Newsletter Of The British Council Of Disabled People. 
April 2005 - Issue 55. 
British Council Of Disabled People - Fighting For Our Human And Civil Rights! 
Activate from BCODP. 


Articles in this Edition:
Section 1 - Contacts & Acknowledgements
Section 2 - Incapacity Benefit - Is Blair being fair to disabled people?
Section 3 - Disability and Bioethics 
Section 4 - Improving the life chances of disabled people 
Section 5 - In brief - Campaigners fight disability means testing.
Section 6 - Notice of Annual General Meeting 
Section 7 - The invisible faces of the disabled in Public Appointments 
Section 8 - The Ragged edge - Have your say
Section 9 - Hello and Welcome 
Section 10 - In Memory ...a tribute to Lesley M Childs.
Section 11 - What is TUDA ? 
Section 12 - Update on Mental Capacity Bill 
Section 13 - Out and About with BCODP 
Section 14 - Campaign Talk / Tories outline plans 
Section 15 - Campaign / Right to Vote 
Section 16 - Letters to the Editor
Section 17 - Entertainment Report / Disability Film Festival 
Section 18 - Manifesto for Inclusion 
Section 19 - The new equality commission is go 
Section 20 - Just in time - New Disability Discrimination Act 
Section 21 - Update on Progress / What has been achieved in the Lords
Section 22 - Researchers seeking help 
Section 23 - Shame on Scope 
Section 24 - Manifesto for Disabled People proposal 
Section 25 - The Archive Project for the disabled people's movement

Section 1. Contacts and Acknowledgments.
Head Office - Derby: Address: BCODP, Litchurch Plaza, Litchurch Lane, Derby DE24 8AA 
Telephone: 01332 295 551, Fax:01332 295 580, Minicom: 01332 295 581. Email:sheilab@bcodp.org.uk or general@bcodp.org.uk
Office Manager - Vicki Stowell. 
Acting General Manager/ Finance Manager - Sheila Blair. 
Administration Assistant - Kevin Towler.
Research Officer - Margaret Bordogna-Crane. 
Transcriptions Officer - Jayne Foulds. 
Campaigns, Media & Parliamentary - Simone Aspis & Penny Bould. 

Not forgetting our volunteers: Anastasia Kelly, Rauol Perry and Len Furniss. 
Disclaimer: The material found within Activate is the opinion of the writer, and not necessarily the opinion of BCODP. Activate is available in other formats on request from Jayne Foulds, Transcriptions Officer. Email: jaynef@bcodp.org.uk 


Section 2. Incapacity Benefit - is Blair being fair to disabled people?
"Opportunity and Security throughout life" or another attack on Disabled People?
That is the question the British Council Of Disabled People asked on the announcement of the Department of Work and Pension's Five Year Strategy. 
Tony Blair's Secretary of State may believe that his reform will deliver a system that rewards work but will any of the changes he is making really encourage Disabled People back into Employment? Will Disabled People see the changes as being fair? Or will the changes be just another excuse whereby Disabled People will continue to be penalised. 

Tony Blair may well talk about abuse of the system but often Disabled People are discriminated against by the system and it is the media (and some politicians who portray Disabled People as scroungers of the system). As for the Secretary of State for Works and Pensions, Alan Johnson's promised reforms of Incapacity Benefit and its promise for support for Disabled People. Is this support really what Disabled People want or just another cost cutting exercise?" Janet Seymour-Kirk-Deputy Co-Chair told Activate that she agreed that an overhaul of the benefit system is desperately needed, but not because of what is being said at the moment by Blair "Reform will reward work" but because of the discrepancies in the current system. 
For example on Disability Living Allowance - why does this have to stop when you receive your pension - but 
your disability does not disappear - so why should your benefit?  Roy Webb Deputy Co-Chair 
of BCODP commented: Although we welcome the Government's continued interest in developing support for disabled people seeking work the proposals to improve funding for Jobcentreplus initiatives to encourage and support disabled people seeking work also need to be supported by other initiatives such as:

* Schemes to provide disabled people interested in finding work with basic job related skills training prior to seeking employment itself. 
* More employers to make workplaces accessible, physically and in communication methods as provided for in the Disability Discrimination Act. 
* There needs to be a review of Access to Work to ensure better access and more flexible and wide ranging support to enable disabled people to enter and keep employment. 
* Review disability benefits to ensure reasonable minimum income for disabled people, whether or not they are in employment. 

 We regret the plan to, apparently, make reductions in the long-term rates of Incapacity Benefits. While we wait for the final figures to be announced, any reduction in long-term benefits for disabled people will only serve to increase their already significant poverty. 

How are the proposed reforms going to work in reality for those Disabled People with mental health or fluctuating impairments? 

How are Disabled People going to be able to attend their Personal Capacity Assessments or work focus interviews when transport to and from the buildings themselves are not accessible? 

 How can Disabled People attend an interview when the chosen way to communicate with them (via the written word) is in-accessible? 

Is the proposed "holding benefit" going to address the additional recognised cost of disability? How will the new reforms address the point made last time around whereby over 50% of Disabled People who went to appeal after being found fit to work had their decisions overturned? 

Welcome. 
We welcome the opportunity to discuss with government plans to improve these proposals and develop plans and policies which will give disabled people seeking work real jobs and career development. 
The statements above are an initial reaction to the announcement- BCODP will be responding in depth to the Strategy Document-before responding we want to hear from you. Please send your comments by your preferred format to Sheila Blair by post or email, the email address is Sheilab@bcodp.org.uk 

Section 3. Disability and Bioethics life and death questions. A resource pack for trainers.  By Bill Albert
It is all too clear that disabled people and their impairments are two of the 
principal objects of concern in bioethical debates about such things as rationing 
health care, judgments about people's quality of life, genetic testing 
and screening, abortion, euthanasia, gene therapy, stem-cell research and 
similar topics. 

However, because of a general lack of knowledge about and confidence with the issues, most disabled people have been disempowered and marginalised as active participants in these debates. This was the starting point for the British Council of Disabled People's recent 'Training the Trainers Programme on Disability and Bioethics, funded by a grant from the Wellcome Trust's Engaging Science Programme.

The project's main objective was to empower  disabled  people to  become
informed participants in bioethical debate. To achieve this end a selected group of about 16 experienced disabled trainers from throughout the UK were offered, over a period of six to eight months, four weekend courses on bioethics. These were facilitated by two disabled trainers with considerable experience in the field, Helen Caplan and myself. Our intention was to provide the trainees with an introduction to the subject drawing together complex ethical issues in a balanced way and giving trainers the knowledge and confidence both to explore these questions more fully for themselves as well as to facilitate this process of exploration with other disabled people.

The sessions were tough, not only because the material was often quite difficult, but also because the subject touched each of us in a very personal way. After all, discussing the message of prenatal screening on the perceived social value of people like yourself or what might happen to you as a disabled person if euthanasia was legalised is pretty raw stuff. It was all made that bit more challenging because we continually forced the trainers to face up to the demanding questions posed by those who argue against a disability rights approach to bioethics. We felt this was absolutely essential. Activists need to understand these arguments so they go out into the real world ready for what will be thrown at them. As we know, the sharpest knives are those honed against the hardest surface.
Prepared
As part of this project we have now prepared a resource pack on disability and bioethics.  In it we cover, among other topics, eugenics, bioethics and human rights, prenatal screening and   testing, genetic-based cures, access to medical treatment and euthanasia. While the collection is primarily aimed at trainers, it can also be used by those who want an introduction to the subject from a disability perspective.  The main objective of the entire project is to begin to address our exclusion from debates on bioethics by offering disabled people accessible and balanced material as well as a cadre of experienced trainers who can facilitate learning. This will not only help disabled people empower themselves, but also serves a wider social purpose. This is because disabled people have unique insights, which have so far been ignored, insights crucial to developing a wiser and more informed social understanding of bioethics generally.

The pack includes an audio CD version as well as a CD Rom containing all the documents in Word and pdf files. It is available free of charge to BCODP member groups who are actively involved in training. It can also be downloaded from the BCODP website www.bcodp.org.uk. The cost for non-member groups is £15 and includes post and packing. Braille and audiocassette versions are available on request.


Section 4. Improving the life chances of disabled people.
The Government Strategy Unit have produced a comprehensive blueprint for improving the life chances for Britain's 10 million disabled people. Roy Webb-Deputy Co-Chair of BCODP told Activate that the report contains plans to: 
1. Establish a new unit on Disability Issues in the DWP to co-ordinate Government strategy. 

2. Introduce a strategy to develop independent living which uses social model language for the first time 
ever in a Government document of any sort. 

3. Suggest reviewing the assessment system and consider promoting self-assessment. 

4. Suggest setting up a working group on the right to independent living for disabled people. 

5. Recognise the central role that must be played by organisations of disabled people. 

All this is extremely welcome and demonstrates a commitment to supporting disabled people in their demands for freedom and equality which has not been seen before from any government. The disabled peoples movement can look forward to engaging with this government in planning the practical way forward, including a promised financial review within three years to establish the necessary levels of funding to carry this programme out. 

However there are limitations to the report which will need to be addressed: 

One disappointing aspect is that the original draft contained a commitment to consider introducing a legal right to refuse residential care for all disabled people. In the final version of the report, this was amended to just consider the right to request not to be offered residential care. BCODP regrets this step 
backwards from the initial stronger position and calls for an absolute right for every disabled person to be allowed to choose their own home and the right to refuse residential care. 

There are no proposals to address the poverty experienced by disabled people, in particular the failure of benefit levels to meet the additional costs of disability, the report also fails to cover people over retirement age, where there is still an ongoing need to address the inadequate resources and disempowering services provided within the community care framework and hence the continuation of social exclusion. BCODP will be responding in detail to the report - Please send any comments to Sheilab@bcodp.org.uk or roy@ncil.org.uk who will be co-ordinating BCODP's response. 

Section 5. In brief - Campaigners fight disability means testing.

Kingston Centre for Independent Living (KCIL) have launched a campaign against the council for introducing means-tested charging for elderly and disabled people's home care. Denise Tucker of KCIL said charging the disabled for essential care was discriminatory. 

She went on to say that the council's ill thought policy had been bulldozed through. KCIL went on to say that members already pay a percentage of disability allowance for personal care so why should personal accounts be exposed. Marc Moss went on to say that the council is actively targeting the most deprived who cannot fight back. If you want more information and to show your support to this campaign contact Kay Truijillo, Campaign Team at KCIL, River Reach, 31-35 High Street, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 1LF. www.kcil.org.uk 
Telephone 020 8546 9603. 

BSL recognition conference.
As part of the BSL Day Celebrations by the British Deaf Association, the North West Deaf Association (NWDA) is organising a national BSL recognition conference was held in Preston on 19th March. The Deaf Association of Northern Ireland (DANI) held a BSL/ISL Recognition Conference in Belfast on 11th March. 
Please contact Jen Dodds, PR Consultant BDA for more information. E mail : signbda.pr@gmail.com. 

Section 6 - Preliminary Notice of BCODP's Annual General Meeting.
BCODP's Annual General Meeting will take place on 15th October, 2005 in Derby.
The Timetable for the Annual General Meeting on Saturday 15th October, 2005.

10.30 a.m. Registration and Refreshments on Arrival 
11.00 a.m. - 11.15 a.m. Welcome to the Annual General Meeting
11.15 - 12.30 p.m. Annual General Meeting. 
12.30-13.15. Buffet Lunch 
13.15 p.m. - 14.30 p.m. Workshops on the Future Work for The British Council of Disabled People
14.30 p.m. - 15.00 p.m. Comfort Break and Light Refreshments.
15.00 p.m. - 17.00 p.m. Feedback from Workshops and Open Debate on the Future Work for the British Council of Disabled People 2006-2009.
This is your opportunity to shape the constitution and future work of the British Council of Disabled People - further details will be mailed out to Individuals and Member Groups early in May. Remember to book the 15th October, 2005 in your diary now!

