This is a full transcript of the moderated chat of Thursday May 14th. It has not yet been cleaned up for readability - this is exactly as it appeared to people in chat. I plan to clean it up to make it more readable later.
May 14 20:06:34 <SamBC-Host> Firstly, how moderation works.
May 14 20:06:46 * spoons4all (586d5d35@gateway/web/freenode/ip.220.127.116.11) has joined
May 14 20:07:13 <SamBC-Host> Any of you can type a message at any time. However, only people with 'operator' privileges will see it. If you're on the web client (and a lot of other IRC client), that means people with an '@' in front of their name.
May 14 20:08:04 <SamBC-Host> Anyone with 'voice' (a '+' in front of their name) can send messages everyone can see (or so I sincerely hope, otherwise no-one is seeing this)
May 14 20:08:10 * naomi (56182804@gateway/web/freenode/ip.18.104.22.168) has joined
May 14 20:08:10 <SamBC-Host> As can operators.
May 14 20:08:17 * naomi has quit (Client Quit)
May 14 20:08:32 <iammrj> DavidGillonb: that worked.
May 14 20:08:52 <SamBC-Host> So, if you have a point to make, a question to ask, or an answer to anyone else's question, just type it in as normal.
May 14 20:09:22 <SamBC-Host> iammrj has kindly agreed to moderate. This is not to censor what anyone is saying, just to make sure things don't go too quickly, and to keep things in order.
May 14 20:09:27 * Naomi (56182804@gateway/web/freenode/ip.22.214.171.124) has joined
May 14 20:09:41 * Naomi has quit (Client Quit)
May 14 20:09:53 <SamBC-Host> We will be publishing a transcript of this chat - the moderated version will go up as soon as possible, and the unmoderated bit will as soon as we've gone through to make sure there's nothing sensitive in it.
May 14 20:10:32 <SamBC-Host> What iammrj will do is to copy and paste people's contributions into the chat. If more than one person is making the same point, he may note that as well.
May 14 20:10:37 * NaomiJacobs123 (56182804@gateway/web/freenode/ip.126.96.36.199) has joined
May 14 20:10:48 * NaomiJacobs123 has quit (Client Quit)
May 14 20:10:55 <SamBC-Host> On the web client, the place to type stuff in is right at the bottom of the window/tab/whatever
May 14 20:11:12 * marand (56ba2c07@gateway/web/freenode/ip.188.8.131.52) has joined
May 14 20:11:30 <SamBC-Host> If it seems like we need a bit more of a quick back-and-forth, one or more of you may be given 'voice' temporarily to do that.
May 14 20:11:41 <SamBC-Host> If this doesn't seem to be working at any point, we'll try it without moderation.
May 14 20:12:06 <SamBC-Host> So, with apologies to people who came in a bit later and missed some or all of that explanation, does anyone have any practical questions about this?
May 14 20:12:39 * NaomiJacobs123 (56182804@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.108.40.206) has joined
May 14 20:12:52 <SamBC-Host> (I'll just give it a minute to see if there are other questions about the practicalities here, and then start sharing questions people have already posted)
May 14 20:13:18 <SamBC-Host> Hi NaomiJacobs123, marand, and others.
May 14 20:13:40 * SamBC has changed the topic to: Live chat on setting up a union of disabled people STARTED | Channel currently MODERATED
May 14 20:14:06 <SamBC-Host> So, read along, say any questions you have, and iammrj or I will copy them into chat at a reasonable pace
May 14 20:14:52 <SamBC-Host> Good first question here, though I'm not sure I have an answer... <hossylass> OK, just to start, does anyone know how many grass roots organisations there are?
May 14 20:15:43 <SamBC-Host> Someone please post an correct me, but I'm not sure there's a definite answer to that - I'm sure several of us could list fairly high-profile national ones (BT, PP, DPAC), but there are local things and conditions specific things much older.
May 14 20:16:19 <SamBC-Host> <LettyAndImogen> Too many to list!
May 14 20:16:24 <SamBC-Host> <latentexistence> does anyone even have a directory of such organisations?
May 14 20:16:43 <iammrj> <lonaitebiscuit> there is also sisters of freida (spelling)
May 14 20:17:20 <SamBC-Host> <DavidGillonb> And there's also Disability Rights UK, who ISTR the gov giving a mandate to be a voice for us (Yeah, colour me impressed, not)
May 14 20:17:27 <iammrj> Maybe one of the things we'll have to look at is having someone who can act as a point of contact for these orgs?
