Once upon a time, in the grey corridors of a government building somewhere in England, there lived a humble man whose job was to help people. Help them with rehabilitation. Help them rebuild. Help them be heard.
But there was one problem.
He could not, under any circumstances, type an email.
When faced with a service user who lawfully requested written communication as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act, this man – let’s call him Mr Angler – did what any brave, competent professional would do:
He sent a vague text at 6:00 PM on a Tuesday about a Friday meeting. Then he ghosted.
He did not provide context. He did not acknowledge previous emails. He did not include his own contact details. But he did instruct the disabled person – who had clearly explained they struggle with phone calls – to ring him if they had any questions.
It is unclear whether Mr Angler believes that writing is a dark art, a form of witchcraft, or simply a skill beyond his pay grade. What is clear is that reading his own case notes, familiarising himself with a documented disability adjustment, and responding in writing, must not have been in the job description.
The Voice Mail That Never Was
Somewhere in the ether, a voicemail was apparently left. Whether it ever existed remains unclear. But what does remain, loud and clear, is the disturbing pattern: ignore the disability adjustment, then blame the disabled person for being difficult.
This isn’t just incompetence. It’s weaponised indifference. A refusal to meet the most basic legal standards while hiding behind “technical issues” and “miscommunication.”
Public Role, Private Inconvenience
In the rare event that this sort of behaviour is challenged, the institution will often respond not with accountability – but with indignation. How dare you expect a public service to meet a public duty? How dare you document what happened?
Here, the disabled service user becomes the problem. Not because they broke any rules, but because they had the audacity to insist the rules be followed.
The Reasonable Expectation
Written communication is not a luxury. It is not a quirky preference. It is a right. And if someone cannot provide that – whether due to a disability of their own, or sheer unwillingness – then the answer is simple: pass it to someone who can.
This is not about vendettas. It’s about visibility. When basic accessibility is treated like an inconvenience rather than a legal responsibility, we all lose.
Final Thoughts
The man who couldn’t type still walks the halls of his grey building, possibly printing out emails just to ignore them in physical form. But we see him now – not as a villain, but as a cautionary tale.
Because when systems defend the indefensible, it’s not the typing that’s broken. It’s the culture.
The Reasonable Adjustment: Telling the stories that institutions would rather you whisper about.
Be First to Comment