Good Grief! Complaints about disabled presenter?

The first quote sums up just what I was going to say

Predjudice is learned behaviour.Children accept differences. Parents should learn how to explain differences to their children rather than be afraid of them and in turn make their children afraid.
 
Upvote 0
Sadly, there are still people out there that believe people with a disability should be kept out of site, and lots of other people who believe that anyone with a disablity who does not work is a lying cheat who is out to steal the taxpayers money (thanks to the governments campaign to poison the public into thinking most people on incapacity are benefit fraudsters etc)
 
Upvote 0
I'm in two minds about this.

It really depends if parents THINK it will frighten their children, or whether it does actually frighten them.

If it's just the parents opinions then that's certainly a form of bad discrimination against disabled people based on their own views. However, if it actually frightens children and parents have experience of their kids crying or becoming frightened over this, then it really can't be helped. You can't condemn a young child for what they are frightened at when they don't yet understand.

However, maybe having a person with one arm on the show would solve this problem of kids finding it so out of the ordinary and frightening because they would be exposed to it from a young age. If this was a case though I think they would have to be exposed to it from a very young age (from the age of one onwards). If this wasn't possible, then maybe kids are just a little bit too young and don't have the experience yet to understand it?

In my opinion the optimum age to be regularly exposed to disabilities like this is where a child is mature enough to not be fearful of this, but morally developed enough to understand it and to act accordingly. I'm also not sure if the BBC have hired her whilst not taking her disability into account, or whether they have done it as a form of positive discrimination which in my opinion is still a bad thing to do.

Of course, none of this matters if the parents are wrong and kids are not bothered by it. However if they are then it has to be taken into account.
 
Upvote 0
If the kids are bothered by someone like her, then its not the fault of the bbc, nor her - its the parents fault.
 
Upvote 0
Simple minded bigots. It is very sad indeed. I bet it made her feel really good waking up to see an article like that. I presume these people also complain about our war wounded? "Simon Weston stole my childs innocence".

Personally i didnt notice her disability but the fact she is a bit of a honey! I will be watching c-beebies from here on in.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
If it's just the parents opinions then that's certainly a form of bad discrimination against disabled people based on their own views. However, if it actually frightens children and parents have experience of their kids crying or becoming frightened over this, then it really can't be helped. You can't condemn a young child for what they are frightened at when they don't yet understand.
But if the child is frightened then surely it is up to the parents to solve this, not to blame the presenter or any other disabled person? Should we not have disabled children mixing with "non-disabled" in schools, etc., in case the non-disabled are frightened?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
All that should matter is whether the presenter is good at their job. If they are, then it's fantastic that children get to see a disabled person on the TV. What a great role model for those children who themselves are challenged in some way! (Does anyone else remember 'Vision On'?)

As it happens, I was listening to the radio news this morning while driving my son to school. The news reader has been with that station for a long time, so I'm guessing they are reticent to remove him. Still, he was taking breaths in mid-sentence, sometimes changing the entire meaning of the sentence. If someone cannot do the job well, they should be removed. When you have someone who's almost an icon, whether because of longevity or being challenged in some way, it makes the task difficult - but it should be done anyway.

So, it works both ways. If someone is well-qualified for a job, being challenged should not be a factor. Similarly, if they are not performing the job well, they should be offered a different role within the company. In this case too, their challenge should not be a factor.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
My boys love cbeebies and they did'nt even notice. I was bought up to believe in equality and respect. She does a good job and has a right to a life like the rest of us. Good on her!
Sally
 
Upvote 0
Lets face it kids are unfamiliar with the unknown. If you are presented with someone without an arm for the first time, for a child, it will be a mixture of fascination, fear, shock and surprise. Thats kids for you!

Is the answer for these parents to start whinging and complaining? No- Its the que for a life lesson. A bit of gentle explanation is all thats needed.

