http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16458524
What does it say about Britain in 2012 when the Prime Minister openly makes jokes about disabled people?
David Cameron was compelled to apologise this weekend after describing the antics in the House of Commons of Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls as 'like having someone with Tourette's sitting opposite you'.
Of course it was the only thing the Prime Minister could do after such a highly-embarrassing gaffe. However, for him to make such comments completely beggars belief.
His remarks are so unbelievable for two reasons.
This is a man who has experience of caring for a severely disabled child himself. David Cameron went through the the very public loss of his first son, Ivan, who died three years ago aged 6, after suffering since birth from Ohtahara syndrome - a rare combination of epilepsy and cerebral palsy; a condition which meant he required round-the-clock care.
The PM of all people, should, therefore, have some empathy with those who live with disabilities and known better than to make such comments about Tourette's syndrome, a condition which is also highly debilitating and socially excluding.
Secondly, and much more disturbingly, even though we are well into the 21st Century, an enormous amount of prejudice and ignorance still exists in this country about disability. The PM's jibe at Ed Balls, only serves to illustrate just how widespread this is.
Mr Cameron's explanation that his remarks were 'off-the-cuff' will not wash with those who suffer with disabilities every day. It is just not good enough to say that he didn't give any thought beforehand how his remarks would be received.
We look to the PM to take the lead on such matters.
How will we ever rid this country of prejudice against disabled people if its leader sees fit to poke fun at them? They face enough obstacles in their daily lives without those who govern spreading the message to the nation that it is still acceptable to use those with disabilities as figures of ridicule.
It is a glaring example of just how totally out of touch the Prime Minister is with the lives of ordinary people.
Saturday 7 January 2012
Thursday 5 January 2012
Diane Abbott Racism Row Exposes The Dangers Of Micro-Blogging
ww.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8996425/Diane-Abbott-forced-to-apologise-in-racism-row-after-claiming-White-people-love-playing-divide-and-rule.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278
Veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott has caused uproar with a comment on Twitter that 'white people love to play divide and rule'.
Her tweet was in response to one made by a journalist criticising the media's over-use of the term 'black community' in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence murder trial.
Predictably, a number of Conservative MPs immediately called for Ed Miliband to sack her as Shadow Health Minister.
Tory backbencher Nadhim Zahawi quite rightly pointed out that if a white frontbencher or MP had made such sweeping generalisations about black people, they would have been sacked or forced to resign within the hour.
And can you imagine the furore if the same comment had been made about the Jews or Muslims?
Quite rightly, the Labour Leader immediately told Ms Abbott to apologise for her remarks.
The first female black MP, Diane Abbott has a very high profile within Westminster and nearly thirty years experience behind her on the backbenches. She has served all her constituents very well and is reknowned for her support for ethnic minorities.
Her latest remarks only serve to undermine all the good work she has done to promote better relations between the different ethnic groups in this country.
Given that she has not been a minister or shadow minister until now, one has to wonder whether Ms Abbott should have been kept away from the frontbench.
And crucially, this incident does raise a much wider issue.
It highlights the perils of politicians and other public figures using micro-blogging sites such as Twitter to communicate with the public. Ms Abbott should have definitely chosen her words more carefully and did have enough space to qualify her remarks by referring to 'some' white people rather than making a blanket generalisation about a whole ethnic group.
But given the fact that Twitter allows people to make only one short statement at a time, the question needs to be asked whether such new media is the most effective way for politicians to get their point across.
Anyone in public life - and especially politicians - has a responsibility to ensure that what they say or do cannot be misinterpreted or taken out of context in any way.
Making such a sweeping statement about any ethnic group, is bound to be interpreted by some as racist, even if Ms Abbott did not intend it to be viewed in that way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278
Veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott has caused uproar with a comment on Twitter that 'white people love to play divide and rule'.
Her tweet was in response to one made by a journalist criticising the media's over-use of the term 'black community' in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence murder trial.
Predictably, a number of Conservative MPs immediately called for Ed Miliband to sack her as Shadow Health Minister.
Tory backbencher Nadhim Zahawi quite rightly pointed out that if a white frontbencher or MP had made such sweeping generalisations about black people, they would have been sacked or forced to resign within the hour.
And can you imagine the furore if the same comment had been made about the Jews or Muslims?
Quite rightly, the Labour Leader immediately told Ms Abbott to apologise for her remarks.
The first female black MP, Diane Abbott has a very high profile within Westminster and nearly thirty years experience behind her on the backbenches. She has served all her constituents very well and is reknowned for her support for ethnic minorities.
Her latest remarks only serve to undermine all the good work she has done to promote better relations between the different ethnic groups in this country.
