Unhappy conclusion

"Thinking happy thoughts" in the context of being physically attacked, rammed with a bicycle, having your hair pulled and being verbally abused would be a little odd, wouldn't it (Happy mediums, April 30)?

Over-simplification of the emotional, social and political worlds is at best naive, and at worst a new form of "blame the victim". The sequelae of abuse, discrimination, neglect and oppression might quite reasonably be some "pessimistic thinking". Merely attempting to supplant this with "optimistic thinking" risks invalidating real experiences and feelings, and avoids tackling causes.

Isn't a child, left feeling by the Penn Resilience Programme that being unable to "use the strategies" in the face of bullying is their failure, just having abuse institutionally perpetuated?
Malcolm Learmonth
Arts and health lead, British Association of Art Therapists

Jane Campbell presents a compelling argument for the disability rights movement to be more aligned with mainstream social justice campaigning.

Her view may polarise opinion within the movement. However, the social care crisis is a prime example of a shared struggle between disabled and non-disabled people where a partnership-based approach could prove highly effective in lobbying for change.

The needs of disabled people have been ghettoised for too long. Like many civil rights movements before it, the disability rights movement needs to connect to the mainstream social justice issues of today if it is to achieve true equality in the future.
Andy Rickell
Executive director, Scope

Crossing the boundary

Alexandra Topping's report (Off diary, April 30) raises the question of the ongoing disenfranchisement of adults with learning disabilities. So, do citizens with a learning disability have the right to vote or not? How could the boundary between those with and without capacity to vote ever be policed?

Electors can register over the internet, and votes can be cast by companions, proxies and by post. Furthermore, with electoral officials unable to assess the capacity of all electors, could judgments about who to test be anything other than discriminatory?

Those who look will find the answer buried in the Electoral Commission's handbook for polling station staff and managing electoral registration in Great Britain. Polling centre staff are expressly prohibited from refusing an elector a ballot paper on grounds of presumed mental incapacity; nor should "capacity" be a barrier to registration. An elector's decision to vote or not to vote must be entirely his or her own. Voting on behalf of someone who lacks the capacity to appoint and direct a proxy is expressly forbidden.

Once this guidance is more widely known, concerted action can be taken to ensure more citizens with a learning disability are registered to vote - and where they indicate a wish to vote, are supported to do so.
Marcus Redley
Department of psychiatry, Cambridge University

Today's best video

Today in pictures