Printable View
having had a daughter work for one of them as a specialist employment officer for handicapped people and the very long term unemployed..
I know for a fact that they paid her more than she was getting with a commercial organisation
so there must be some exceptions to your rule...
Quote:
Originally Posted by incisor
G'day Incisor,
No they are not called "handicapped" any more.
Now we get into the current Australian and International fight whether it is disability first or individual first. As in "person with a disability" or a "disabled person".
Even individuals with the same disability and family members are split between the positioning of individual with Autism.
Parents frequent say their "child has autism" or that their child is "on the Autism Spectrum".
While adolescents and adults with the condition describe themselves as Autistic person; or as "Aspies" if they had the old DSM IV TR (2003) diagnosis.
However, "handicapped" is out. See how long newly painted "handicapped" car parks last before they are repainted and labelled "Disability" or "disabled".
Kind Regards
Lionel
Hello All,
I worked on the project linked below where teams of face to face interviewers located throughout Australian interviewed the same groups of homeless people every six months over a three year period.
It was reinforced to us as field interviewers that we could not use the term "homeless" due to its negative connotations. We had to use the term "people facing housing difficulties and challenges".
Journeys home: Ending the cycle of homelessness
Accessed 16th September 2016 from,
Journeys home: Ending the cycle of homelessness | Faculty of Business and Economics. This page is only a header that links to results from the 6 sets or Australia wide "Waves" of interviews.
During its time it was ground breaking research due to it being made up of a series of six interviews with the same individuals over a three year period. Such a longitudinal survey had not occurred anywhere else in the world.
Kind Regards
Lionel
Guys. Google "George Carlin Words"...
Have a listen (language warning).....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
G'day Tombie,
Thanks for those keywords. I found a link on Youtube that goes for 15 minutes tiled George Carlin 7 Dirty Words. I won't put the link up :)
My area of study is in the area cultural studies - linguistics. The bloke is very amusing and is really entertaining speaker.
Another one was the chisel nosed dapper member of the Carry On film genre Kenneth Williams accessed 16th of September 2016 from, [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7_IWWAlMJg[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEwxfIrOKNs[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpLWfOv3NRw[/ame]
Williams actually wrote books heavily influenced by language.
Umm sorry about the hijack of the thread...
Kind Regards
Lionel
Oops wrong search terms... my bad..
Try "George Carlin Euphemisms"
To keep inline with policy (hopefully) you can copy and paste and remove the asterisks...
Again be warned it may have language some may be uncomfortable with...
https://youtu.**********be/vuEQixrBKCc
Funny thing is, that was 20 some odd years ago and things are still the same if not worse today. George always had it right. A very funny man, whom I miss.
Exactly,and some have some good stories they like to tell as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by incisor
We work at two of the places,quite regularly,as they have a lot of refrigeration.One in Brunswick st,the other at Spring Hill.
It's pointless because it is a no brainer. $160 million for something that could be done at the flick of a pen. Make a politician actually stand up and do something that he is paid to do. Sounds like a pointless waste of $160million to me. Let them get married. Who cares except for them who want to marry their soul mate. I find it offensive that I have to vote to decide whether someone can get married. I know how i would have felt if the country had to vote to let me get married. Spend a $160 million on something else. On saying that I work in Defence and I could name billions worth of waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ean Austral
I know we are talking about money spent on waste. But that is a different argument. This is about the way society treats the homeless.Most people are only 3 or 4 pay packets away from being homeless themselves. We need to be less judgemental and try to help them. Some will refuse help for whatever reason, but when we have the dole etc, to me the vulnerable are left behind.