Section 7 - The invisible faces of disabled people in Public Appointments. By Anne Pridmore, Ex-public appointee.
Some two years ago Disability Now carried a full page spread about disabled people and Public Appointments. The main crux of the article was that we are invisible citizens when decisions which affect our lives are made. 

As a result of this article I applied to be a commissioner with the Women's National Committee (WNC) and was appointed in January 2003. My appointment with the WNC turned out to be a less than positive experience. It took them all of two years to realise that they were unable to get my access needs met. But instead of admitting this they failed to reinstate my appointment on the grounds of a "personality clash". 

Not one to be put off lightly when someone emailed me about a government initiative to get disabled people into Public Appointments I felt this could be interesting and that not only could I learn from the course but that I had some valuable lessons that they could learn from me.  The "course" consisted of an opening event, two days "training", a meeting with our mentors and the final "tea party" to be held in March. It doesn't take an accountant to see that this all adds up to a considerable amount of money. 

Our initial meeting was held in Canary Wharf at HSBC. This is probably one of the furthest venues from railway stations they could have found. There was representation from the public appointments department within the cabinet office. The external evaluator was present and a well-known Disability Awareness training company. Sorry I cannot divulge who this was but it certainly wasn't BCODP! 

Positive. 
Surrounded by corporate bankers, people from the media, solicitors etc I realised that the one positive thing that could come out of this was that I had been short-listed anyway. Here I was unwaged and out of paid employment for 20 years amongst the crθme de la crθme of the privileged few. Before anyone challenges this last sentence I do feel that all disabled people should have the right to work if this is what they want. 

Myself and one other person had to beg in order to get our expenses reimbursed. We were "treated" to a 
couple of hours "training" in projecting ourselves within a Medical Model setting. 

Things like "Tell us about your greatest achievement" - bit difficult that one when you have already applied for three public appointments and none have been successful. Perhaps the WNC warned then about me and my "personality clash?

Two training days followed at the cabinet office on guess what - Personal Development. We were privileged to take part in lots of self analysis, visualisation techniques and offloading baggage. Just how long have we got - my baggage about all the negative assumptions made about me as a disabled person would fill an airport?  Just exactly how this equips us for applying and getting a public appointment I have yet to work out. 

Mentor. 
We were asked to fill in a form prior to being paired with a mentor about our "areas of interest". I placed human rights at the top followed closely by health and social care therefore I was somewhat surprised to be paired with someone working in the Validation department of the office of the deputy prime minister. Considering this is about disputes when house owners challenge the local council about their council tax and never being a home-owner myself! I have yet to meet my mentor who has sent me one email to date. I am supposed to have three meetings but she could only ever fit in two and I had to cancel one owing to the lack of PA support. When I asked if I could shadow someone on the board the best that they could come up with was the "not really up and running" validation board. I could go over (London) and shake hands with a couple of Directors if I wanted to. Hardly going to equip me for a public appointment is it? 

Cynical. 
Apologies now if I am sounding somewhat cynical but I am not alone to feel like this, the only difference is I am prepared to blow the whistle! The "said" disability organisation is going to produce a "toolkit" for future potential public appointees. Wonder how much their fees were for the whole shenanigans - funny how this Disability Awareness raising company have jumped on the bandwagon. I think its because they are giving the punters what they want to hear, unlike BCODP's trainers who tell it how it is. 

I have no idea how much this whole venture cost the government but somewhere in the six figure region. Is this just a case of ticking the boxes yet again and except for the ones who were cherry picked to have the right mentor many of us will be left feeling disillusioned and disempowered? 

Section 8.  The Ragged Edge...Have your say...
BCODP introduces a new feature of Activate. We are dedicating a section of the newsletter to open discussion and debate between members and member groups about the politics of the disabled peoples movement and of issues in society generally which are of interest to our movement. 

To get started, we reproduce below a selection from Vic Finkelstein's address to Leeds University in 2001, when he describes, in a compelling speech, his own personal experiences of the early days of the disabled peoples movement in Britain. In this section, he explores the connection between the struggle for liberation conducted in South Africa by black people and the struggle for liberation being carried out by disabled people in Britain and how this led to the beginning of the process which produced what is commonly understood as the first definition of the social model of disability. 

We also carry an interesting and challenging article by Bruce Birchill about a controversial play, written by a Sikh woman in Birmingham, which was withdrawn from production following protests from the local Sikh community. 

Lastly, a short article about the aftermath of the tsunami in the Indian Ocean and what comes next." 

A personal journey into disability politics - by Vic Finkelstein (Leeds University Centre for Disability Studies) 
7th February 2001 - "Extract". 

"There was another event that equally influenced my understanding of disability. This has to do with my personal experience in South Africa. Here's the background. I was in jail for anti- apartheid activities. This was the only time in South Africa that things were made accessible for me. In jail I was provided with a bed (political prisoners slept on a mat on the floor) and assisted with 'helpers' because, of course, the jails were otherwise totally inaccessible. 

Somehow, when the state has a need it does make things accessible! Anyway, when I was eventually released after doing hard labour they issued me with a five year banning order under the Suppression of Communism Act. A five year banning order was pretty standard at that time in South Africa and it prevented you from carrying out any activity what-so-ever which would further the struggle against apartheid.  I want to list a few items from the banning order that was issued to me (summary extract from 5 year banning order - 18th January 1967 to 29th February 1972): 

I was living in Johannesburg at the time and under the banning order I was prevented from leaving Johannesburg without permission; prevented from going into any African area; any premises like a factory; any premises in which any publication is prepared, printed or published; any premises of any organisation which is defined by the government (the government may define any organisation that it wishes such as for example the Leeds Coalition of Disabled People or the Manchester Coalition of Disabled People); any premises where there's a university or educational facilities except for the purposes of my masters degree; any area set aside for the occupation of coloureds or Asian and any premises in which there's a court except if I was involved. I was not allowed to communicate with any person who was named on a list under The Suppression of Communism Act. And I was not permitted to do any of the following things: prepare a publication; print a publication; give any educational instruction to anyone and take part in any activities of an organisation named by the government -  e.g. if The British Council of Disabled People had been named by the government I wouldn't be allowed to take part in it. 
 
Banning Order.
In practice the banning order meant that for five years I couldn't do anything. Now, for me, what was interesting is that when I was handed the banning order, and looked at it, I thought "Well, this is not going to make much difference to my life because most of the things I'm not allowed to do I can't do anyway - they're inaccessible. All these premises, facilities and social meetings are inaccessible anyway!" It was with this experience still fresh in my mind that I came to the UK in 1968 as a refugee and met up with the emergent British disability movement. 

Soon after arriving in the UK I read Nelson Mandela's statement at his SA trial it read: 

" Africans want to be paid a living wage. Africans want to perform work, which they are capable of doing, and not work which the Government declares them to be capable of. Africans want to be allowed to live where they obtain work, and not be endorsed out of an area because they were not born there. Africans want to be allowed to own land in places where they work, and not to be obliged to live in rented houses which they can never call their own. Africans want to be part of the general population, and not confined to living in their own ghettoes. 
African men want to have their wives and children to live with them where they work, and not be forced into an unnatural existence in men's hostels. African women want to be with their men folk and not be left permanently widowed in the Reserves. Africans want to be allowed out after eleven o'clock at night and not to be confined to their rooms like little children. Africans want to be allowed to travel in their own country and to seek work where they want to and not where the Labour Bureau tells them too. Africans want a just share in the whole of South Africa; they want security and a stake in society. Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy." 
From MANDELA, Nelson (1978) The Struggle Is My Life. London.
International Defence and Aid for Southern Africa.The Rivonia Trial 1963-4. p.174-5. 

Well, you could say all the same things about people who have impairments. But what does it mean if you say that without 'equal political rights' identified by Nelson Mandela 'our [African] disabilities will be permanent'? Does it mean that it's not OK if anyone is disabled by social restrictions except people with impairments? For us (people who have impairments) is it OK if our disabilities are permanent? And, if we want to remove the disablement imposed on us, why does this sound equally revolutionary to people with abilities (i.e. politicians and disability - related service providers) as it did to white South Africans? Let's face it, disabled people face the most prevalent, world- wide, persistent, resistant to change and endemic form of apartheid, to put it mildly, of any human group throughout the world!  
For me the answers to these questions emerged when I met Paul and Judy Hunt in the UK. 

Organisations.
In the late 1960s the disabled Income Group (DIG) in Britain became one of the largest mass organisations of disabled people in the world. It is important to appreciate this because many people seem to believe that the USA disability movement has always led the way. If you look at some American literature at that time you will find reference to how advanced Britain was. Nowadays of course people can easily forget that all emancipatory struggles involve a historical process-i.e. the leading element in the international disability movement may be found here, or in the Scandinavian countries, before the focus shifts elsewhere. DIG campaigned for a National Disability Income as of right. From its beginnings a lot of things seemed to have happened very quickly to the organisation. Although it was started by two women, Megan Duboisson and 
Berit Moore (Thornberry / Stueland), who were concerned about broad social rights of disabled people and the way disabled 'housewives' were ineligible for any of the current disability benefits, policy became dominated by men, including some influential male academics, and they transformed the organisation into a rather narrow parliamentary lobbying group wholly focused on 'benefits'. This transformation meant that the main thrust of the group was to lobby parliament for legislative changes. Having started as a mass organisation, concentration on parliamentary lobbying meant that the grassroots membership soon had no clear role within the organisation and membership began to decline. In order to lobby parliament only a few experts are needed who know the issues and who can present and argue them effectively. It is in this changing situation that I came to Britain and soon after my wife, Elizabeth, and I met Paul and Judy Hunt. 

Campaigned. 
Paul Hunt, who had been living in residential institutions - Cheshire Homes - for most of his childhood and a considerable part of his adulthood, campaigned together with other residents for an active role in the management of the Homes. Paul made contacts around the world. He solicited literature from America and Sweden about non-institutional solutions to accessible housing, integrated education and income support schemes as well as other social concerns. He wanted DIG to take on these broader social issues. Although we came from different backgrounds our meeting was a meeting of like minds. Paul and Judy having experience of organising and mobilising disabled people, mainly within institutions, opposed all forms of discrimination and my wife and I, having supported the anti-apartheid struggle of South Africa, found that we had a common agenda - how do you change an oppressive system rather than spend fruitless time appealing to the prejudiced to cease their discrimination? 

We discussed the need for a new kind of organisation in Britain - an organisation that mobilised disabled people at the grass-roots level against oppression. We agreed that no single issue (such as DIG's single-minded campaign for a national disability income) should characterise any new disability association. It was out of these discussions that Paul wrote to the national and disability press calling for like-minded disabled people to join with him in forming a new organisation. The Union of the Physically Impaired Against 
Segregation (UPIAS) eventually emerged from the exchange of views circulated amongst those who wrote to Paul in response to his national appeal. 
Vic Finklestein 2001.