May 14 20:17:55 <SamBC-Host> That's a good point about DRUK - I've heard a lot of discomfort about them being treated as the go-to group for disabled people's concerns, for government and for others.
May 14 20:18:41 <SamBC-Host> Personally, I'm not sure we should worry too much quite yet about existing organisations, unless there's a wonderful one we've somehow not heard of that is already trying to do what we're talking about.
May 14 20:18:59 <SamBC-Host> <hossylass> So maybe that could be oneof our first tasks - inviting in groups who can give a little mission statement, and create a directory for people to use?
May 14 20:19:51 * ukwatching (5c0480fc@gateway/web/freenode/ip.220.127.116.11) has joined
May 14 20:20:15 <SamBC-Host> This is just my view, but it seems to me that we want to do something that hasn't been done, at least not successfully. We want an organisation that speaks for disabled people, but actually has some degree of mandate to do so - because it is driven by as many disabled people as possible.
May 14 20:20:27 <iammrj> NaomiJacobs123: we are aware. There will be blog posts of the transcrips where people can ask questions and get responses too. this was simply the fastest and easiest way to get the ball rolling but there'll be other ways people can contribute with equal weight
May 14 20:20:32 <SamBC-Host> Not just that, but a space where disabled people can talk about all sort of questions.
May 14 20:21:05 <SamBC-Host> <LettyAndImogen> Office for Disability Issues - supposedly a government org
May 14 20:21:47 <SamBC-Host> ODI are a sort of multi-department office that works across government departments (like the Cabinet Officer, DWP, BIS, etc) to promote whatever agenda the government tell them to.
May 14 20:22:10 <iammrj> ukwatching: not right now, but there'll be transcripts posted online later
May 14 20:22:31 <iammrj> <amy_> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disabled-peoples-user-led-organisations-list-and-contacts list here might be useful?
May 14 20:22:31 <SamBC-Host> <spoons4all> in the past i thought of something like a disabled people led parliamentary forum should exist.
May 14 20:22:57 <SamBC-Host> spoons4all: do you mean actually in Parliament, or just a parliament-like thing for disabled people?
May 14 20:23:37 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> I'd really like to know how you see this being structured? [all of what? our new group?]
May 14 20:23:56 <SamBC-Host> Okay, I'll take a bash at LettyAndImogen 's
May 14 20:23:59 <SamBC-Host> question
May 14 20:24:20 <SamBC-Host> This is just what I'm imagining - it doesn't have to be done like this, but it can start people talking and thinking.
May 14 20:25:02 <SamBC-Host> I think we need a membership-based group, like a club or society - or a trade union. We'd have a constitution and governance structures.
May 14 20:25:26 <SamBC-Host> Votes of the whole membership would be the main driving force, but with an executive committee to oversee things and actually make sure what members want gets done.
May 14 20:25:33 <iammrj> NaomiJacobs123: nobody can see what the other people are saying except from me and Sam, so we copy and paste what people are saying for everyone to see to stop us all getting 'information overload' and to keep everything running smoothly. if there's a double name, the person who asked the question is second.
May 14 20:26:04 <SamBC-Host> Maybe with extra committees set up to do specific work as and when needed, like doing some research, or drafting a response to a consultation.
May 14 20:26:37 <SamBC-Host> The big difference between other membership orgs and what we need is that we have to include people who can't make in-person meetings, which there are several ways to do.
May 14 20:26:40 * NaomiJacobs123 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
May 14 20:27:28 * Es_ (5b7d16dc@gateway/web/freenode/ip.18.104.22.168) has joined
May 14 20:27:48 <SamBC-Host> Getting back to spoons4all's point:
May 14 20:27:49 <SamBC-Host> <spoons4all> both. wld hav to hav local option 4 people 2 ill 2 travel 2 b able 2 take part
May 14 20:29:11 <SamBC-Host> So, spoons4all has suggested some sort of "disabled people led parliamentary forum". I think some of that would be served by a national members organisation. If we can include people who can't make it to meetings, especially.
May 14 20:29:25 <SamBC-Host> And I'd hope to see local groups, either new ones or existing ones, being part of this.
May 14 20:29:35 <SamBC-Host> <LettyAndImogen> Regional groups?
May 14 20:30:00 <SamBC-Host> Yes, that sort of thing. But I don't think we can expect to have a local or regional group for every area straight away.
