We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Lift broken in rented office with wheelchair bound employee
Comments
-
OK, so you're going to resort to base insults, rather than give me a reasoned analysis of the various terms that I asked about.....?
I'd really like to know. I can't fathom your logic, and I want to know what's behind it. Explain to me, please, why 'wheelchair user' may be 'correct usage' (if that's one of your acceptable terms) and 'wheelchair-bound' isn't ???0 -
wheelchair user indicated the individual is using the wheelchair as a tool / aid. Wheelchair-bound makes it sound as they are restricted to a wheelchair - the wheelchair dictates their life. It is simply the fact that is sounds more negative0
-
Not sued directly for it, but say if you mentioned in an email, wheelchair bound, and the employee was made redundant or not promoted and they took the employer to court, things like this can be viewed dimly. Apart from that if the employee took offence they can sue the employer for discrimination, similar to say calling someone fat etc
According to my OH (he's an employment law barrister) he cannot think of any possible way in whcih "wheelchair bound" would be disability discrimination within the meaning of the 1995 Act. "Taking offence" is not a legal definition of "discrimination", by the way....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
I was pointing out from my own working with disabled people and do as you please if you want to be an ignorant person and just argue for arguments sake. Many people have told you the correct usage and I am not going to repeat myself to a callous person like you.
callous? get over yourself, do!...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
wheelchair user indicated the individual is using the wheelchair as a tool / aid. Wheelchair-bound makes it sound as they are restricted to a wheelchair - the wheelchair dictates their life. It is simply the fact that is sounds more negative
Less accurate, too. A wheelchair user may be able to walk short distances....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
I don't know details about the law as I am not a lawyer, but in almost all big workplaces and government offices it is considered a derogatory term and in their HR guidelines, a random example is http://www.scips.worc.ac.uk/etiquette.htmlneverdespairgirl wrote: »According to my OH (he's an employment law barrister) he cannot think of any possible way in whcih "wheelchair bound" would be disability discrimination within the meaning of the 1995 Act. "Taking offence" is not a legal definition of "discrimination", by the way.
There are lots more you can find. Personally I wouldn't use a word that is considered rude as that's me :beer:0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »callous? get over yourself, do!
No I think I had already explained and pointed them to a thread where a wheel chair user explains why it is derogatory and I am not going to be arguing about it. Most of the educated world accepts its derogatory, this is like the lady on TV insisting Paki is the short form of Pakistani and not derogatory. I would assume an adult not understanding why it would hurt someone's feeling is either callous or a Psychopath (for which there is sadly no cure and has no feeling of love or hurt).0 -
And a lot of disabled people also use the term "wheelchair bound" about themselves and others. I don't accept that "cripple" or "Paki" are comparable terms....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0
-
wheelchair user indicated the individual is using the wheelchair as a tool / aid. Wheelchair-bound makes it sound as they are restricted to a wheelchair - the wheelchair dictates their life. It is simply the fact that is sounds more negative
...but they ARE restricted to the wheelchair from the point of view of getting around, and making their way to and from the exits of the building, which is the context we're talking about here.
Comparisons with terms such as 'Paki', 'Dago' and 'Spic' are meaningless - nobody goes up to a person in a wheelchair and says "Oi- you wheelchair-bound **** ", do they?
In the context of referring, perhaps in an H&S report, or in correspondence (which again, is the context discussed here) on the ability of the workforce to get to the exits in an emergency, why is it felt that referring to one or more of the workforce as 'wheelchair-bound' is derogatory or perjorative?0 -
No I think I had already explained and pointed them to a thread where a wheel chair user explains why it is derogatory and I am not going to be arguing about it. Most of the educated world accepts its derogatory, this is like the lady on TV insisting Paki is the short form of Pakistani and not derogatory. I would assume an adult not understanding why it would hurt someone's feeling is either callous or a Psychopath (for which there is sadly no cure and has no feeling of love or hurt).
I'm asking you to tell me why it's seen as derogatory when used in a detached, professional way to differentiate one sector of the workforce from another solely in relation to their abilities to clear the building in an emergency.
References to those from Pakistan, and abbreviated forms thereof aren't relevant to this - it's not a valid comparison0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards