Claire - 

 

No urban myth I am afraid, I wish it were, My work as an employment assessor has taken me into the departments where such things are investigated. I do not think that money would be spent where a need was not identified!. For those in reciept of such allowances you may remember a recent ( 18 - 24 months ago?) government purge and review of the DLA process . I seem to recall press reports of politicians who were benefiting from the supply of mobility cars given to members of their familly and using them for their own purpose. Sorry No Urban Myth - fact!.

 

My comments about technology were not an attack on technology just a warning that people should look at the strengths of the individual and identify how they should be supported and exploited to better effect by appropriate technology and more importantly by developing the learning styles and methods around those. 

A good example of this would be a statement  in an assessment that said something like "supply a  recoder to record lectures". This is not a strategy it is merely an obvious application.  Bettter surely to exploit the recorder to it's full extent by looking at HOW it could be applied to improve the learning process as part of a more detailed strategy based on the individual in question. To much of the technology supplied is wasted, not because it is necessarily inappropriate but because it is not properly applied. Despite these observations technology will always be an important / major factor in addressing the needs of the disabled, just as it should be!. 

 

As I said before I have spent my long working life supporting the underdog including the disabled and disadvantaged. Indeed I have invested (and lost) large amounts of my own money in trying to make a difference where employment was involved. I do not, and never will believe that what we are all aiming for can be delivered without expenditure in substantial proportions. What I am trying to point out that any group that makes demands that effect the public purse to a substantial level will be under scrutiny by those that are either envious of that which is given or have set themselves up as watchdogs (ie some elementsof the press). How many remember the days of mass unemployment when the long term unemployed were labelled lazy or shiftless by elements in the press and some of our less moderate politicians of the day?. Was this entirely untrue or was there an element of truth hidden away in there?. I am sure that those of us that lived through that time can think of examples on either side of the argument. The situation will be identical if the disability issue is seen as an excuse to exploit grant or support aid. My comments merely reflect that caution should be exercised. From the results of the elections during that period we can see that  a significantly high number thought that there was an element of truth because those making the statements reamined in control. Not an exclusive item of proof but a good indicator.

Remember there is no automatic right to employment for anyone irrespective of whether they are disabled or not.

As a recipient of some of these elements of support I am certainly not anti disabled, anti system, dog in a manger or anything like it. I merely suggest we should not view the world through the proverbial rose tinted lens, things are rarely clear cut, someone with a disability (real or imagined) is equally as capable of exploiting a situation. Where money is available, for whatever reason, there will be someone there ready to try and manipulate or in the worst case cheat the system -  this is a simple fact of life that I suggest we acknowledge.

 

Terry Hart

 

 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Claire Wickham, Centre for Access and Communication Studies [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 

Sent: Thu 18/12/2003 11:19 

To: [log in to unmask] 

Cc: 

Subject: Re: DSAs & DLA (mobility) - Last Word?







	Terry,

	

	You write:

	

	I am concerned that by only seeing negatives we

	> are all closing our eyes to the exploitation of systems that I ; and I

	> suspect the rest of those that have contributed to the thread,  know to

	> go on. It is largely because of this exploitation that the rules are

	> being interpreted in a more draconian manner and those that are really

	> deserving are being denied proper support because of lack of funds.

	

	Terry, Where is the EVIDENCE of this exploitation? Or is it just an "urban

	myth"?

	

	 You wrote: Loading individuals with expensive technology etc is no

	> solution. Address the individuals need  not the disability.

	

	Apart from the fact that technology can often be the answer I would

	rephrase this as "address the individual's access requirements and thus

	reduce the disability"...the disability being the disadvantage that the

	individual experiences because of they way in which society treats them.

	(In this case because of employment practices.) It is important to address

	the workplace environment (or the university environment) to seek changes

	that will offer equal opportunity for disabled people.

	

	You wrote:

	 By people seeing or

	> perceiving any group, for whatever reason, demanding money and special

	> conditions, crying foul at every opportunity then they will not come to

	> their support.

	I'd say that sometimes the creation of equality does cost money and we

	should not pretend that it doesn't. Asking for equality is not the same as

	"demanding money". And access requirements are not, in my mind "special

	conditions", they are simply about creating an equal and fair society and

	about ensuring that everyone can participate in the labour market, gain

	access to HE etc.

	

	ATB

	

	Claire

	

	----------------------

	Claire Wickham,

	Director: Centre for Access and Communication Studies

	University of Bristol

	Union Building

	Queen's Road

	Clifton

	Bristol BS8 1LN

	

	Tel: 0117 954 5710/5705

	Textphone: 0117 954 5715

	Fax: 0117 954 5714

	

	[log in to unmask]