We’ve just been told about a wonderful charity called The Bike Experience who have the audacity to allow and even encourage disabled people to ride motorcycles – whatever next.
Apparently there seems to be no real barrier to anyone with a disability who want’s to ride a motorcycle to do so so quite why the DWP think it impossible is unclear. With proper planning and suitable adaptations a disabled motorcyclist can ride again.
Apparently there are more disabled people daring to defy convention and are getting themselves out of their wheelchairs and onto motorcycles – how very dare they.
Surely, they should be at home in front of the TV, munching their way through packets of crisps and not daring to show their faces above the disability parapet?
This can’t be right … it’s not contagious is it, this defying of convention, this abject disregard for the order of the universe?
Bloody good job and more power to you all guys! Maybe you should ride along to Southwark Crown Court and let the powers that be understand that being disabled doesn’t mean you should not have a life.
We’ve been rather inactive of late due to serious family issues which have left no time to keep on top of this blog. We’re gearing up with some updates shortly.
On the suggestion of Jason (thanks) we’ve made a FOIA request on the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website. The first interesting point is that SOCA is not subject to FOIA and therefore will not process FOIA requests. Under Regulation 4 of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), environmental information relevant to the functions of the Security Services, which does not adversely affect national security can be requested.
Apparently, it is SOCA policy to make non-operational information available on the SOCA website, in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. SOCA website have undertaken to take into account suggestions for additions to their website. You can only request information about the environment from this authority.
Never ones to say never, we’ve made a request anyway which you can follow here. The text of the request is:
Dear Serious and Organised Crime Agency,
PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002 (POCA)
Please provide information on numbers of central government, local government, senior civil servants and others employed by government related departments who have been subjected to POCA.
Please provide information on numbers of Members of Parliament who have had POCA applied to them.
Please provide information on numbers of members of the House of Lords who have had POCA applied to them.
Please provide information on numbers of members of the general population who have had POCA applied to them.
We understand that no information that may affect national security can be requested and believe that the information is demographic in nature and relevant to environmental issues. No information on specifics are required just simply number of POCA processes enacted against the above cross section of the
We’ll keep you posted.
As advocates for disabled people and having provided support, guidance and advice to disabled people looking for work and for employers who want to consider employing disabled people we are fully aware of the realities of disabled people in the workplace and find that Mr Davies’ comments are not only wrong (on so many levels) but utterly and completely evil.
He has shown us a clear and unequivocal example of ‘institutional discrimination’ as anyone could wish for. Not only is he uninformed, he is insulting beyond belief – he should not apologise, he should resign and head for the darkest corner he can find and thank God that he doesn’t have to himself endure the kind of life many disabled people face every day of their lives – a prison sentence that has no parole and where the light at the end of the tunnel is death.
A wrong but honest reply in The Mail only goes to show how ill informed employers are; the long term disabled are far more reliable because they actually know what their barriers are and have spent a lot of time adjusting and managing them the result of which is greater reliability rather than less. We could give an endless list of examples such as how PP, a blind person has replaced two ‘able’ bodied people on a switchboard and retains phone numbers, doesn’t need a directory, has perfect voice recognition and so makes his employer seem able to offer a personalised service to all his customers.
Many disabled people have been failed by institutional discrimination from education onwards but it only takes finding (or making) the right opportunity for them to be able to shine – often brighter than their ‘able’ counterparts.
There are suggestions of a “trial run” for disabled people which seems, on the face of it, sensible but consider how discriminatory it really is; are ‘able’ people required to work without pay to prove themselves, of course not – there is a probationary period during which people prove they can do the job.
Institutional discrimination is rife in this country and even those who feel they ‘understand’ the needs of the disabled often do not – the problem we face now is that the previous and current governments have set up to demonise the disabled of this country and present them as scrounging, whining lazy and complacent layabouts which cannot be further from the truth.
Government spin prevails and the most vulnerable suffer as a result; when has it every been acceptable to prey on those who face barriers in every day life that would exhaust most ‘able’ people after a week of effort?
The Telegraph reports on the Condem’s latest initiative to remove our civil liberties – where did this little gem spring from? A new database to be introduced next week that holds the details of 15 million people (a quarter of the population of Britain) must have taken some effort to fund, organise, purchase, develop, install and ‘test’ – so where’s the white paper on this? Included are the details of around 6 million innocent people and victims of crime so it’s not a great leap of the imagination to see a database that contains details on everyone.
Apparently more than 12,000 ‘approved’ people will have access to this database and bollocks to anyone who says “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. With so many new laws introduced by Labour it is only a matter of time before everyone breaks one law or another which will warrant them being included in the ever growing database until every man, woman and child will be included as a matter of course and the abandoned ID register will suddenly be in place with ID cards being compulsory for those with a criminal record, perhaps a blue one for those who are not guilty of any crime but you will have to carry it to show to any uniform that has the power to stop you to prove that you have no criminal record – what a clever government.
We know of someone who works in Westminster who has been interviewed four times by her local council housing office because there is a “flag” against the address although they have no idea why – this is the result of the database mentality (it must be right cos the ‘puter sez so) which will have some jobs-worth going along every 3 months because the database says they should although they don’t know what they are looking to achieve and can’t possibly gain any results from this waste of time.
This is a real life example of that reliance on computers does to the brain and the size of this proposed database (a Condem initiative despite slamming a similar Labour idea) will mean that there will be considerable errors which will never be corrected and while will – over time – change the perspective of the data it supposedly represents.
The events of 9/11 and 7/7 gave both the US and UK governments exactly the excuse they needed to implement their ‘terror’ legislation and to slowly erode our civil liberties – a freedom lost is never regained; there are always unintended consequences to legislation but there appear to be no efforts to deal with those consequences but only compound them but never to the advantage of the individual and always to the advantage of the ‘state’.
This creeping abuse of powers has been going on for a lot longer than people realise and most fail to comprehend the extent to which their rights and safeguards under law are being systematically removed – this is nothing short of tyranny.
Nick Clegg, the deputy PM created his website called “Your Freedoms” and called for the people to suggest which laws should be looked at or repealed. When the website closed down, the suggestions made there were thrown away and despite writing to his office to find out what was happening to the suggestions, there was no definitive answer.
The ConDems made much of the thousands of new laws that Labour enacted while in power; the thousands of new ways that money could be generated through the courts to swell the coffers of the government.
No laws have been repealed, no action taken so there are thousands of people turning to legal aid assistance to fight frivolous cased in courts and so the bill goes up.
Repeal some laws, restore some balance and the legal aid bill will go down as a result; do we really need money spent by councils on bin inspectors and do we really need to burden the courts with frivolous litigation to fine old Mrs Jones for putting a baked bean tin in her waste bin?
The burdens are imposed by the government and local councils, they should be the ones to sort out the problem, reduce the number of laws that have painted the people of this country into an ever smaller corner to the point that you can’t take a breath without fracturing some law, statute or governance.