... oh and are we to believe that a 6 figure earning, fleet street journalist has not - unlike most 12 year-olds - managed to master the power-point presentation programme in Microsoft Office and needs a baker to download an app on her i-phone
... and I guess the fact that she mentions i-phone so many times means she got a refund on the Blackberry that the baker bought her? ;-)
Also if she is severely deaf she can get a disabled buss pass to use in her local authority area, and can buy a disabled rail card which would save her a fortune commuting up and down the east coast.
LJ's disability seems to be an unusual type ;-)
-
she has great difficulty in hearing in certain circumstances - yet seems not to need special equipment and to be able to use a landline/i-phone even (dare I say it Blackberry) quite normally when it comes to calling banks, tax offices, utility companies to berate them on her service
- she has great difficulty in hearing church services and certain meetings "because she is deaf" yet manages to appear on Big brother, attend plays, concerts, fashion show mingles and give talks with Q&As with seemingly much less difficulty
- she appears not to be registered as disabled as she makes no mention of all the benefits/help/specialist equipment, mobility cars, free travel - UNLESS she wants to take her dog into a restaurant or park her car in a disabled space (but has no badge)
She seems to have some level of hearing loss - yet one that does not really seem to impair her functionality too much until something annoys her
and I write as someone with a very painful physical disability who also gets little help and sometimes can't get to work as people like LJ have clogged up the disabled parking so that no wheelchair/wheeled walker can get alongside the car
So, in amongst this week's weirdness, there is a crisis: not any old crisis but a CRISIS. But it's not a CRISIS about which she can speak. Are we meant to be on tenterhooks about this CRISIS? Imagining what terrible horror has befallen the person who manages to include a non-working hoover, obscure lawn mower for which parts are unavailable in a list of life's upsets which mentions, en passant, the death of her mother.
(And, in LJ's piece in the main body of the MonS, she says she has four hearing dogs trained to alert her if the fire alarm goes off. Sorry: I just do not believe that the unruly pack of assorted hounds are in any shape or form "hearing dogs" in the proper sense. I'm certain they would bark if the fire alarm went off, but not because they are trained to do so. Her remarks do a great disservice to the Hearing Dogs charity, which works in the same way as Guide Dogs for the Blind: extensive and specialist training from what I suppose one calls puppyhood.)
BIB - Indeed they do. I posted something about this a few pages back, but a true 'hearing dog' trained by the charity costs a lot of money to train. In addition, a fully-trained 'hearing dog' will usually wear an outer 'odg vest' with clear wording which shows it's working when out and about with its owner (just as most guide dogs have wording on their hi-vis dog vests). Certainly the one hearing dog Jersey's Deaf Adult/Earsay charities have raised money to fund cost a lot of money, and it wears its vest all the time when out with her owner. That is a 'hearing dog', Liz, not just a family pet who you have decided to tell people is one!
There is also a huge way to go from severely deaf to profoundly deaf. Severely deaf is a loss of decibels at 70% or more and profoundly deaf is a DBL of 95% or more.
One of my best friends is profoundly Deaf (and has been from birth, although she lip reads very well, talks relatively clearly, and uses BSL - which I'm also learning so we can communicate without all the effort being my friend's). I've had to accompany her to some of her audiology test recently, so I've got used to the terminology, and what you say is very true - the degree of deafness varies greatly withing 'severe', before you reach 'profound' as a diagnosis. Profoundly Deaf people often have balance issues too which can affect their ability to function normally for days at a time, although of course everyone is different, and some suffer much less than others.
she has great difficulty in hearing in certain circumstances - yet seems not to need special equipment and to be able to use a landline/i-phone even (dare I say it Blackberry) quite normally when it comes to calling banks, tax offices, utility companies to berate them on her service
- she has great difficulty in hearing church services and certain meetings "because she is deaf" yet manages to appear on Big brother, attend plays, concerts, fashion show mingles and give talks with Q&As with seemingly much less difficulty
- she appears not to be registered as disabled as she makes no mention of all the benefits/help/specialist equipment, mobility cars, free travel - UNLESS she wants to take her dog into a restaurant or park her car in a disabled space (but has no badge)
She seems to have some level of hearing loss - yet one that does not really seem to impair her functionality too much until something annoys her
and I write as someone with a very painful physical disability who also gets little help and sometimes can't get to work as people like LJ have clogged up the disabled parking so that no wheelchair/wheeled walker can get alongside the car
BIB - That much is true, but she's not Deaf with a big 'D', just as someone with moderately severe to severe vision issues isn't Blind with a big 'B'. Again, a few pages back, I posted a quote from the forward of a book written by the hearing daughter of two profoundly Deaf parents whose comparison between sight/hearing loss and Deafness/Blindess I thought was apposite in Liz's case. There is a reason why the dDeaf (almost always expressed the small 'd', then big 'D' together in the community) and HOH (hard of hearing) communities make these distinctions, and Liz is riding rough-shod (no pun intended!) over that and making up her own rules about her 'disability'. >:(
One really has to wonder just how much crap the Mail group is prepared to let her get away with? That 'four hearing dogs' stuff is just beyond ludicrous. Wha'st the woman on, for God's sake? Let me see ... she's got the sheep worrying 'Michael', usually referred to as her 'hearing dog'. Then the rescued, toothless dog from some Eastern European place where she ponced around for photo opportunities. Then ...er, two other dogs? Those must be 'Grace Kelly' and something or other 'Puppy'? And she's TRAINED ALL FOUR HOUNDS TO BE HEARING DOGS?
