Job Centre no access for disabled and pushchairs??

missmontana

bunny999 wrote: »

People with small kids/meal tickets don't have to sign on.

Bunny999 you seriously need to ease up!! Did you get out of the wrong side of bed?

A small kid a meal ticket? that's an awful thing to say.:mad:

missmontana

OnTheUp wrote: »

Thanks for that.. you know how it is though, not always someone there to help look after and even though he was there it wasnt "his day" so prob didnt want to have to take him off some where

Oh yes.. I know how it is! I really hope she manages to get the help she needs! makes me laugh it wan't his day, every day is his day as its his child!!!

daska

OnTheUp wrote: »

I was not trying to describe a buggy as a disability, I was grouping the difficulties both sets of people have in terms of access.

So what would she have done if there was no spare person to look after her sonwhilst in there? (please sounds so horrid to hear you refer to him as It)

It just seems ludicrous to me that you would have to arrive with a padlock and chain in a premises, I mean what would you padlock it to a table leg!!!!

What if your child is sleeping? And let me guess you would then be told for trying to attach a chain to their property!

Seems very odd practice to me, but hey maybe its just me that

'it' was a reference to the buggy, not to the child

OnTheUp_2-2

daska wrote: »

'it' was a reference to the buggy, not to the child

sorry you can see how i assumed you were refering to her son when you said about taking it to the shops.. would look abit odd a man walking round with an empty buggy

daska

OnTheUp wrote: »

It's not a case of being "simple", the place should be accessible. For example, this is an extreme, but a possibilty;

A woman has new born triplets and arrives at the job centre. "Would you come stairs please"

"Sure I'll just chuck these 3 new borns over my shoulder with one hand and chain up my buggy out of sight with my heavy chain that I've lugged down here"

Come on thats rediculous!!

Further more, when you fail to provide somewehere thats accessible, dont then interogate the person as to who the helping hand is. Thats appalling, just because you're on benefits it doesnt mean you sign away your rights to freedom and privacy

No, because if you turned up with newborn triplets they'd probably say, oh dear, I wonder if we can find a downstairs room. Even better, if you rang and explained, they might even defer your appointment until a more suitable time (my letters do tell me to let them know about things like that).

OnTheUp_2-2

gordikin wrote: »

Get the father(s) to look after your sprog(s) when you are due to 'sign on' may be a solution?

Firstly she was not signing on and secondly its slightly difficult for the "father" (sorry I do not see the neccesity to refer to "fathers" when discussing one child) who is working full time.

missmontana

daska wrote: »

No, because if you turned up with newborn triplets they'd probably say, oh dear, I wonder if we can find a downstairs room. Even better, if you rang and explained, they might even defer your appointment until a more suitable time (my letters do tell me to let them know about things like that).

also, she won't be on JSA, more likely IS, so when she needs to attend a Work Focused Interview, they will offer to pay for childcare, just a little pointer for the future.

OP, Daska is one of the more helpful posters on here!

daska

OnTheUp wrote: »

Firstly she was not signing on.

And that's the nub of the matter isn't it. This was an appointment that she was expecting to attend and that she could have rearranged to a more suitable time.

On top of that she had another person with her who could have helped by taking the child elsewhere in order to allow her to concentrate on what needed to be dealt with at the appointment. AFAIK you don't need to take the baby to prove it exists, a birth certificate, if needed, is normally considered more appropriate.

TBH, if he's that self-centred that he won't take his own child for a quick walk because 'it's not his day', then she's probably well rid of him.

daska

missmontana wrote: »

OP, Daska is one of the more helpful posters on here!

:A

Help! I have a reputation! :rotfl:

OnTheUp_2-2

missmontana wrote: »

Oh yes.. I know how it is! I really hope she manages to get the help she needs! makes me laugh it wan't his day, every day is his day as its his child!!!

Lol I know... he ceratinly has some growing up to do.

I think alot of people are happy to jump on this thread to pass judgement and ignore the principle of the question regarding accessibilty and the right to privacy.

I do not for one minute feel that it is justified to ask who the person holding your son is, just because they are present. Sure if they have reason to believe the father may be living at the property, then follow the right channels.

Pretty sure these people have protocols and pretty sure that they are flauting human rights laws, if they can justify removing someone benefits they are entitled to just because they would not reveal the identity of the person accompanying them... then I would enjoy arguing that one in court

Sadly my sister clearly falls into the catagory of "single mum on benefits" and I guess I will ahve to get used to narrow minded bigots who tarnish everyone with the same brush.

She has worked had, paid her taxes and worked upuntil 2 weeks before giving birth to her son. She did not ask for her !!!! of a partner to walk out on them and his responsibilties, but he did.

Perhaps some you would prefer she gave her son up for adoption and move herself onto the streets where "people like her" belong.