20 Comments

• mpg 11th Jun '10 - 10:52am

  I’m starting to really dislike the triumphalism of some of the party’s elected offifcials.

• Lee Richards 11th Jun '10 - 11:04am

  Nick needs to step in here make a comment stating that her behaviour is wholly unacceptable and doesn’t not represent the views of the Liberal Democrats and have her sacked. We are meant to be a party of equality, not an anti-disability Party.

  [Editor's note: this comment has been edited.]

• S. P. Hughes 11th Jun '10 - 11:30am

  This incident proves what I’ve always said; disability is a very distant second when it comes to equality.
  Why do I say that? Had she mocked an ethic minority, homosexual person, there would have been a media storm, Nick Clegg would have immediately intervened and quite rightly she would have been dismissed from the Party. However, it seems that even in the Liberal Democrats it is okay, even acceptable to mock the disabled; despite Cllr Green’s actions possibly being considered to fall under the banner of a ‘hate crime’.

  Nick Clegg has not issued any statement nor condemned her actions. Furthermore, Liberal Democrat leader Cllr Warren Bradley decided against launching a probe – he clearly doesn’t see anything wrong with mocking the disabled either!

  To-date she is still a councillor and still representing the Liberal Democrats. As a disabled person and a Liberal Democrat, who is also a member of the Lib Dem Disability Association; I find this situation wholly unacceptable and want action nothing less, an apology simply isn’t good enough – I thought we were a Party of equality, guess I’ve been mislead.

• Felix Holt 11th Jun '10 - 1:05pm

  @Lee Richards: using a sexist anti-woman term [Editor's note: the original reference has now been deleted] when criticizing this person’s anti-disability actions is a tad hypocritical don’t you think?

• John Doe 11th Jun '10 - 1:53pm

  This councillor is… “alleged to have posted a photo”, according to the piece at the top of this page.

  Are we not a Party that believes in being innocent until proven guilty?

  People here should be ashamed to jump to conclusions so quickly.

• Jeremy Hargreaves 11th Jun '10 - 2:48pm

  The Leader does not of course have the power simply to ‘sack’ councillors or members of the party – and quite right too: if liberalism is about anything then it is surely about due process and dispersal of power, rather than simply the arbitrary exercise of power by one individual.

• Matthew Doye 11th Jun '10 - 2:59pm

  She needs to do some serious relearning or reconsider her position.

• Harriet 11th Jun '10 - 3:18pm

  I agree with SP Hughes to a certain extent. While we should abide by the prinicple of “Innocent until proven guilty” it’s definitely true that disability and gender identity/expression (especially relating to transgender people) are way behind on equality and this party should be working hard on these issues. This case is just another example of how the media and general public don’t take ablism seriously.

• Kehaar 11th Jun '10 - 3:33pm

  using a sexist anti-woman term when criticizing this person’s anti-disability actions is a tad hypocritical don’t you think?

  It’s a woman-specific insult, just as there are man-specific insults. We could get into an etymological discussion about its origins, but I doubt Lee was thinking too deeply when he expressed his disgust at her behaviour.

  When Glen Hoddle came out with his nonsense about the handicapped reaping bad karma, one of the tabloids [the Sun, I think!!!] attended his resignation press-conference with some; who proceded to harrange him from the back of the audience.

  Absolutely toe-curling.

• Kehaar 11th Jun '10 - 3:34pm

  While we should abide by the prinicple of “Innocent until proven guilty”

  This does not preclude discussion of potential guilt. Maybe she should remain in her position whilst an investigation is ongoing, but an investigation there should be.

• SMcG 11th Jun '10 - 4:53pm

  A ‘hate crime’ , for goodness sake. a joke in very bad taste and if she did do it then she should be severely reprimanded.
  But lets not get it out of proportion. we are Liberals, we believe in free speech (or should do).
  That includes being able to make jokes without being threatened with ‘crimes’.

• Stephen Tall 11th Jun '10 - 5:19pm

  Editor’s note: I have edited an early comment from Lee Richards to remove a derogatory remark. (And edited subsequent comments quoting it, too).

  Please remember Lib Dem Voice’s comments policy which exists to foster robust but constructive debate: we will delete comments which ignore it.

• Kehaar 11th Jun '10 - 5:41pm

  Stephen, I appreciate that you have the right to maintaining decorum, but the effect has been to introduce the doubt that Lee used a much more offensive word than he did (as I would assume had I seen Felix’s description without first seeing the word).

  Far better, I think, simply to issue a rebuke and edit *subsequent* outbursts. LDV has gone from Jethro Tull’s seed-drill to GM farming in just two months… it will becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the old environment of a contained discussion group.

• Felix Holt 11th Jun '10 - 6:18pm

  Aaah good old Jethro Tull – I used to like the flutes they used

• smiller 11th Jun '10 - 10:27pm

  well, it’s worth pointing out she wrote to members of the Labour Group to apologise.Surely the apology should have been made to the disabled community? Either way the longer she stays the more damage she does to the party’s image.After losing the Council the Liverpool Lib Dems need this like a hole in the head.

• Andrea Gill 11th Jun '10 - 11:09pm

  This was a facebook group that a MEMBER posted the photo on, wasn’t it???

• Valeriet 12th Jun '10 - 8:31am

  I can see why, given the technical issues involved, this is a matter for an inquiry rather than immediate resignation. But it’s pretty bad that Bradley decided against one. As someone points out in the first comment here http://bit.ly/boPY1Q it’s possible that the whole thing was photoshopped (given that the disabled people are tagged as actual Labour councillors), in which case it may well have been a set-up. But if she didn’t do it, then why has she made what is reported to have been an apology to the councillors involved (although not to the disabled people mocked)? What a mess – I’m glad the national party has stepped in.

  If she is responsible, then she needs to go.

• Valeriet 12th Jun '10 - 9:34am

  on the other hand the “photoshopped” explanation doesn’t sound too likely, either, given that it says “From the album the opposition by Sharon Green” – so if it was sent to her profile as she claims, it would then also have to say whatever else would appear under the photo after it was sent.

• Valeriet 12th Jun '10 - 9:53am

  Is there any other credible explanation – bar hacking – as to why it says “by Sharon Green”?

• smiller 12th Jun '10 - 12:04pm

  “This was a facebook group that a MEMBER posted the photo on, wasn’t it???”

  It was her album, only you can post and name a pic to your album, in this case she named the picture of disabled people as ‘the opposition’ .I’m not a lib dem but i’m struggling to understand why the local Lib Dems in Liverpool are allowing this to rumble on-and decided against any action.Leaving aside the moral issue I would imagine the political damage would be severe and prolonged.