The Stelios Disabled Entrepreneur Award 2007
Leonard Cheshire and Sir Stelios Haji-Ionnaou have to find this year鈥檚 top disabled entrepreneur .
You鈥檝e got to self-identify as a disabled person to be eligible, and your business must be registered in the UK. For a full list of eligibility criteria, visit .
If you win, Stelios will personally hand you a cheque for 拢50 grand. He will also, apparently, be keen to offer you some supportive words 鈥渢hat may also help your decide future business direction鈥. (Hey, that鈥檚 what it says. Don鈥檛 blame me for the fact that it doesn鈥檛 make sense.)
Stelios is quoted as saying, "I am very passionate about encouraging an enterprising spirit throughout British culture. Helping remove the barriers disabled people face to being in business is an important part of this. That is why I am keen to establish this new award which will give disabled people an opportunity to show the world what they are able to do rather than have them negatively judged by their disability. I look forward to seeing the best of the entries and in due course handing over the cheque to the winner."
So, are you champing at the bit? Already mentally disposing of that well-deserved 拢50k? Ok, then let鈥檚 take a quick shufti at the application form (you can download it from a link on .)
Got it open in front of you? Right. Now, I鈥檓 not hugely well-informed on the accessibility of electronic documents to people with visual impairments. I鈥檝e always had a tame expert to advise me on that side of things. (A tame expert who, in fact, was recently interviewed for Ouch鈥檚 Access 2.0 blog .) Nevertheless, something tells me this form isn鈥檛 exactly the tops for accessibility. I mean, if nothing else, it won鈥檛 calculate your word count for you. So it looks as though you鈥檙e going to have to copy every word you've written in answer to all the questions and paste them into a separate Word document to get it to to tot them up for you. I don鈥檛 have any particular IT access needs, and I鈥檇 find that 鈥 off-putting, to say the least.
And while we鈥檙e on the issue of word count, a 2000 word allowance? Most of my blog entries for Ouch come up at about 400 words. Is five times that amount really sufficient to answer all those questions and sell your business?
Question 2 is a bit of a corker: 鈥淧lease describe your disability鈥. Leaving aside the distinction between disability and impairment (because that way madness lies), 鈥渄escribe鈥 it? Wonder how far you鈥檇 get if you answered this question with, 鈥渁 blimmin鈥 nuisance鈥? Or, 鈥渋t鈥檚 what made me the person I am today鈥?
Of course, we all know that what they鈥檙e really asking is 鈥渨hat鈥檚 up with you, then?鈥. But why? Because it鈥檚 not actually relevant, is it? My cynical, embittered imagination leads me to suspect either that they don鈥檛 want someone hideously unattractive to win and scare off all the press photographers, or they want the winner to have something really unusual and fascinating. Something that鈥檒l make good copy.
Anyway, whatever you do, don鈥檛 answer 鈥渄yslexia鈥 to that question. Cos you guys are automatically out of the running. Don鈥檛 believe me? Take a look at rule 10: 鈥淎ll entries must be checked for spelling and grammar鈥.
But don鈥檛 let my snarky asides put you off. If I were an entrepreneur, and I could find a use for 拢50k, I鈥檇 be applying right now this minute, I can assure you. Even if I had dyslexia鈥
鈥 Visit
Comments
I have to say, I do understand them making it a bit difficult to enter this contest. After all, you can't just go round chucking 50-Grand notes at just any charity basket-case can you? They must be able to at least decline a verb and have English as their first language. And be IT literate. And be able to cope with completing an application form electronically when it hasn't been designed as an electronic application form. And not be concerned about Leonard Cheshire's perpetuation of the myth that impairment equals disability.
And, in my case at least, not still be bitter that Stelios personally (well through one of his uniformed representatives) and publicly humiliated me by moving me out of the only comfortable seat on his lovely orange aeroplane because "We cannot allow 'andicapped passengers to sit there".
Hmm this sounds about right.
I have a good friend who was once moved from his seat on an Easy Jet plane because they "couldn't let handicapped people sit there". Now my friend who is a bolshie so and so was completely disempowered by this 'request' and just complied. It was done in full earshot of other passengers too.
If Stelios' company has that attitude to disabled people (although it seems to be on par with other budget airlines in their disability awareness) and Leonard Cheshire can't provide an assessible application form in non-discriminatory language, then even if I was a disabled entrepreneur, I would touch this with my waking stick.