Freedom or Slavery - An article by Bruce Birchall 
Theatre stormed in Sikh protest From - BBC News Midlands 19.12. 2004. 
"Hundreds of Sikh demonstrators protested outside a Birmingham theatre against a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a temple. Five police officers were hurt during struggles at Birmingham's Repertory Theatre on 
Saturday night. Two men were arrested and the theatre said some demonstrators stormed the building before the performance of Behzti (Dishonour) was cancelled. The theatre has been the scene of several protests by members of the Sikh community, angered by author Gurpreet Bhatti's depiction of murder and sex abuse. 
The protesters claim the play, which centres around two characters and is set in a gurdwara, a Sikh temple, mocks their faith. " 

Now read on - Bruce's article. 
An injury to one is an injury to all and the silencing of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti's voice is a threat to the freedom of all playwrights to say what they think. The Dramatists' Guild of America have now issued a statement declaring: 
"We have been following with dismay the events surrounding the cancellation. When the performance of a writer's work is stopped through violence and coercion it threatens more than the life and career of a single playwright. The implications are ominous for playwrights everywhere, and for anyone who recognizes that free expression is the fundamental guarantee of liberty in an open, democratic society." 
And it is a threat to the freedom of all audiences to hear what playwrights have to say. 

Put the boot on the other foot. 
Is not the theatre (at its most thought-provoking) a sacred place where heresies can have free rein and questioning minds the opportunity to cast doubt on the sacred cows of our society? 
And is not mob rule invading our sacred place with violence offensive to we true believers, with our deeply held convictions in the power of theatre to uplift and free the human spirit? 

Those who stormed the Birmingham Rep should pause to reflect and ask if their frightening an audience, injuring policemen and breaking the windows of a temple where another set of beliefs is followed are consistent with their asserting their temples are being sullied by the playwright's choice of setting for 
Behzti associating Gurdwaras with beatings and murder taking place there? 

How can they claim the right not to be offended for themselves and yet feel free 
to offend and threaten the devout in the theatregoers' and theatre workers' community as they perform their 
ceremonies in their holy place? Double standards are clearly being applied. The question is why? 

Inconsistency and self-centredness 
The root problem is religion tells people what to think, but playwrights want to encourage audiences to think for themselves. Religion presents its tenets as truth but playwrights try and find the truth and present it. One offers certainty, the other casts doubts. These are contradictory and irreconcilable activities. So of course they will clash. Conformity and dissent are bound to disagree and nowhere more so than on the reasonableness or otherwise of "taking offence".  It would be more accurate to describe the religious right as taking umbrage. 
They choose to be "offended"-they take that posture, in order to get material they don't like banned or 
censored. Salman Rushdie (letters, The Guardian -6th January) is absolutely right when he warns us this phenomenon is on the increase and of its dangers. 

Intolerance. 
Let's dissect this. What it boils down to is the self-centred assertion "We don't want this, therefore it may not happen!" Intolerance is presented as though it was reasonable and sensitivity and consideration are demanded so as to appease that intolerance, thereby hoping to make censor-ship and banning appear equally reasonable. This is a completely Orwellian reversal of meanings. If intolerance is the new reasonable, then freedom of expression becomes intolerable and freedom becomes slavery in need of abolition... To put it plainly: the religious right want to stifle dissenting voices and their posture of being offended is the self-centred humbug they use to try and rope others in to help achieve this. But what makes them so especially deserving of being listened to, if they are being unreasonable? 

Meanings and Settings. 
Apart from being selective about whose belief systems must be protected, the protestors have, I would contend, simply (simplistically) got it wrong about what the play is criticising and what the genre is. A black comedy is being pilloried as though it were a Black Country documentary. Good writing manages to transcend time and place, and the clothing and setting in which it is presented and convey universal truths about the human condition and the archetypal situations it forever gets embroiled in. 
Macbeth, for example, is primarily about ambition and the lengths it will go to, to gain and retain power, and only incidentally about Thanes and Scotland. Which is why you don't generally get a Tartan Army of bagpipe blowing, banner waving, brick hurling, claymore brandishing, Presbyterian clansmen, storming the barricades at reps throughout the land, demanding all production of Macbeth be banned henceforth, as it portrays Scotsmen as murderers. 
Behzti is as much about Catholic priests molesting choir boys as it is about Sikh elders being involved in rape. It is primarily about power, authority and where there is corruption, the lengths it will go to, to stifle and silence dissent and opposition. And about how the victims of that corruption collude with it for years in keeping quiet about it. This is the same territory explored by the TV play Care, regarding cases of sexual abuse in Local Authority care homes. That is a pretty universal theme, it occurs in every culture and every period of history. The characters just happen to wear turbans and choonis, that's all. The writer just happens to be a Sikh. But it is universal truths that are being told, and universal situations that are being portrayed. 

Stained and tainted identities 
A central metaphor of the play is soiled clothing and tainted identities. The incontinent mother is fearful of the stigma of smeared underwear, the raped daughter is accused of sullying the temple by coming to it at that time of the month with her clothing stained by menstrual blood (the truth is she was a virgin and the blood on her clothes is as a result of the rape). As if she is the one to be ashamed. Her rapist accuses her of being a "temptress", making out the rape was her fault. The truth is the rapist is the one with the tainted identity (he has been doing it for years) and pretending the victim is the tainted one is hypocrisy. As the author's foreword makes clear, she is passionately opposed to hypocrisy and injustice, and wrote the play because of that. 
So when the pure are portrayed as tainted, and the tainted pass themselves off as pure, the play has to ask us what then is honour and what is dishonour? Have we got them the wrong way round? If there is shame, at whose door do we lay it? Given the Sikh concept of honour as the backdrop to these hypothesised events, different concepts of honour and dishonour necessarily must vie with one another for the audience's sympathies. As the publisher's description of the play puts it: "In a community where public honour is paramount, is there any room for the truth?" 

So, as a consequence, we are then being asked, who is being dishonoured in the events Behzti portrays? Whose honour should be defended and upheld? Is the temple's and elder's reputation to be defended against accusations of rape that would shatter its credibility? Or is hushing things up to protect its credibility ultimately so important? Compared to the reputation and the feelings of the young woman who was raped? 

Such questions have been asked before. Like Calderon before her, in the Spanish Golden Age drama, The Mayor of Zalamea (where the Mayor, Pedro Crespo, orders the garotting of the nobleman who raped his daughter), Ms Bhatti comes down unhesitatingly on the side of defending the honour of the woman who was raped, and in doing so, The Mayor of Zalamea and Behzti are both deeply moral plays, in asserting moral outrage at the corrupt "morality" of the decadent nobility and the hypocritical elders which the playwrights 
respectively expose. One rapist gets his come-uppance by being garotted, the other by being stabbed with his own kirpil, but both playwrights present that come-uppance as being morally justified. And an Aristotelian catharsis of our outraged emotions is thereby achieved. 

Is reputation more important than the truth? 
Arnold Wesker is right to suggest that the Sikh community should rather ask whether it is true that such corruption exists within their community rather than exclaim how impossible it is that it could exist. And David Edgar is spot on when he suggests that the play's importance lies in the fact that young Asian women have 
flocked in droves to see it, which suggests to me that Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti has touched a raw nerve, and speaks to her audience about situations they can recognise. 

But this is not primarily about turning the floodlight of public scrutiny onto closet rapists in entrenched positions, protected by a conspiracy of silence, necessary as such a task is. To think it is about that is to make the mistake of seeing a work of the imagination as a documentary. 

I would argue that it is unimportant whether there has or has not been any such rape. The point is more that a woman playwright's imagination is exploring what could well happen if there were one, given the patriarchal nature of the community in which it would take place and the importance it places on public honour being maintained. She questions that ethos and by suggesting how those who uphold it could well react to such a scandal, given their mores, seeks to get her audience to ask fundamental questions about whether those values serve the community well. Just as Ibsen does in An Enemy Of The People, in which a closed community turns on the whistle-blower who inadvertently threatens its livelihood by seeking to protect its safety: both play-wrights are asking if the community is well served by those who seek to preserve its reputation, as the all-important priority, rather than concede the truth about what is really going on.
Whether there was a case of poisoned spa waters being hushed up in Ibsen's time or a rape in a gurdwara in our times, is to my mind immaterial. The writers put forward those propositions as a hypothesis, a conceit and then examine where they might lead. 
What that would then reveal about the hypocrisy and the values of the society in which such events would take place. 

Repression as righteousness. 
Naturally this does not exactly endear such writers to those whose hyprocsy they oppose. 
And this leads us to the overriding issue, about the value of writers to the rest of society, which the closure of 
Behzti poses. There is a fundamental conflict. On the one hand we have the power of writing (and of writers) to spread radical and critical ideas, among continues over the people it reaches - ideas that question authority and the assumptions and beliefs it upholds and promulgates - and on the other hand the instinctive 
knee-jerk reactions of people in authority to do everything in their power to prevent such writing from reaching 
people and infecting them with its heretical thoughts. Death threats and murders are simply the logical outcome of that conflict. 

I think of Bertolt Brecht, high on Hitler's Wanted List, fleeing into exile. I think of the singer-songwriter Joe Hill, 
judicially murdered by the State of Utah, I think of the Chilean singer-song-writer Victor Jara murdered on the orders of the junta in the football stadium in Santiago and how his captors first broke his guitar and his fingers, as though symbolically to prevent him singing on, after death. I think of the Kenyan writer Ngugi Wa Thiongo, who set up a Kikuyulanguage community theatre in Kenya, which the authorities promptly closed down when it spoke of Kenyan neocolonialism. And the Ayatollah's fatwa on Salman Rushdie. And of course the Puritan fanatics who decided the theatre was immoral and closed every theatre in the land in Cromwell's time. 
All of these zealots, each in their own way confirmed the power and importance of those whose work they strove to silence. No return to state censorship. There must be no return to a theatre where the prior permission of a Lord Chamberlain figure is required before a play may be staged. [The Lord Chamberlain gained those powers when the Government of the day wanted to politically censor the playwright/novelist 
Henry Fielding (the author of Tom Jones)]. Not just the theatrical community but all those who believe in 
freedom of expression need to rally to the defence of this play and this playwright's right to be heard. 

She too is a voice of Sikhism, just as much as her critics, who claim only they can speak for it. If we are to be truly multicultural, then let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend. There is dissent in Sikhism as there is in all religions. We cannot collude in other voices being stifled by seeking to appease the voice that bays the loudest. It is self-deluding to think engaging in appeasement is being sensitive, respectful and multi-cultural. Rather, it is mono-cultural, elevating religious leaders to a central position in community life they no longer hold, in a secular society, and allowing an orthodoxy to substitute for a range of opinion in that community. No sensitivity and no respect is thereby shown to other opinions. 

