comment some good friends and colleagues work at the Commission and I really wish that they could just get on with doing a good job and not be hindered by bad press or the media hungry in their midst or at their helm! Hmmmm I said I wasn't going to comment...

Last time I commented on the Commission the Commission replied to me on this blog! As if anyone even reads my blogs or cares what I say! I was very supportive of the setting up of a joint Commission and I am sure it can work - I know there are some very dedicated and determined people working there! People who didn't jump ship like me! Still like I said I hope that in the future the Commission will be making headlines in the same way the Disability Rights Commission did when I worked for them! Making headlines because we were winning equality cases and running high profile campaigns!

Abercrombie & Fitch accused of disability discrimination

You couldn't make this stuff up! It all just adds to my collection of case studies for equality and diversity training. I have to thank Rich Watts for alerting me to this story (I should warn you that it links to a story on the Daily Mail website - even the Daily Mail run disability discrimination stories sometimes.)

As our work place is so close to Oxford Street, we often get asked about practices like asking for a photo of someone as part of the application process, and the recruitment of "in-store models" rather than "shop assistants." This always leads to a lively discussion about how judging someone on looks for a job can lead to discrimination on just about any ground - race, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation and religion.

Disabled people in senior roles

Check out this story on my sister blog - RADAR need 5 mins of your time if you are disabled and successful to help with some research which will maybe help set up schemes and networks to help other disabled people become just as successful!

Obama's man gives speech on gay rights

I read an interesting article about John Berry, one of President Obama's "Directors" and a speech that he gave about gay rights and in particular the US military's Don't ask Don't tell policy on being gay in the forces. Interesting stuff.

Landmark Disability Report

Today the Equality and Human Rights Commission published a report: Promoting safety and security of disabled people. (I'd like to thank Rich Watts for alerting me to this through his blog.) When I worked for the Disability Rights Commission we wanted very much to commission research into disabled people's experiences of harassment, crime and safety, but we ran out of time. I have blogged before about the work I carried out when working for the Mayor of London with People First and the Met Police.

This new report seems to be far reaching in its scope and its findings are sadly not surprising to me but will be to others I hope.

Disabled people are 4 x more likely to be victims of crime and around 47% of disabled people have experienced violence towards themselves or another disabled person.

The Another Planet report that I helped David Morris produce at the GLA identified that in London in 2003 half of disabled people had experienced harassment in their local community. As soon as you begin to break down these figures by people with learning difficulties or those with mental health conditions the figures become much higher.

I really welcome this report and really hope that the police, CPS, public bodies, landlords and the government take action.

I have certainly experienced random acts of harassment, and even assault which I am sure were connected to my disability. One city women who pushed me down the stairs at Tower Hill tube station made her opinion very clear by yelling "Get moving - are you blind or something!?" I did reply "Yes, actually," and was helped by a couple of passers by but the woman just stormed on.

Flight attendant discrimination tribunal

Back from just over a week off and the BBC are running the kind of story I like to use as a discussion point in training sessions. The BBC story is about a head flight attendant who claims her boss (who runs a small charter flight company) forced her to only employ young, slim, attractive, single women. Men were definitely not allowed as she claims that her boss would not tolerate male flight attendants as he believed all male flight attendants are gay.

I would use this story as a talking point for a number of reasons - looking at the alleged stipulation of who could be employed I'd get trainees to identify who is being excluded. Sounds obvious but many people don't realise that gender legislation includes marital status. Also the stipulation of "attractiveness" is always an interesting one to discuss.

Every training session will include someone asking about jobs that stipulate a requirement of attractiveness. I usually end up talking about the case of a person with a facial disfigurement who was refused entry to a wine bar because the wine bar bouncer felt she "didn't look right" for the bar. That bar would also turn away customers who were scruffy or who had poor hygiene. It's a good one to unpack and working close to Oxford Street someone always mentions certain fashion outlets who ask for a photo of applicants before an interview. One way I've heard of that certain fashion stores get round being discriminatory is by now advertising for in-store models, by doing this they can justify why they need someone who is well groomed and fits into their clothes nicely. I'd be interested to know how they would respond to a visibly disabled person - say a stunningly beautiful and model skinny wheelchair user? Any way this kind of thing always gets a lot of discussion about not just disability but age, and racial stereo types relating to social standards of "attractiveness."

Michelle Obama

Just thought I would post a link to a video clip from Michelle Obama's visit to an inner city girls school. Very inspiring and positive. The girls I used to teach in South London would have been so inspired by this and I hope they still are inspired.

Older people losing out again

This story on the BBC website highlights problems with mental health services for the over 65s. Mental health services are stretched at the best of times so it doesn't seem a surprise that older people are losing out. But even if mental health services were great and under subscribed, would people over 65 be referred to these services if they were needed? The report highlights that not necessarily, as one key reason why older people don't get the mental health support they needed is because of attitudes to older people.