It angers me that this will be seen as a wonderful opportunity for disabled people when in reality it is discriminatory.
Re, link to Ouch's access 2.0 blog, I got a 404 error message.
Re, word count: do the word count FIRST, before you fill in anything. (I got 1224 for all the words in the questions, instruction, yada yada). Then simply add 2000 words to that for your maxmium allowable total word count (thus the COMPLETED form can have 3224 words--the 1224 words already there, plus the 2000 allocated to the person filling it in).
Though I agree that there is something slightly wrong with the idea that people are being expected to use not that many more words than already exist in the questions and instructions. This is less than two words per word of question or instruction. Not that there should be a precise ratio that is somehow "ideal" but it's not a lot to work with, especially if any of your answers need to be unusually complex. And I know only the tiniest smidge more than the general, non-disabled/sighted population about what makes an electronic document accessible or not, so I won't try to get into that either--if you think the form is problematic beyond the word count issue, then I'll take your word for it unless a blind blogger comes along here to differ.
The American disability community uses different criteria to define "politically correct" language usage so I won't even try to wade into that here. But my take on why they ask about your (disability/impairment/insert perferred terminology choice here) though is that they're probably trying to check to ensure that people don't try to claim "Oh I'm disabled because my left pinky finger is one centimeter too short" or something. (Seriously. I've heard of cases in countries in which employers are required to hire a certain quota of disabled workers where they fill that quota by simply finding someone who is missing one finger or something and claiming that person for the quota.)
Marmite,
I agree with much of what you say, which is why I was so keen to outline the flaws in the whole thing.
Nevertheless, I remain of the opinion that it would be entirely possible, with a good conscience, to recognise those flaws but still apply for the award.
After all, if you win, you'll have the opportunity to show them the error of their ways. (Er, after you've banked the cheque, of course.)
If you don't apply on principle, what good will that do?
If you go to the press with your reasons for refusing, it wil be assumed that you're not applying because you recognise that you're not a sufficiently strong candidate. You won't change hearts and minds that way.
The playing field for disabled businessmen and women is not equal. Regardless of the distinctly cringe-worthy rubric which surrounds this award, if it's up for grabs, then I'd go for it.
To answer Marmiteboy's complaint, there are certain airliner seats we aren't allowed to sit in by law if our impairment might restrict us from operating the emergency exits unaided or might obstruct other people's escape. It's a CAA reg (echoed worldwide) and nothing to do with Easyjet (though Easyjet need metaphorically slapping for using the H-word). Personally I always choose Easyjet in preference to Ryanair as I think Ryanair's attitude to us is beyond the pale, which is strange as being based in Dublin they're actually within the historic pale ;)
Andrea,
I've double-checked and that link is the permalink which the 主播大秀 provides to that article. Thanks for pointing out that it doesn't actually take you there, though. I'm hoping an Ouch genie will intervene. In the meantime, the interview you're looking for is the one with Paul McKee on the 21st of June.
As I said, I'm no expert on document accessibility. I'm waiting for someone VI to tell me it's not problematic for them.
Asking someone for details of their impairment is is not, in my view, an acceptable way of determining whether they're disabled under the legal definition or not. To weed out the non-disabled people who are hoping that a blister on their right index finger will count, all you have to do is to ask them for a signed statement to the effect that they are covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. And provide a hyperlink to the DDA definition. (The ADA may be different, but that's how the DDA works.)
Ok, so people may lie. But are they any less likely to lie than if they're asked for medical detail?
I consider demanding details of individuals' impairments to be prurient, unnecessary, and wholly counter to the message used elsewhere in the background materials to the award, which is that disability is the result of barriers faced by people who have impairments.
What the applicants have in common is their experience of those disabling barriers. I find it very worrying that they might, for example, be putting all the blindies in one pile and deciding that they should only take one of them through to the shortlist. This is not a decision which should be made on a "by impairment" basis.
"there are certain airliner seats we aren't allowed to sit in by law if our impairment might restrict us..."
Quite so - and really I don't have a problem with that. Not so keen though on the fact that the assumption was made, after I was seated, simply because I was holding a walking stick.
After all I have developed massive upper-body strength to overcome my lower-body inadequacies - it's a well known fact that crips always develop compensating super powers... isn't it???