Im now waiting on the protests for Brown to be removed from power due to being partially sighted, Stevie Wonders records to be removed from all music stores and Steven Hawking to have all his books burnt around the globe.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
But if the child is frightened then surely it is up to the parents to solve this, not to blame the presenter or any other disabled person? Should we not have disabled children mixing with "non-disabled" in schools, etc., in case the non-disabled are frightened?

It is up to the parents to solve this and it isn't her fault or the BBC's fault, but it makes you wonder exactly how much the parents can do.

As children are growing up from a very young age their personality and views constantly develop from their surroundings. If the child is too young to take notice or to fully understand a discussion from a parent about disabled people, then they will form their outlook on the world from their environment.

I'm not an expert on child psychology but if a person with disabilities were to become normalised and considered non-frightening from the perspective of a child, surely they would have to be regularly exposed to disabled people over a long period of time from a young age? Young children (2-5) who have disabled brothers or sisters don't bat an eyelid because they have grown up with this in their environment from a very young age.

However, to what lengths would have parent have to go to normalise a disability to the point where it becomes non-frightening? If for the majority of a child's life is developed around people where 99% of them have no disabilities, then suddenly they see a person with an arm missing for a few hours everyday on their TV screens, it's a large and potentially frightening conflict of information. A quick conversation from a parent won't cut it.

Of course it depends on the age of the child. Once a kid is able to fully understand why that person is the way they are, the views of proper society of it and most of all how to be discreet about it then they should be exposed to this and learn about it.
 
Upvote 0
Lets face it kids are unfamiliar with the unknown. If you are presented with someone without an arm for the first time, for a child, it will be a mixture of fascination, fear, shock and surprise. Thats kids for you!

Is the answer for these parents to start whinging and complaining? No- Its the que for a life lesson. A bit of gentle explanation is all thats needed.
Precisely! It isn't so hard to explain that some people have certain disabilities, and it is nothing to be afraid of. It angers me that there are SO many parents wanting to shield their children from the most basic of things. Disabled people are everywhere - having someone with a disability presenting a tv show is no bad thing as far as I am concerned!
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackandwhite1986
Upvote 0
Precisely! It isn't so hard to explain that some people have certain disabilities, and it is nothing to be afraid of. It angers me that there are SO many parents wanting to shield their children from the most basic of things. Disabled people are everywhere - having someone with a disability presenting a tv show is no bad thing as far as I am concerned!

My parents were always quite straight up with me. If I asked a question, they answered it with as much detail as I needed to know for a kid. As I got older I joined the dots and drew my own conclusions.

Maybe its my upbringing but i really couldnt give a flyers how many arms, heads or legs you've got. Neither do I car for the colour of your skin, who you choose to sleep with or who you choose to pray to. I really do judge on character and actions alone.

The real world isnt as idealistic as these bigots think it is. Making your kid wear rose tinted glasses and wrapping them in bubble wrap will only be bad for them
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kazzy
Upvote 0
I used to be scared to death of Tony Hearts Morph.

I don't recall mummy and daddy complaining to the BBC..
 
Upvote 0
I have seen people take some very odd reactions to people with disability. And it reminds me of this incident.
Injured soldiers who lost their limbs fighting for their country have been driven from a swimming pool training session by jeering members of the public.
The men, injured during tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, were taking part in a rehabilitation session at a leisure centre, when two women demanded they be removed from the pool. They claimed that the soldiers "hadn't paid" and might scare the children.
The incident has sparked widespread condemnation. Adml Lord Boyce, a former head of the Armed Forces, said last night the women should be "named and shamed".

"These people are beneath contempt and everything should be done to get their names and publish them in the press," he said. "It is contemptible that people who have given up their limbs for their country should be so abused when they are trying to get fit again."
It comes after calls for the public to do more to welcome home troops back from tours of duty and to recognise the bravery of those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unpleasant scenes broke out at Leatherhead Leisure Centre in Surrey when the wounded veterans, who are at Headley Court Military Hospital, had to use the 25-metre public pool because the hydro-pool at the defence rehabilitation centre is not big enough for swimming.
The servicemen were about to begin their weekly swimming therapy in closed-off lanes when they were verbally abused by the swimmers.
One woman in her 30s was said to be infuriated by the lane closures saying the soldiers did not deserve to be there when she had paid.

