Paul wrote: If "neurodiverse crips" assert themselves in "neurodiverse ways" is it simply as Colin asserts, that "our neurodiverse 'behaviour' is always misinterpreted". It does seem to mean there cannot be limits to what is acceptable conduct without being accused of imposing 'neurotypical' behavioiur.Now clearly this is a thorny issue..."
In my impression there is a need to dissect this issue as what we are discussing is a very political matter. there are 3 different issues to analyse regarding appropriateness: of conduct, of behaviour and language. These can be analysed in a matrix of two vertical columns: of appearance and of content. in this matrix therefore there're 12 issues to discuss: I.e. is the content/appearance of our/their conduct appropriate? is the content/appearance of our/their behaviour appropriate? is the content/appearance of our/their language appropriate?
In each of these areas there is a political struggled of forms. The persons who we relate in an organisation would be distress if we trespass what is the grounds of the 'acceptable. (and some will love to see us trespassing I.e. losing our temper/manners etc, because then content would not take priority. what would be discussed then will be the form, our form, never theirs). Paul is right when he suggest that this is similar in racial relations. (I.e. How wonderful the establishment feels when a person of ethnic minority swears. 'Here he is the tribal man/woman offending the civilised nation. Look at him, her. someone would even turn on the reflectors and start the camera rolling to record the incident for everyone to witness'. So everyone is relief because none will notice with the same intensity the offence committed against the swearing person in the first place).
We are in a land of political manners. ground that has already been set. So the sophisticated, the educated, the normalised could show off, and the forgotten, the working class, the rough, the excluded, the colonised, the drugtaker, the travesty,the prostitute would feel uncomfortable and self exclude from participation in the construction of society for the benefit of the 'middle nation'. (All who have had a panic attack when giving a speech or reading aloud would pay attention to this. It is not you, it is the setting you are in)
what I am referring to in this juxtaposition of discourses is that the cultural setting we are in make sure that everyone that is not benefited by the normalising capacities of the episteme (system) is autoexcluded.
So what?
Yes there are forms that need to be considered. But also there are thing that the educated (enlightened?)in the struggle of disabled people and other normalised categories, need also to consider. When you see a person swearing, or behaving different, whether because you just arrived, or because it is shown on TV, try to look at the content, try to understand him/her. Because he/she is not the animal that appears to be, and the establishment is not the civilised system that appears to be either. Look at the content, make an effort. This is particularly important for research too, so we could have a more rounded picture of what is going on.
So going back to the matrix. a campaigner, or a person who is going to knock at the massive wooden door of the establishment, to say I compliant because ...(I.e. you in fact are excluding me and I reclaim the right to exit in this world, my world too and not only yours!). would need to take into account that forms matter. It is the first hurdle. if we pass it, the content of what we say would be heard by some.
Hope this help, Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Reynolds" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Amended email Colin Revell:- A background history to my case from 1995 -present
Hello All
I know I am probably going to regret voicing two concerns, but.....
First, I wonder if this sort of communication is appropriate for this list - on disability research. If people think it is, then thats fine, but I wonder. I am also - and mainly - pretty - actually very - unhappy and uneasy about mails that refer to legal disputes or conflicts that name names - institutions are one thing, names are another. At the least names should be omitted unless such people are making discriminatory comments that are verifiable in the public domain.
If Colin wants to gain support from people on this list, thats fine, especially where feeling at risk is concerned. I don't think we should limit the site to 'pure research' because I think theory and practice should intertwine. If his version of events is taken as the truth - and of course it is one presentation of events - then i could imagine seeking support in, for example, an e-mail writing campaign to the chief executive of an organisation/council etc would be a good way of doing it. It might be more appropriate, however, for Colin to solicit people to submit their mails to him for a support list, and give people a choice - although the choice might be to delete without reading.
Second, I was very interested by one aspect of Colin's recent mails, because it raises an important issue. I quote:
"I have protested and complained and entered public building to assert my basic human and civil rights about the lack of my care and support as a neurodiverse disabled person and that my careplan is still not being implemented. The ERYC are stating that my 'neurodiverse' behaviour is causing their staff and officers great distress.
... Is this what happens to us neurodiverse crips when we try and assert ourselves in our neurodiverse ways, then our neurodiverse 'behaviour' is always misinterpreted. This happens to us with disabled neurotpicals too as I experienced with various disabled people at Hull and East Riding Choices and Rights CIL"
Over the last 15 years, anti-opressive practice informing issues of harassment and bullying have stressed increasingly not the intent to offend or oppress in behaviour, but the need to acknowledge the impact on those feeling offended/oppressed. Of course such thresholds are subjective and the problem with this has always been that one persons reasoned discussion is anothers threat - though responses to this subjectivity in specification nof behaviours has improved. That said, Colin raises an interesting issue.
