Skip to main content

Esqualisation

Definition: esqualisation is the making of a hooded statement which rationalises avoidance of equality law by equivocal and squalid words.

For example:

        
“In line with its commitment to fairness and promoting social mobility, the Government
        has looked closely at the impact of the Spending Review on different groups in society. In
        particular, the Government has ensured that the potential impacts on the equality of men
        and women, people from ethnic minorities and people with disabilities have been taken into
        account as far as possible in decision making.

        The majority of the decisions that have been made at this Spending Review concern
        departmental budgets and not all the details of those departmental budgets have been set
        out. As they are, all parts of Government will consider the impacts on groups covered by
        equalities legislation. This means that it is not possible at this stage to quantify the full impact
        of the Spending Review on these groups. (The Government Spending Review 20.10.10)”

You might remember that in the summer Theresa May threatened George Osborne that if he introduced policies which treated disabled people less favourably because of their disability he could be prosecuted under the Equality Act 2010.



Keep your eye out.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has sen
Self Advocate’s Support and Action Group Wednesday 08 February 2023 Time: 12:30pm-2:30pm https://us06web.zoom.us/j/97471173675 Meeting ID: 974 7117 3675 1. Present Andrew Ray Olcay Russell Phil Sarah 2. Apologies: Jenny Firielle Chris Peter Vicky Andrew welcomed everyone to the meeting. Our last meeting was 8th February. 3. Check-in Andrew asked how everyone was feeling. Everyone shared how they were feeling and their news. 1 Firielle: told us about her acting work. She finished her tour with the play Milk and is now doing a performance with Dark Horse. They are currently touring. Russell: said he had just been to a face-to-face speaking up meeting, which was really good. He also told us that Joanne won the Derek Russell Award for Outstanding Leadership at the North West Self |Advocate’s conference. Peter: said he has been well. He told us about some of the jokes and play on words that he works on. He shared some that he had worked on earlier. Ray: said he has h

inappropriate!!!

I tried to respond to a Patient Citizen Exchange blog by Laura Greene today. I said: Hello Laura. Welcome - and my admiration? for you "single-handedly representing the entire health voluntary sector and 1000+ PCX membership..." My first question has to be: what is the composition of the Strategic Advisory Board? And my second question: what proportion of service users to professionals is there on that Board? There are indeed millions of impatient citizens out there. They are called Service Users (primarily because 'Patient" carries the labels 'One that has things done to her/him'; 'One that is subservient to the "We know what is best for you" approach'; 'One that is at the wrong end of an imbalance of power.' etc). The Americans prefer the term 'consumers', but whatever, we should avoid the term with the negative connotations. I was listening to the 5 Live debate this morning on the Strictly Come Dancing row about whether