No limits on what playwrights may write or audiences may see The Roman playwright Terence, a freed slave, expressed it well. "I am human" he wrote "Therefore everything human is of interest to me." (a literal translation from the Latin would be "I can put nothing in human affairs aside as alien to me"). i.e. there are no limits to what I want to write about, everything that people do is a legitimate subject for drama. And everything that people do" is a pretty good definition for what will interest audiences, too. They too are human; everything human must be of more than passing interest to them, as well. 
Let us therefore oppose the efforts of the religious right (of all faiths) to suggest there are some topics that are out of bounds for writers to explore, for if the New Moral Army become the masters, and can dictate to the rest of us what we may and may not see and what we may and may not say, we would all become their slaves. It would not just be Cromwellian but positively Orwellian! - Kiss goodbye to Freedom of Expression and you say "Hello, Good Evening and Welcome!" to Thought-Crime and the Thought Police. For what could be more perfect Orwellian NewSpeak (given the Birmingham backdrop, perhaps that should be NewStreetSpeak?) than to suggest, as a Sikh Birmingham city councillor did, when the closure of the play, was announced, that "common sense" had prevailed. Humbug! Mob rule prevailed. Let us not pretend otherwise. 
When the unreasonable surreptitiously redefine themselves as reasonable, then those who are genuinely reasonable are obliged to argue back. 
(c)Bruce Birchall 2005  (Bruce Birchall is a playwright, a former Secretary of the Theatre Writers Union 
and was co-author with David Edgar and others of the TWU Report, "Playwrights: An Endangered Species?".) 
Contact details: BruceBirchall@Yahoo.co.uk 26c Colville Square, London W11 2BQ 0207 792 8031 

And finally from this edition of "The Ragged Edge" 
After the tsunami....
No one can be in any doubt that we have witnessed one of the greatest natural disasters in the world's history, when the tsunami wave hit Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, southern India, parts of East Africa and many other countries bordering the Indian Ocean on 26th December 2004. What has followed that massive wave of terrible destruction and death has been a tremendous wave of giving to and organising aid to the devastated regions on an international scale never seen before. Clearly moved by the enormous scale of the disaster, people everywhere have rushed to contribute millions to the disaster relief funds, embarrassing governments to increase their contributions more than once. 
An article in the Guardian newspaper asked the question, what will happen once the tide of international support begins to die away? What will happen to enable people in these devastated regions to rebuild their communities, rebuild their lives, in the long term? Trade union organisations and other community based organisations in the various countries affected are saying that they will need more aid to repair immediate 
damage and begin the rebuilding process. They are also calling on the Western nations to cancel entirely, not merely freeze for a temporary period, as the G8 countries have suggested, the international debt imposed on these areas by the international money market and the raising of trade barriers relating to goods being made in these countries, to allow sufficient resources to rebuild these countries and regenerate the 
local economies and local communities. 
All this is particularly important to disabled people living in these areas. Charity aid alone will not enable these people, among the poorest in the world, to gain control of the process of development and strengthening their own communities. They need resources placed in their own hands to assist them to do the rebuilding work themselves in an empowering way. Disabled People's International (DPI) want to ensure that people with all disabilities are considered in all relief efforts. Visit http://www.dpi.org/en/resources/current_news/01-11-05_dpitsunami.htm for further information. 

That's all from this edition of "The Ragged Edge " - please communicate with us on these and any other issues you want included in the next edition. 

Section 9 - Hello and Welcome...To our new Campaigns Officers - Simone and Penny. 
Let us hear first from Simone:
About Me - I am really excited of working with the British Council of Disabled People where there will be lots of chances to support disabled people to campaign for civil rights and full participation in life with no ifs or buts. Through Changing Perspectives I have jointly set up with other organisations of disabled people the I Decide Campaign which is now campaigning against this dreadful Mental Capacity Bill. I have campaigned on a range of issues affecting disabled people-as People First Parliamentary and Campaigns Worker I oversaw the campaign to ensure that Disabled people with learning difficulties were able to get direct payments and included in any equal rights laws. 
At the same time I used the Disability Discrimination Act to put pressure on Government to make information about their laws and policies accessible for people with learning difficulties. Besides the People 1st work, I have rolled up my sleeves and got stuck in other campaigns including the 2020 Campaign to shut special schools down, Disability Rights Commission and to have a disability rights commissioner with learning difficulties and Free our People through Disabled People's Direct Action Network, Jodie and Mary's (conjoined twins) Equal Rights to Life Campaign. The fun does not stop there as I support disabled children and their parents to go to tribunal (court) to get supported mainstream school education through the Independent Panel for Special Educational Advice. 

I am the Green Party's Disability Spokesperson and have had the job of recently rewriting our social welfare policy based on the independent living movement's demands! I have just completed the Post Graduate Diploma in Ethics and Law in Healthcare Practice so there is just the project to write on the Best Interests of 
Patients lacking "capacity" and access to health-care treatment." 

Hello and Welcome...About Penny:
Public relations consultant, journalist and broadcaster Penny Bould, an active campaigner for disabled people's civil rights, has been appointed as BCODP's new Media, Government Relations and Campaigns 
Officer, job sharing with Simone Aspis. "The disabled people's movement is at a key point in our history where we need to come together and fight for our rights, at a time when many non disabled people still think we would be "better off dead!" Yet contradictorily they often have the idea that everything is "OK" for us now, in terms of access, attitudes, rights and freedoms, when we know it is not!" forty something Penny commented. "I've returned to paid work in recent times, after some years being mainly horizontal and unable to be in paid employment. I am excited and delighted about this opportunity to put our case and I am keen for disabled people to be passionate about building BCODP and a democratic movement with a strong voice," the ex news bulletin editor and presenter added. 

"I want to pay tribute to everyone who has campaigned to bring us the rights which we enjoy today but we all know there is much more to be done." Derby born Penny, who is due to join the staff by the first week of April, will be working the equivalent of an average of three days a week on a flexible basis, mainly based at her office in Warwickshire. An electric wheelchair user who has joined peaceful traffic stopping protests, she is a practiced parliamentary lobbyist and advocate. She is a former BBC reporter, producer and news presenter, who has worked for many national and regional newspapers, including "The Times" and "The Daily Mirror" and run campaigns for clients including national and local government, large and small companies and professional bodies. " Simone and Penny will be contacting all our members soon with their contact details, however in the meantime please call BCODP's office to get in touch with them. 

Section 10 - In Memory...a tribute to Lesley M Childs.
Born 1948 Left us 25th December 2004.
Many of us were saddened by the news that Lesley had died suddenly on Christmas Day 2004. Lesley was a strong and committed campaigner for disabled peoples rights and had been a former chair of the British Council of Disabled People and a very active National Council member. 

She was known and liked by many, loved by those who knew her well. Lesley was involved in many developments in the disabled peoples movement. She helped establish the Unison Disabled Members Section, which, for many years in the early days was one of the hot bed of activity in the movement. She helped set up the Trade Union Disability Alliance (TUDA) with her partner, Mike Bramley, the first national grouping of disabled trade unionists in Britain. She set up and coordinated TUDA's Disability Equality Training Unit and was very active as a trainer her self. In all these things, Lesley always showed incisive, challenging and new thinking. She provided a sign post for many of us who were working with her in her insight and understanding of a wide range of issues, all done with a great sense of humour and a real commitment to people and especially to her friends. 

Lesley was also very interested in disabled peoples arts and music and worked with and built up the London Disability Arts Forum. She really did have a complete view of disabled people and our lives. She lived her own life in this way and was always approachable, ready with reassurance or encouragement, or a joke or a challenging question. She was always looking to push the barriers back and create a wider and richer space for us all to live in. She will be greatly missed by every one who knew her. A celebration of Lesley's life will be held in London in May. If anyone wants further information please contact Roy Webb at the National Centre for Independent Living. Tel: 020 7587 1663, Minicom: 020 7582 1177 or e mail roy@ncil.org.uk. 
The cartoon "tribute" to Lesley is reproduced courtesy of 'Crippen'. In this cartoon a group of four disabled angel's are sitting on a cloud, which has a label attached reading: " Angel League". One of the Angels who is holding a paper marked "Agenda" is telling the others: "So, all we have to do now is affiliate with the Trades Union Disability Alliance!". An inscription at the bottom of the cartoon reads: "In loving memory of Lesley Childs 1948 - 2004.

 
Section 11 - What is Trade Union Disability Alliance (TUDA)? 
TUDA is the Trade Union Disability Alliance. The aims of TUDA are as follows: 
To coordinate the voice of disabled people in the trade union movement. To relieve the disability of people with physical, mental or sensory impairments and further their independence and full participation in the workplace and wider community. 

What influence do we have? 
17 TUC affiliates, including 'the big four' (Amicus, UNISON, T&G & GMB) are affiliated to TUDA on a national basis. Many other union branches, regions and individual members are members of TUDA. We have many members who hold influential positions in the labour and trade union, and in the disability movement. While we cannot claim to have the power to change the world of disabled people, we are confident that we 'punch above our weight'. Are you a disabled trade union member? Do you want to know more about who we are and what we do?  Please contact our membership secretary, Sherrell Brett, at the following address to receive more details: 
131 Milton Avenue, Liverpool. L14 6TF Telephone: 0151-280-9157 - 07718125582 
P.S. We are currently launching a new web site, www.tuda.org.uk, check us out! 

Section 12 - Update on the Mental Capacity Bill.
Much of the media and political attention has generally focused on Disabled peoples' right to life, whether food and drink taken by a tube or something similar is considered as treatment and therefore can be withdrawn, advance statements saying what treatment I do not want and how they are used in law. 

It should not come to any surprise that much of the attention is focused on this as these issues affect non disabled people who may become disabled in the future alongside many religious figures in the House of Lords and MPs who are pro-lifers. This has to some degree overshadowed many concerns that disabled people have about the Bill. The Government continues to kid itself that this bill will improve abled peoples legal rights to make their own decisions. And that is why we have been busy writing amendments to redress the balance of power between decision makers and disabled people so that disabled people have a legal right to get the support they need to make or develop their decision making abilities, and a proper legal complaints procedure. Finding allies in the House of Lords proved to be easier than expected with Baroness Masham and Chapman busy tabling our amendments to ensure disabled people maintain their right to make decisions about their day-to-day lives. Further support was provided by Lord Alton who was pushing the I Decide Coalition's ideas. All the amendments were withdrawn at Committee stage but we are hoping they will be voted upon during the report and third reading stage before going back into the House of Commons for the final stage. 
Parliament.
Whilst the bill goes through Parliament, the media has shown steady interest especially with a photo opportunity with our People First' Raymond Johnson being pulled by all those people who will be given the power to make decisions about our lives! We have been contacted by BBC news together with Radio talk and phone-in programmes and hit front cover of Disability Now, Community Care type magazines and just this week the Big Issue carried a feature which sums up the would be law, "Disabled? We'll Decide What You Eat and Dress." There has been good spin offs where Disability Awareness in Action and People First have been contacted on related issues such as right to life and access to healthcare because of the media attention we are more recently getting. 
Pushing.
After many months of pushing civil servants, the I Decide Coalition finally had a very heated exchange of views with the Minister, David Lammy. One member frankly said he didn't like the tone of the meeting. Whilst slamming the Bill across the table he was quite taken aback that we did not share the Government's and indeed the Making Decisions Alliance (Umbrella campaign for all those big "carers" charities) views that this Bill was more than okay to support disabled peoples' decision-making abilities if there are stronger rights for advocacy. 
The Government are still open to looking at more people getting advocacy and we wait to see what this means in practise in terms of which groups of people and what is meant by advocacy support - obviously this is not enough to deal with our concerns about the bill. We have had reassurance to be involved in looking at the Code of Practices which will support the law and that the judges will need to take account of when a disabled person makes a complaint about some decision makers. So, the fight continues to get this Bill in good shape that is to support disabled peoples rights to make decisions for themselves with appropriate support. 
Section 13 - Out & About ~ With BCODP 
A selection of photographs. Three taken at the Mobility Road Show and One of the "I Decide" Campaigners.
At the Mobility Road show BCODP photographs of Anastasia and Janet, Sheila and Janet and Vicki busy on our stall. "I decide" Campaign demonstrators.

Section 14 - Campaign Talk.
This section highlights ongoing campaigning issues
2020 Together we are better. The Campaign to end segregated education by the year 2020. 
"We disabled people, with and without learning difficulties, are leading an important campaign. This campaign will at last give us equal chances in education by ending the unfair practice of sending disabled children to special schools or units. We think this campaign is urgent and long overdue. We need your help. Please support this campaign."

Tories outline plans for special needs education.
Announcement 7th March, 2005.
Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, today pledged a moratorium on the closure of special schools - Mr Howard accused the government of allowing special schools to close, and redirecting children with mental and physical disabilities into mainstream education that might not be appropriate for them. 

He said a Tory administration would end the "politically correct" presumption in favour of mainstream schools for children with special needs, and would give parents more choice over what kind of education their offspring received.

