TBH I think her voice is great and could be a lot better without the pressure that she's been under since the show went live.

I don't see Susan as a freak show, personally. I genuinely like her voice and would love to hear her sing again with some joy in her heart as she did at her first audition. She obviously entered the show because she loves to sing.

I can see what you're saying re the exploitation, but I blame the gutter press more than I do the show itself. Unfortunately, the fact that her VT was so popular caused a huge backlash against her from people who weren't moved by her audition and the press picked up on it and exploited any story they could get on her to the maximum. I think after all the praise she'd received the sudden change in attitude of the press and news items questioning whether she'd been hyped probably got to her. I do hope she gets the help she needs at the Priory and the gaggle of press outside should F*ck off and leave the woman in peace.

Green Goddess if you are being honest when you say
I am utterly appalled by some of your comments. These ones in particular stood out for me.


Yes, I know you apologised for the use of the word ‘retarded’ but surely as a person who ‘works in the health industry’ that shouldn’t even be a word that is still in your (adult) vocabulary.

Then you go on to say


Then

And all I can think is “works in the health industry as what exactly? A General Practitioners Receptionist?” Because she sure doesn’t know much about what is involved in a person entering a psychiatric unit.
And still, you go on…

You really do like the use of the word freak to describe people who may be less able to cope in certain situations than other people don’t you. Not only is it not the politically correct thing to do, it also shows a complete lack of respect for our fellow human beings.

I’m well aware of there being a fine line between ‘depression and mental’ as you put it. Living with it gives you a far better understanding of the situation than working in it ever will.

If she was on some sort of medication to get her through the final I think 'so what'. Why? Because I very much doubt she was the only person on the show that night who was on something to help lessen the chance of another on air meltdown.

I'd love to stay here and pick BGT, it's staff and contestant to bits all day sadly real life is calling me

No. Samba is a type of music or a pair of trainers from Adidas. Sambo is a racist name for a black person. I doubt anyone has called her that. Regardless this is all name calling / bullying that the papers should not be using either.

I see no problems however with SuBo and is just a diminutive of her name.

Perhaps you could explain how Ms Boyle managed to take care of her elderly parents for so long if she is as you suggest so mentally incompetent?

'here is a fine line between even depression and mental you know, take it you have never been there or seen it then>?' is this the kind of language they use in 'the health world'? (I'm not familiar with that planet.)

I have found it very interesting that there seems to be such confusion over whether Susan has learning difficulties or not. I think it has been all over the press that she does (I first read it in the Guardian). Where do they get this information, I wonder? Some people suggest that Susan herself has said that she is a bit slow, so that is where this rumour has come from. However, the press seems to have much more information than that, as they seem to know the exact cause of the problem, i.e. oxygen deprivation at birth. This involves much more detail than 'being a bit slow'. Does anyone actually know where that information comes from?

Anyway, the fact that the press say she has learning difficulties is far from proof that she does. The fact that her brother denies it, however, also does not qualify as proof that she doesn't. I guess the only thing I can rely on at the moment is my own perception of Susan, as I saw her on the show.

My first impression of Susan was that she was a bit awkward socially. Now whether that means that she has learning difficulties is another issue. Some people have said that she is just a bit odd or eccentric, and, yes, perhaps that is the case. But where do you draw the line beyond which your eccentricity qualifies as a problem, as something that seriously affects the way in which you deal with human relationships and everyday tasks?

My feeling with Susan is that she is beyond being a bit eccentric. She looks like she is not in touch with her surroundings in the way most people are and that she does not interact with them in a way that most people do. She also seems a bit too vulnerable for a woman of her age, almost a bit like a child. Taking this into consideration along with all the rumours of her aggressive outbursts, I wouldn't at all be surprised if she indeed has learning difficulties.

I know learning difficulties is a broad term and does not entail mental health issues. However, almost all the people with learning difficulties I have known have this in common: they tend to have extreme reactions to things, they see things in black and white terms, they tend to trust people too easily and then panic if that trust is broken. I don't think it is too far-fetched to assume that Susan does have some of these characteristics. Her behaviour on stage and her rumoured behaviour off-stage certainly doesn't contradict this assumption.

This does not mean of course that Susan is crazy or dangerous or a freak or anything else. But it might mean that she is more fragile and sensitive than a mature adult normally is and for this reason needs more support. I think that is something we should all have in mind, not only when we are judging Susan, but any vulnerable individual that is put in that position.

