Strictly no tokenism or sympathy votes thanks

Paralympian Jonnie Peacock is reportedly taking part in this years strictly come dancing, the first disabled contestant on the main show.

I welcome the real inclusion of disabled people in mainstream programmes, it makes disabilty seem just an every day event and makes it visible. Being part of a popular entertainment programme not related to disability is a good thing if its presented appropriately.

The voting system concerns me though. I hope he gets votes because he is good, because he deserves to and not just because he is disabled. British audiences are known for liking those they view as the underdog. This could actually harm the cause of disabled people, rather than further it, the sympathy factor has much to do with the negative attitude that disabled people  aren't real people, and not capable of real lives, with appropriate support, just like everyone else.

Why has he been asked, and given the length of time its been broadcast why now?  Is this a sticking plaster approach to the often poor public and estabishment attitude to disabled people. Is it meant to prove we are viewed positively because I'm not fooled. Any official attitude change needs to be seen as consistent to make a real difference. Does the BBC just want to be seen as inclusive so they have trotted out a disabled person for the purpose?  Again relative one offs won't change much, and I'm not taken in by tokeism. If the aim is to use a disabled person to prove a point in favour will do nothing for the good of the disability rights movement, it could cause serious harm.

That said this isn't a rant at Jonnie Peacock, I hope this does make a positive difference and he does really well. I'm a huge Strictly fan, and a long time disability activist, I want to be cheering on both counts, time will tell whether I am.

Disabled people are not all the same

The BBC are starting a scheme to promote disabled actors, really good. I only hope that it isn't used as a stick by the RW media to beat us. 'They can so those that can't must be lazy scroungers'

It isn't just the BBC and not just this scheme, the paralympics was used against us, they can, we all can, and a few years ago Stephen Hawkin was used by a doctor to 'prove' we could all work.

This is inequality  in its strangest form, abled bodied people are not compared to athletes, actors or anyone else in this way. Its accepted that abledbl bodied people are diverse, but not that those with disabilities are. We are not all the same, we have different strengths.

I know of disabled who dread the paralympics because it will start the rhetoric, if you can do that you could work,  why can they do that and not work? Others who won't socialise or do the things they enjoy because they might be judged.

The right wing government and their media, including the BBC have fostered the idea that anything we can do could be transferred to the workplace, and those of us that  don't conform to this are lazy. Sickness benefit criteria says that the set tasks must be repeated  and reliably carried out, if not then the person cannot do those tasks. Media and government conveniently forget this and the damage is done, many members of the generalbpublic believe what they are told. The fact is doing something sometimes, or in a very controlled and supported environment that is adapted is very different to the reality of repeatedly doing so in the workplace. Sinilarly not everybody has the same skills and they are not all transferable