Disability and Dosh!

Lakelady_2

Well I like the title, it is showing a good ol` dose of british irony! My poor very disabled hubby never has any. I suppose the title could be - disability and (no) dosh.

foxxymynx

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

But us lawyers are a strange lot,

lol I'm not going to disagree!

Sub headings are in admin, you have to go t board configuration

clio2008

beanielou wrote: »

I am disabled & I certainly dont have a problem with the name.
I have other things to worry about TBH.

Thank you for that cause I feel exactly the same way. As someone who has lived with a disability from childhood I have sooooooooooooooooooooooo much more to worry about than a title of a thread etc. Apart from having spent many years volunteering, I am also a qualified social worker and I STILL DONT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TITLE! It is what it is or should i say it does what it says on the tin lol ok am moving on to the next thread as Id rather spend more time looking at how to save money than debating the name of a thread.

Ames

I think if it were a stand alone forum then the title might be a bit crass. But as it's a forum on a site called money saving expert then it's got a different context and I think it works well.

cw18

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

As a retired employment lawyer, when I see the word 'disabled'

I read 'someone with a disability or chronic longterm health condition that adversely affects that person's ability to carry out day to day tasks'...

But us lawyers are a strange lot, and I can see that 'normal' people probably draw a distinction............

:rotfl: sorry, but I've heard that said of lawyers before

Until March 2007 I was a "normal" person, and "disabled" to me generally meant something visible -- though I accepted there were conditions less visible at a quick glance at someone (such as deafness) and those that weren't necessarily visible even after spending time with a person (such as brittle bone)

But (based on how others around me react to some people/situations) I suspect my very basic acceptance of less noticeable conditions is in the main 'cos I have a back condition that can leave me pretty immobile for a couple of days at a time -- but which apparently isn't bad enough (or not bad enough for long enough) for it to be formally classed as a "disability".


It wasn't until March 2007 I discovered that other things (such as the cancer my DH was diagnosed with in January 2007) are also officially classed as a disability even though he's not (yet) confined to a wheelchair

I really wish I'd previously been aware of other illnesses that count -- though I hope I've never been insensitive to anyone with any type of condition that impacts on their lifestyle (whether or not they're registered disabled).



As such, I guess I'm another who believes the use of "disablility" in the title is vague -- but I can't for the life of me think of anything better (even if they were looking to change it), and those of us who are mostly likely to get something from this board should (I hope) all be reading it in the wider context anyway

zzzLazyDaisy

cw18 wrote: »

:rotfl: sorry, but I've heard that said of lawyers before

Until March 2007 I was a "normal" person, and "disabled" to me generally meant something visible --

Can I just jump in and clarify something here (anxious not to cause offence to anyone)

when I said 'normal' I meant 'non-lawyer' not 'not disabled'

<slinks off, having irritated half the board members and confused the other half :rotfl:>

cw18

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

when I said 'normal' I meant 'non-lawyer' not 'not disabled'

My fault for wording my reply badly, as that was the way I'd read 'normal'
What I meant to say was....

Until March 2007 I was a "normal" person to whom "disabled" generally meant something visible

but I'm not sure that's much clearer

Probably better to just say

Until March 2007 "disabled" to me generally meant something visible

colin13

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Can I just jump in and clarify something here (anxious not to cause offence to anyone)

when I said 'normal' I meant 'non-lawyer' not 'not disabled'

<slinks off, having irritated half the board members and confused the other half :rotfl:>

typicall lawyer:)