May 14 20:30:13 <iammrj> <amy_> would you have associatie members e.g. non disabled people, organisations?
May 14 20:30:22 <SamBC-Host> amy_: yes, I would personally hope so.
May 14 20:30:43 <SamBC-Host> I think this needs to be led by individual disabled people, but that doesn't mean keeping non-disabled people out
May 14 20:31:02 <SamBC-Host> And I would hope that organisations could choose to support us in some official way that we could recognise.
May 14 20:31:48 <SamBC-Host> <amy_> an online way of having conferences, AGMS etc would make big difference to those who can't usually take part in the types of things
May 14 20:31:59 <iammrj> (Es_: it depends what software you're using I'm afraid. I'm not sure if it can be done on the web client if that's what you're using)
May 14 20:32:03 <SamBC-Host> Absolutely!
May 14 20:32:47 <SamBC-Host> (Quick note on accessibility of this chat - we know there's a lot of downsides to it. This was the best fit for something that works and can be done quickly.)
May 14 20:32:50 * Es_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
May 14 20:32:52 <iammrj> Es_: keep an eye out for the blog posts with the transcripts! Shouldn't be too long after we're finished
May 14 20:33:29 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> The other point WRT DPAC is we need to understand how we're intending to be different from them,
May 14 20:33:30 <SamBC-Host> So, I think we would want to have in-person meetings, as big as the membership implies. But we have to include people who can't come to them at the forefront of things.
May 14 20:34:19 <SamBC-Host> DavidGillonb: I hesitate to explain how I think we should be different to any one group particularly, but for that one there's one easy point. Personally, I don't think this new organisation should be all about cuts.
May 14 20:34:26 <SamBC-Host> Or even all about politics and government.
May 14 20:34:54 <SamBC-Host> I want to see disabled people unite to deal with all the issues we face, and austerity and ideologically-driven cuts are part of that, but not all of it.
May 14 20:35:18 <SamBC-Host> <ukwatching> I cant make in person meetings at all, disabled and fulltime carer, I would think that theres already groups in many areas for those who can go to meetings
May 14 20:35:43 <SamBC-Host> So, here's the two main steps I would want to see to make meetings accessible to those who can't make it, for whatever reason.
May 14 20:36:02 <iammrj> <amy_> a web platform with membership levels & document access as required plus a way of working jointly on documents, in addition to discussion forums,webinar/chat type platform
May 14 20:36:07 <iammrj> <marand> just a thought but how is this going to be funded to enable it to operate on a day to day basis with regard to it's operation and resources.
May 14 20:36:10 <SamBC-Host> The first is to ensure they can vote - by making sure all motions, candidates for election and everything are publicised well in advance, to enable people to vote online or by post or whatever.
May 14 20:36:45 <SamBC-Host> The second is to allow them to participate in real-time. That potentially gets expensive, depending on numbers, but I would say we could do it - using telepresence.
May 14 20:36:59 <SamBC-Host> That's a fancy word meaning, essentially "being there when you aren't physically there".
May 14 20:37:24 <SamBC-Host> I'd hope to stream the meetings live, and have someone, maybe several, at a computer, acting as a proxy for people who aren't there.
May 14 20:37:41 <SamBC-Host> And yes, amy_, I'd definitely want a platform like that for use between meetings as well.
May 14 20:37:55 <SamBC-Host> marand asks about funding. That's a very important practical point.
May 14 20:38:08 <SamBC-Host> Doing anything worth doing here is going to cost money, there's no way to argue with that.
May 14 20:39:09 <SamBC-Host> So, I think we would have to ask members to contribute financially - but we obviously can't ask for much. We can also look for fundraising opportunities, and try and get funding from other organisations.
May 14 20:39:53 <SamBC-Host> There are two grant-making trusts I'm aware of, and I'm sure one or the other of them would consider helping us with seed funding - Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, and Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. The first does things that would be considered 'charitable', the other does other things :)
May 14 20:40:05 <SamBC-Host> <ukwatching> a small group can do stuff volunrteer only - but it takes a lot of commitment, and finding free platforms
May 14 20:40:18 <SamBC-Host> Yep. And we don't want to burn out our volunteers.
May 14 20:40:47 <iammrj> <spoons4all> i wld pay small amount. 38 degrees hav been enormously successful using micro payments to fund lawyers etc...