Speaking after a visit to a special needs school in Twickenham, south London, Mr Howard promised to create a new research institute for special educational needs, costing £10m a year, to draw up a consistent national framework for assessing what is best for a child.

"Of course a lot of children with special needs can be taught in mainstream schools and where it is right for them, they should be," he said "but the fashionable presumption that children with special needs should all go
into mainstream education is wrong - as many parents and teachers will tell you. The trouble is that Mr Blair's government isn't listening. 
"A Conservative government would give parents whose children have special needs the right to choose how and where their children are educated ending the closure of popular special schools," said Mr Howard". 

BCODP were stunned at this announcement by the Tory Government and are totally opposed to the retention 
of special schools. Given below is the case by the 2020 campaign to "scrap segregated education":

The Case. 
For too long now, we have been singled out from our families and friends. We have been sent to segregated schools and colleges, supposedly for our own benefit. However, our experiences of this system, of being separated because we are disabled, tell a different story. We have felt isolated and devalued and nearly all of us have been denied a good education. The harm this has done to us has stayed with us for life. Most people in society have not heard of how this damage has affected us. 
"The experience of being hidden away, with the assumption that I was worthless, still haunts me with a terror I 
can't describe. Nobody should be put through that. Yet there are hundreds forcibly excluded from life everyday" 
(Maresa Mackeith) 
Along with our families, we have been victims of a whole way of thinking about disability that is fundamentally mistaken. This thinking we call "The Medical Model of Disability". It sees all our difficulties as a direct result of our impairments. It turns us into "patients" in need of treatment and cure, even when cure is not possible. A whole separate system has been developed on this model, called Special Education. We are diagnosed, 
Labelled, and sent away or separated to have our "Special Educational Needs" met. Our ordinary needs such as love, friendship, security, play, and often education, do not get met, and this is why we are so against this process. 
Disabled people who are now adults still bear the scars from our early experiences of being forced to leave our families, of being alone and afraid, of being abused by strangers, of being devalued, underestimated and bored. We remember being used as medical "Guinea Pigs", of being the victims of bullying and racism in our special schools, sometimes by the staff: 
"I wouldn't go to the loo at school because I was afraid of the dinner ladies who used to take us. They took our knickers down in full view and then sat us on the loo and left us for about twenty minutes. The whole of the dinner break went like that. I was very skinny and bony. Only weighed 31/2 stone. It was so uncomfortable. There was no gentleness. No kindness. Very degrading. They ignored our impairments." (Jane Campbell) 
"The worst times were between the ages of 6 and 11 - 5 years of sheer hell. The 'care' staff team treated us disgracefully. Children with more significant impairments were targeted most and were regularly made fun of for the way they talked, walked or the way they looked. Many of the children who took longer to walk back to the dormitory from school were punished by being sent straight to bed without supper. Those of us who were more mobile were considered difficult and trouble-makers because we were able to speak up for ourselves. 
These young and inexperienced 'care' staff terrorised over us for almost 4 years. We all experienced constant ridicule and torment from people who were supposedly employed to 'care' for us. I remember one young boy being dragged down two flights of stairs because he had wet the bed. On another occasion I remember a group of three or four 'care' staff standing round a young boy (who had a significant speech impairment), as he ate his food, laughing at him because swallowing made him drool more. At the time we knew we were being treated badly, but we were so terrified that we didn't tell anybody. A friend and I tried to confide in a member of staff but the backlash for "telling lies" was that we were sent to bed at 5 pm straight after supper as a punishment "(Tara Flood) 
The Financial Argument 
In 2003 60% of the special education budget of £3.4 billion was spent on just 110,000 pupils in special schools and pupil referral units. This percentage is set to increase as the Government requires LEAs to build "New Model" special schools costing up to £19 million each. We believe this is a crime when there is no evidence that they work, and much evidence that they don't. 
''Since (1977) hundreds of rigorous research studies have been undertaken to determine the effectiveness of integrating and including students with severe disabilities. As a result of a comprehensive review of the extant continues over Tories outline plans literature by myself and my colleagues, we were unable to identify even a single research article that that found that segregated service delivery models are more effective than integrated models for students with severe disabilities". 
(Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities Vol. 29, No.1 Spring 2004) 

This money should be used to build the capacity of mainstream schools to become inclusive. 

No Change is Happening.
Despite the popular perception that their has been a big move of children from special schools to mainstream 
schools, the latest OFSTED report on inclusion shows that there are nearly as many children in special schools as there were five years ago: 
The report also shows that some LEAs are 24 times more likely to support the inclusion of a disabled child into a mainstream school than others. This inequality can only happen because of the continued use of special schools. These schools are still promoted to parents as a valid and equal alternative to mainstream schools, when they are not. 

Inclusion Works 
It is often mistakenly said that inclusion is a 'one-size-fits-all' approach, but inclusive schools are about restructuring themselves to remove barriers to participation and providing flexible support so that each pupil can be successful. Research into the effectiveness of inclusive schools (See 'Snapshots of Possibility', 2004) shows that they have a lower than average turnover of staff; that they bring in many outside resources to train their teachers and empower their young people; that they are creative with a 'can-do' attitude; exclusions are reduced and sometimes stopped, and that standards for all children rise. Most young disabled people go on from these schools to live interesting lives within their communities (see 'Where Are They Now?' 2004). 
Number of children in all special schools (including pupil referral units) as a 
percentage of the number in mainstream schools in England 1999-2003. 
1999 - 1.4. 2000 - 1.38.  2001- 1.37.  2002 1.37. 2003 1.39. Source: OFSTED September 2004 

We therefore demand that:  
  * No more new special schools or units are opened, built, planned, extended, amalgamated or moved. 
  * All LEAs develop effective plans for meeting the needs of all learners in inclusive mainstream schools. 
  * All teachers and support staff are trained in Disability Equality, and in inclusive teaching and learning  strategies.
   * All financial and professional resources are re-directed to support inclusive education. 
  * All schools are funded to become barrier-free. 
  * Staff are trained and supported to work positively with children with social and emotional needs, including challenging behaviour. 
  * Special school staff are re-trained to work in mainstream settings. 
  * Deaf people's demands for the right to their language and culture are met through alternative, bi-lingual, 
resourced provision within the mainstream. 
  * All current segregated provision is phased out by the year 2020. 
For more information contact the 2020 Campaign, c/o The Alliance for Inclusive Education, Unit 2, 70 South Lambeth Road, London SW8 1RL. Tel: 020 7735 5277. E-mail: info@allfie.org.uk 
NO TO SPECIAL SCHOOLS.
Campaign Talk.
Direct payments .

Do you receive Direct Payments via Social Services?
Do you know that Southampton City Council proposes to change the way they charge you for your Direct Payments?

HCODP & SCIL, with the active support of other organisations run by Disabled People have been concerned over these changes for some time and have argued the issues. We now need your support. 

Please consider the following points: 

  * Most people who receive Direct Payments have not been consulted on the actual changes being proposed.                          *   Those that have been consulted have 100% rejected the proposals. 
 *   Whilst it is true that some people will be better-off and some will be worse-off, the reality is that everyone will be affected and we believe that principles that make Direct Payments so good in Southampton will be badly damaged if these proposals go through. 
*  Direct Payments law says that the amount the Council pays you has to be enough to meet all the costs you incur. There is no doubt that the current payment rate of £8.30 is not enough. However, the Council's Proposals will only pay a higher hourly rate if they can charge you, or other people, more for the privilege. We believe means testing Direct Payments is wrong. 
*  The Council say the law is forcing them to make these changes. We believe the law says nothing of 
the sort. Contact us:  This is a campaign organised by the Southampton Centre for Independent Living, Hampshire Coalition of Disabled People, The MS Society (Southampton) and individual Disabled People opposed to these changes. 
For more information please contact: Amanda Hames, HCODP, Freepost SCE 13203, Southampton SO18 2UA. Phone: 023 8036 3893. Email: HCODP@btinternet.com .

Alia Hassan or Ian Loynes SCIL. 6 Northlands Road, Southampton. SO15 2LF. Phone: 023 8033 0982 
Minicom: 023 8063 5165, Fax: 023 8022 5060. Email: Ian@SouthamptonCIL.co.uk.
Thank-You - Strength in Unity! 

Campaign Talk... Campaign Talk..
Did you know? 

Under the new tax laws if a disabled person receiving Direct Payments or Independent Living Funds (ILF)does their own Payroll they can get £250 bonus from the Inland Revenue if you file on line - BUT - the Inland Revenue website is inaccessible to a blind person. 
Did you know? - ILP recipients are obliged to pay £72 out of their Disability Living Allowance/Severe Disability Allowance. This is discriminatory against disabled  people who are unemployed who rely on the Disability Living Allowance to pay for the extra costs of being disabled - and unlike employed disabled people they cannot offset this by using their wages. 

Section 15 - Right to vote! 
The rumour mill has ground around and the general election is now fixed for May 5th. The deadline for registration to vote is likely to be sometime this month. 
The Disability Rights Commission have produced a Right to Vote pack to help using your preferred format to tell us of disabled people to ensure they can your experiences. Simone Aspis and exercise their democratic right to vote. Penny Bould will be collecting The pack can be obtained from:-your responses. 
The DRC Helpline : 08457 622 633 
Textphone: 08457 622 644 Or www.drcgb.org/righttovote. 

The pack also contains a fact sheet for people who support voters with learning difficulties. 
BCODP would be interested to hear your experiences of Voting 2005. 
 
Campaign Talk... Campaign Talk..
Peter McDonald contacted us regarding his ongoing fight with British Airways if you want to support him in his campaign please contact him, preferably by email to pmcdonald@ntlword.com. 

As the law stands, British Airways will not be held accountable for their discrimination & they will not make 
amends for their additional rudeness & incompetence - only public pressure can have any effect. 

If you have a view of this that you would like to share with BA's Chief Executive, Rod Eddington, his address is:- BA, Waterside, PO Box 365, Harmondsworth UB7 0GB  Fax:- 0208 759 9597. 

Our core issues are:  

1. Amendment to Disability Discrimination Act to include transport (which is currently exempt) 
2. a) Legal requirement for all airlines, all planes to designate at least one seat for disabled passengers needing extra leg room, by permanently removing the seat in front of the disabled person's seat.
or 
2. b) Re-designating one of the 3 seats by the emergency exit for use by a disabled passenger who needs extra  leg room asking them to pursue these measures. 

You could also write to Jane Griffiths to add your support for her efforts in this respect. Her fax No is:- 0207 219 0719. 


Section 16 - Letters to the Editor...........
What is HIV/AIDS?
I was pleased to see a letter in a recent issue of Positive Nation magazine, the publication for people living with HIV and AIDS, bemoaning the media's use of the utterly misleading epithet: HIV/AIDS. 
It is perpetrated especially by the BBC, and I have sent several complaints to the both the BBC main website and the site for the fivelive radio station. The main site did not respond at all and, although fivelive said my remarks would be "looked into", nothing has changed. 

