Language is a wonderful thing. So many meanings even when we think we are
talking about the same thing. Like 'disability', 'religious', 'courageous',
'dignity', 'care', 'autonomy' and so on. When we name disability having in
mind impairment, attitudes and environment as underlying it, it
automatically still registers as 'suffering' and a range of other negatives
in the mind of much of the public. To be religious can be a positive in the
right environment and being considered a close-minded zealot in another.
When politicians make a courageous decision they mean something different to
say independent advocacy for others in opposition to powerful opponents.
Dignity for many is lost when they become dependent on others for basic
bodily tasks. In the 'real' world it is experienced , when the chips
are down, as constructed of positive social and competently supportive
caring relationships.
Language has a emotional associations and deeper meanings many or most may
have forgotten - and that's just part of the dynamics of language. Question
is, should we ditch a word because it has a
negative feel, due to extensive contamination in how it has been used, like
'retarded', or should we resurrect explicitly using it in its original
meaning(s)? Answer probably is: it depends.
On vulnerability I will stick with it as a perfectly good word that, in
disability, describes a person being at risk of serious uhhhm...negative
impacts on health, life, security, wellbeing and is not in my view
extensively contaminated with negative meaning. But that can change..
As for using it to pertain to the situation and not the person Michael I
cannot see
how you could have a vulnerable situation wherein the person herself would
then
not be a vulnerable person. So, yes I do think vulnerability can attach to a
person. It is not about grammatical subtleties but about meanings of a
concept like vulnerability as a fact of life. With my own reality of
quadriplegia I would be
extremely vulnerable cfor example even if no-one turned up one day to get me
up or help me
back to bed, or performed some of my care routines incompetently. I have no
problem in acknowledging that.
The origins of vulnerability go back to 'vulnerabilis', my search reveals,
meaning the ability to be wounded or (vulnare meaning 'to wound') hurt or
being
exposed to danger. Some will be familiar with the concept of 'wounds' that
people with disability often have such as being rejected, lonely, seen as
eternal child, object of charity, pity, ridicule and so on. To propose this
concept of
wounding is a logical step after understanding vulnerability as
vulnerabilis. I am aware that to support the validity of this Wolfensberger
concept may render Michael vulnerable to an attack of apoplexy :-))) but,
while expressing my sympathy, will continue to think of it as relevant and
explanatory. 'Vulnerability'
has a respectably aged heritage, apparently at least from the 16th century
(when we did have institutionalised 'service' settings but I do not know
that the notion of vulnerability was appreciated there - maybe someone does
know) and is used in lots of domains, not just disability service land
(though I agree that, like dependence, negative stereotyping can be
associated with vulnerability in these settings, in the ways I have
suggested). EG, it has been used in the rendering vulnerable of countries in
the GFC, in childhood development, in engineering, and in describing
unsustainable situation of our planet under worsening conditions of global
warming.
There seem to be different dimensions in this exploration of
'vulnerability.' One is the felt negative labeling of being named a
vulnerable person, acting as disabling language. Second, as explained there
is a meaning of vulnerability which is just an unemotional fact about the
human condition in an unpredictable world, something that we could manage by
paying attention to the disabling context. Banning the word 'vulnerable' as
pertaining to a person does not remove the fact of vulnerability for all of
us or heightened vulnerability for many people who have disabilities. Third
I think that 'risk' or rather, 'to be at risk of' something has some initial
appeal but on reflection has pitfalls greater than 'vulnerability' offers.
'Risk' with its origin from halfway through the 17th century
is 'exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance:
It's not worth the risk. ' Often it is used in insurance as 'the hazard or
chance of loss'; the degree of probability of such loss; the amount that the
insurance company may lose.;a person or thing with reference to the hazard
involved in insuring him,
her, or it; the type of loss, as life, fire, marine disaster, or earthquake,
against which an insurance policy is drawn.