I worked for a very short period of time in an old people's home. One of the residents would sit in the dining hall mournfully crying "Let me Die, Let me die" over and over again. Although everyone at the home were professional and caring they responded to this gentleman as if it was inevitable that he should feel like this and that there wasn't much that could be done for him. It was a shame and he was helped as far as was possible but I wasn't aware of any specialist mental health support. For some of the younger care assistants it seemed they thought that it was natural that you would want to die if you were his age.

I can only see things changing for the better though, as my parents generation who grew up in the 60s, reach their 60s they will be far more demanding of services and their rights. But will the younger generation have any more respect for older people?

Equality Commission Chaos

The weekend has seen more revelations from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Guardian and Observer reported on new resignations, a threatened resignation from Bert Massie a key Commissioner, financial irregularities, poor value for money, allegations of a culture of bullying and even claims of discrimination.

The sad fact of the matter is that I am not surprised. I had the opportunity to work for the new Commission if I'd wanted it; my job at the Disability Rights Commission would have been transfered into the EHRC's policy and strategy directorate. (The Directorate formally headed by Patrick Diamond before he quit last week.) I chose to look for other jobs and successfully found one which allowed me to leave the DRC 3 weeks before it closed and the EHRC opened.

I chose to leave for a number of reasons. I had initially been in favour of a broad equality commission, and in some what of a minority. As more details of the new Commission were revealed or not revealed as was usually the case I began to worry. I was also not thrilled by the choice of Trevor Phillips as Chair. I had worked at the GLA when Phillips was an Assembly member and I did not want to renew my acquaintance with him again in a hurry. But beyond any concerns I might have about his style of leadership, I don't want to get into any trouble here but lets just say he has a direct style and likes lots of things to be run past him. I actually thought it was a mistake to appoint anyone as chair who was too famous or known for their own views on certain issues. I think a Chair of the EHRC needs to be able to represent all groups of people and champion the voices of those who seldom get heard.

The trouble with a Chair like Trevor Phillips is that a lot of people have heard of him and already have an opinion of him. Straight away a group of key stakeholders in the Commission are switched off and not interested because they don't like Trevor. The media have opinions too and are poised to rip into any problems at the Commission so they can either play the political correctness gone mad card or lay into Phillips. Then there is the issue of political alliances. With a clash between various political interests being played out over the Commission I am very worried that some problems will be blown out of all proportion in a spin war whilst others will be swept under the carpet.

I have a lot of friends who still work at the Commission and are desperately trying to make a real difference to people's lives. All this media attention over high level officials, and political spin totally detracts from the work they are doing and the genuine problems that they are facing whilst trying to get their work done. So I really hope that something positive can come out of the "chaos" right now and that these issues being reported in the papers aren't going to be used to railroad the Commission into a very difficult position for everyone including their Chair.

Jargon busting

Now I could have run with the story about David - Del Boy - Jason telling a racist joke on live radio but I won't. I just think that these endless tales of "celebs" making inappropriate comments or telling inappropriate jokes can do more harm than good to race relations. The radio station in question is hardly popular and only a few people will have heard the actual joke. But now everyone has heard the joke and David Jason will become yet another martyr for the Daily Mail "UK poisoned by political correctness gone mad" campaign. Anyway I said I wsn't going to comment.

I did want to highlight this story about public sector jargon.

Jargon, the world of equality and diversity is full of it. Some would argue that E&D its self is just jargon for common sense and fairness. But there is a serious reason why the public sector should avoid using jargon.

Jargon irritates, confuses and alienates people, whether it is colleagues, customers or the general public. I remember going to a meeting with some training providers back in 1999 when I worked for the jobcentre. (Jobcentres don't have jargon more like a language of their own,) but this meeting was external and the presenter was asking for ideas. Every now and then she would say about an idea "We'll park that" or "It's been car parked." I didn't have a clue what she was on about. It made absolutely no sense to me and I kept looking over her shoulder to the window behind her where the car park was to see if there was something physically there that she was referring to! I caught on in the end.

So if I can be bamboozled by jargon how are older people, youngsters, people with learning disabilities and those who speak English as a second language going to fare?

I am sorry to say that this use of jargon has lead the LGA to produce a list of "banned words" that it does not want to see councils using. I don't like banning things generally unless they are going to cause someone serious mental, emotional or physical harm. So banning words just makes me cross. It's a silly response to a real problem.

Council's and all of the public sector should be encouraged to communicate honestly and as simply and effectively as possible. A clear, honest and creative communication does not need to hide behind jargon. I am sure the media and even the LGAs PR people have spun this "ban" to get publicity and create a hook for the story. So I think this is a worthy cause to stop jargon but banning words is a nonsense. I hate the phrase "blue sky thinking" with a passion but if I thought it was a banned phrase I would use it just to show how ridiculous the concept of banning words is! What's it going to be next? I'm not going to be allowed to think the phrase "level playing filed" when I am in a local government building?