They continue to use this meaningless phrase, without realizing that it not only misleads and misinforms the public, but more importantly the politicians who are frantically trying to frame actual and proposed legislation regarding people living with HIV. Am I the only one who thinks that Michael Howard's contentious ideas to test potential immigrants for HIV are based on a complete misunderstanding of the condition, and that this misunderstanding may be based, partly at least, on the BBC's continual propagation of this dangerous 
nonsense? To me, as a person living with HIV, being HIV-positive means that my body harbours a virus that has the power to seriously compromise my immune system, were it not held in check by powerful anti-viral drugs. 
Having AIDS would mean that the virus would be free to multiply and wreak havoc on my immune system to such an extent that my body would no longer be able to fight off disease or infection and that I would ultimately die. 
In my opinion, we should all do out utmost to get the media to stop using these horrifically misleading terms and to put the public straight about what HIV is, what AIDS is and, most importantly, what the DIFFERENCE between the two is and how vital it is not to confuse the two in one moronic term, namely HIV/AIDS. 
CASS, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX. Tel: 01482 465788. Fax: 01482 466088 
Minicom: 0113 307 3282. e-mail: r.e.butler@hull.ac.uk  

The Rainbow Ripples Research Project
A number of recent research projects such as that funded by MIND into the 'Mental Health and wellbeing of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals (LGB) in England and Wales' have made clear the lack of service provision for LGB Disabled people. One third of the gay men and forty percent of the lesbians in the MIND study who had used mental health services had experienced negative or mixed reactions towards their sexuality from the service providers. The Department for Works and Pensions report into 'Disability and Diversity' has criticised service providers for 'not recognising the diversity of disabled people'. 
Rainbow Ripples is a group of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB) Disabled People in Leeds. Funded by Comic Relief we are currently conducting a research project into service provision for LGB Disabled People in Leeds. 
The aims of the project are: 
  * To gain an understanding of the needs and aspirations of LGB Disabled People. 
  * To assess current service provision for LGB Disabled People. 
  * To gain an understanding of what constitutes good practice. 
  * To inform service providers of LGB Disabled People's needs and how they can best meet them. 
In order to do so, however, we need to talk to LGB Disabled People living in the Leeds area. We take 'Disabled Person' to mean anyone who finds themself discriminated against in society because of mental distress, physical or sensory impairment, learning difficulty, or because they are a Deaf person. If you are such a person and would like to get involved, or would simply like to know more about the Rainbow Ripples Project, please contact our researcher, Ruth Butler on 01482 465788, or email r.e.butler@hull.ac.uk 
Any information you give will be kept in the strictest confidence. 

Section 17 - Entertainment Report.
Sixth disability Film Festival.
The sixth Disability Film Festival hosted by London Disability Arts Forum ran from 1st to 5th December 2004. Launching on World Aids / HIV awareness day. Julie McNamara introduced the festival with a commemoration of the life of David Morley, a Gay man who was murdered near Hungerford Bridge, not far from the NFT where the Disability Film Festival was held. It is crucial to make connections with other communities, other periphery movements in struggle, because divided we fall. The Disability Film Festival is as much about educating an intolerant society as it is about celebrating Disability Arts and the talent of disabled filmmakers. 

Terrified. 
This society is built on fear. People are terrified of difference, of people located as 'other'. It was fascinating to witness some of the reactions from non-disabled viewers who hi-jacked the Opening Gala little realising it was a Disability Film Festival, run by disabled people! 
The programming of the sixth Disability Film Festival was designed by Cristina Perezzani with the careful guidance of Festival Director, Caglar Kimyoncu. It was a great effort with some inspiring programming. The opening feature film: Cloud Cuckoo Land is the first film on mainstream release featuring a disabled man as the central character. It's a fair crack at the whip but suffers from too tight a budget and needs some radical editing. A Shorts programme on Day 3 mixed tales of seduction and desire with some raw documentary covering open discussions on sex sexual attraction. The audience applauded throughout.
Screened. 
The festival screened 59 films representing the work of hundreds of disabled filmmakers, writers and talent within the industry. The launch night attracted 365 viewers and numbers grew steadily throughout the 5-day feast. It was undoubtedly the most successful Disability Film Festival so far with an immediate return booking from the NFT for a seventh festival in 2005. Whilst access remains a challenge at the NFT building, the staff team are determinedly working towards a user-friendlier environment. 
In the meantime London Disability Arts Forum's festival team have ensured that all films screened are audio described and sign language interpreted. All panel discussions and debates are palantyped on-screen and there is soft titling on every film without compromising the aesthetics of the medium. The festival itself has attracted interest internationally and is used as a model of good practice in Paris, GaGa in Berlin, 
Picture This! Canada, and festivals in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide, Australia. 
Favourites. 
Personal favourites this festival - Harvie Krumpet directed by Adam Elliot, an animation following the life of a man cursed with perpetual bad luck, and Desirability: Vera Cam directed by Anne Parisio with Ally Scott, a documentary following the journey of self discovery of the 'self-crowned sexy, sassy, witty and infinitely stylish amputee princess of the internet'. Superb stuff! 
Section 18 - Disabled people's movement in Scotland launches first Manifesto for Inclusion.
The first ever national Manifesto - written by disabled people in Scotland - was launched on Tuesday, February 15, ahead of this years' anticipated general election. 

The document, 'Manifesto for Inclusion', has been compiled by Inclusion Scotland, the only national organisation of its kind run by disabled people. 
BBC journalist and reporter Ian Hamilton presented the document at the annual voluntary sector fair 'The Gathering.' He said: "As a disabled person myself, I have long believed that disabled people are their own best advocates. The presentation of this document today only goes to prove this. I believe that this document should act as a catalyst for politicians as well as policy and decision makers at all levels of society to engage directly with disabled people themselves." 

Copies of the Manifesto for Inclusion, which is the result of several months of work by disabled people, and their allies, will be forwarded to the main UK political parties, the Scottish Executive, local authorities in Scotland, national disability and equality charities and other public and private sector bodies. 

The Manifesto for Inclusion is a human rights based document. Disabled people are no longer prepared to ask for our rights in the hope that someone will listen. 

Invaluable.
Dr Ann Wilson, Convenor of Inclusion Scotland says: "I believe that the Manifesto will be an invaluable document to help drive forward Inclusion Scotland's, and other stakeholders, aim for social "The disabled people's movement in Scotland feels that, although the legislation for many of our calls for action is already in existence, it is not being properly enforced. This document shows legislators what needs to be done." 
Bob Benson, Director of the Disability Rights Commission, Scotland, said: "Inclusion Scotland's' Manifesto for 
Inclusion represents an important contribution to the disability equality agenda, and the organisation is to be congratulated for its excellent work in ensuring that disabled people's voices inform decision makers and wider political debate." 

Disability Rights. 
Scottish Socialist Party MSP Rosie Kane said: "The Manifesto for Inclusion sets the agenda for the disability rights for the next decade. More than this, it is a resounding declaration of the right to inclusive living for all, free from discrimination and social and institutional barriers. I will refer to this document in the future and it will 
influence my actions in a number of different areas. I am grateful to the people who contributed to it." 
Bill Campbell, Projects Development Manager Inclusion Scotland, says: "The result of this exercise should be the creation of a two way civil dialogue process between policy makers, service providers and disabled people. Inclusion Scotland is expecting the Manifesto to be a catalyst for change ahead of the forthcoming Disability Discrimination Bill which gives a Public Sector duty for all public sector bodies to engage directly with disabled people. 

Contact Details: 
Inclusion Scotland's offices are at: Unit 53, Abbey Mill Business Centre, Paisley, PA1 1TJ. 
Contact for further information is: Jim MacLeod: telephone number 01475 742673 or mobile 07880915033 
Liz Ross: email lizr@inclusionscotland.org or telephone 0141 887 7090 
Ann Wilson: telephone 01556 502656 or email annsleipnir@btopenworld.com 

Section 19 - The new equality Commission is go! 
In November, the Government finally announced that it will go ahead with its plans to create a new commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR). 
Article by Roy Webb. This significant decision means that we will now see them introducing a new law, sometime in the New Year, giving the Government the power to set up the new Commission and replace the existing Disability Rights Commission, the Commission for Race Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. 

The New Commission will have the role of overseeing all the work now being done by these three groups, plus coordinating work around the three new areas of oppression which have been bought into the legal frame work, following European Legislation which insists that all member groups introduce anti discrimination legislation for people with different sexual orientation, people of different faiths and discrimination on the grounds of age. 

Although the last three only have laws about employment and training, we now have six areas of discrimination which will be covered by the new Commission, which the Government intends to set up 
by 2006. The plans for the new Commission are ambitious, trying to combine six different areas of anti discrimination legislation into one place. The Government sees a wide role for the new Commission in working with business, statutory authorities, the voluntary sector and particularly working with groups representing the different communities who will be directly affected by the new legislation, to support its work in promoting an atmosphere of equality and respect for human rights across the country. 

Intends. 
As yet there are no details about how the Government intends to involve organisations representing the different oppressed groups at local, regional and national level. There is a commitment to keep the existing network of local Councils for Race Equality, which exist in every local authority area at the moment. If a similar network of local CEHR's is set up, this could be a great opportunity to finally get Government to 
formally recognise the need for local organisations of disabled people in every local authority area and provide funding to make sure it is possible to build this national network. 
Our long held dream of a Centre for Independent Living in every local council area could finally become a reality. Opinion about the new Commission is divided at the moment. 

Regulatory. 
The Commission for Race Equality is against the proposal and wants a new commission to have a regulatory role, using stronger legislation to ensure a real equality does become created in local communities and people do experience real benefits in their daily lives. Interesting enough, in the United States, where the Americans with Disabilities Act is very much based on a regulatory approach, while some groups of disabled people have done very well, other groups, including disabled black and minority disabled people, disabled people with learning difficulties and users and survivors of the mental health system have not done so well. Mostly this is because they find the legal system less accessible and there are fewer individual cases from these communities. There may be a case for a Commission which can support individuals and take group action to support discriminated people to get their rights recognised. 

The proposals for the new Commission give disabled people one automatic place on the Commission. At BCODP we have found that this idea started people laughing to begin with. It does seem a little patronising and smacks of the old token crip approach. One disabled person could easily be isolated and set up to fail. What about the other Commissioners? Will any of those be disabled people? However, at least the Government is beginning to get the message that Nothing About Us Without Us does mean just what it says and that, wherever decisions are being made about us, there must be involvement from disabled people. 

The Commission will have a subcommittee on Disability, which could be, depending on decisions on funding and staffing, a continuation of the DRC. The biggest problem is that the legal powers given to the new commission are very limited. Any new Commission must have the power to take both individual and group cases to court it self in relation both anti discrimination and human rights legislation to have any chance of working. Other essentials are a budget and staff level which will make sure there are enough resources to make the work possible. We need to campaign hard for these things. There is now a good opportunity for us to work together with the other discriminated against groups to build a Commission which will meet all of our needs. To this end there are two positive developments. The DRC are calling for a Task Force to be set up to look at what is needed now to make this Commission work for everyone, including new legislation to bring all the communities on to an equal legal footing and to strengthen existing rights laws. This will feed into the idea of a new Single Equalities Act, pulling all this together and offering us a chance to use this new law to create genuine comprehensive new civil rights for disabled people at long last. The DRC will coordinate a working group which will campaign to this end. It is a good opportunity for us for the future. 
The other good news is that representatives from the different communities are already getting together to hammer out an agreement about the way we can go forward together. This is promising for a disabled people movement which is increasingly wanting to reflect the diversity of our own community, which also experience discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, faith and age as well as on the grounds of disability. We can reflect the needs of the whole of our community by getting involved in the campaigns for an effective and strong new Commission. 
Local groups can get involved by getting copies of the White Paper and discussing it in your meetings. BCODP will want to know what member groups think about this, so do please get in touch. 

Section 20 - Just in time - the new Disability Act..
The Disability Discrimination Bill was introduced into Parliament on the 6th December 2004 and received Royal Assent on 7th April 2005. This is a cause of celebration as, for months, there has been confusion about whether or not, or even if at all, the Government was going to introduce this piece of legislation. 