By his representation, any distress caused to staff can be offset by a lack of appreciation of neurodiversity. If he replies to this e-mail saying I am a @@## **** or whatever for sending this mail, and I am offended, is it neurodiversity or inappropriate conduct? There is some similarity here in respect of gender and ethncity/racism and respectively patriarchy and racism/euro - ethnocentrism as a structuring agent for insensitivity. However if its a neurodiverse issue, i'm not sure you can attach the same remedy of senstivity and awareness traininjg, for example.
If "neurodiverse crips" assert themselves in "neurodiverse ways" is it simply as Colin asserts, that "our neurodiverse 'behaviour' is always misinterpreted". It does seem to mean there cannot be limits to what is acceptable conduct without being accused of imposing 'neurotypical' behavioiur. Now clearly this is a thorny issue, and its one that has filled my pauses for the last two days because I suspect it has really interesting reflections both on how disability if conceived and how we understand difference and diversity in a community/society. At the same time I wonder how list members who are sympathetic to Colin's monologue would react if confronted by staff reporting genuine "great distress"?
Paul
Paul Reynolds
Senior Lecturer in Sociology
Programme Leader in Sociology and Social Psychology
Department of Social and Psychological Sciences
Edge Hill College
St Helens Road
Ormskirk
Lancs L39 4QP
Tel: 01695 584370
email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Colin Revell <[log in to unmask]> 02/15/06 3:27 pm >>>
Amended email on 15/2/06 to the emailed letter 14/2/06 below:-
14/2/06
To all representatives( legal too) within East Riding of Yorkshire
Council(ERYC) and Deon Falcon and Adam Hatrick, solicitor representing all
the NHS Trust in my case....
In about August 2003, with my previous solictor Mr Clive Yeadon, Ridley and
Hall Solictors, Huddersfield we met up with Connie Young and Sheila
Leathley, ERYC Solictor and Mr Yeadon at this time gave both the East Riding
of Yorkshire Council and all local NHS Trusts '21-days' time-limit to start
implementing my careplan, if the above public-bodies refused to do this they
had 21 days to write to Mr Yeadon with their reasoned response, then if they
failed to comlpy with the letter written by Mr Yeadon, then Mr Yeadon
promised me and informed all the public bodies in my case that the matter
will be taken to 'judicial-review', but I never received any responses from
Mr Yeadon and from anyonerepresenting the East Riding of Yorkshire Council,
or local NHS Trusts(Deon Falcon) who at today's date have not responded to
these matters that need to be addressed.
All my previous advocates and I have contacted on numerous occassions
MrYeadon, and the various legal representives and officers within the above
mentioned public bodies, especially Connie Young, Pat Youle, Nigel Gardiner
and Deon Falcon and other officers at both the Local Government Ombudsman
and Health Services Ombudsman but I've had no satisfied responses at today's
date on the above mentioned.
I had accessed my GP records in 1995, but GP's, Health and Social Services
refused to accept any of my 'diagnoses' so I started to makes complaints and
this is when my long drawn-out embattlements with all these public bodies
began and is still continuing at today's date which is impcating on my
quality of life and I'm recievin ng 'no' health and social care and none of
the public bodies in my case will respond appropriately and threy are not
answering or responding to any of my complaints and as you are informed I am
banned from entering any 'public-buildings' withoin te East Riding of
Yorkshire Counselling which are being contested and challenged by my legal
advoactes and I within the Courts at present,, especially under Disability
Disacrimination Act 1995 and a serious violation of my basic human rights
under the HRA 1998 and ECHR 1950 and the 'actions' of East Riding of
Yorkshire Council in theartening me with 'prison' is a clear indication and
evidence of their continued failure to discharge their duty of care in
assessment of my needs and implementing careplan(s) and all the
recommendations of all clinical and other 'experts', with all the local NHS
Trusts, and all others public-bodies in my case.