The first thing I notice is that it is very much about loss. This is a
different from vulnerability as this is a consequence arising from exposure
to the chance of exposure to injury. Vulnerability just pertains to the
state of relative defencelessness against bad things that could happen. Risk
is very much associated with banking, investment, commerce and insurance,
the latter a concept where money can redress any
losses suffered. The higher the risk the higher the premium to pay for this
insurance.
Serviceland was also responsible for using the 'dignity of risk' as a
concept that was used to abandon people to their 'autonomous choices'
because this was according them the respect of being allowed to make bad
choices, even if the person was not fully capable of exercising their
autonomy and the risks could have serious consequencses. In my time as
tribunal member in n adult guardianship and administration jurisdictions it
was not uncommon to hear service organisations appeal to 'dignity of risk'
effectively absolving them of their own inadequate care and support.
Interestingly, a serviceland/government-proposed 'National
Disability Insurance Scheme' (NDIS) in Australia is proposing that
underlying it is a view of "disability as risk." If disability is a risk in
'able-normal' life then it is a burden and not considered as a normal part
of the human condition, as interdependence suggests it is. 'Vulnerability'
is a word that you will not find in any of the NDIS materials. It does not,
for one reason, because that would spread its exposure beyond the
medical-diagnostic group it has identified as its core recipients: those
with 'severe and profound' disabilities. Risk fits within the
market-economic view of life upon which the NDIS is also explicitly founded.
'Risk-avoidance' being one concept that would see a public-levy-funded
scheme such as this one spread ITS risks of pay outs and cut its losses.
This is a far cry from paying attention to fundamental needs of the people
who would stand to benefit from this 'scheme.' I view the market-economic
colonisation of 'being of service' as a disabling reality that contributes
to our vulnerability. Risk then is also a word that sanitises vulnerability
in the same way that global warming has become the more innocuous-sounding
climate change. It also has a strong disabling flavour in describing
disability as loss, compensable with money and by extention a burden. It is
therefore more accurate, and a better protection, of a person who may be in
a coma in an underresourced, outsourced, cost-benefit run hospital system to
call them highly vulnerable rather than describe the situation in terms of
risk. Vulnerable in that situation is to call a spade a spade.
I admit I am unaware of the risk literature Susie refers to so this is the
extent of my critique of risk and vulnerability.
Kind regards
Erik Leipoldt
EW----- Original Message -----
From: "Vision Sense - Susie" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
Dear Colleagues
This is a very current debate and interesting to read your posts on it.
Writing as a disabled woman who works with 'victims' (another problematic
term!) and Survivors of systems and crimes, it's common that professionals
often attempt to locate the label of 'vulnerable' onto myself and others
(particularly young disabled people) in relation to service provision.
It's a term I politically reject.
'Vulnerability' is direct contrast to the resistance experienced by Survivor
identity and cultural pride delivered by disabled people with engagement
with the Disability Movement, disability arts and outsider art; I consider
it to be a disabling term which can damage the space where people can take
their own agency.
I've only ever heard oppressed people without a cultural identity as
disabled, or people experiencing psychoemotional disablism (from hate crime,
sexual violence or in segregated 'care') use the word 'vulnerable' about
themselves and even then it may be a learned narrative; it's a 'serviceland'
(thanks Crippen!) term that disabled people from a social model approach
haven't chosen for ourselves.
Gents may note that women working through feminisms and male hegemonies had
this debate over thirty years ago, when we located as 'vulnerable' to sexual
violence; even policy now recognises that women may be in situations at risk
of rape or battering, but are not inherently 'vulnerable' as the problem is
with the perpetrator or the lack of safety, not the subject.
For a more eloquent discussion of notions of 'vulnerability' in criminal
justice, see Disability and Society in spring 2011 (in press), when an
article by Roulstone, Thomas and Balderston will unpick the notions in
relation to disablist hate crime. Hollomotz work is excellent in resisting
'vulnerability' as a notion in relation to learning disabled people in
institutional settings.