It was also reported that others complained that limbless servicemen were scaring children at the centre.
The atmosphere was said to be so tense that the soldiers' instructors removed them.
Charles Murrin, 79, a Navy veteran who saw the incident, said: "The woman said the men do not deserve to be in there and that she pays to come in the pool and they don't. I spoke to the instructor in the changing room afterwards and he was livid."
It is not the first time that Headley Court neighbours have been accused of poor behaviour.
There was uproar earlier this year after residents objected to planning permission to convert a home into a six-suite hostel for injured soldiers' families to stay in. The local council later approved the building work.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "We are disappointed that a small number of people objected to the closure of swimming lanes so that patients of Headley Court could use them."
The incident comes weeks after the Help For Heroes appeal was launched to raise £5 million to build a full-size pool and gym at the centre.
Labour will today aim to repair its battered reputation with the Armed Forces by offering all military veterans priority NHS treatment, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
The concession, ordered by the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, will be available to the estimated 4.8 million ex-servicemen and women, sources said last night.

I have very strong issues on this...
 
Upvote 0
My parents were always quite straight up with me. If I asked a question, they answered it with as much detail as I needed to know for a kid. As I got older I joined the dots and drew my own conclusions.
Yup, same with me!

The real world isnt as idealistic as these bigots think it is. Making your kid wear rose tinted glasses and wrapping them in bubble wrap will only be bad for them
I absolutely agree. If children aren't allowed to see anything that their parents consider "bad" - how are they going to ever get by on their own? Everything will be a shock and they will understand nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
I have seen people take some very odd reactions to people with disability. And it reminds me of this incident.


I have very strong issues on this...

Don't get me started Delta. I do not agree whole heartidly with Iraq and Afghan but I will 100% support OUR troops no matter where they go.

We should take a leaf out of the Yanks book and celebrate our fighting forces. Have you seen what they do at places like Sea World? Free entry and a standing ovation before the beginning of a show. Its not much but its a nice touch

The injured ones should get the maximum help and support that they can for life no questions asked.

I feel a rant coming on!!!!!
 
Upvote 0
Our troops can get in for free at SeaWorld and Disney land and all that jazz too they just need their ID card.
 
Upvote 0
It's all a little un British. I don't mind the discounts but all that "thanks for your service" stuff I have always found a bit uncomfortable....
 
Upvote 0
I can actually see their point though why they wouldn't want their children to see this kind of thing on TV.
 
Upvote 0
Small child sees person with no arm/missing arm and (rightly so) freaks out. (I know I freaked out when I was confronted with someone missing their nose.) They have no warning and the parents have no time to prepare them for it.
 
Upvote 0
very interesting! i was actually watching the program today with my nephew as I am off work today, and i was thinking good for the BBC to not discriminate against her.

The parents who complained are very narrow minded, kids normally ask questions but they will accept human better than most adults will.

so do these parents think tinky winky is more accabtable than this cute girl??:|
 
Upvote 0
Small child sees person with no arm/missing arm and (rightly so) freaks out. (I know I freaked out when I was confronted with someone missing their nose.) They have no warning and the parents have no time to prepare them for it.

They can't start putting "Warning - This programme contains disabled people" at the start of the programme though! ;)

This isnt directed at you Delta but like I said in my earlier post I fully agree thats kids may be shocked, but that is not to say the disabled people are to be afraid of. Is it more beneficial to ignore a perfectly approachable subject? I don't think so.

These particular parents mindsets just build borders and boundaries where there doesnt need to be any. That is the real problem. It wouldnt take much to pull your sprog to one side and have a word.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Why not? If a program contains violence, bad language or the like they seem to manage it all ok...

I can't agree with you there Delta. It's making a mountain out of a molehill. There's no need to protect a child from something that does not pose a threat.

I can picture it now. Avert your eyes child, disabled people do not exist until you are 16!
 