Your comments are perceptive and i think I can add a little. The key lies in the statement by an official spokesperson of Mencap. As someone who has worked for Mencap in the past, and who has an adult child with a Learning Disability (that is the correct terminology), I can say that Mencap would not have issued such a statement unless they knew for certain that Susan Boyle does have such a disability. They would not speculate, as the press sometimes do. We can now take it as fact that she does indeed have a learning disability and that it was caused by her birth asphyxia as they have stated. We can take what her brother has said with a pinch of salt, he will instinctively try to be protective against unkind comments he will have read or heard.

This does not mean she is incapable of looking after other people or her parents for example, as some have speculated. It does mean that she is going to find it very hard to handle new and demanding situations and as such, needs to be handled carefully and sensitively. The type of behaviour we often see from the press is likely to have been impossible for her to handle, with the results we have now seen.

She is likely to be socially naive or even inept, and might well not realise when she has crossed the line between excitement and inappropriate behaviour, as seen in the final. Her somewhat child-like wiggles seen earlier are also signs of her learning disability.

Until I read the Mencap statement, I was pretty ambivalent about Susan, she has a nice voice but I've heard better and I tend to judge performers by absolutes and not to make allowances for their youth or disabilities. But today, having digested what Mencap have said, my attitude has completely changed. I think it's absolutely marvellous that someone genuinely with her disability has done so well in such intense public glare, and that she has had the chance of having a career beyond the wildest dreams of her or any of the other 1.5 million people in the UK with a learning disability.

I hope she's OK when she is back in the public gaze and I wish her the very best, what she has done - and has been allowed to do by this show - is absolutely wonderful... but she will need careful and continuous support throughout her career, however short or long that lasts.

Thank you for offering some information on this issue. It's so nice to read posts by people that actually seem to know what they are talking about.

My attitude towards Susan has changed as well. And this is not just because I have realised how important it is for someone in her position to be given the opportunity to pursue a career and inspire others in the process. It is also because I have heard some of her other songs on youtube and I think that her talent, both in terms of vocal ability and in terms of interpreting a song in a meaningful way, is of a good enough standard and certainly can be the basis for a decent career. Yes, I have heard better, but also worse, by professional singers. What is more, we should not forget that singing is not only about vocal ability, but also about being able to connect with the audience, either through your personality or your performance skills, and I think that Susan has definitely managed to touch people all over the world. I realise that this is partly due to the way her story was presented/exploited by the show and the media, but that is not her fault in any way. I hope when all the media attention dies down she will be able to pursue her career in peace as any artist should be allowed to do.

Unless Ciara Evans from Mencap has access to Susan's medical records she has no more right than the rest of us to say that Susan Boyle has a Learning Disability or that it was caused by her being starved of oxygen at birth.

Personally I think it's her comments and not those of Susans family that should be taken with a (rather large) pinch of salt.

It's an official Mencap statement (she is a spokesperson for them). Mencap is a highly respectable and responsible charity, the UK's largest for people with a Learning Disability. They would not have issued such a statement unless they had the permission of Susan and/or her representative. However, it would heve been better if they'd added a note to that effect.

They may as an organization have been involved with her and her parents from a very early age, as in the case of many people like Susan... they are the natural choice to contact for help and advice. They will know that what they have said is correct. I cannot prove any of this but I do know how they work as I used to work for them in office finance and administration, they take personal confidential information seriously.

There is actually nothing in the statement or article which couldn't have been culled from other media sources - however accurate or inaccurate - I have worked for several charities over the years and it's not obligatory to, prior to a spokesperson making a statement, have the permission of those who may be alluded to in the statement so I see no reason to take as read that Susan/her people have been approving parties.

Issue-led charities are always being asked to provide statements - which is largely a positive thing - should something become media-worthy. By and large they are keen to do so because it raises necessary awareness.

There is nothing that the spokesperson said that was necessarily wrong - and the sentiment was very worthy - but we can't be sure that all aspects of it are necessarily right.

My jury is still out...although I do very much respect and, in principle, support the posts of angel, above.

/Just one picky minor discrepency in the article/statement - it was implied that 'hairy angel' was a playground taunt from Susan's childhood whereas I was under the impression it was a phrase coined by the media lately.

Susan was interviewed by the Sunday Times in April. The reporter spoke to her in her home:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6121279.ece

Thank you for that...and it's certainly worth adding to the mix of information.

I just don't get why, if her family were so close-knit, her brother would go on record - on film - to deny all knowledge of any learning difficulties/disabilities.

The term "learning difficulties" seems to have been introduced after Susan would have left school. If that is correct it would mean that a different technical term would have been used about Susan.

Perhaps her brother wasn't told at the time, or he was told something without using a technical term and not using the phrase "learning difficulties". There are various possibilities. He may well be telling the truth as he knows it.

