Talk:Joey Deacon

Karma...
..is a powerful motivator. Like most of my generation, I too mocked my peers and pretty much anyone else with taunts of 'Joey'. Recently I figured the least I could do to redress this karmic imbalance was read Joey's book 'Tongue Tied', and managed to track down one of the only remaining copies in the Norfolk library system. I must confess, I'm glad I did - in the face of constant adversity and the deaths of nearly all of his immediate family throughout his lifetime, the stoicism Joey Deacon displays is truly remarkable. It saddens me now that for many, the memory of Joey Deacon is simplified to a spot on Blue Peter and a gurning expression. If you dig beneath the surface you'll find that the man was really quite intelligent, cared deeply about his friends and family, and helped bring the handicapped out of state institutions and into our social conscience.

Loss of footwear
Joey did NOT lose his shoe in the Thames with Simon Groom. He was merely reminiscing about an incident that occurred during his childhood - a kind of 'dramatic reconstruction' if you will.
 * That's interesting because the creativeness at my school went further. If one self-called a mistake or a stupid act, you would say as a homage to Joey, "where's ma shoes?". Well done Biddy Baxter for pushing your Tory-honed, middle-class views throughBlue Peter, you instantly gave the youth of Thatcher's Britain something to remember!109.150.42.81 (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Name Frequency
I don't know this for sure, but following Joey's Blue Peter appearance I feel that incidences of people naming their children Joey would have declined - possibly only to recover after Friends made its debut. Does anyone know where I can get this information (NameVoyager is wonderful but it's for American name usage). DavidFarmbrough 08:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Cause of death???
Complications due to his condition pneumonia, I think.

Notability
Joey is notable because of his book, tv appearances, and cultural impact, but I have a suspicion that his account of the treatment of physically handicapped people in mental institutions in the early part of the last century may be very rare. Are there any comparative examples? DavidFarmbrough 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What's with the animated GIF?
That endlessly looping GIF looks rather bizarre. Is there a point to it being animated instead of a simple screenshot? --Last Malthusian 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I added that gif from a limited choice. I had about two other options, one of which was his head cut out from the background at an odd angle, and another which was a bad photo'. The moving gif illustrates the visible effects of his cerebral palsy and the reason for some of the mockery. I was also impressed with its economy, especially in these days of www graphic bloat (It's a 38K file).DavidFarmbrough 09:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The animation is too short to illustrate how he actually moves - looped, it looks like he's on a bed zooming round and round in circles in front of endless ranks of grey-suited men, while shaking his head. Couldn't a single frame of that GIF be used? --Last Malthusian 10:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done this, but it doesn't seem quite right - it just makes him look like Davros. If you compare the two, I still think the animated one is better. Perhaps someone can scan in a decent picture.

DavidFarmbrough 12:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * These two images look the same to me. Either is better than the animated one, IMHO. Whilst it's entertianing, it dosn't really add much to the article. Naturenet | Talk 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this really true?
"His mother had a fall during pregnancy, which caused Joey's cerebral palsy." Falling over causes cerebral palsy?
 * It doesn't always happen, but it appears to have been the case here. DavidFarmbrough 06:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This does not make any sense, and I am removing the sentence. In the book (linked to), Mr Deacon mentions the fall but (rightly) does not go as far as to attempt to prove any kind of causality.Jimjamjak (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

First brought to UK public attention
Blue Peter 1981? No no no. Ages before that. A (feature length?) dramatization of his life was shown in the mid-70's on the Beeb, and at primetime too. If this was the Horizon programme referenced then it was an unusually non-documentary one and I'm fairly confident the series wasn't around 30-odd years ago. So - anyone know? I cannot be the only one who remembers this. I was about 9 years old at the time and was astonished years later when people started referencing him as I knew nothing about the Blue Peter appearance. I'll see what I can find out but the admittedly few quick searches over the years haven't thrown up much so far. Plutonium27 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the Horizon programme mentioned. IMDB says Horizon was first broadcast in1964 and the Joey Deacon programme was 1974. I remember watching it as well. 91.110.146.254 MidlandLinda (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Joeydeacon2.gif
Image:Joeydeacon2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It was explained in the image page - go back and look - also now explained againon your talk page and on the discussion page! The rationale, just to repeat, is "This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots is fair use." DavidFarmbrough (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mocked as a "Joey"
There's no reference to a source to suggest this continues in the present day. The source referenced is some guy's blog post from 2006 about how for people of his generation "all such thoughts and conversations [about insulting words relating to disability] immediately conjure up one special name....Joey Deacon!" I'm 25, I grew up and attended school throughout the 90s, and have never mocked anyone as a "Joey" and working in schools for the last 3 years or so I am yet to hear the words 'spastic' 'scope' 'scoper' or 'Joey' used as insults. I would suggest that the article is changed to read something more like "during the 1980s if a person tripped over or happened to otherwise compromise themselves, they may have been mocked as a "Joey"." 188.221.105.22 (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does not suggest that the term "Joey" is used currently—i.e., in the 2020s. The article notes the use of the term in response to the 1981 Blue Peter broadcast, which I watched as a child. If you're my age, then yes "Joey Deacon" is a name which comes to mind when considering cruel terms of abuse used for disabled people. The mockery at the time was sickeningly awful and unforgettable.