"Update: Response from Hearing Dogs for Deaf People 19.10.14
We’ve been made aware of an article in the Daily Mail this morning, written by Liz Jones. Liz Jones does not have a hearing dog from Hearing Dogs for Deaf People, and we will be contacting the editor of the Daily Mail this afternoon to raise a complaint about the article and the use of a photograph which misrepresents Hearing Dogs for Deaf People.
Liz Jones has been asked to stop publishing articles where she says she has a hearing dog on two previous occasions, and she has been asked twice by our Chief Executive to visit The Grange to understand how we train our dogs. She has failed to respond to our requests on both occasions.
Irresponsible journalism like this can cause more problems for disabled people with assistance dogs in public places, and we are extremely concerned by her article. We want well-trained recognised assistance dogs to be welcomed in all public places, so access for disabled people is promoted and supported by shops, restaurants and leisure operators, as well as in the workplace.
Thank you for your e-mails, calls and comments – it’s fantastic for us to know how many of you care so much for Hearing Dogs that you are prepared to stand up for us when you see an article like this.
We will keep you posted."
Haha! Busted, Jonesie! No doubt she will back-pedal in high-dudgeon but oh how she forgets that all her complete bolleaux is online and easily searched...
Oh and a big HI to Dave the Baker. Get out now if you have any sense.
Will this be a crisis or a CRISIS? I do apologise for using caps, but if a journalist who types 1 million words a year and gets someone to transcribe her tapes must be totally exhausted. ..
Jones has a track record for insulting disabled people and promoting disability hate in incremental ways. Raging about disabled parking spaces, calling shop assistants 'special needs', hilariously transposing 'austistic' for 'artistic'.
The Daily Mail has an agenda and she writes to fit in with it for which she is paid handsomely.
Can we suppose that the CRISIS is the fact that the Mail on Sunday is not renewing her contract for the dreary? She would not be able to reveal that to her millions of loyal fans through the column.
https://www.facebook.com/hearing.dogs
'A dog specially trained by the charity Hearing Dogs for Deaf people. Liz Jones's dogs are not 'qualified' in the same way'.
... or in plain English, she's lying. Again. Oh, wait... there's another disclaimer at the foot of the farticle:
"We are happy to make clear that when Liz Jones referred to her four dogs as ‘hearing dogs’ she did not intend to imply that the dogs had been trained and supplied by the charity Hearing Dogs for Deaf People."
Er... actually, that was exactly what she strongly implied.
I am wondering exactly what lies and libels Liz thinks are present here. It seems to me that people here discuss what she writes in her column and generally poke fun at it. That's not lying, that's responding to information she feeds us.
If there is anything libellous on this site then Liz knows what to do. After all, she is so terribly poor that she could probably do with the money.
I am wondering exactly what lies and libels Liz thinks are present here. It seems to me that people here discuss what she writes in her column and generally poke fun at it. That's not lying, that's responding to information she feeds us.
If there is anything libellous on this site then Liz knows what to do. After all, she is so terribly poor that she could probably do with the money.
And surely if any of the posts here were in any way 'lies' or 'libelous' they'd be removed quick-smart - DS is very quick to jump on posters, and posts, which cross any kind of legal, or potentially legal line. The fact that all posts remain says there's nothing inherently wrong them in terms of what they say - unless you're Ms Jones or the DM and are cross at being caught out! If she doesn't like it then she needs to ask herself why people are responding to her writing in that way (i.e. with fair argument and discussion) and then change the way she writes. Or, as you say, sue.
But she won't do either of those things, so she'll just have to suck it up!