Given that she has not been a minister or shadow minister until now, one has to wonder whether Ms Abbott should have been kept away from the frontbench.
And crucially, this incident does raise a much wider issue.
It highlights the perils of politicians and other public figures using micro-blogging sites such as Twitter to communicate with the public. Ms Abbott should have definitely chosen her words more carefully and did have enough space to qualify her remarks by referring to 'some' white people rather than making a blanket generalisation about a whole ethnic group.
But given the fact that Twitter allows people to make only one short statement at a time, the question needs to be asked whether such new media is the most effective way for politicians to get their point across.
Anyone in public life - and especially politicians - has a responsibility to ensure that what they say or do cannot be misinterpreted or taken out of context in any way.
Making such a sweeping statement about any ethnic group, is bound to be interpreted by some as racist, even if Ms Abbott did not intend it to be viewed in that way.
Wednesday 4 January 2012
Tebbit Wrong To Criticise The Ending of Double Jeopardy In The Wake Of Convictions In Stephen Lawrence Case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16411652
Former Conservative Party Chairman Lord Tebbit has criticised the last Labour Government's ending of the Double Jeopardy rule following the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993.
Lord Tebbit is of course no stranger to controversy.
As Employment Secretary during the recession of the early 1980s, he famously told the the unemployed to 'get on their bikes' and look for work.
However, his criticism of Labour's ending of the centuries-old double jeopardy rule - which prevented someone from being tried twice for the same offence - is most definitely misplaced.
Labour's decision to change the law was made in the light of huge advances in forensic science. In the Stephen Lawrence case, new techniques - not available at the time of his murder in 1993 - allowed scientists to re-examine clothes worn by Dobson and Norris - two of those long suspected of being involved in the horrendous racist attack on the 18-year old - and find previously undetectable evidence of Stephen's DNA on them. Dobson had of course, been tried previously and acquitted.
In my view, Labour was most definitely right to change the law of double jeopardy. In the case of Stephen Lawrence, it was very clear from the start who the suspects were and without an amendment to the law, Gary Dobson would still be a free man, having got away with one of the most notorious crimes of the twentieth century.
Thanks to the scrapping of this very old legal principle these two racist thugs are now where they belong - behind bars.
It is a crying shame that both Dobson and Norris, now in their thirties, had to be tried as the juveniles they were in April 1993 and received much shorter sentences than they would have been given had the crime been committed today. Norris must serve a minimum of 14 years and Dobson 15.
It is the fervent hope of most law-abiding, tolerant people in this country that the Attorney General will overturn these extremely lenient sentences and ensure these despicable individuals are never allowed to inflict such harm ever again.
Labour made the right decision here. If someone is acquitted of a very serious crime, especially murder, there is no question in my mind that if new and compelling evidence comes to light even many years later, that that person should face a second trial and be brought to justice.
Former Conservative Party Chairman Lord Tebbit has criticised the last Labour Government's ending of the Double Jeopardy rule following the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993.
Lord Tebbit is of course no stranger to controversy.
As Employment Secretary during the recession of the early 1980s, he famously told the the unemployed to 'get on their bikes' and look for work.
However, his criticism of Labour's ending of the centuries-old double jeopardy rule - which prevented someone from being tried twice for the same offence - is most definitely misplaced.
Labour's decision to change the law was made in the light of huge advances in forensic science. In the Stephen Lawrence case, new techniques - not available at the time of his murder in 1993 - allowed scientists to re-examine clothes worn by Dobson and Norris - two of those long suspected of being involved in the horrendous racist attack on the 18-year old - and find previously undetectable evidence of Stephen's DNA on them. Dobson had of course, been tried previously and acquitted.
In my view, Labour was most definitely right to change the law of double jeopardy. In the case of Stephen Lawrence, it was very clear from the start who the suspects were and without an amendment to the law, Gary Dobson would still be a free man, having got away with one of the most notorious crimes of the twentieth century.
Thanks to the scrapping of this very old legal principle these two racist thugs are now where they belong - behind bars.
It is a crying shame that both Dobson and Norris, now in their thirties, had to be tried as the juveniles they were in April 1993 and received much shorter sentences than they would have been given had the crime been committed today. Norris must serve a minimum of 14 years and Dobson 15.
It is the fervent hope of most law-abiding, tolerant people in this country that the Attorney General will overturn these extremely lenient sentences and ensure these despicable individuals are never allowed to inflict such harm ever again.
Labour made the right decision here. If someone is acquitted of a very serious crime, especially murder, there is no question in my mind that if new and compelling evidence comes to light even many years later, that that person should face a second trial and be brought to justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)