 * It's not justifiable to use text such as "during the 1980s if a person tripped over or happened to otherwise compromise themselves, they may have been mocked as a "Joey"." without a reliable source. "Joey" as a term of abuse did not last long as far as I recall.


 * Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ae you kidding? Spastic is a VERY common insult in the uk, as well as the variant "spacker". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.205.93 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember the mocking well in the 80s saying "Joey" or "Joey Deacon" slowly. But Ive not heard those names since. Spastic is still common though. --  RND    T    C   09:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone got a source on this? As an '80s kid, I don't remember using or hearing used the word "Joey" as a term of abuse. "Spastic" or "spaz" I clearly remember. Optimus Sledge (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As a school girl in the '80s with the name Joanne, I was often taunted with the cry "Joey Deacon" whilst the offender pulled his best "spastic" face. Very common, and even to this day, I dislike being called "Joey" even as an affectionate term. Children are cruel, but I would like to think that those who tormented me in my youth occasionally stop to consider the great good Joey Deacon did in raising awareness of the plight for institutionalized disabled people 109.233.8.59 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In Ireland, it gradually morphed from Joey to Joeh to Duhhh and is still used. Don't know if it's still the case in the UK. Donnacha (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Impact trimmed
I am concerned about how much of the cultural impact section has been lost. Joey is quite an important cultural icon and to remove about 3/4 of the citations really makes it look as though he wasn't important. I am going through the history and seeing what I can reinstate. If there are good arguments given for the removal, I will address them here. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edits, they seem to have been done for lack of citation. I have now reinstated the missing sections partially and have added citations for all that were previously missing. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Blue Peter is a children's television programme: Joey Deacon's appearance primarily affected the audience. That is, children, not the middle aged.


 * The response to Joey Deacon's appearance on Blue Peter was unquestionably culturally significant, given that it was so wide-spread: every school child in the country, their teachers, and their parents knew about the cruel mockery. Thus, its effects were far more widespread than any effects he might have had on the behaviour of care professionals, many of whom even now haven't got the message that people with disabilities are people first and foremost.


 * Those of us who were children at the time have grown up and a lot of us DID learn that lesson very, very strongly: his cultural impact continues to be significant in British society. After all, millions of children were affected, and many of those children now have children and grandchildren of their own and are making an effort to ensure that the current crop of youngsters grow up better than us.


 * The articles which mention the cruel abuse are not pejorative: they simply record historical fact. This is an encyclopaedia: it's supposed to record the truth, however unpleasant it might be. Should we leave out all references to the nastiness of anti-semitism? Of course not—prejudice against the disabled is very much the same sort of thing.


 * Certainly, the mockery in question was insulting: that is a very good reason to keep it in the article. Even now, people with disabilities suffer cruel mockery and discrimination—I think you'll find that most of them would much rather the nasty truth be told than for it to be removed from an encyclopaedia because some people think we should pretend that everything's fine and hunky-dory.


 * Joey Deacon was a cultural phenomenon who continues to have lasting effects on British society, in large part because of the response to his television appearance by immature minds which later grew up having learnt a lesson.


 * Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joey Deacon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116180544/http://www.judascow.com/jistory.html to http://www.judascow.com/jistory.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111031050048/http://www2.disappointment.com/old/joeydeacon/tongue9.htm to http://www.disappointment.com/old/joeydeacon/tongue9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Blue Peter and cultural impact
The cultural impact of Joey Deacon's appearance on Blue Peter needs to be kept precisely because so many people were so horrible and insensitive.

Yes, Blue Peter's coverage of Joey Deacon really did result in him being widely mocked by schoolchildren, as confirmed by the references. It was a significant cultural phenomenon of the time, and so should be noted here.

The fact that many children were insensitive and quite frankly horrible in their attitudes towards him is no reason to remove the fact that this happened. On the contrary, it's the reason to include the information.

And after all, what use would any encyclopaedia be if it failed to include information about history which wasn't very nice?

If you personally are unaware of the historical use of "Joey" as a term of abuse - well, that just means you weren't around at the time. This is significant historical information which should be recorded. I was a child at the time and clearly recall how horrible many of my peers were towards Joey Deacon.

Do you really think that disabled people want information about cruel attitudes and behaviour towards disabled people glossed over or removed from the record? Ask yourself if you think that Jewish people want information about the Holocaust to be suppressed. Yes, in this case, bringing up a Nazi connection is justified: see Aktion T4.

Yes I know there are an awful lot of steps between "Joey" as a term of abuse to actual mass murder of the disabled, but it starts with the bad attitudes towards disabled people that led to people mocking Joey Deacon as they did.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)