And I find the editing on the DM article re Liz 'not' having four hearing dogs incredible and insulting to the intelligence of the readers who complained, and the charity who work so hard to train hearing dogs for the dDeaf. Do the DM think that their edited comments change anything at all? In fact, they make an even worse impression of themselves, as they only reacted when 'caught out' supporting the completely erroneous portrait of how a hearing 'working' dog for the dDeaf is raised and trained.
Far from showing any contrition or apology, since being called out on it, they've implied the readers (and even the charity) 'read it wrong' and 'got the wrong end of the stick' from the words Liz wrote, rather than telling Liz the fault likes with her writing, and how it was crafted, intentionally, or unintentionally (I wonder which one of those two options I think is the case...?!) to present the wrong end of the stick to everyone who was reading it! >:(
And surely if any of the posts here were in any way 'lies' or 'libelous' they'd be removed quick-smart - DS is very quick to jump on posters, and posts, which cross any kind of legal, or potentially legal line. The fact that all posts remain says there's nothing inherently wrong them in terms of what they say - unless you're Ms Jones or the DM and are cross at being caught out! If she doesn't like it then she needs to ask herself why people are responding to her writing in that way (i.e. with fair argument and discussion) and then change the way she writes. Or, as you say, sue.
But she won't do either of those things, so she'll just have to suck it up!
And I find the editing on the DM article re Liz 'not' having four hearing dogs incredible and insulting to the intelligence of the readers who complained, and the charity who work so hard to train hearing dogs for the dDeaf. Do the DM think that their edited comments change anything at all? In fact, they make an even worse impression of themselves, as they only reacted when 'caught out' supporting the completely erroneous portrait of how a hearing 'working' dog for the dDeaf is raised and trained. Far from showing any contrition or apology, since being called out on it, they've actually had the nerve to tell the readers (and even the charity) off for 'getting the wrong impression' from the words Liz wrote, rather than telling Liz her writing was unashamedly crafted to pull the wool over everyone's eyes who was reading it! >:(
The "correction" was ridiculous, and didn't go far enough to acknowledge the bizarre assertions by LJ, mentioned on several occasions, that she has hearing dogs are quite untrue. It's interesting (but not surprising) that LJ has been invited to visit the Hearing Dogs' charity HQ on two occasions but has not responded to the invitations.
Comments
... and I guess the fact that she mentions i-phone so many times means she got a refund on the Blackberry that the baker bought her? ;-)
LJ's disability seems to be an unusual type ;-)
-
- she has great difficulty in hearing church services and certain meetings "because she is deaf" yet manages to appear on Big brother, attend plays, concerts, fashion show mingles and give talks with Q&As with seemingly much less difficulty
- she appears not to be registered as disabled as she makes no mention of all the benefits/help/specialist equipment, mobility cars, free travel - UNLESS she wants to take her dog into a restaurant or park her car in a disabled space (but has no badge)
She seems to have some level of hearing loss - yet one that does not really seem to impair her functionality too much until something annoys her
and I write as someone with a very painful physical disability who also gets little help and sometimes can't get to work as people like LJ have clogged up the disabled parking so that no wheelchair/wheeled walker can get alongside the car
BIB - Indeed they do. I posted something about this a few pages back, but a true 'hearing dog' trained by the charity costs a lot of money to train. In addition, a fully-trained 'hearing dog' will usually wear an outer 'odg vest' with clear wording which shows it's working when out and about with its owner (just as most guide dogs have wording on their hi-vis dog vests). Certainly the one hearing dog Jersey's Deaf Adult/Earsay charities have raised money to fund cost a lot of money, and it wears its vest all the time when out with her owner. That is a 'hearing dog', Liz, not just a family pet who you have decided to tell people is one!
One of my best friends is profoundly Deaf (and has been from birth, although she lip reads very well, talks relatively clearly, and uses BSL - which I'm also learning so we can communicate without all the effort being my friend's). I've had to accompany her to some of her audiology test recently, so I've got used to the terminology, and what you say is very true - the degree of deafness varies greatly withing 'severe', before you reach 'profound' as a diagnosis. Profoundly Deaf people often have balance issues too which can affect their ability to function normally for days at a time, although of course everyone is different, and some suffer much less than others.
BIB - That much is true, but she's not Deaf with a big 'D', just as someone with moderately severe to severe vision issues isn't Blind with a big 'B'. Again, a few pages back, I posted a quote from the forward of a book written by the hearing daughter of two profoundly Deaf parents whose comparison between sight/hearing loss and Deafness/Blindess I thought was apposite in Liz's case. There is a reason why the dDeaf (almost always expressed the small 'd', then big 'D' together in the community) and HOH (hard of hearing) communities make these distinctions, and Liz is riding rough-shod (no pun intended!) over that and making up her own rules about her 'disability'. >:(
Also many of the comments under the article have been deleted, but the article itself remains. Is Liz the moderator?
