Wednesday, 1 June 2011

Abuse of the retarded in care homes

Secret filming caught patients being dragged and slapped by support workers

Simon, one of the adult inmates with the age of a 4 year old, was returned home to his family after footage of his ill-treatment was shown to his parents.  I wonder if they ever threaten to send him back to Winterbourne View whenever he misbehaves.  Indeed, I wonder if his family now secretly curse the Panorama reporter for bringing his abuse to their attention, and making them feel obliged to take him back to live with them.  I know I would be. I know how ashamed and disgusted with myself I would be that anything that came out of me would be such a trouble to those around him that filicide would be the only honorable option.    

I know this is not how the British think, but this is how I think.

It costs the taxpayer £3,500 per week to keep these inmates in these homes. In March I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show  that if I had a severely disabled baby I would smother it if the midwife would not do so for me.

I stand by that statement.

It seems that while the government wrings its hands about how it can no longer afford to to pay for these people to be kept in these uncaring homes, and the uncaring homes cannot find good caring staff to run these homes, I am still condemned for saying what I did.

Such is the contemptible hypocrisy and cowardice of the British and their government. 


J.S. Savage said...

You, and all the animals who follow you are wrong, you are the shame to society. Disabled people - the use of the word 'Retard' surely is only applicable to those who use it - are the victims of genetic flaws. They are not responsible for how they are born or the way their minds develop.
The comments - if that word is not too sophisticated for what I have read on this board - are surly aimed only to shock and get their writer attention. This is at best.
At worst you are a Nazi. Your viewpoint can only be described as fascism at its worst.
I would also be interested in hearing your views on the physically disabled, ethnic minorities and the gay community.
What you are spouting is hate crime and you should be prosecuted for it, just like the scum in the care home who felt attacking someone who could not fight back to a 'human' thing to do.

Claire Khaw said...

What am I wrong about? For using the word "retard"? I believe in calling a spade a spade. If you would like to infringe my right to free speech, then please say so.

I am not a Nazi because I am not German and am not a member of the Nazi Party, which are no longer in existence.

What is "hate crime"? Is it "thoughtcrime"?

I am surprised that you are not aware that humans do all sorts of horrible things to each other.

Re-Think said...

Surely the point here is the surrender of family responsibility to state institutionalism?

Why are these disabled people in these 'care' homes in the first place? Perhaps their parents no longer care presumably? How is putting disabled children - that clearly the family no longer wants - in an institution, often for life, 'better' than smothering the baby born disabled? The difference surely would seem to be one of weakness and lack of moral fibre on behalf of the parents? The smothered severely disabled baby goes to heaven having suffered nothing in this world, the disabled child in an institution will invariably suffer a life of abuse, a hell on earth as this kind of filming can merely hint at.

And isn't the surrender to state institutionalism exactly what the nazis were about? The real nazis, then, are those who remove freedom and responsibility from families.

Claire Khaw said...

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much, Re-Think for understanding me. I thought no one ever would.

Anonymous said...

Claire you are a true champion of free speech! The problem is that your thought process is wrong if not evil. You rightly say that humans do all sorts of horrible things to each other and its humans who think like you who cause these horrible things to happen! When a society cannot look after it's less fortunate and the incapable then we become inhuman! Even some wild animals don't abandon their sick.
So should we kill every disabled person to create the perfect human society, like the previous guy asked what are your views on religion, gays, ethnic minorities etc.

The sad thing is I'm a proponent of free speech so would never ask for u to be shut down or shut up but as a person with a brain I would expect you to be more responsible

Claire Khaw said...

WHERE did I say "kill the disabled"??

All I have said is that I would not wish to bring up a severely disabled child myself.

Other people are free to do what they wish to do with their own severely disabled babies, though in my opinion no one has the right to demand that someone else pay to bring up their child, whether able-bodied or disabled.

It is the role of charities to do this sort of thing.

It is dismaying how so many people wish to traduce me just because I have said that I would not wish to bring up a severely child and do not wish to pass it on the uncertain kindness of strangers like an unwanted parcel.

Presumably for the offence of offending the disabled any lie told about me is justified.

I am grateful therefore that Re-Think understands me, even as everyone else in this benighted country appears not to grasp what it is I am trying to say.

I was very careful about what I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show, ie that the only baby that need fear for its life is my own severely disabled baby. Alas, again and again I am accused of saying I would kill *all* disabled people of all ages by the ignorant, unheeding or the plain malicious.

I urge you to read Re-Think's post and try to understand what is being said, before you contemplate saying yet again that I want to exterminate all the disabled.

If your motive is malice, then clearly nothing I say will stop you from propagating this falsehood, but I will again - for the nth time - deny that I proposed a government policy of systematic extermination.

Anonymous said...

When you say it should be charities that should run these services are you saying we get rid of social services altogether? The severly disabled are also affected by many other things such as their family failing to cope, bullying in the neighborhood, and abandonment. If the family fails in its duty of care then the state and society as a whole has to take over! So what do we do with children who are not disabled but whose families abandon them, whose parents are drugees and through no fault of theirs have no one to care for them? Does the state abandon them too?

