Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error
references to disabled and less abled
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joebaxil  
#1 Posted : 12 April 2012 22:19:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Joebaxil
Hi all I am re-formating statutary signage notice boards for the counties depots after transition, fire procedures , first aid ect . Existing refer to "disabled" and "handicapped" and could be upto 7 years old . I am sure these references are obsoltete but would like some clarification on this sensitive issue can any one kindly advise on current references ? regards j
Back to top
SNS  
#2 Posted : 12 April 2012 22:31:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SNS
Hi J, Try http://www.direct.gov.uk...abilityRights/DG_4001068 and the links. Some guidance http://www.equalityhuman...nition_of_disability.pdf uses the term 'disabled' as an overarching indicator. The equality act took over much of the DDA, I think that using 'disabled' is the up to date 'catch all'. HTH S
Back to top
boblewis  
#3 Posted : 12 April 2012 22:35:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis
In general terms the word disabled is probably the least worst word to use but even then this can be misunderstood if used inappropriately. Simply be aware of the range of potential disabilities that might be encountered and that some disabilities will not always need special arrangements in any case when you look at the detailed procedures. Bob
Back to top
Joebaxil  
#4 Posted : 13 April 2012 14:47:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Joebaxil
thanks guys for the responses much appreciated joe
Back to top
jamiep898  
#5 Posted : 13 April 2012 16:38:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jamiep898
Not sure, but I thought the term now being used was less-abled.
Back to top
Corfield35303  
#6 Posted : 13 April 2012 17:02:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Corfield35303
'Less-abled' sounds like PC claptrap to me. At a high level 'disability' is fine, when referring to more specific requirements try to stick to something more specific, such as 'people with disabilities' or even better, 'people with reduced mobility', or perhaps an appropriate pictographic symbol? Disability covers a range of topics including a vast range of non-physical conditions, and lumping them all together at the shop floor level (disabled fire refuge, disabled entrance or disabled parking) is just wrong; especially thinking of someone with a mental health condition that might classify as a disability......
Back to top
FloorTester  
#7 Posted : 15 April 2012 07:18:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
FloorTester
Corfield35303 wrote:
'Less-abled' sounds like PC claptrap to me.
It does get a tad confusing keeping up with all this 'Cultural Marxism' nonsense. I was berated last week for calling a footballer 'Coloured'. Apparently they're 'Black' now, even though the lad was plainly brown *confused*
Back to top
barnaby  
#8 Posted : 15 April 2012 08:27:53(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest
FloorTester wrote:
Corfield35303 wrote:
'Less-abled' sounds like PC claptrap to me.
It does get a tad confusing keeping up with all this 'Cultural Marxism' nonsense. I was berated last week for calling a footballer 'Coloured'. Apparently they're 'Black' now, even though the lad was plainly brown *confused*
Good Lord, you've led a sheltered life. Where've you been the last 30 years?
Back to top
Joebaxil  
#9 Posted : 15 April 2012 20:41:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Joebaxil
Hi all barnaby I agree with you on your statement 100 % bob I did stick with your suggested wording thanks didn't really want to start debate as it has been well discussed before can be a bit of a monster to finish . so I will leave it for another lucky punter to bring back . thanks again
Back to top
boblewis  
#10 Posted : 16 April 2012 13:23:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis
Floortester and by response Barnaby We should be much more careful about making or repeating such comments that are seen by many as offensive Bob
Back to top
barnaby  
#11 Posted : 16 April 2012 14:05:28(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest
I agree Bob. In retrospect I should have addressed what I saw as a crass comment head on rather than (try to) mock what in the 1980’s was (sadly) a fairly common response but is now, fortunately fairly rare. Sorry if it was misconstrued.
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET