Lexin

So, my friend “J” sent out a round robin email wishing our gaming group a Happy New Year, and outlining that he was planning a gaming get together fairly soon at a venue yet to be chosen and a time yet to be decided on. I replied, saying I’d like to come but it depends on the cost.

Nothing happened for a couple of weeks.

Then I got the following email: Me: “I’m up for it if I can afford it.”
“Him”: That's not the main issue: I'm sure we could have a whip round or something.

“I have now looked at various venues but it will be difficult to make a decision as they are so good, if diverse. Even if I confined this decision to those with bedrooms on the ground floor and disabled access, I am still doubtful that you could even manage. You could barely walk in August and I don't feel you could travel for 2-4 hours on public transport without a carer/plus size wheelchair now. Anyway, I don't want the risk of you collapsing in transit on my conscience.

“Unless I find somewhere I feel is particularly possible, participation doesn't seem viable to me. Sorry about that. I hope you understand.”

What this boils down to, shorn of its verbiage, is: I have decided that as a disabled person, you can’t manage, so I have decided you can’t come. I therefore rescind my invitation. Plus, I can’t be arsed to find a suitable venue.

Now, I don’t want to go somewhere where I wouldn’t be welcome, but I’m also well pissed off that he didn’t even ask me what kind of venue I would need.

I barely have time to breathe, I'm so busy, and yet very little of it is of a kind which can be repeated. I don't even have any opinions other than 'this government stinks' which can be repeated.

Having said that I came across an entry on the "Where's the Benefit" blog the other day (yesterday) though it was actually posted on the 17th. Shocked headline as fat disabled woman has fun. It appears that the Telegraph now views the idea that someone who is fat and disabled might want to go out an enjoy themselves as evidence that she is (a) faking and (b) therefore not entitled to benefits. OK, the article is more nuanced than that, but not much.

It's not the article quite so much as the stupid little questionnaire thing. That really got my goat. Now I'm someone whose idea of amusement is a committee meeting, but as one of the people who made comments said, you'd think by now I'd be used to this kind of hate, but I'm not. It's almost like you don't dare be fat, disabled or (worse) both in public.

They can fuck off, frankly. The idea that there are Torygraph readers concern-trolling my menu choices is enough to make me eat a litre of chocolate ice cream just to be contrary.