Irony of ironies some of the jargon phrases remind me of doublespeak but Big Brother is banning their use!

How many more lives will it take?

This BBC article outlines yet another report and condemnation of the dreadful discrimination, neglect and indifference experienced by people with learning disabilities in relation to health services. These issues aren't new. Speak to a good learning disability nurse or social worker (and there are many of them) and they will tell you that they have been trying to raise these issues for decades. Talk to any organisation of people with learning disabilities and they will tell you that they have been campaigning on these issues for decades.

People with learning disabilities face some of the most insidious forms of discrimination where society denies them a voice. The only way I can see that change will happen and make a difference is if we all begin to spend time with, listen to and involve people with learning disabilities in every day life. In their lives and society at large.

When I worked for the GLA I got Ken Livingstone, Peter Hendy (then Head of Buses, now Head of TfL) and leading Met Police officials to sit down and listen to and talk with people with learning difficulties and that was the only way to get the ball rolling and for the officials to take learning disability seriously. It worked while these conversations were happening, but they need to be sustained and they need to become common practice.

Nicola Brewer to leave Equality Commission

The Equality and Human Rights Commission announced today that Nicola Brewer their CEO will be leaving - she is going to some new mysterious "opportunity."

It is no surprise to anyone who worked for the former Commissions or the EHRC as Nicola always said that she would only stay for 2 years. Still it means a very interesting opportunity for some aspiring CEO is about to be announced. Working with Trevor Phillips may put some off but maybe have others running to apply. Who knows???

Domestic violence in the news again

The Home Secretary Jackie Smith has launched a consultation on how to tackle violence against women in the home the BBC reported today. Nicky Campbell ran his daily phone in session on 5 Breakfast about a Mori poll which said that a sizable minority of people thought that sometimes it was ok for a man to hit a woman. Later in the day there were many criticisms of Jackie Smith's plans. I am too tired to go into it now but I would direct anyone reading to see my entry on Dangerous Love.

Inclusive, innovative learning

I had a fascinating and absorbing day today at Sheffield Hallam University in the Faculty of Wellbeing - in the Robert Winston Building. (It used to be the YMCA on Broomhall Road, which I have fond memories of after a Tensing weekend there in 1991)

I was there to discuss amongst other things the issue of reasonable adjustments for health students. The meeting was incredibly useful, absorbing and worthwhile. We all agreed that so much more would get done in life if we could just take some time to discuss ideas with each other, particularly difficult concepts like - when is reasonable unreasonable?

However I wanted to draw attention to how impressed I was with the facilities for learning there. The link above shows Professor Winston demonstrating some of the state of the art simulation tools they have. It was a breath of fresh air to be back in a learning environment like Sheffield Hallam. I felt rather jealous that I was going to have to go back to my desk in London on Monday. I'd rather be in a innovative and inclusive learning environment!

NHS Equality Guidance

The NHS has added to it's suite of guidance on equality issues, joining guidance on religion and ethics, disability, gender and trans the sexual orientation guidance was launched at the end of last week. Useful for NHS staff of course but also useful for patients to know what health professionals are being advised about.

Cervical cancer - an issue for all women

The BBC is running a story that Stonewall and other campaigning organisations for gay and lesbian rights have been pushing for a number of years now. Research has shown that lesbian women are less likely to have a smear than heterosexual or bi-sexual women. As 80% of lesbian women have had at least one male sexual partner, they are at risk of developing cervical cancer but also at risk of it not being identified if they are not encouraged to take up the smear test.

With the sad news about Jade Goody and her very public battle with cervical cancer there has been a rise in young women seeking smears from their local surgeries, which can only be a good thing. I was pleased to see the BBC running the story to raise awareness that lesbian women also need to consider whether they need a smear. The advice is - as one GP bluntly put it to me:
"Unless you have lived the life of a devout nun - get a smear!"

Dangerous Love

I didn’t think I would be blogging about such a serious and difficult subject as domestic violence as my first real entry on my The Salmon Leaping blog. Nor did I expect my first entry to be so long. Difficult for me as I was once in a relationship that was violent. But today the media has been running pictures of Danielle Lloyd after she was beaten by an ex boyfriend. This is because Danielle is investigating violence in teenage relationships in a programme tonight on BBC3 called Dangerous Love - a Comic Relief Special.

Domestic violence has been in the news a lot recently, firstly with the research published indicating that more men are the victims of domestic violence than was previously thought. Then there was the reports that Rihanna, the R&B singer had been assaulted by her boyfriend and photos of her bruised face were leaked.

