**Denied use of DISABLED toilet in jobcentre

seven-day-weekend

I am so glad you and your husband got your apologies. May I suggest you take a copy of the letter to the Jobcentre in case it happens again?

As for not saying what has happened to the man , with the best will in the world, you don't need to know that, it will be an internal disciplinary pocedure and is between him and his employers.

I certainly don't believe they will be 'laughing behind your back' as suggested in another post. Action will have been taken.

ShaShaSha

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I am so glad you and your husband got your apologies. May I suggest you take a copy of the letter to the Jobcentre in case it happens again?

As for not saying what has happened to the man , with the best will in the world, you don't need to know that, it will be an internal disciplinary pocedure and is between him and his employers.

I certainly don't believe they will be 'laughing behind your back' as suggested in another post. Action will have been taken.

Thank you, they didnt say that action will be taken against the said man, but I am hoping that something will be done. As much as id like to see the man sacked for what happened to my OH, I think its best he has some sort of disability/discrimination awareness training.

I must say, I generally see from everyones point of few - but some of the posts regarding certain disabilities have opened my eyes for instance autism - I didnt even think of the possibilities there, so everyones post have even helped me - hope it does the same for others.

And for the people who didnt read all posts, THERE WASNT A NORMAL TOILET, ONLY A DISABLED ONE

thanks for the support everyone

kunekune

I quite agree that he should have been permitted to use the disabled toilet. But - and I'm sure that someone else will have pointed this out - why on earth is that the only toilet? I thought job centres had been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Not providing toilets for your 'clients' - people who don't have any choice but to be there, and face penalties if they disappear before they are seen - smacks of the dehumanisation of the unemployed I remember from the 1970s.

seven-day-weekend

I too think it is quite wrong that they have no toilets for their customers.

ShaShaSha

kunekune wrote: »

I quite agree that he should have been permitted to use the disabled toilet. But - and I'm sure that someone else will have pointed this out - why on earth is that the only toilet? I thought job centres had been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Not providing toilets for your 'clients' - people who don't have any choice but to be there, and face penalties if they disappear before they are seen - smacks of the dehumanisation of the unemployed I remember from the 1970s.

I agree totally. I posted a few pages ago about the possibility its discriminating against non disabled people! I mean if the provide a small toilet, then they should provide a disabled one to make it fair. But if they provide a disabled toilet, they should provide a normal one - or allow people to use the same one, dont u think?


If there had been a normal toilet, this wouldnt have been a problem as u wouldnt require security to let him in. Also want to point out how bad this is for pregnant woman too, or anyone whos not feeling well as pointed out in previous posts - disabled or not, some people need a loo nearby at all times!

dmg24

kunekune wrote: »

I quite agree that he should have been permitted to use the disabled toilet. But - and I'm sure that someone else will have pointed this out - why on earth is that the only toilet? I thought job centres had been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Not providing toilets for your 'clients' - people who don't have any choice but to be there, and face penalties if they disappear before they are seen - smacks of the dehumanisation of the unemployed I remember from the 1970s.

Had you read the thread you would find this has already been addressed. Toilets were phased out due to them being used for drug abuse, and all sorts of other unsavoury activities. The problem had become so bad that, to keep the toilets open, there would need to be a member of staff in attendance at all times. The cost of this would amount to approx £15,000,000 per year.

It is nothing to do with dehumanisation, but rather a sad reflection of how some members of society will ruin something for the rest of us.

[Deleted User]

dmg24 wrote: »

Had you read the thread you would find this has already been addressed. Toilets were phased out due to them being used for drug abuse, and all sorts of other unsavoury activities. The problem had become so bad that, to keep the toilets open, there would need to be a member of staff in attendance at all times. The cost of this would amount to approx £15,000,000 per year.

It is nothing to do with dehumanisation, but rather a sad reflection of how some members of society will ruin something for the rest of us.

Yup I remember my local JCP first tried those funny lights that stop injecting drug users being able to find veins. I then couldnt use the toilet even though they were available as the lights effected my epilpesy.
Somehow they got round the lights and carried on anyway but not just injecting, smoking crack and pot in there, I was told by my then advisor they were even having sex in there could they not wait till they got home!!!!
So there are now no public toilets at all, must go before you leave home and hope you are not kept waiting for long.

kunekune

I still think it's wrong and horrific. I also have very strong doubts about the truth of these stories. They stink of the "and she had sixteen children by fourteen fathers and got £2000 a week in benefit" stories the tabloids love to run. Don't get me wrong: I have two disabled family members, and believe in the importance of toilets that are accessible. But it would be awful if people just uncritically believed urban myths about how "other" unemployed people were scum, using the toilets to take drugs. There may be the occasional abuse, but there are much better ways of dealing with this than treating everyone like a primary school kid. Those who are in need shouldn't turn round and attack others who are in similar need. We're not talking people being there for 5 minutes. And the job centres aren't in places where there are plenty of public toilets around.

And now, I'll go and wrap myself in some flame-proof plastic, as I suspect a pro-beneficiary approach goes down pretty badly around much of MSE, even if this board is usually a haven of compassion. I won't dive in again.

seven-day-weekend

dmg24 wrote: »

Had you read the thread you would find this has already been addressed. Toilets were phased out due to them being used for drug abuse, and all sorts of other unsavoury activities. The problem had become so bad that, to keep the toilets open, there would need to be a member of staff in attendance at all times. The cost of this would amount to approx £15,000,000 per year.

It is nothing to do with dehumanisation, but rather a sad reflection of how some members of society will ruin something for the rest of us.

I did read that on the thread but still think it is wrong we should all have to suffer due to the actions of a few junkies. I don't think you get the same behaviour in toilets in shops - the ones I go in are always very clean and tidy with not a drug addict in sight. Same with the public toilets in the Civic Centre in my home town. . So why this huge problem in the Jobcentre? Of course SOME of their clientele will be junkies, but surely not the vast majority?

Why not just ban the junkies from the Jobcentre and take their benefits off them until they learn to behave? They must know who they are!

seven-day-weekend

A good example here: My husband suffers from Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Sometimes it is worse than others.

Today it is really bad and he can't go out unless he can be near a toilet. Now, what if he had to go to the Jobcentre? He is not 'disabled' (although today he is), so would not be allowed to use the toilet.

His only option would be to ring up and say he couldn't go. Then what would happen to any benefits he may be entitled to? And would they accept 'I can't come as I won't be allowed to use the toilet' as a valid reason?

Stupid decision, removing the toilets for the sake of the behaviour of a very small minority.