My family and I were not aware, or informed of my childhood diagnoses in
1968( 5 years old), by Dr Philpot and also that when I informed my GP,
Health and Social Services that I had Asperger Syndrome with ADHD and
Tourtettes Syndrome I was informed that I had been reading too may books at
University and I had 'Medical Book Syndrome' and I was also misdiagnosed
with 'personality-disorders' too. My family and I olnly came aware of all
this after I accessed my GP record in 1995(aged 33 years old)
In about 1999 I approached instructing solictors in my case and
clinical-negligence and clinical and care and support recommendations
reports where carried out in my case By Dr Amitta Shah, by my previous
instructing solictors Mr John Tippet Sandersons, Hull, then in 2001,
through Mr Simon Holborn, previously of Carrick, Carr and Wright Solictors,
Hull and after Dr Shah's reports an urgent meeting took place with Jim
Hogarth and Dr Richard Turner representing the Hull and East Riding Health
Authourity and local NHS Trusts to discuss Dr Shah's reports and
recommendations, which as I have stated she was instructed by my solictors
around 'confirmation' of all my 'diagnoses' and recommendations of my
future care and support plan, in which she adresseded all the previous
clinical reports in my case, especially confirming the 'diagnoses' made by
Dr Amanda Kirby and her Team, at the Dyscovery Centre, Cardiff, in June
1999, where all these reports where jointly commisoned in 2001, by my local
NHS Trusts and East Riding of Yorkshire Council, but Dr Kirby was informed
that she was not allowed to 'diagnose' me, but in August 1999 I wrote to Dr
Kirby and she confirmed various diagnoses in my case, in which all the local
above mentioned public-bodies refused to accept and still do at today's
date.
The above mentioned public bodies also refused to accept my childhood
'diagnoses', in 1968 and also my 'diagnoses' within reports, written in
1996, from an Educational Psychologist called Mr Chris Singleton, at
University of Hull, who confirmed my childhood diagnosis while I was a
student at the University Humberside( now University of Lincoln) of
'severe-dyspraxia'(diagnosed by Dr Philpott, in 1968 with 'clumsy child
sydrome) and moderate-dyslexia'. My GP's, Health and Social Services refused
to accept all my 'diagnoses' and also stated that I did not have Asperger
Syndrome, Tourettes Syndrome and ADHD, that was diagnosed by Amanda Kirby
and her Team and also confirmed in the negligence report by Dr Amitta Shah.
I was represented at the above mentioned meeting by Mr Simon Holborn and Mr
John Meakin, Advocate. There where various issues agreed at this meeting
that have never been implemented and also my 'paticular of claims' served on
all the local NHS Trusts have not been responded too by any legal advocates
respresenting the NHS Trusts and I am aware that Mr Adam Hatrick, Hempson's
Solicitors is respresenting these NHS Trusts and I have made complaints to
him that Mr Holborn informs me that he never received any replies to my
'paticular-of-claims', from Adam Hartrick, or anyone else representing all
the NHS Trusts and also my 'paticular-of-claims' served on the East Riding
of Yorkshire Council, too on these matters by Mr Holborn, within the
required legal time-limit within the Civil Procedural rules. in my case.
Mr Holborn has previously reaasurred and informed me that he's now working
at Holborn and Co, Hull but he's prepared to swear a affadavit to my current
instructing solicitors and attend my Court hearing if need be.
I have discussed these matters with Mr Harttrick, but he's not appropriately
responded to me, or to any of my advocates on these matters.
In June 2005, I attended, with Dr Aylott, advocate and Adrian Whyatt, peer
advocate a tmeeting with the Health Service Ombudsman who have commisioned a
report from the lead clinical expert in the field of Autistic Spectrum
Disorders and Neurodiversity and again she confirmed all my previous
diagnoses, in which I hasten to add in 2003, by the Hull and East Yorkshire
Hospital Trust they commisioned a report from Professor Digby Tantam, who
also confirmed all my 'diagnoses', but at today's date none of the
public-bodies who have a reponsibility to discharge their duty of care in my
case are refusing to accept all my 'diagnoses' and 'recomendations' and are
continually refusing to implement any of my careplan(s) in my case at
today's date.
Then for me asserting my basic human and civil rights I am continually
discriminated against and 'abused' and 'theartened' with prison now'.
Can you all inform me and my legal advocates within 21 days why you have not
responded to all the above mentioned and I ask you please before my next
court hearings, at the Hull Combined Courts that you give me a fulll
response?
Yours Sincerely
Mr Colin Revell
_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
-----------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill or associated companies. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible and delete it and all copies of it. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient.
The message content of in-coming emails is automatically scanned to identify Spam and viruses otherwise Edge Hill do not actively monitor content. However, sometimes it will be necessary for Edge Hill to access business communications during staff absence.
Edge Hill has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus free. However, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Edge Hill for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
<<<<EdgeHill>>>>
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