In short, the 'care' and policy industries may promote the term, but may
fail to grasp the correct grammatical subtlety offered by Erik! So I'm
sticking with 'risk' and resisting the use of 'vulnerability' until someone
can convince me otherwise..
Best,
Susie Balderston
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Bleasdale
Sent: 25 November 2010 04:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
Dear Erik and the group,
I seem to recall having a similar discussion to this in your living room,
Erik!
Having read both of these posts, I find myself in agreement with the
majority of points made in both of them. I am not quite as critical of the
modern discourse of autonomy and individual rights as is Erik, but I do
accept that framing independence (and taking this to mean no mutual
assistance or reliance) as nirvana is problematic.
However, the term "vulnerable", I believe, has a tendency to "stick" to
certain labels which are appended to people who are regarded as other by
society, and informs an understanding that there is something inherent to
the person's biology that renders them naturally vulnerable. I accept that
Erik is deliberately not discounting impairment as a quality which can
render someone vulnerable, but I think we need to be careful not then to
establish some continuum whereby as a person's impairment increases thereby
increases their vulnerability.
I think the term "vulnerable" can be useful but it should related to
circumstances and situations, rather than attributed to the person as part
of their natural make-up. Thus, a person with disability is "vulnerable to
sexual abuse", is attributable to their living and socio-economic
circumstances, the extent to which the society objectifies women with
disability, and to aspects of their capacity to resist attack or to be in
situations where they are accompanied and therefore not open to this risk.
I try as much as possible to refrain from describing the person themselves
as vulnerable - only vulnerable to these external forces because of a range
of factors. So in that sense I agree with Erik that it is a good word to
describe the situation - but not the person.
All the best,
Michael Bleasdale
-----Original Message-----
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of erik leipoldt
Sent: Thursday, 25 November 2010 1:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
I don't see the word vulnerable as problematic. It only involves a personal
value judgement if you want to experience vulnerability as such. Agree: All
people, life really, are/is vulnerable to environmental events, attitudes
from other humans, and their often unconsciously held dominant social values
construct. Many people with disabilities are more highly vulnerable than
most other people because of the nature of their impairment, social
attitudes and environment. No-one is truly invulnerable, though
vulnerability is reduced according to the type of impairment and what
supportive environment one has.
The dominant social values tell us daily that vulnerability and dependence
on others is shameful. So, if the paper Helen refers to vulnerable in a
negative sense (as in: 'they' are vulnerable, therefore objects of, to be
subjected to, charity, services and care, and 'we' are not) it seems to me
that it is that perception that needs challenging.
Society's mnessage is we should all be autonomous, independent actors
choosing goods and services in a market economy. For one this construct has
led us to the brink of global social and environmental breakdown. Secondly
this picture is an illusion of what makes for a good life. Thirdly it is
unsustainable. Fourthly, its underlying values are a major cause of
disablement of people who have impairments. Instead we are all
interdependent - with each other and every aspect of the planet and its
life. Whereas we may construct useful constructs like 'independent living'
and demanding choice in how are needs are met, we don't mean we want to live
by ourselves as an independent, disconnected individual. We want and need
good enlivening, supportive and freely-given relationships to transcend
disability including through the appropriate goods and services. Choice
really means full participation in assessing our needs and how they are met.
So, I think, vulnerable is a good word to describe the situation of many
people with disability and we may all reduce or maximise it by our own, and
social attitudes. Does that help?
Kind regards,
Erik Leipoldt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liz Panton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
Hi Helen,
I am not scholarly either :-) Very good question - it has made me think!
In the consultation document you mentioned, is "vulnerable" defined in any
way? If it is not, then that could be confusing, as there are specific
definitions in use, eg. Criminal Records Bureau
http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/faqs/definitions.aspx#definition
What is the definition of a Vulnerable Adult?