I suppose that's a possibility and that I am placing too much emphasis on my received vocabulary. I just think of the term having such common parlance and clearly determined implications (I don't mean in terms of gradiation) that he would be aware of that to which is refered and be aware as to whether it applied to his sister or not.

True, I have no way of knowing for sure if permission was given but I would be surprised if it was not. Mencap has a reputation to maintain and if it later emerged that Susan disagreed with what they said, would not have given permission if asked, or if key facts were wrong, their credibility would be damaged and credibility is important to such a charity. Whatever other charities may have done in the past, it would simply not be right to intervene publicly in this way without permission, I would be livid if they did such a piece on my daughter without clearing it with us first - and I do not think they would do so.


Thank you for the additional information from that Times newspaper article. I agree with your observations about the use of "learning disability", which is a relatively modern phrase... learning difficulty and other descriptions were probably used when she was at school.

Most babies who suffer birth asphyxia recover quickly (within minutes, hours or days) and with no obvious long-term adverse effects. Only if Susan did have obvious lasting effects, such as a "general developmental delay" (significantly missed her baby milestones), would anyone even check for evidence of brain injury... so "brain injury" implies "developmental delay".

Some babies with developmental delay still manage to catch up by the start of their school years but in Susan's case, from the interview, it seems that she was unable to do so. Her developmental delay would eventually be defined more precisely as a "learning disability" and in this case (but not in every case), the cause seems to be known i.e. brain injury from birth asphyxia.

If the newspaper article correctly reports what was said in the interview, I would guess that the brother has either bluntly refused to accept the diagnosis, or he is being protective towards her in his own way.

My wife works is a LD nurse, and has more years working with that clientelle than she would care to admit, from people with severe ASD to those with milder forms of dissability.
Her observations are that the behaviour observed, and reported, of Susan Boyle are typical of someone with a learning dissability, although doesn't imply that to be the only explanation.
She's also of the opinion that, even though most of us would take Piers attention to her as him just being nice, and realise that he has no real romantic interest in her, there is a possibility that Susan may not be aware of the situation. So the story of her outburst at his praising of another singer is not as unlikely as it seems at first.
Additionaly there's also the possibility of a bi-polar dissorder, made worse by depression brought on by her mothers death.

If Mencap are so correct in what they say, and are such a good charity, why wait till now to say anything? I think they might have helped Susan save an awful lot of heartache if they had voiced their opinion earlier.

Another thing that I ponder. Did Susan seem so normal, that it seemed alright for the media to pick on her and report on her like they have? Did they not know/understand what they were doing and are they going to carry on like they did when she comes out? Or did they actually at some point just before the final decide to push her so that whatever is wrong with her became more apparant?

Speaking to a CPN, who watches the show and follows the news, the other day - she said, with the caveat that not treating Susan personally she could only speculate, that there seemed to be no indication of an underlying mental health disorder.

Speaking from personal experience, I'm not/have not sensed any signs of bi-polar affective disorder. I'd be interested to know upon what 'manifestations' you or your wife have suggested this possibility?

The comment about being a bit slow could have been mere self-deprecation.

Well, she's out of the Priory already, her brother just got interviewed on GMTV. I was busy when it was on, so couldn't hear most of it, but not sure any learning difficulties were mentioned.

It's a fairly high probability based on the assumption that she does have a learning difficulty, and on allegations that one of her many brothers said she has a short fuse, and in relation to reported behaviour. My wife raised it as a possibility, and I passed it on as a possibility.

It is not in the least a 'high probability'. The bio-chemical/neuro-transmitter faults leading to bi-polar affective disorder are in no way linked (in terms of brain-wiring or chemistry) to those who may have learning disabilities due to oxygen-starvation.

There is little, I could go so far as to say f'all, of her reported behaviour indicates manifestations of bi-polar affective disorder.

You've gone from saying it's a 'high probability' to it being 'raised as a possibility'...jeez

/P.S. manifestation of bi-polar generally becomes apparent in mid to late teens...not late 40s.

I have seen no suggestion from anyone who knows Susan, has interviewed Susan, or from Mencap, that she has bi-polar disorder. If that is so, we are now getting into the realms of guesswork and fantasy as the "signs" are not specific to that condition.

The situation with learning disability as it is now called is completely different. Some including the Times interviewer and possibly Susan herself still seem to call it learning difficulty - but it's a permanent disability present from birth or soon after, which has been highlighted in The Times interview with Susan and by Mencap. There are clear signs of that from her behaviour, which I mentioned earlier, so the "signs" support the other evidence, and do not stand alone.

I can't really see much point in discussing non-specific indications of bi-polar when there seems to be no other evidence to support it (unless someone has a link).

To my knowledge such a link does not exist...and, tbh, if it did I'd still be pretty dubious.