I'm not surprised the charity is incensed.
"Update: Response from Hearing Dogs for Deaf People 19.10.14
We’ve been made aware of an article in the Daily Mail this morning, written by Liz Jones. Liz Jones does not have a hearing dog from Hearing Dogs for Deaf People, and we will be contacting the editor of the Daily Mail this afternoon to raise a complaint about the article and the use of a photograph which misrepresents Hearing Dogs for Deaf People.
Liz Jones has been asked to stop publishing articles where she says she has a hearing dog on two previous occasions, and she has been asked twice by our Chief Executive to visit The Grange to understand how we train our dogs. She has failed to respond to our requests on both occasions.
Irresponsible journalism like this can cause more problems for disabled people with assistance dogs in public places, and we are extremely concerned by her article. We want well-trained recognised assistance dogs to be welcomed in all public places, so access for disabled people is promoted and supported by shops, restaurants and leisure operators, as well as in the workplace.
Thank you for your e-mails, calls and comments – it’s fantastic for us to know how many of you care so much for Hearing Dogs that you are prepared to stand up for us when you see an article like this.
We will keep you posted."
http://pardongroup.org.uk/2014/10/19/fake-hearing-dogs/
Oh and a big HI to Dave the Baker. Get out now if you have any sense.
The Daily Mail has an agenda and she writes to fit in with it for which she is paid handsomely.
Hearing Dogs have put an update on their FB page. Basically the mail have changed the pic on the article and. .. well,that's about it.
Wish I could post the link. ..!! Hmmm.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2798727/the-disabled-make-good-staff-unlike-baldies-beer-bellies.html
Same photo of a trained hearing dog, but now with following disclaimer:
'A dog specially trained by the charity Hearing Dogs for Deaf people. Liz Jones's dogs are not 'qualified' in the same way'.
... or in plain English, she's lying. Again. Oh, wait... there's another disclaimer at the foot of the farticle:
"We are happy to make clear that when Liz Jones referred to her four dogs as ‘hearing dogs’ she did not intend to imply that the dogs had been trained and supplied by the charity Hearing Dogs for Deaf People."
Er... actually, that was exactly what she strongly implied.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2732922/LIZ-JONES-Forced-fed-snooty-culture-dodgy-Victoria-sponge.html
although I have no idea how a hearing dog could help with a performance of Romeo and Juliet. Act out the play using expressive mime perhaps?
"‘You can’t bring a dog in here [Stonehenge],’ a young lady told me. ‘But guide dogs are allowed,’ I said.
‘Are you blind?’ ‘No, but I’m deaf, and he is a hearing dog.’
‘Where’s his livery?’
‘It’s hot,’ I countered, to no avail. I had to leave my dog in the car (‘Make sure you crack a window!’)..."
June 21st, 2010.
If there is anything libellous on this site then Liz knows what to do. After all, she is so terribly poor that she could probably do with the money.
And surely if any of the posts here were in any way 'lies' or 'libelous' they'd be removed quick-smart - DS is very quick to jump on posters, and posts, which cross any kind of legal, or potentially legal line. The fact that all posts remain says there's nothing inherently wrong them in terms of what they say - unless you're Ms Jones or the DM and are cross at being caught out! If she doesn't like it then she needs to ask herself why people are responding to her writing in that way (i.e. with fair argument and discussion) and then change the way she writes. Or, as you say, sue.
But she won't do either of those things, so she'll just have to suck it up!
And I find the editing on the DM article re Liz 'not' having four hearing dogs incredible and insulting to the intelligence of the readers who complained, and the charity who work so hard to train hearing dogs for the dDeaf. Do the DM think that their edited comments change anything at all? In fact, they make an even worse impression of themselves, as they only reacted when 'caught out' supporting the completely erroneous portrait of how a hearing 'working' dog for the dDeaf is raised and trained.
Far from showing any contrition or apology, since being called out on it, they've implied the readers (and even the charity) 'read it wrong' and 'got the wrong end of the stick' from the words Liz wrote, rather than telling Liz the fault likes with her writing, and how it was crafted, intentionally, or unintentionally (I wonder which one of those two options I think is the case...?!) to present the wrong end of the stick to everyone who was reading it! >:(
The "correction" was ridiculous, and didn't go far enough to acknowledge the bizarre assertions by LJ, mentioned on several occasions, that she has hearing dogs are quite untrue. It's interesting (but not surprising) that LJ has been invited to visit the Hearing Dogs' charity HQ on two occasions but has not responded to the invitations.
Seriously. I take offence at that!! What are the daily fail on? Protecting their prize writer?
Oh wait..