A vulnerable adult is a person who is aged 18 years or older and:
- is living in residential accommodation, such as a care home or a
residential special school;
- is living in sheltered housing;
- is receiving domiciliary care in his or her own home;
- is receiving any form of health care;
- is detained in a prison, remand centre, young offender institution,
secure training centre or attendance centre or under the powers of the
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
- is in contact with probation services;
- is receiving a welfare service of a description to be prescribed in
regulations;
- is receiving a service or participating in an activity which is
specifically targeted at people with age-related needs, disabilities or
prescribed physical or mental health conditions. (age-related needs
includes
needs associated with frailty, illness, disability or mental capacity);
- is an expectant or nursing mothers living in residential care;
- is receiving direct payments from a local authority/HSS body in lieu of
social care services;
- requires assistance in the conduct of his or her own affairs
That covers a wide swathe of the population, with rather more being
vulnerable on Friday night than Friday morning.
I went on POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) training a few years ago
and the trainers emphasised that the local authority took a very inclusive
view of "vulnerability" and that context was critical. One of the examples
given was that whilst someone might not be a "vulnerable adult" stone-cold
sober that they would be considered to be a "vulnerable adult" if, after a
few drinks, they "required assistance in the conduct of their own affairs".
This is a more general definition that seems to express the concerns
underpinning the CRB definition:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnerable
Etymology
From Late Latin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin>
vulnerābilis<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnerabilis#Latin>
(“injurious, wounding”), from Latin
vulnerō<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnero#Latin>
(“I wound”).
Adjective
*vulnerable*
(*comparative<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparable>
* *more vulnerable*,
*superlative<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparable>
* *most vulnerable*)
1. More or most likely to be
exposed<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exposed>to the chance of being
attacked <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attack> or
harmed<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harm>,
either physically or emotionally. *"You are vulnerable to be bullied by
someone at school."*
The synonyms are where the problems of negative stereotypes come in. Maybe
it is hard to find a better alternative because, of all the synonyms,
"vulnerable" is already the least offensive? To find a better term, maybe
you have to start from a different concept?
In the context of the consultation document, I guess that goes back to the
question of, what is the reason for identifying a state of "vulnerability"
and/or a "vulnerable person"?
Your question about the use of the word "vulnerable" has made me think about
it as I had accepted it as an objective term, understood in context. Food
for thought :-)
Best wishes,
Liz Panton
*
*I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
Find out how you can help here:
http://www.everyclick.com/communicationmatters
On 24 November 2010 18:27, Bryant, Helen <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Firstly, please forgive me if you think this is an inappropriate place
> for this discussion: it's not exactly scholarly, but it's relevant to my
> work, and I'm sure yours, too, in many cases.
>
> For some time, now I've been railing against the systemic use of the
> word "vulnerable" by Social Services. I'm sure it's used all over the
> country, not just here.
>
> I'm commenting on a consultation which is to be held, soon, and I've
> said the following - which, I have to admit, may be a bit pompous, but
> I'm trying to make a point:
>
> "I'm going to be picky. As a disabled person, I hate, with every fibre
> of my being, being described as "vulnerable".
>
> EVERYONE is vulnerable, to one extent or another; you stand in front of
> a moving bus going at speed and tell me otherwise! We're all flesh and
> blood, and all "vulnerable" to the "thousand natural shocks that flesh
> is heir to". Good old Hamlet!
>
> The 'v' word is throughout the document, and unless there is some big
> objection I think it should be substituted for another, less contentious
> one. However, try as I might, I can't find an alternative.
>
> As you can see from this link, "vulnerable" could be construed as
> offensive: http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=vulnerable "
>
> I just cannot find a better word.
>
> So, has anyone else decided to tackle this head on? If so, what were
> the results?
>
> Yours ever hopefully,
>
> Helen
>
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient
> to
> whom it has been addressed and may be covered by legal professional
> privilege and protected by law.
> Reading Borough Council does not accept responsibility for any
> unauthorised
> amendment made to the contents of this e-mail following its dispatch.
>
> Reading Borough Council has scanned for viruses. However, it is your
> responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any) for viruses.
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Bleasdale" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
Dear Erik and the group,
I seem to recall having a similar discussion to this in your living room,
Erik!