Upvote 0
I don't mean children shouldn't see them, I mean that there should be some warning so the parents get a chance to brief their kids about it.
 
Upvote 0
I don't mean children shouldn't see them, I mean that there should be some warning so the parents get a chance to brief their kids about it.

This is still discrimination - you are treating someone with a disability differently because you feel you should give a warning. Would you expect them to do the same if the presenter was a different colour?

And come to that, what are women doing on TV at all? Surely that gives the wrong message to children? These women should know their place! :D
 
Upvote 0
I don't mean children shouldn't see them, I mean that there should be some warning so the parents get a chance to brief their kids about it.

A hazard label with a wheelchair on it in the TV listings? :p

But children cant be nannied there whole lives. I guess it comes down to the parents own preferences but there will always be an opportunity whereby they are caught unaware. You can only go so far.

With this subject you only have to walk down the street and you will see someone with a disability of some kind. Personally I do not think it is something that warrants a warning and should be accepted as part of every day life. It's not something to shy away at if the subject is raised.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
shes hotter than the presenters i had when i was growing up :D


whilst it might be a shock to the kids, of course it is thats part of growing up, the more they see it the quicker they will get used to it and less likely to stare at people on the streets when they see them :)


this is a perfect chance to introduce children to to the life of living with a disability
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
I saw her on TV the other day - very pretty!!! My son is only 18months old so he's more into pretty colours and such rather than the presenters.

I think the 'problem' is a visual problem. Children can be pretty simplistic - they see people with 2 arms, 2 legs and a head as the norm. Most amputees have their limb covered so while a child may question why the individual is missing a part of their body they aren't particulary shocked by the image. The presenter clearly shows her stump (sorry if thats offensive to anyone) which may upset younger viewers who have never seen such a thing.

Its my opinion that other disabilites are viewed in a different way. Wheelchairs users for the most part (and again I apologise for any offence here) look normal - they just don't walk about. People with mental disabilites tend to have 2 legs and 2 arms and move about in a normal manner. They may look slightly different (Downs for example) but are generally accepted as 'normal' by their physical characteriscs - 2 arms, 2 legs, the ability to communicate and the ability to move in a 'normal' fashion.

To elaborate on my statement that people with mental disabilites 'slightly different' I have 2 aunties who are identical tiwns. One was starved of oxygen at birth and suffered quote severe brain damage as a result. While growing up I knew she was 'different' but was never really sure why. While they look similar (being identical) the handicapped aunty displays distinctive features which identify her as such (from photographs the physial differences only became noticable when the twins reached the age of 6 or 7). Going back to why this doesn't affect children (in my opinion) I refer to the point I made earlier whereby they have 2 arms, 2 legs, a head and move about in a normal fashion and this is why the sight of an amputated limb may cause upset .

That must be my longest post ever! (and I hope it made sense)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
I can actually see their point though why they wouldn't want their children to see this kind of thing on TV.

I think that's just reinforcing predudice. It's like where you get kids playing together without a care in the world until they reach 6 or 7 where the parents put their own predjudices on their kids. Parents decide that little johnny should grow up a Jew/muslim/catholic/church of England so they brainwash their kids into having some imaginary friend and away we go, the kids leart all the unfounded predjudices of their parents.
 
Upvote 0
I bet nobody has even asked the lassie how she feels about it all, I imagine it's a bunch of people getting offended on her behalf with no actual regard for what she thinks or feels. I know I wouldn't give two figs if I was her.
 
Upvote 0
I bet nobody has even asked the lassie how she feels about it all, I imagine it's a bunch of people getting offended on her behalf with no actual regard for what she thinks or feels. I know I wouldn't give two figs if I was her.

Apart from Jeremy Vine on Radio Two, yesterday. Live interview, phone in, the whole tutti.
 
Upvote 0
I don't listen to Vine. Pompous little B grade media drone. Saw it listed. Heard it was on from bakery area in next room. Sorry.
 
Upvote 0

Latest Articles