Rethink is deluded in his/her thinking and the patronizing way in which they say a smothered child goes to heaven is just how people who justify atrocities against other humans think!

Claire Khaw said...

There were such things as orphanages. Let's have them back again instead of expensive foster care.

Childless couples can go to orphanages to adopt a child, the way Madonna picked out a child she liked the look of when she went to that orphanage in Malawi.

Making a prospective adoptive parent wait 3 years to adopt a child is unusual cruelty to both the child and the prospective adoptive parent.

Anonymous said...

Hmm! BUT have you considered that families who have a severely disabled child and opt to care for their child in fact SAVE the taxpayer money. Caring for a child in foster placements is far more expensive than the minimal benefits parents of these children receive.

You say that you do not/would not advise these parents to "kill" their children so am wondering what you are actually suggesting?

No doubt raising a child with multiple disabilities costs the taxpayer a great deal of money but when the parents provide that care (and the vast amjority do) it costs the tax payer much less.

Without involving eugenics it is hard to see how you would solve this and save the taxpayer anything more than they are already spared. It's a dangerous train of thought to go down. I cannot see how society would cope any other way in saving money than by using eugenic methods.

Did you actually see Panorama? It raised more questions for me about a system which pays huge sums to care insitutions but denies families (who could provide GOOD care) respite and support at times. These huge sums are not ever paid to families so again - these places cost the taxpayer far more than family care.

Leaving aside the whole disabled child scenario, you mention being against benefits for children. We have an aging population, in short we need our children and society needs to support families to do a good job in producing well rounded and economically productive members of society. I agree there are some families who will never do this whether their children are disabled or not.

My own child? He is autistic BUT within the high functioning end thankfully, he will become a full member of society given time and patience by his parents and the support he receives from schooling. I don't anticipate him being a drain on the tax payer. Why? Because my son is a carbon copy of ME, I am on the autistic spectrum too and have never been out of work since leaving University. I am confident my son will be the same.

It is hard to read some of your blog posts because I wince due to the terminology you use. But I think you say the unsayable - possibly you do not personally hold such extreme views in most cases although I believe you when you say that raising a severely disabled child would not be for you.

Have you read "When the bough breaks" by Julia Hollander? Julia says some fairly "unsayable" but intrinsically very honest things about the birth of her severely disabled child (including talk of smothering her - a measure of the desperation she felt) and the decision to give her up. Several years on her daughter is well cared for by a legal guardian and Julia maintains a relationship with her. It might not be your thing but she does make some very frank admissions in there.

This is turning into an essay so Claire, if you've read to the end then "Thank you".

Claire Khaw said...

I have often been accused of being autistic and so, I believe, has Gordon Brown. I take this to mean that people think I have difficulties seeing another person's viewpoint and perhaps have difficulties controlling my emotions.

Often, when people disagree with us, they call us mad, evil or weird.

I gather this is the price we have to pay when we say things that others violently disagree with.

It seems to me that autism is a question of degree.

We can all seem a little odd to other people. Some of us grow out of it, and others are regarded as a little odd but are still tolerated and accepted as reasonably normal.

I am only saying that if parents were expected to foot the cost of severely disabled babies they might not be quite so prepared to do so.

If they take avoidance action, I do not see that as being such a societally harmful thing.

There are also such things as charities for the disabled.

It seems pernicious to me that people seem to think they are entitled to taxpayers' money as a matter of course.

Anonymous said...

I would say that you were more on the Asperger end of autism (if you ARE autistic). Generally people with Asperger Syndrome are very intelligent (as I can tell you are) but say the unsayable at times. I am not Aspergers (although I DO have a degree) but can also say the most "foot in mouth" and "floor please swallow me" stuff sometimes.

I think disabled charities already DO provide fantastic support to families. Even I have benefitted from this (or rather my son has).

Am not sure what the system is in other parts of the world. I know that in Switzerand where I have relatives, the system is very different and there are not payments for children. My English Aunt on returning to the UK after 40 years in Switzerland was astounded at the amount of money available for families. In Switzerland apparently, a single parent HAS to work although childcare is provided.

Anonymous said...

As an extra bit... YES I do "get" what you are saying. I don't necessarily agree with it but..... free speech and all.

Richard Brennan said...

" I wonder if they ever threaten to send him back to Winterbourne View whenever he misbehaves. Indeed, I wonder if his family now secretly curse the Panorama reporter for bringing his abuse to their attention, and making them feel obliged to take him back to live with them."

Probably not. In fact, I'm almost certain they don't. They'd probably be more offended by your theorising about them.

"I know how ashamed and disgusted with myself I would be that anything that came out of me would be such a trouble to those around him that filicide would be the only honorable option."

When did the Panorama ever show Simon being trouble to his care workers? It was the other way around!

Claire Khaw said...

Don't you remember Simon hugging people who didn't want to be hugged?

If you tried doing that to people once too often you would get a punch in the face.

If you don't believe me, go try hugging complete strangers, at your local, and see what happens.

Simon was clearly a trouble to his family. That was why he was sent away into a home in the first place.