Having read both of these posts, I find myself in agreement with the
majority of points made in both of them. I am not quite as critical of the
modern discourse of autonomy and individual rights as is Erik, but I do
accept that framing independence (and taking this to mean no mutual
assistance or reliance) as nirvana is problematic.
However, the term "vulnerable", I believe, has a tendency to "stick" to
certain labels which are appended to people who are regarded as other by
society, and informs an understanding that there is something inherent to
the person's biology that renders them naturally vulnerable. I accept that
Erik is deliberately not discounting impairment as a quality which can
render someone vulnerable, but I think we need to be careful not then to
establish some continuum whereby as a person's impairment increases thereby
increases their vulnerability.
I think the term "vulnerable" can be useful but it should related to
circumstances and situations, rather than attributed to the person as part
of their natural make-up. Thus, a person with disability is "vulnerable to
sexual abuse", is attributable to their living and socio-economic
circumstances, the extent to which the society objectifies women with
disability, and to aspects of their capacity to resist attack or to be in
situations where they are accompanied and therefore not open to this risk.
I try as much as possible to refrain from describing the person themselves
as vulnerable - only vulnerable to these external forces because of a range
of factors. So in that sense I agree with Erik that it is a good word to
describe the situation - but not the person.
All the best,
Michael Bleasdale
-----Original Message-----
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of erik leipoldt
Sent: Thursday, 25 November 2010 1:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
I don't see the word vulnerable as problematic. It only involves a personal
value judgement if you want to experience vulnerability as such. Agree: All
people, life really, are/is vulnerable to environmental events, attitudes
from other humans, and their often unconsciously held dominant social values
construct. Many people with disabilities are more highly vulnerable than
most other people because of the nature of their impairment, social
attitudes and environment. No-one is truly invulnerable, though
vulnerability is reduced according to the type of impairment and what
supportive environment one has.
The dominant social values tell us daily that vulnerability and dependence
on others is shameful. So, if the paper Helen refers to vulnerable in a
negative sense (as in: 'they' are vulnerable, therefore objects of, to be
subjected to, charity, services and care, and 'we' are not) it seems to me
that it is that perception that needs challenging.
Society's mnessage is we should all be autonomous, independent actors
choosing goods and services in a market economy. For one this construct has
led us to the brink of global social and environmental breakdown. Secondly
this picture is an illusion of what makes for a good life. Thirdly it is
unsustainable. Fourthly, its underlying values are a major cause of
disablement of people who have impairments. Instead we are all
interdependent - with each other and every aspect of the planet and its
life. Whereas we may construct useful constructs like 'independent living'
and demanding choice in how are needs are met, we don't mean we want to live
by ourselves as an independent, disconnected individual. We want and need
good enlivening, supportive and freely-given relationships to transcend
disability including through the appropriate goods and services. Choice
really means full participation in assessing our needs and how they are met.
So, I think, vulnerable is a good word to describe the situation of many
people with disability and we may all reduce or maximise it by our own, and
social attitudes. Does that help?
Kind regards,
Erik Leipoldt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liz Panton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
Hi Helen,
I am not scholarly either :-) Very good question - it has made me think!
In the consultation document you mentioned, is "vulnerable" defined in any
way? If it is not, then that could be confusing, as there are specific
definitions in use, eg. Criminal Records Bureau
http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/faqs/definitions.aspx#definition
What is the definition of a Vulnerable Adult?
A vulnerable adult is a person who is aged 18 years or older and:
- is living in residential accommodation, such as a care home or a
residential special school;
- is living in sheltered housing;
- is receiving domiciliary care in his or her own home;
- is receiving any form of health care;
- is detained in a prison, remand centre, young offender institution,
secure training centre or attendance centre or under the powers of the
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
- is in contact with probation services;
- is receiving a welfare service of a description to be prescribed in
regulations;
- is receiving a service or participating in an activity which is
specifically targeted at people with age-related needs, disabilities or
prescribed physical or mental health conditions. (age-related needs
includes
needs associated with frailty, illness, disability or mental capacity);
- is an expectant or nursing mothers living in residential care;
- is receiving direct payments from a local authority/HSS body in lieu of
social care services;
- requires assistance in the conduct of his or her own affairs
That covers a wide swathe of the population, with rather more being
vulnerable on Friday night than Friday morning.
