Bruce Lawson's personal site

Shock ‘socialist leanings’ allegation

Chris Beasley (passim) accuses me of having “socialist leanings“. Oooh harsh. Oh wait! I do have socialist leanings! I confessed it on my ‘About’ page three years ago.

The reason for this accusation is that I believe that people with disabilities should be able to participate on-line. And if a company won’t make accommodation and code its website accordingly, then it’s OK for that company to be sued.

Mr Beasley disagrees, as the handicapped are not normal, and it costs ten times as much “to send one disabled kid to a normal highschool than we spend on the smartest kid in that highschool.

Mr Beasley notes that I have MS and am therefore the type who “sees enemies where there are none”. (Everyone with MS is paranoid. We’re not normal, you see.)

Patrick Lauke has already tried to comment on Mr Beasley’s blog, but the comment was deleted and Patrick’s IP was banned, which rather leads me to wonder exactly who is “so used to fighting and defending that he sees enemies where there are none”.

Censoring people is also odd for someone who declares himself a “libertarian”. But then that’s the battle-cry of the terminally right-wing: “Free speech and equal rights, for all those who look like me and think like me!”

Buy "Calling For The Moon", my debut album of songs I wrote while living in Thailand, India, Turkey. (Only £2, on Bandcamp.)

23 Responses to “ Shock ‘socialist leanings’ allegation ”

Comment by Ian Lloyd

He’s deleting and blocking comments from people whose viewpoints aren’t aligned with his own? Or comments that he deems offensive in some way?

Good to know that you’d never do something like that, would you Lawson … you great big donkey bollocking leftie knobhead. :-p

Comment by Bruce

Well, I’ve deleted spam or sheer malicious nonsense, but it seems odd to announce oneself a “libertarian” and then delete an opposing view, especially as Patrick would have expressed himself reasonably.

Note that Mr Beasley’s commented twice on this blog.

Comment by Andy Higgs

After reading his comments I am now inclined to believe that Target (what, the multimillion dollar enterprise?) have been really “hard done by” by the sounds of and it’s probably your fault Bruce.

At least you can ease your guilt with the knowledge that if in the future anyone who searches for “big donkey bollocking leftie knobhead” will know you’re number one in Google. Again.

Comment by Karl

I like how he’s fully researched the case:

The issue that was at hand was that a blind man in California, who was the head of a blind advocacy group…

It’s a class action suit with 50,000 people behind it. The nature of these suits is such that they must have a named plaintiff.

Andy: I think “big donkey bollocking leftie knobhead” needs to be quoted 3 times to score well with Google.. 😉

Comment by patrick h. lauke

Chris Beasley on disability still is my post of choice when trying to point out to people exactly what we socialist leftie accessibility wizards are fighting against. it exemplifies exactly WHY there needs to be legislation: as long as opinions like those abound, there is no way sheer good will and market forces will just make accessibility happen…

Comment by JackP

I think us big donkey bollocking leftie knobheads are expected to just be grateful that we’ve moved on (slightly) from “whaddja mean, a blind person wants to use the internet?”

Comment by Jim

speaking as another big donkey bollocking leftie knobhead (don’t you love screwing with google?) i’d just like to say that if ever I meet mr beasley I’d quite happily throw him down a lift shaft.

purely to explain to him that stairs and wheelchairs don’t mix of course.

Comment by Lloydi

You know what folks … as much as I like the fact that you are all embracing donkey bollocks (in a manner of speaking), I can’t see many people searching for said phrase 😀 But what the hell, it’s all good clean donkey bollocking fun.

Comment by Jim

Beasley calls you a socialist, as an insult, then goes on to comment later:

“I have little patience for those who would manipulate the legal system like a leech so that they can live a life of luxury without producing anything themselves.”

Which is Marxism in its purist form.

Comment by gregor samsa

Not sure if my comment will appear on Chris Beasley’s site or be deleted, so I thought I’d copy it over here too:

Interesting, but you seem to have pulled a few of the key facts concerning the lawsuit out of thin air.

“a blind man in California … was upset because he could not buy socks at”

First of all, the law suit was not brought against Target by a single individual. It was a class action suit by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) on behalf of its 50,000 members. As it happens, class action suits need, unless I’m mistaken, a named individual – enter Mr Sexton. And it’s interesting how you boil the issue down to “couldn’t buy his sox” as if you were actually quoting facts here.

“Is a blind person immune to greed? Is it wrong to question his motives because he is disabled? I do not think so.”

As it’s a class action suit, and not a lawsuit brought forward by a single individual, this is an empty and irrelevant statement (unless you’re now implying that it’s an act of collective greed by the cabal of some 50,000 NFB members).

“they didn’t say what the negotiations were for, but I can read between the lines”

And you seem to find between those lines a lot of stuff that just isn’t true.

“What could they possibly be negotiating? The changes Target would need to make would be fairly easy, why not just do them?”

Perhaps the executives responsible at Target have a similar mentality to the one you’re displaying? Shop somewhere else, see if we care…if we run out of business, then it’s our fault…

“Perhaps could he have been trying to blackmail them into payment”

…near slanderous…

“or asking for something beyond what was necessary to make the site accessible?”

As the suit itself lists ALT attributes and image maps as the worst offenders on the site, one would think that the negotiations were based on those. Don’t you think that Target’s defense would have instantly called for the suit to be dismissed if it had proof that the requests from the NFB were unreasonable in the first place?

“I think the answer is obvious”

Only to you, it appears.

“for why else would they have months long negotiation?”

As above…they probably have people with the same attitude as your at Target too.

Comment by patrick h. lauke

“cabal of some 50,000 NFB members”

hah, the cabal of accessibility zealots. love it! interestingly, the comment hasn’t made it on Beasley’s blog. methinks he’s miffed because the cost of his sock purchase at target has gone up because of the lawsuit, or something 🙂

Comment by JackP

now you’re just a socialist full stop

Bruce: I’m sorry to hear that you have been reduced to the status of politically active punctuation. If anything, I would have thought your leftward leanings would have warranted you being a “\” rather than a full stop. Still, never mind, eh?

Leave a Reply

HTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> . To display code, manually escape it.