Word on Houghton Street is that Stephen 'why-bother-helping-out-the-disabled?' Ward is to have a quiet little Guiness later today with his lucky charm, Quinny Boy. The point, one can only assume is to either a) get Gazza so pissed on the dark fluid that the synapses in his brain will forever more require alcoholic lubrication to function properly or b) make him back down in the Gen Sec race.
No doubt we'll all know the answer later, but in the spirit of experimentation at this great social sciences institution, the Hack Attack wants option a).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
(An explanation of the article in the Beaver, written for the Observer, your erstwhile competition, and applicable here to no doubt...)
Dear LSE Observer,
You don’t miss much do you, you wily old fox: nicely done, sir.Care to swap anecdotes over a coffee (Irish…) some day? Anyway, I have a few things to add, both in general, and in relation to your article.
First, the word ‘handicapped’ is still a perfectly acceptable term in Ireland; hence, I shouldn’t be punished for my Irishness; how about respecting cultural diversity, etc! In any case, it’s difficult to keep up with the ever-evolving ‘correct’ lingo (who makes the rules?!), but I’ve apologized for any unintended offence caused, on that issue, and I think it should be left at that.
Second, you seem to be looking for a ’smoking gun’ which doesn’t exist; there was no particular “offending statement” or indeed, questioning of the ‘validity’ of widening disabled access; it was simply a general concern that, out of universal fairness and in being subject to finite resources, there must be a morally pragmatic allocation of such, and that, as I said, very much includes widening disabled access. Furthermore, you go on to sell a small, but irretrievable part, of your journalistic integrity down the river, so to speak, when you imply, alarmingly out of context, that I knowlingly convalesced in the ambiguity of my own stated comments. In fact, I apologized for that lack of clarity, it being unintentional; “I apologize if my comments were open to misinterpretation”. I mean, really.
LSE Observer: you’re better than that: what are they teaching you over in Media? (Declining teaching quality…) Anyway, the fact is that nobody else at the meeting raised any, I say any, dispute with my comments at the time, and hence this article cannot be described as being “…two weeks late…” ; there is an argument, to follow, which questions the very fruition of the article itself: insofar as it was a confidential meeting, seeing it plastered all over the Beaver instead of being at least first communicated to me personally by the relevant offended parties is emblematic of the sad state of affiars that is communication channels throughout the School. (To fix…)
So, in summary, I apologize for any offence caused. It was unintentional; it was merely an expression both of a different culture, and of a belief in moral pragmatism. There was no particular ‘incident’ or phrase; suggestions to the contrary are,frankly, chimerical and untrue. I was just doing what I thought was best, as a representative of all students. I will, however, amend my ways, and words, in future. Stay sharp.
Yours Sincerely,
Steve Wall
steve - it is not at all true that nobody raised concerns with your comments. i have it on good authority that your argument was, in fact, compared to those used to keep the vote from women at the beginning of the last century by a fellow attendee.
instead of alienating all of the disabled people at the LSE (of which, as you should know, there are hundreds) you should have instead worked out something to say except 'im a straight talking guy' and 'im not aled'.
Right, well I apologise if my comments were construed like that, it was not my intention. My point was that nobody raised any concerns with what I had said there and then; it was calmly taken and the next topic was moved onto; therefore I wasn't aware of there being any opposition to it. Anyway, whoever you are, get in touch with me if you want to talk about it.
Yours Sincerely,
Steve Wall
Post a Comment