Behind the scenes, there has been talk that there has already been " too much " legislation about disabled people and that it was time for the Government to turn its attention to another topic on its agenda. BCODP has been campaigning vigorously to get the bill into Parliament and make the case that this is nothing like the end of the story as far as the need for comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people is concerned. There is a long way to go before we get any where near equality and basic human rights for all disabled people! 

Victory. 
Getting the Government to finally make up its mind and introduce this Bill has been a great victory for the movement. We have won the argument that the battle for civil rights for disabled people is far from over. We can now move on to the next phase. 
The Bill, introduced by the Government on International Day of Disabled People 2003, was hailed by the 
Government as " the end of discrimination against disabled people". In fact the Bill is very limited in it scope 
and leaves large areas of society untouched. It is only amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act. However, it does do some important things, all of which we have been campaigning for over many years. 

Include. 
The Bill widens the definition of disability in the DDA, to include people living with cancer, HIV and MS in the groups of disabled people covered by the Act. It brings rail transport into the Act, although there is no end date fixed for accessible trains. The Government promises to let us know what this is soon. The Act also covers smaller employers and brings in private clubs, which will include political parties. Examining bodies will also now not be allowed to discriminate against disabled people and will have to make reasonable adjustments to examinations to include disabled people. 

The most useful part of the Bill introduces a new duty on public bodies, not to discriminate against disabled people and to promote equality of opportunity. In both these cases, public bodies will have to be proactive and anticipate when discrimination may occur and plan to avoid it. This is the first time any law has shown that it is discrimination that we need to eliminate. A small step towards a social model approach. 

Provision. 
The problem with this new provision is that the definition of what is a public body needs extending, especially in this age when the Government is appointing other organisations to carry out Government work and local authorities are contracting out many of their responsibilities to the private sector. 
BCODP is campaigning to get the definition clearer, so that any new body, either appointed or contracted to 
provide services will be covered by the Bill. BCODP also wants a stronger complaints system. At the moment any disabled person who has been discriminated against by a public body can only complain to the DRC, or take out a judicial review. We think both these are not accessible to many disabled people and that we need a much more local, quicker and accessible complaints system. 

We also want the Government to accept the other 36 recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee into the Bill. These include more changes to the definition of disability, a committee to work out how to write a new Bill based on the social model of disability, include elected Councillors and others taking public office. Volunteers, housing authorities and others in to the Bill. These are all things we have been fighting for ever since the DDA was introduced. 

Section 21 - Update on Progress... 
What has been achieved in the Lords?
Public representation. 
The Disability Discrimination Bill extends the scope of the DDA to public functions. However with regards to unpaid office holders public representatives, the protection against discrimination was restricted to the appointment process. The Government has now amended the Clause to ensure that public authorities also have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people when carrying out their functions. 

This means that disabled office holders such as school governors are now protected. This is very important as it will give disabled people the confidence to serve on public bodies, increasing diversity in public representation and ensuring that disabled people's voices are heard. 

Disability Equality Duty. 
The Disability Equality Duty has now been amended so that it will be more effective in achieving its aim of eliminating structural disadvantage and promoting equality. The definition of harassment has been extended, which means that public authorities will have to take a proactive approach to tackling the harassment of disabled people in the community. Hopefully, this will reduce the high incidence of hate crime against disabled people, and help create a safe and secure environment. 

The general duty now also includes a need to promote positive attitudes towards disabled people and to encourage participation by disabled people in public life. The recent Strategy Unit report recognised that much remains to be done to overcome attitudinal barriers and to involve disabled people. Promoting positive attitudes to disabled people should lead to greater understanding of disability and help remove barriers. 

BCODP are pleased to see that the Government has also tackled the issue of participation of disabled people in decision-making bodies within their communities. This will mean that public authorities will be required actively to approach disabled people to get involved in such activities as school governing boards, patient forums and residents' forums. 

Transport. 
Inaccessible transport has a major impact on disabled people's independence, social participation and employability. 60 percent of households with a disabled member do not have access to a car (compared to 27 percent of the general population) so access to the public transport system is a crucial part of many disabled people' lives. 
Clauses 6-9 of the Disability Discrimination Bill focus on transport provisions. BCODP has welcomed the extensive debate which has taken place on these issues, and the positive changes which have been made to the Bill on many of them. End-date on the face of the Bill The Government has recognised the importance of putting 2020 on the face of the Bill. The certainty of an end-date has always been vital to reassure disabled 
people that their right to access the rail network is being taken seriously by both the rail industry and the Government. 
With a date on the face of the Bill, primary legislation will be needed to alter it and this will prevent the date 
being made later nearer the time.

Exemptions procedure. 
Following the extensive debate in the House of Lords, the Government has reinforced the exemptions procedure. The Government has introduced a regulation making power on the Secretary of State to determine whether exemption orders require negative or affirmative procedure to enact Statutory Instruments. Before making exemption orders the Secretary of State has a duty to consult with DPTAC and any other relevant organisation. Until the regulations are enacted all exemption orders will be made by the more stringent affirmative Statutory Instruments Procedure. 

Annual report. 
The Government now has a duty to produce an annual report listing details of all RVAR exemption orders granted in the previous year, whether they were granted by affirmative or negative Statutory Instrument and what consultation was undertaken before this decision was reached. 

This will further increase the level of scrutiny on the industry's progress. 
Update on Progress... 

Depression 

BCODP are pleased that an amendment was carried in the Lords which will mean that a significant 
proportion of people with depression will now be brought within the scope of the DDA. Case law has shown that as the law currently stands, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding the coverage of people with depression and many people who deserve protection are denied it. 

Volunteers. 
The Government has given assurances that the Disability Rights Commission will develop a voluntary Code of Practice on volunteers. Its effectiveness will be reviewed (probably after 2 years). 

Day-to-day activities. 
The Government promised to review the statutory guidance in consultation with the Disability Rights Commission. 

Housing. 
The Government has placed the duty not to unreasonably refuse physical alterations on the face of the Bill. 
We also welcome the setting up of a working group to look at the issue of physical adaptations to communal 
areas. This working group will include representatives from Disability Rights Commission, Office of Deputy Prime Minister and Department for Work and Pensions. 

Outstanding issues 
Education 
The Government's reluctance to place the same duties on schools as on other public authorities sends out the very worrying message that equality for disabled people in schools is somehow less important than in other public bodies. There is widespread anxiety amongst the Special Educational Consortium, teaching unions, Disability Rights Commission and BCODP regarding this anomaly. 

The Disability Discrimination Bill imposes a general duty on schools to promote equality of opportunity for disabled children. However, BCODP is extremely concerned that the Government has not committed themselves to placing the same specific duties on schools as it will give to other public authorities such as local councils, universities and colleges. It is a fallacy that specific duties are not placed on schools as they have a unique influencing role on future generations. Schools provide the bedrock for disabled individuals' opportunities in future life. 
Furthermore, schools make up half of all public bodies, so their exclusion seriously undermines the public sector duties. 

It means that unlike other public bodies, schools will not have to produce Disability Equality Schemes, involving disabled people in the process, nor will they have to monitor and report on their progress. The very slow progress that schools are making with respect to implementing their duties under the current education duties (introduced by the Special Education Needs and Discrimination Act 2002) show that schools need a stronger push towards promoting disability equality. It is clear they do not intend to impose these duties on schools through regulations this issue must be progressed in the Commons. 

Transport. 
a. Exemption procedure. 
The amendment on removing a power to make exemptions after 1 January 2020 was narrowly defeated in the Lords. We believe that this sends out a strong signal that the Government needs to state explicitly that any exemptions granted for the period after 1 January 2020 will have to be proportionate and necessary and for a very limited period only (no more than 5 years). 
b. Aviation and shipping. 
The voluntary codes currently operating in the aviation and shipping industries have not proved effective in improving these services for disabled people. There have been a number of high-profile cases in the aviation industry that highlight the problems, which seem to be endemic. The Bill currently includes a regulations making power to allow the Government to make both of these codes statutory, should it wish to do so. However, the draft regulations currently being consulted on by the Department for Transport do not include aviation and shipping and the Government has indicated it is awaiting the outcome of research in both industries. 
The impact of the exemption for shipping on the social exclusion of disabled people in the Highlands and Islands is particularly important because of the reliance on this form of transport for day to day rather than occasional tourism activities. The early publication of the shipping research (that was due to be completed by the end of 2004) and the aviation research is still awaited and hope that both will prompt the Government to bring both industries immediately within the remit of legislation. 
c. Draft regulations. 
The Government has agreed to publish draft regulations to make changes to Part V of the DDA (transport Regulations) during the passage of the Bill. Debate in the Lords has meant a number of amendments and improvements to this area of the Bill. BCODP now look forward to publications of these regulations and hope they will include more details of the enforcement procedure for rail vehicles not complying with accessibility regulations and that the fines imposed will be tough enough to act as an effective deterrent. 
Local groups can get involved by writing to Maria Eagle, Minister for Disabled People at Richmond House, 79 
Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS, calling for her to set up a working group to establish the social model of disability and accept the other recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, supporting BCODP's campaign. If you want more information about the Bill and how to get involved, contact us at bcodp@bcodp.org.uk  - Thanks to Roy Webb for updating us on this vital issue. 

Section 22- Researchers seeking help... 
First Owen Thomas 
"I am a student in my final year of hospitality and licensed retail management at the Manchester Metropolitan University. As part of the course a dissertation has to be completed and I have chosen a subject area with regards to whether or not there is discrimination against a disabled person within the hospitality industry with specific regards to the licensed house industry. To complete this I have to questionnaire a group of around 80 disabled people". If you want to help Owen-please contact him by email: owendpg@hotmail.com 

Researchers seeking help... 
Now from Sue 
Have you recently moved into a new house?
If so, you may be able to help us with some interesting research. 
The Research Group for Inclusive Environments in the School of Construction Management and Engineering at the University of Reading are carrying out research into how new dwellings can be built to provide improved access and more independent living for the whole population including disabled people. 

In order to carry out this research, we would like to survey a variety of new house types on residential estates which obtained building control approval after the year 2000 including bungalows, flats, town houses, terraced, semi detached and detached houses. 

For East Midland individual and group members...
The East Midlands Regional Assembly (EMRA) is to prepare a new style Regional Plan. 
This will review the long term strategy for the East Midlands over a 15 to 20 year period. The Plan will guide the priorities for new growth including housing, employment, transport and the environment. Before we start work on the review, we need to make sure that as many people and organisations as possible are happy about what we are proposing. To do this the Regional Assembly is preparing a Draft Project Plan including a Statement of Public Participation. This will set out how we will carry out the review, outline the objectives and key issues, who will do the work and how we are going to consult the community. The Draft Project Plan will be launched at a public event on 12 April 2005. There will be a twelve week period for people to make comments on the proposals until 8 July 2005. Copies of the Draft Project Plan will be available for organisations and in places such as local council offices and libraries throughout the East Midlands. A leaflet will also be available in a number of formats and languages if required. 

If you would like further information on the Regional Plan or how you can get involved please look at our web-site: www.emra.gov.uk <http://www.emra.gov.uk/> or e mail: info@emra.gov.uk We know that the web-site may not be available to everybody but we are looking at different ways of letting people know about the Regional Plan." 

Section 23 - Shame on SCOPE! 
"Disability charity shifts its policy towards integration but at what cost?" 
Ask the Residents of Cyncoed flats!

The Charity SCOPE is planning to close its last Independent Living Unit in Wales soon and shift responsibility for the eleven severely-disabled residents on to Cardiff's over-stressed Social Services. 
SCOPE have reneged on a promise they made to the residents at 127 Cyncoed Road to build a new unit. Instead, they now plan to sell the site to a profit-making organisation. 