May 14 20:40:50 <iammrj> <lonaitebiscuit> there's also the Lottery Fund, which will fund community building organisations
May 14 20:40:59 * SamBC-Host chuckles
May 14 20:41:04 <SamBC-Host> I always forget lottery funding!
May 14 20:41:41 <SamBC-Host> Most of the stuff I volunteer for and help run is Quaker organisations, who won't usually take lottery funding as a matter of principle. Even if I were on the executive of this new organisation, I wouldn't insist it stick to *my* principles.
May 14 20:41:47 * HoloIRCUser3 (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined
May 14 20:41:49 <iammrj> <amy_> some trade unions have membership fees based on income with out of work or low income paying £1-£2 month
May 14 20:42:02 <iammrj> <eskimogremlin> I think its going to have to be worked out into what we can do now with no funding to where we would like it to be
May 14 20:42:08 * HoloIRCUser3 is now known as bendyboliver
May 14 20:42:21 <SamBC-Host> What we can do with no funding is mostly what we're doing now, though we could organise it better.
May 14 20:42:31 * latentexistence_ (~email@example.com) has joined
May 14 20:42:31 <SamBC-Host> We write, and we post blogs, and we get things going on social media.
May 14 20:42:38 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> IIRC People First England were sponsored by a couple of related charities to get them off the ground, Kaliya would be able to tell you the details
May 14 20:42:41 <iammrj> <ukwatching> most charities have had funding cuts, funing will be harder than ever
May 14 20:43:03 <SamBC-Host> JRCT and JRRT are still making grants, I know that much. I'm sure there are others. And we don't need much to get started.
May 14 20:43:11 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> I suppose it comes down to what our priorities are, what money would be spent on first etc
May 14 20:43:17 * latentexistence has quit ()
May 14 20:43:44 <iammrj> <amy_> I imagine a grand plan plus a plan of how to get there. how much time do you take putting into place governance etc before doing anything?
May 14 20:44:01 <iammrj> <bendyboliver> At the moment I would be happy to pay a small monthly membership fee, but obviously some people might not be able to.
May 14 20:44:10 <SamBC-Host> amy_ and LettyAndImogen, I think your points are related.
May 14 20:44:22 <SamBC-Host> We need to know our first steps, and our later goals. Neither will be decided today.
May 14 20:44:45 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> I think the initial priority would need to be some sort of online forum (or using an existing one) to give us somewhere as a focus for discussion
May 14 20:44:47 <SamBC-Host> I dream of an organisation with hundred of members, all engaged in making our first decisions. And some decisions have to wait until the organisation is formally started.
May 14 20:45:04 <SamBC-Host> But how do we get there, and how do we decide the details? That's a harder question.
May 14 20:45:28 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> Online forum is a must, the sooner the better, and that's free
May 14 20:45:34 <SamBC-Host> DavidGillonb: I know some other people have set up a forum to discuss ideas. But I'm going to say something that people might find a little shocking.
May 14 20:46:10 <SamBC-Host> If we try to sort out every little detail with everyone who's interested putting in their two penn'orth on each detail, we'll never get anywhere. Well, we'll get somewhere eventually, but it will be messy.
May 14 20:46:23 <iammrj> <Pip> We need to research how much it would cost to set up a website with chat capabilities. I would be happy to contribute to that, and help to run it.
May 14 20:46:25 <SamBC-Host> I've seen groups fall in to that morass.
May 14 20:47:05 <SamBC-Host> <LettyAndImogen> No I do agree, one of the main reason DAN can't stand today is because they refuse to have any kind of leadership team
May 14 20:47:05 <iammrj> <bendyboliver> Forum would be excellent for organisation, and the leadership could use it to discuss aims and details with a lot of people. Build it from the ground up as it were.
May 14 20:47:26 <iammrj> <amy_> get outline idea, smallish group to flesh it out then poll/ask for opinion?
May 14 20:47:28 * marand has quit (Quit: Page closed)
May 14 20:47:37 <SamBC-Host> amy_: That's possible.
May 14 20:47:59 * Jan777 (5685c579@gateway/web/freenode/ip.22.214.171.124) has joined
May 14 20:48:04 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> I don't think my earlier note about DPAC's start got through, governance and a formal organisation came later, they actually started up completely informally, just three pro-tem founders/leaders urging people to action
May 14 20:48:07 <SamBC-Host> I mean, I could write a constitution today (well, this week) and get people to sign up and all, but sorting out all the necessary practicilities is too much for one person!