I went on POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) training a few years ago
and the trainers emphasised that the local authority took a very inclusive
view of "vulnerability" and that context was critical. One of the examples
given was that whilst someone might not be a "vulnerable adult" stone-cold
sober that they would be considered to be a "vulnerable adult" if, after a
few drinks, they "required assistance in the conduct of their own affairs".
This is a more general definition that seems to express the concerns
underpinning the CRB definition:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnerable
Etymology
From Late Latin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin>
vulnerābilis<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnerabilis#Latin>
(“injurious, wounding”), from Latin
vulnerō<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnero#Latin>
(“I wound”).
Adjective
*vulnerable*
(*comparative<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparable>
* *more vulnerable*,
*superlative<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparable>
* *most vulnerable*)
1. More or most likely to be
exposed<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exposed>to the chance of being
attacked <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attack> or
harmed<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harm>,
either physically or emotionally. *"You are vulnerable to be bullied by
someone at school."*
The synonyms are where the problems of negative stereotypes come in. Maybe
it is hard to find a better alternative because, of all the synonyms,
"vulnerable" is already the least offensive? To find a better term, maybe
you have to start from a different concept?
In the context of the consultation document, I guess that goes back to the
question of, what is the reason for identifying a state of "vulnerability"
and/or a "vulnerable person"?
Your question about the use of the word "vulnerable" has made me think about
it as I had accepted it as an objective term, understood in context. Food
for thought :-)
Best wishes,
Liz Panton
*
*I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
Find out how you can help here:
http://www.everyclick.com/communicationmatters
On 24 November 2010 18:27, Bryant, Helen <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Firstly, please forgive me if you think this is an inappropriate place
> for this discussion: it's not exactly scholarly, but it's relevant to my
> work, and I'm sure yours, too, in many cases.
>
> For some time, now I've been railing against the systemic use of the
> word "vulnerable" by Social Services. I'm sure it's used all over the
> country, not just here.
>
> I'm commenting on a consultation which is to be held, soon, and I've
> said the following - which, I have to admit, may be a bit pompous, but
> I'm trying to make a point:
>
> "I'm going to be picky. As a disabled person, I hate, with every fibre
> of my being, being described as "vulnerable".
>
> EVERYONE is vulnerable, to one extent or another; you stand in front of
> a moving bus going at speed and tell me otherwise! We're all flesh and
> blood, and all "vulnerable" to the "thousand natural shocks that flesh
> is heir to". Good old Hamlet!
>
> The 'v' word is throughout the document, and unless there is some big
> objection I think it should be substituted for another, less contentious
> one. However, try as I might, I can't find an alternative.
>
> As you can see from this link, "vulnerable" could be construed as
> offensive: http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=vulnerable "
>
> I just cannot find a better word.
>
> So, has anyone else decided to tackle this head on? If so, what were
> the results?
>
> Yours ever hopefully,
>
> Helen
>
>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient
> to
> whom it has been addressed and may be covered by legal professional
> privilege and protected by law.
> Reading Borough Council does not accept responsibility for any
> unauthorised
> amendment made to the contents of this e-mail following its dispatch.
>
> Reading Borough Council has scanned for viruses. However, it is your
> responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any) for viruses.
>
> If received in error, you must not retain the message or disclose its
> contents to anyone.
> Please contact the sender of the email or mailto:
> [log in to unmask] or call Customer Services
> on 0800 626540 or if international (+44) 118 939 0900, quoting the name of
> the sender and the addressee and then delete the e-mail
>
> ________________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 list administration should be sent to
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to 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 list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to 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 list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to 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 list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to 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 list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|