There is nowhere for these people to go! 
Most of the residents have lived at Cyncoed flats for many years. They will be forced to leave the comfort, security and familiarity of their homes and will be dispersed to wherever the Social Services can find room for them. SCOPE will make no financial contribution towards their re-housing. Residents are being treated like pawns in SCOPE's corporate game, instead of receiving their care and support. 

Lambs to the slaughter. 
The residents and staff at Cyncoed flats are being sacrificed so that SCOPE can reap a substantial short-term gain from the sale of the site. The suffering and anxiety of the residents cuts no ice with SCOPE. Their primary concern is to get residents out of the site by the end of September, so that the purchasers can move in. What was once a caring charitable body has become a faceless monolith, more concerned with spin than substance. 

We need your support! 
Help the residents, their families and other well-wishers to fight SCOPE'S cruel decision to close the unit and disperse the residents. Please call Anne McCarthy on Cardiff 20755539 for more background information or email cg@cogent1 .plus.com 


And while we are on the subject of Scope! 
BCODP REJECTS SCOPE ADVANCES... and commits itself to a new programme of supporting the BCODP local groups! 

There have been many rumours about BCODP and Scope. To put the record straight and reassure our members, it is worth stating in the clearest possible terms that, at no time has BCODP ever accepted money from Scope. (A quick glance at our annual audited accounts will reassure any doubters.) 

Over the last few months, the BCODP National Council has twice voted overwhelmingly to reject requests from Scope to work together on two projects. One was a request to support Scope in developing its own Disability Equality Training programme, which we rejected in favour of promoting our own in-house 
training programme. At least our programme is based on the social model of disability and only uses disabled 
trainers who have been accredited through our training and support services. 

Rejected 
The other was an offer from Scope to fund the Disabled Peoples Parliament Project, which we also rejected as BCODP had already decided not to work on this project for the foreseeable future. We also demanded that Scope not use the name of the parliament, which we regarded as belonging to BCODP. The long standing commitment of BCODP to promote and support the independent disabled peoples movement is still solidly in place. 

Vigorous 
Instead, the BCODP National Council has just approved a vigorous and ambitious funding programme, which 
has already been partially successful and we have recruited a Penny and Simone as our Campaigns Officer. We are now actively seeking funds to: 

  * Recruit a new Strategic Director to give the organisation direction in developing policy and campaign work. 
  * Recruit a new Group Development Officer to promote a new programme of support for our member groups 
and develop new groups. 

These are some of the few developments we want to make to ensure that BCODP can and will develop into a national organisation supporting and encouraging the creativity and development of our members across the country and drawing together these strands to coordinate National campaigning work to take forward our struggle to remove every discriminating barrier from our society and free disabled people to become equal and active citizens in our own right, following the social model of disability and campaigning for rights not charity. 
Roy Webb 

The rumour mill grinds on... ..some frequently asked questions 
Many rumours continue to go around about BCODP. Here are some questions we get asked, with some straight answers. 

Did BCODP enter take any money from Scope? 
No. This has never happened, as our audited accounts show. This is unlikely to happen in future as such a decision could only be carried out by a ballot of all our member groups, since it would involve a change in national policy. 

Has BCODP agreed to work with Scope? 
No. In fact the National Council has twice voted to reject proposals from Scope for joint work. BCODP believes in supporting the development of an independent disabled peoples movement. 

Are any members of the National Council employed by Scope? 
No. Absolutely not. No member of the National Council is employed by Scope. 

Does BCODP criticise the charities? 
Yes. BCODP National policy is not to work with organisations which oppress disabled people. The social model, rights based society we want will have no place for charities, as people will be able to 
get their needs met as of right. 

Section 24 - The Manifesto for Disabled People proposal for discussion at the event on the 27th November in Nottingham by the meeting organisers, compared to existing BCODP policy and practice.

Over the page are tables with, on one side, the statements made in the proposed manifesto circulated at the recent meeting in Nottingham. 

Next to each statement in the manifesto is a comparison with existing BCODP policy and practice. In each case, the table answers the question as to whether or not the new manifesto statement is already part of existing BCODP policy and practice. By policy we mean those policies agreed at BCODP by AGM's and Conferences over the years. By practice we mean the work currently being carried out by BCODP right now. 

In the discussion about whether or not to create another national disabled peoples organisation alongside BCODP, it may be helpful for people to compare the manifesto which was proposed as the one the new movement wants to follow and the work currently being done in the existing national organisation of disabled 
people. 

Proposed. 
As can be seen, the proposed new manifesto is actually no different in any respect from current activity and policy of BCODP. In fact, current BCODP policy could quite easily be seen as more radical and more deeply rooted in the social model of disability than the new proposed manifesto. When you also remember that BCODP is active in many areas not mentioned above, such as transport, education, international affairs, supporting womens organisations, housing, employment, independent living, opposing community care 
charging, including representation from disabled lesbian and gay people, working with organisations representing black disabled people and much more, there is a case to argue that BCODP is more radical 
and campaigns more comprehensively than the proposed new manifesto would include. 
This might not be too surprising, since BCODP's policies have been developed over more than 25 years of struggle, with the active input, from their own direct experiences, of many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of disabled people fighting for their freedom. 
While recognising that 65 individuals and 28 different groups all represented at the meeting in Nottingham gives that meeting considerable authority and importance, which must be and is being taken seriously by BCODP, it's worth remembering that BCODP has between 135 and 140 member groups, which, 
between them represent between 350,000 and 400,000 disabled people actively involved in struggling for their freedom. 

Providing. 
The table doesn't include the statement that the proposes that BCODP is no longer capable of providing this kind of leadership, mainly because the table clearly shows BCODP is already doing everything that the proposed new movement wants to do and much more. We also haven't repeated the statement that BCODP cannot be changed. This is partly because such a statement clearly goes directly against the principles of the social model of disability by claiming disabled people can't change even the organisation we have created for ourselves, whereas BCODP believes disabled people, working together, can change the whole of our society. It's also partly because BCODP has constantly changed over the years and recently introduced massive changes in the make up of the National Council, giving back the control of this body to representatives elected directly from member groups, proving conclusively that BCODP has and 
can continue to change. 

Roy Webb 

"New manifesto" 	Is this Policy  	Part of Practice   	Existing BCODP policy or practice? 
We subscribe to: The Social Model of Disability - Equality of Opportunity for all - Social/political and economic Inclusion oppressed on the grounds of impairment and experience Disability as barriers to 
their full participation in the life of the community as equals Yes the new UPIAS definition of disability. BCODP prefers the original, which describes discrimination, segregation and exclusion as part of the experience 
of disability.  Whilst anyone who experiences inequality, poverty, oppression and discrimination are told to rely on charity their quality of life will not improve and they will not be equal BCODP first raised the slogan "Rights not Charity" and it's policy and practice haven't changed since then. In the rights based society we fight for, 
there would be no place for charities. Disabled People need a liberation movement that subscribes to the 
Social Model of Disability and upholds the principles of Equality of Opportunity and Inclusion 
policy and practice, but also a condition of membership of BCODP.  Disabled People must lead their own 
struggle for emancipation and participation commitment to it. It's the very lifeblood of                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
the movement and, since the moment created "New manifesto" Is this Policy Part of Practice Existing BCODP policy or practice?  This struggle manifests itself through a civil rights movement which must be steered by an elected leadership directly accountable to Disabled People BCODP has always seen civil rights as only part of the struggle to create a different society. We want every disabled person involved to be contributing 
to the leadership of their movement, not just an elected elite. Non-Disabled allies should be individuals and organisations supporting  BCODP's policies to join. Social forces continue to seek to weaken and divide us and that we need to create and present a united cross-impairment Movement working in solidarity with other groups of people who are experiencing discrimination and waging fights for liberation, both locally and nationally cross-impairment disabled peoples movement. BCODP works closely with national and local organisations representing other discriminated against groups in society and has led the way in creating 
these links. "New manifesto" Is this Policy Part of Practice Existing BCODP policy or practice? 
Any agency or organisation that actively continues to promote or support policies, projects, practices that directly continue to oppress us cannot also be our allies le. Fight from a 'RIGHTS NOT CHARITY' platform - the abolition of charity and a forced dependence on them for goods, services, support, advice, info etc. which should be provided by user-led community based organisations and should be available as of right without having to meet stringent criteria used to ration services .This has been one of the founding principles of 
BCODP and remains at the heart of our struggle to create a different society, based on equality and 
justice for all disabled people. It's the ground on which the Centres for Independent Living are based, throughout the country. Include all four states represented in the islands we inhabit and seek to represent people across all impairment groups. The current BCODP constitution clearly sets out  that BCODP is already 
committed to represent all parts of Britain and every impairment group. 

Section 25 - The Archive Project of Disabled People's Movement and History 
Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP) has successfully attracted funding for a 12 month project from the Heritage Lottery Fund. GMCDP is an organisation controlled by disabled people and seeks to demonstrate and promote good practice in everything it does. In September 2002, GMCDP conducted a detailed reappraisal of its aims, objectives, role, function, priorities and plans. The creation of an archive 
which properly records the history and ongoing development of the disabled people's movement emerged as a high priority for the organisation. Similarly, in a recent survey of the staff of the British Council of Disabled People, the urgent need to collate and promote the history of the disabled people's movement was 
identified by them as a key initiative which the organisation should take forward. The 12 month project entitled 
"Disabled People's Archive and History Project" will be undertaken by Brian Kokoruwe - The Project Manager, who will: 

  * Map the task of identifying and collating the history of the disabled people's movement. 
  *  Draw up a timetable and scheme to start and continue the planned, consistent and systematic collection of 
fresh data and existing material. 
  *  Identify a suitable, accessible site and venue to host the substantial and 
diverse range of material and artefacts to be retained in this archive. 
  *  Develop and implement detailed funding applications and proposals for a sustainable archive through which this valuable heritage can be shared. 
Project Manager Brian Kokoruwe commented "This is an exciting and challenging project. It is a unique project that charts our history; which is cross-impairment and which uses the social model of disability. This is a unique project because it is being pioneered by an organisation of disabled people. In our 
view, it is very important that we record and chart our own history". Brian started work on this project from 1st April 2004. 

GMCDP welcomes support, cooperation and assistance from professional archivists, disabled people's organisations and individual disabled and non-disabled people across the UK who may possess archive materials and useful information about the history of the disabled people's movement. If you want 
to contribute any useful materials, know a possible funding organisation, a possible location for the archive or you would like to share your experiences of the movement, please contact: Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People Disabled People's Archive and History Project Brian Kokoruwe, Project Manager, BEVC, Aked Close, Ardwick Manchester M12 4AN  Email: brian@gmcdp.com 


• DESIGN • PRINT • PRINT MANAGEMENT 
• STORAGE & DISTRIBUTION
• Brochures • Stationery 
• Leaflets • Business Forms 
• Folders • Price Lists 
• & Much More .... 
Nottingham: 2 Granville Court, Leighton Street, Nottingham NG3 2FU
Derby: Units 3 &  4, Kingsmead Industrial Estate, Noel Street, Derby DE22 3AZ.  Telephone: (Sales) 0115 9120067. Fax: 0115 9120068. E-mail: sales@ukprintoptions.co.uk

Activate is available in a range of alternate formats on request. Please let us know what format you require by telephone 01332 295551, fax 01332 295580, Minicom 01332 295581 or email to: jaynef@bcodp.org.uk 

(c) Copyright The British Council of Disabled People 2003
No items in this newsletter may be copied or reproduced without written permission from BCODP.
BCODP, Litchurch Plaza, Litchurch Lane, Derby DE24 8AA. Telephone 01332 295551, Fax 01332 295580, Minicom 01332 295581. Email general@bcodp.org.uk. www.bcodp.org.uk