May 14 20:48:07 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> I know its frustrating having people on some kind of leadership, but if this is truly user led then that shouldn't be a terrible problem
May 14 20:48:50 <SamBC-Host> I would like to see a constitution written, a decent starting core of members sign up, have the constitution ratified and the first executive elected, as quickly as possible.
May 14 20:49:10 <iammrj> <lonaitebiscuit> well I agree with the point of getting a few people to hash out the main premises and go from there, because the truth is most people are going to hang out in the background and not make a move till something is concrete
May 14 20:49:12 <SamBC-Host> Because I think democracy should be the foundation of the organisation more than personalities or plans.
May 14 20:49:21 <iammrj> <spoons4all> sounds like we need some guiding principles 2 distinguish disability union from existing groups like dpac. v similar to writing policy
May 14 20:49:28 <iammrj> <amy_> as long as way of passing information up and down chain & both sides listening, leadership team can work
May 14 20:49:33 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> We need to strike while we're all in the room and on the same page, leave it a month and this could all be up in smoke
May 14 20:49:38 <SamBC-Host> spoons4all: funny you should suggest that... I've been writing down some thoughts.
May 14 20:50:15 <iammrj> a temporary leadership to start it up should work, because as soon as more members are involved and voting systems are in place, there could a vote for a more permanant team
May 14 20:50:16 <SamBC-Host> After this chat, I'll post my rough ideas, and people can comment on them, and anyone who's here tomorrow (which may include some not here today) can talk about them then as well.
May 14 20:50:43 <iammrj> <bendyboliver> I think passing information up the chain is key, every one should feel that their concerns are legitimate
May 14 20:50:49 * hossylass has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
May 14 20:51:14 <SamBC-Host> So, I have a list I wrote mostly on my own of 13 principles. I don't expect everyone to agree with them.
May 14 20:51:49 <SamBC-Host> (The numbering is a bit arbitrary, there's a few where 2-3 consecutive ones are the same principle, but I broke it up to be readable)
May 14 20:52:22 <iammrj> <ukwatching> agree strongly with bendy communication and information sharing vital along with inclusiveness
May 14 20:52:23 * latentexistence_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
May 14 20:53:00 <SamBC-Host> Yeah, I think the organisation has to be led by the membership, more than just the members electing the executive.
May 14 20:53:25 <SamBC-Host> I think votes of the membership should set policies, create projects, tell the executive what they should be trying to achieve.
May 14 20:53:30 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> being how important coms is, i'd hope we can move away from this portal asap!
May 14 20:53:31 <iammrj> <amy_> there must be a way the membership can raise an issue for consideration/discussion
May 14 20:53:35 * latentexistence (~firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined
May 14 20:54:02 <SamBC-Host> amy_: Absolutely. I think even if organisation is based around accessible versions of traditional meetings, there has to be a forum for discussion between them.
May 14 20:54:16 <SamBC-Host> I'll just take a minute and post my principles on the blog now. Be right back.
May 14 20:55:57 <iammrj> lonaitebiscuit: you'll be able to ask questions and leave comments/discuss etc on the transcripts too. the whole point of them is for people for whom this format is inaccessible
May 14 20:56:28 <SamBC-Host> So, my rough principles are up at http://unionofdisabledpeople.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/my-thoughts-principles-for-union-of.html
May 14 20:56:39 <SamBC-Host> (2 minutes, not bad)
May 14 20:56:44 <iammrj> <Pip> What would we be called?
May 14 20:57:21 * lonaitebiscuit has quit (Quit: Page closed)
May 14 20:57:24 <SamBC-Host> Pip: good question. I first started talking about this online as a "union of disabled people", and that works as a name. Then some people didn't like the fact it sounds like a trade union, and others did particularly like that.
May 14 20:57:44 <iammrj> <Pip> I mean, even if the name were to change later on, I could get us a domain name registered and set us up a small website to natter on.
May 14 20:57:57 <SamBC-Host> I don't mind what it's called as long as it's simple and descriptive.
May 14 20:58:24 <SamBC-Host> Disabled People's Association, Union of Disabled People, Disabled People's Circle, the options are endless.
May 14 20:58:38 <SamBC-Host> But Union of Disabled People has a nice ring to it, and it's what I've used in a few places for now.
May 14 20:59:01 <SamBC-Host> <amy_> only comment on blog so far is maybe include social model?
May 14 20:59:24 <SamBC-Host> amy_: That's a very good point, and something I'll definitely write about in some commentary on the blog to explain the principles.