Although clearly a distressing subject I am definitely pleased to see domestic violence being discussed in the media and being tackled openly and honestly by people like Danielle Lloyd. The Equality and Human Rights Commission have been running a campaign to provide more support for women who experience domestic violence through the Map of Gaps website where you can enter your post code and find out how many services there are locally dealing with violence against women. The site demonstrates the post code lottery when it comes to the provision of services. In Merton where I live there are 2 services offered, in Bromley where I used to live and where I experienced the domestic violence there is just 1 service. I also put in my parents post code and for Doncaster there are 5 different services tackling domestic violence.

When I worked for the Mayor of London some years back we had a map of London as a carpet and on that map for one month we placed cardboard cut out statues representing the women who had died in London due to domestic violence over a few years. It was grim viewing. Bromley with its one lonely service although geographically it is the largest borough, had a concentration of the card board statues.

I think this illustrates a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed when discussing domestic violence and when planning services. The nice leafy suburbs don’t like to think that it happens behind their privet hedges and net curtains. Domestic violence is seem as something affecting the working class, the non respectable.

I considered myself to be very respectable with a good job, I lived in a beautiful leafy and highly sought after area of Bromley. I was a high achiever, intelligent and I had worked on projects promoting women’s issues I had even been the Women’s Officer at my University. I wouldn’t even admit to myself that I was in an abusive relationship. Domestic violence was something that happened to other people. I couldn’t see the classic behaviour displayed by my ex as he isolated me from those who cared about me and particularly those who would be strong enough to stand up to him. He manipulated and i very easily went along with his version of everything, he did it all because I told myself that he loved me and the others didn’t care about me like he did. I put up with and accepted 2 isolated acts of violence and years of threats and emotional bullying. It was only once I had decided for myself that the relationship was destructive that when for a third time he was violent that I called the police and got him out of my life.

The hardest thing for me to come to terms with and it has taken me 3 years to admit this was that I was experiencing domestic violence and that I had allowed it to continue because I didn’t recognise what was happening to me and most importantly I did not want to admit that I was a victim and that my relationship had failed.

I do get cross when I hear other women saying “Why didn’t she just leave him? Why didn’t she just walk out of the room.?” (As Shelag Fogarty on Radio 5 Live said some weeks back) when they hear about women in violent relationships. I didn’t walk out because my ex would have just followed. It took me nearly 6 months of strife and grief and calls to the police to get him to leave. But fundamentally for so much of the time I did not think I was in an abusive relationship and I convinced myself completely otherwise.

The more we discuss this issue, the more we explore where and how domestic violence happens including violence within gay and lesbian relationships, the domestic violence inflicted on disabled people and older people and that experienced by teenagers as Danielle’s programme explores, the more likely we are to help those experiencing the violence to recognise it and feel safe and supported enough to take action. I have written this knowing that some of my friends will read this who knew nothing of what I went through, and although I am ashamed on one level on the other I really want to raise awareness and this is just one small way of doing just that.

Here is a link to areas of further advice and help

Why this blog? Why now?

So what is this new blog about then? I already keep a personal blog with entries really just to let my friends and family know what I am up to, reading, thinking about etc. But I wanted to do something which is more connected to the work I do. I have worked in the equality and diversity field now for 10 years. I was a teacher of drama for 3 years before that, but in 1999 I decided to leave teaching and wanted to become a disability employment adviser. More about that later. I will use this blog to give some background info to my journey as a disabled person. Since leaving teaching I have worked for the RNIB, the Mayor of London and the Disability Rights Commission.

But forgetting the back story I now head up a small unit leading on equality and diversity for a healthcare regulator and although this blog won’t be about that work, in my job I come across a lot of information, media stories and anecdotes relating to equality and diversity. It is these non day job snippets I want to share and explore.

We are living in a peculiar time at the moment. An economic crisis or any kind of disaster always raises questions relating to equality, and individuals rights with the public; we feel threatened we draw ranks. The Great Fire of London was blamed on the Dutch and many were set upon by gangs. The recent cry of “British Jobs for British Workers” is an understandable and predictable response to job cuts in an economic down turn. I am not saying it is the right response but it has been the usual response in such circumstances. The recent Carol Thatcher Gollywog incident and the call by a few for a children’s TV presenter, who has part of one arm missing, to be removed from our screens incase she scares the kiddies, are just the kind of stories I want to explore and shed some light on. It seems odd to me that the media are full of such stories and voicing opinions about political correctness gone mad when across the Atlantic Barack Obama has been elected the first black president of the US. Yet here in Britain the government, the public and the police themselves are arguing about whether the Met Police is still racist 10 years on from the McPherson enquiry.

It seemed timely for me to start chronicling these strange diverse times that we live in from my equally “strange” but practcal view point.