Well if Easyjet can subscribe to popular myth about what people who constitute a risk must look like, then I can perpetuate my own too ;
PS I also have a big "undercarriage"!
I read with interest the comments about the new award that Sir Stelios is supporting in partnership with Leonard Cheshire.
Surely above all else the most significant thing here is that this award is the biggest single busineess award in the UK. And the purpose behind it is to recognise the business talents of disabled people in business. The piece is full of micro details that fail to recognise the significance of this major investment of money and belief in entrepreneurship amongst disabled people.
I'm sorry but I don't consider an inaccessible application form as a micro detail. It is just the kind of thing that disabled people have to put up with all the time. If Leonard Cheshire and Stelios truely want to champion disabled talent in this country then it's just this kind of thing that they must get right.
Having re-read Lady Bracknell's Editor's original post I have another concern about the so-called 'micro detail' mentioned by Mark Bishop. Why do entrants have to 'decribe their disability? Why is this an importnat factor in the competition? Do Leonard Cheshire and Stelios only want wheelchair users or people with an impairment that makes them looks disabled?
Of course this is a lot better than a diabetic winning or someone with mental health issues winning because they won't LOOK disabled will they?
And just why does the form have to be checked for spelling and grammar? Why are they, purposefully or accidently discriminating against dyslexic people?
Of course these are all micro details and shouldn't stop the rest of the non-disabled world seeing how wonderful Leonard Cheshire and Stelios are.
I'm not knocking the sentiment behind the whole enterprise. In fact I welcome it. It is a good thing. It's just the application of the idea that needs work.
Having re-read Lady Bracknell's Editor's original post I have another concern about the so-called 'micro detail' mentioned by Mark Bishop. Why do entrants have to 'decribe their disability? Why is this an importnat factor in the competition? Do Leonard Cheshire and Stelios only want wheelchair users or people with an impairment that makes them looks disabled?
Of course this is a lot better than a diabetic winning or someone with mental health issues winning because they won't LOOK disabled will they?
And just why does the form have to be checked for spelling and grammar? Why are they, purposefully or accidently discriminating against dyslexic people?
Of course these are all micro details and shouldn't stop the rest of the non-disabled world seeing how wonderful Leonard Cheshire and Stelios are.
I'm not knocking the sentiment behind the whole enterprise. In fact I welcome it. It is a good thing. It's just the application of the idea that needs work.
Yeah, big up Sir Stelios for handing over the cash an' all, but Leonard Cheshire should know that the accessibity of an application form is FAR from a micro-detail.
I'm really interested in the explanation for why 'describing' the disability is necessary?
I read with interest Mark Bishop鈥檚 comments about the new award that Sir Stelios is supporting in partnership with Leonard Cheshire.
Surely above all else the most significant thing here is that the organisers of this competition have actively introduced barriers to equality of opportunity to compete, as I listed above.
And the second most significant thing is the suspicion, which the application form has engendered in several people鈥檚 minds already, that the judges are looking for a particular type of disabled person 鈥 as defined by their impairment.
Imagine a competition to find the nation鈥檚 most selfless and lovely grandmother. Would you expect to find a category on the application form for height, eye colour and vital statistics?
Personally, if asked to describe my disability, I would have to say: 鈥淪tairs, lack of adequate parking in city centres, idiots who park in allocated spaces without entitlement, inappropriate seating, slippery floors and the general failure by those responsible for the built environment to cater for my particular needs.鈥 These are the things which disable me! But then I am just an old-fashioned social-model advocate, of the type which is apparently sadly absent in the designers and defenders of the 鈥淐rip Factor鈥 who regard such issues as 鈥渕icro details鈥.
Actually, lest you gain the impression that I am some sort of bitter and twisted old curmudgeon, I should tell you that I often let pass such things as language issues and perceptions of disability; for example when, only yesterday, my senior boss made several remarks about 鈥減eople who have registered disabilities鈥. But then I have no great expectations that he should know better 鈥 at least until someone has explained it to him.
However I do have much higher expectations of an organisation whose mission statement includes the phrase 鈥渢o change attitudes to disability鈥.
P.S. Mind you, if the beautiful and talented Amanda Holden is also on the judging panel for 鈥淐rips Got Talent鈥, I might yet be tempted to swallow my pride and compete for the impressively shiny prize :-)