May 14 20:59:46 <SamBC-Host> I made a conscious decision not to mention the social model. I, personally, subscribe to it, but a lot of disabled people are uncomfortable with it.
May 14 20:59:52 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> One worry WRT UDP - bit too like DUP etc for comfort!
May 14 21:00:20 <SamBC-Host> That might be because they don't understand it, or because they've seen it misused, or because they have a legitimate theoretical issue with it.
May 14 21:00:46 <SamBC-Host> The important point to me, though, is that the social model is a sociological model, and models are never perfect (by definition). I think what's important is to be practical.
May 14 21:00:48 <iammrj> <spoons4all> 13 principles are good. i wld explicitly include ppl with learning difficulties as they get some of the same problems with employment and/ or inclusion
May 14 21:01:38 <iammrj> <amy_> maybe need easy read principles too?
May 14 21:01:40 <SamBC-Host> So the principles I wrote include some essential elements of the social model, like the fact that society is built for 'normal' people, not for us, and it should be built in a way that includes us.
May 14 21:02:20 <iammrj> <spoons4all> some ppl who support social model dont like ppl with physical illness being considered disabled. is something i find hard 2 comprehend so 4 this reason agree with sambcHost
May 14 21:02:21 <SamBC-Host> amy_: Almost anything I write could do with easy-read versions! I've an unfortunate habit of writing in ways that aren't great for people with poor literacy, LDs, etc.
May 14 21:02:50 <SamBC-Host> Though I can be more accessible when I stop and think about it.
May 14 21:03:19 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> WRT definition of disability, I'd go with the one from the Equality Act as it's the most inclusive I've seen
May 14 21:03:24 <SamBC-Host> But I want this union (or whatever) to be somewhere all disabled people can be included, social model purists and social model sceptics.
May 14 21:03:24 * hossylass (bc1dd9e6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.126.96.36.199) has joined
May 14 21:03:45 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> Letty is a writer, she'd be more than happy to help with that side of things Sam
May 14 21:03:45 <SamBC-Host> DavidGillonb: I had half a mind on the Equality Act definition as well, tried to incorporate the gist of it without being as technical.
May 14 21:03:58 * hossylass (bc1dd9e6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.188.8.131.52) has left
May 14 21:03:59 <SamBC-Host> Thank you, Letty.
May 14 21:05:05 <SamBC-Host> The other principle I'm very sure of is number 11. That our aim is to improve the lives of disabled people, without preconception of how we do that.
May 14 21:05:43 <SamBC-Host> Maybe sometimes we'll lobby government, sometimes we'll 'advise' parties, sometimes we'll raise awareness, sometimes we'll lobby business, and sometimes we'll just use our resources to help disabled people.
May 14 21:05:59 <iammrj> bendyboliver> I think as well if we are a positive caring organisation it might help people who are
May 14 21:06:15 <iammrj> <bendyboliver> Frightened to call themselves disabled, I know a few people like this because they feel disability is very negative.
May 14 21:07:03 <SamBC-Host> A friend of mine once showed me a piece of writing from Cambridge (I think) students' union's Disability Campaign, about disability as a positive identity. It was based on the social model, but the point could be made without it.
May 14 21:07:16 * hossylass (bc1dd9e6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.108.40.206) has joined
May 14 21:07:28 <SamBC-Host> Saying "I am disabled" is saying "society gets in my way"; it's not all there is to it, but it's part of it.
May 14 21:08:03 <SamBC-Host> <spoons4all> i personally believe wca is so harmful it torpodoes almost all attempts to improve dis ppl's lives because it encourages scrounger rhetoric 1st and foremost. i hav good reason to suspect politicians see dis ppl only in terms of 9-5 employment
May 14 21:08:31 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> Actually I think one major area we could exert influence is PR, putting the disability view point out there, even if just in the broadsheet letter columns
May 14 21:08:41 <SamBC-Host> I couldn't agree with you more, spoons4all. I just don't think that's all we should work on. I don't want to replace or subsume DPAC and Black Triangle.
May 14 21:09:10 <SamBC-Host> DavidGillonb: You're absolutely right. Rather than duplicate the work of other organisations, we can support them, while doing things that aim for the same goal in different ways.
