Touched up at the doctor's!!

bestpud

bazster wrote: »

I sometimes help out on a voluntary basis with people who have learning disabilities. As a volunteer you're not supposed to be looking after people who have behavioural issues, but sometimes the difficult behaviour has simply never occurred before - as I discovered when a young man in my care became violent and began punching and kicking me. Fortunately no serious damage was done and he was incredibly shamefaced and apologetic once he'd calmed down.

So what do you do? Read any paper and it soon becomes clear that there are plenty of people on the streets who are capable of violence and sexual assault and yet do not have a disability. Would it be fair to continue to tolerate them on the streets (and many of them are known thanks to their history/record) and yet lock up disabled people just on the off-chance? They are still adults and human beings with the same rights as anyone else.

Erm, what you do is remain vigilant so they do not have chance to place their hand on someone's leg twice and be shot down in flames before you even spot what is happening! That is damaging to the OP and to the client!

Supporting people with LDs is about helping them integrate. We do them no favours by turning a blind eye to this kind of thing! The trick is to keep one step ahead and avoid a potential situation in the first place.

The carer can be excused for not realising it may happen (if they are a temp carer - long term carers should know better) but they are out of order for not spotting it when it did happen!

I have not mentioned locking anyone up - where have you got that from?

bazster

SevenCL wrote: »

I don't care if everyone in the world but me thinks it's offensive. I have zero interest in pandering to peoples' idiotic hangups.

Yeah right. Like all sniggering troll cowards you are big behind a keyboard but I'll bet you are very aware of what's offensive and what isn't when it comes to face-to-face conversations.

bestpud

As an aside, I reported the SevenCL's post just after it was written as it is offensive and unnecessary to use language like that.

There is many ways to express an opinion without resorting to language that may cause offence. Can you not just find another word?

scooby088

There is many ways to express an opinion without resorting to language that may cause offence. Can you not just find another word?[/QUOTE]

There are other words that are probably as offensive as the original one used.

j.e.j.

newcook wrote: »

Off topic: I have had to tell off my nan before for using the ‘n’ word – to her it’s a shade of brown (she is 91 and lived in an era where it was an acceptable word).

Yes, my grandad used to say exactly the same thing. Used to say n..... brown was a shade of paint. I guess it was in those days. (He would have been a similar age to your nan.)

Even relatively recently it was standard and acceptable to say, for example, a child was 'ESN', and there was actually a charity called the !!!!!! Society (now called Scope, I think). Bit shocking by today's standards, but just goes to show how things change.

bestpud

scooby088 wrote: »

There is many ways to express an opinion without resorting to language that may cause offence. Can you not just find another word?

There are other words that are probably as offensive as the original one used.[/QUOTE]

I thought that after I posted, but there is many that won't cause offence too.

bazster

bestpud wrote: »

I'm not perfect at all and would not be offended in the slightest if a member of the public pulled me up for doing a bad job.

I was asked if I would lock up people with disabilities and leave predators on the street because they don't have a disability, and I replied to that.

No you didn't, you pontificated about doing the job properly, as though you never miss anything with your poorly-paid eagle eyes.

bazster

scooby088 wrote: »

There are other words that are probably as offensive as the original one used.

Apparently not, in this context:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070320214418/http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/yourspace/worstwords/

scooby088

bazster wrote: »

Apparently not, in this context:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070320214418/http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/yourspace/worstwords/

I probably use 1 to 4 on a daily basis at work.

j.e.j.

SevenCL wrote: »

EDIT: what the hell IS the in word now anyway?

good question!

If someone is backward in their intellectual/emotional development, they're usually referred to as having learning difficulties, though that term covers a whole range of things.

With mental health problems I am not sure what the 'in' word is, or if there is one, though I suppose a more tactful way of putting it might be that they've 'got issues'?

ETA I can see this thread getting pulled at some point in the not-too-distant future..