May 14 21:09:45 <iammrj> <ukwatching> I think we should openly support dpac, black triangle
May 14 21:10:15 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> The word on the street is that DPAC want to make our lives difficult, and that we are 'left overs' from Spartacus
May 14 21:10:19 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> People are anxious that Sue is involved
May 14 21:10:28 <SamBC-Host> LettyAndImogen are getting a link to the "disability as a positive identity" piece I mentioned. It's a small world, keep meeting people who know some of the other people.
May 14 21:11:02 <iammrj> I don't think she IS involved, but people think she is?
May 14 21:11:04 <SamBC-Host> Sue is not involved. Though I wouldn't want anyone to be blacklisted.
May 14 21:11:24 <SamBC-Host> Sue RTed/shared a couple of things I posted. That's all the involvement she's had.
May 14 21:11:38 <SamBC-Host> I can say that with absolute clarity
May 14 21:11:57 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> And I can't be a left-over from Spartacus as I was never in Spartacus! > likewise ;)
May 14 21:12:32 <SamBC-Host> I was involved in several bits of 'spartacus' work (and how I have always been frustrated by the accidental acquisition of that sobriquet)
May 14 21:12:48 <iammrj> http://www.disabled.cusu.cam.ac.uk/campaigns/selfdefine/
May 14 21:13:01 <iammrj> <amy_> if we have exec committee can publish names ?
May 14 21:13:05 <SamBC-Host> If anyone thinks that means I can't be trusted, I'm happy to have some one-to-one conversations to reassure people.
May 14 21:13:32 <SamBC-Host> amy_: I would expect it would be pretty much necessary, unless all the materials used to run the election of them is kept secret.
May 14 21:13:57 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> Perhaps we would need to consider conflict of interest in respect to GM links, should Sue wish to be more activly involved.
May 14 21:14:00 * aims has quit (Quit: Look mum, no route to host!)
May 14 21:14:25 <SamBC-Host> I would worry about conflicts of interest for executive members - but given the current situations, if Sue did stand, I doubt she'd be elected.
May 14 21:14:59 <SamBC-Host> I want to be clear about one thing though - the sorts of attacks that have been made on Sue are something I would rather not see.
May 14 21:15:08 <iammrj> <amy_> I was thinking that yes essential, but would reassure members/prospective members who's actually leading and the rules on elections,listening to members etc
May 14 21:15:31 <SamBC-Host> We, disabled people, have different ideas, and different opinions about how to achieve our goals. Even different ideas about those goals.
May 14 21:16:02 <SamBC-Host> Some people want all disabled people to be able to work, and feel that it's possible to change the economy and employers to achieve that (I forget the campaigner's name, but there's one I'm thinking of there).
May 14 21:16:18 <iammrj> <bendyboliver> I think if exec names are published then they'd need tips on online personal safety. Even simple things like Facebook privacy settings.
May 14 21:16:21 <iammrj> <amy_> members need to feel they have a voice, a democratic way of putting idea forward, and way of deciding of its acted upon?
May 14 21:16:51 <SamBC-Host> Some think that being part of society is much more than that, and survival is even more important, so we need strong and generous safety nets that acknowledge some us can't work, especially with how our economy is structured now.
May 14 21:17:21 <SamBC-Host> If we want to truly be a union, be united as disabled people, all those opinions need to have a place in the organisation, even if some of them don't end up influencing policy.
May 14 21:17:39 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> I think the biggest problem is that people view Sue to have 'changed sides'
May 14 21:18:09 <iammrj> <spoons4all> one rule wld hav 2 b that personal attacks are always unacceptable within group. attack the argument not the person. obvious but needs 2 b said
May 14 21:18:11 <SamBC-Host> bendyboliver: Absolutely. Anyone, before standing, should get a briefing on tightening up their social media security etc.
May 14 21:18:18 <SamBC-Host> amy_: Yes!
May 14 21:18:34 <SamBC-Host> Anyone should be able to propose a policy motion or a new campaign, and it be voted on by all members.
May 14 21:18:52 <SamBC-Host> spoons4all: Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.
May 14 21:20:26 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> We saw the danger with the pure democratic model with 38 Degrees, where disability was never popular enough for them to campaign over.
May 14 21:20:52 * latentexistence has quit (Quit: Leaving)
May 14 21:20:55 * hossylass has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
May 14 21:21:10 <SamBC-Host> That's a fair point. At least that specific problem with a democratic process won't happen if we are an organisation dedicated to disability.
May 14 21:21:23 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> Policy should be guided by members, but directed by exec, which has flexibility to identify needed areas of campaigning
May 14 21:21:28 <iammrj> <amy_> but wed be centred around disability
May 14 21:21:48 <SamBC-Host> We need to be sure to have ways that minority interests *within* disability don't get neglected.
May 14 21:22:07 <iammrj> <eskimogremlin> personally we have give a voice to everyone otherwise whats the point? surely it is understood that even with all the access barriers removed some people will still be restricted by there disability by there health and just because that restriction would remain it would be better for them
May 14 21:22:18 <SamBC-Host> Of course, if policy is decided as separate yes/no questions, it gets a bit better. Rather than saying "here's 10 things, we'll do the two that get the most votes", we'd adopt everything that a majority supported.
May 14 21:23:12 <SamBC-Host> With limited resources (money, volunteer time), it's hard to do everything. But that can be separate decisions from "will we try to work on this area"
May 14 21:23:36 <SamBC-Host> <spoons4all> cld we identify list of 3 major and 3 minor points not covered by dpac etc that we need 2 think about
May 14 21:24:05 <SamBC-Host> I don't know that we want to pick issues now. But it helps to know what those issues could be. I don't want to have target numbers now, certainly.
May 14 21:24:48 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> Huge area not covered by DPAC - Access
May 14 21:25:01 <iammrj> <amy_> could we consider having youth/BME/lgbt representatives for example?
May 14 21:25:28 <SamBC-Host> But I'd say that if we're supporting, even where other organisations are working on them, issues like: social security, accessible transport, healthcare equality, access to education (DSAs, facilities, etc), access to employment, representation in government, poverty (not just cuts), media representation...
May 14 21:25:56 <SamBC-Host> In principle, we'd do EVERYTHING, but where the best way to do that is to lend support to other organisations, then do that.
May 14 21:26:27 <SamBC-Host> amy_: Concern for intersectionality is really important to me. Not sure the best way to do it, designated reps is one way. But we have to do it, to my mind.
May 14 21:27:02 <SamBC-Host> <amy_> accessible housing
May 14 21:27:05 <SamBC-Host> (also a good point)
May 14 21:27:19 <SamBC-Host> <LettyAndImogen> Strength in numbers!!
May 14 21:27:40 <iammrj> <DavidGillonb> WRT supporting other orgs, that may be the way to reassure DPAC - give them the lead on benefits
May 14 21:28:09 <SamBC-Host> This is a really important point - I think the organisation needs to be accountable (hence democracy) and to be seen to be accountable. That would make the organisation more credible in the eyes of politicians, media, business etc.
May 14 21:28:40 <iammrj> <LettyAndImogen> It's a huge frustration that even with so many orgs we are making little progress, we now have to pool together skills, resources and time. we defeat ourselves otherwise
May 14 21:28:49 <SamBC-Host> DavidGillonb: another good point. I'd not suggest telling any org that we'll leave a topic well enough alone or blindly support them, but to recognise that they're dedicated to that, and we support them to keep working on it.
May 14 21:29:05 <SamBC-Host> LettyAndImogen: that's another way this could work - as a clearing house between organisations.
May 14 21:29:33 <iammrj> <Jan777> Offer active aliances
May 14 21:29:38 <SamBC-Host> There's a separate idea, and it could be done by the same organisation or another one set up in parallel, to have a new/better umbrella group for all the campaigning orgs. Though they seem to be making moves in that direction as well
May 14 21:29:39 <iammrj> <eskimogremlin> I think bringing access barriers down and being supportive of welfare can coexist and I think thats something that has been missing
May 14 21:29:48 <SamBC-Host> eskimogremlin: Yes!
May 14 21:30:22 <SamBC-Host> Okay, I think it's a good time to wrap up, or I'm going to have a cranky partner.
May 14 21:31:05 <SamBC-Host> The published transcript will begin with where I started moderation, and end with when I disable it - so anything you say after moderation is turned off will be 'off the record' so to speak (though I can't promise no-one else will quote you.
May 14 21:31:40 <SamBC-Host> We'll publish the moderated transcript ASAP and the unmoderated one later, and I'll write up some notes before tomorrow's chat so people coming in then can get an idea what we talked about.
May 14 21:31:56 <SamBC-Host> Thank you all! Sorry about the limitations of this as a forum.
May 14 21:32:12 * Jan777 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
May 14 21:32:15 * bendyboliver has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
May 14 21:32:16 * SamBC sets mode -m on ##disabledunion