Partner with IBS refused SSP

Genuineguy03

Link to what maliepanda?

I just said law as in legislation, deems any condition (including IBS).

You guys are just deliberately misinterpreting me, or twisting what I have said. I've been clear that if its long term, and effects there daily activities, activities they otherwise be able to complete though not necessary prevent them from doing so every day. its a protected characteristic.

Yet here you are asking me to provide a link to legislation that specifically states IBS is a disability. That like asking someone to provide legislation that specifically states a person with one arm is disable.

And I don't recall specifically stating all cases of IBS amount to disability. For example if it effects them once in a blue moon, its isn't, and may not even be IBS. But if it effects them 1-2 days a week/fortnight and therefore impact on their daily activities it is. Even if it only means they'll need the toilet more often than not.speaking of which extra toilet breaks or more breaks amount to a reasonable adjustment.

Now no ones provided evidence to dispute what I've said. And I won't be providing any more to support what I have said as a result. Plus its not my job to do the research for those who believe what I said is wrong.

soolin

marliepanda wrote: »

So, link me to it?

Here is a google search with MANY IBS charities discussing how it can be, but it depends. Maybe you should give them all a ring and offer your information on how they are wrong and that it is ALWAYS a disability in law

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=is+ibs+a+disability&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB750GB750&oq=is+IBS+a+disability&aqs=chrome.0.0l6.2863j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Oh, you might want to write this in your 'little book of things you know about law' the only automatic qualifiers under the Equality Act are HIV, Cancer and MS. You will note IBS is not one of those 3...

Your final paragraph is all that needs to be said. Whether or not we agree with that definition , and many of us feel it leaves a lot of people out of receiving legal protection , that is the law.

marliepanda

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Link to what maliepanda?

I just said law as in legislation, deems any condition (including IBS).

Now no ones provided evidence to dispute what I've said. And I won't be providing any more to support what I have said as a result. Plus its not my job to do the research for those who believe what I said is wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

Clearly states IBS is not automatically considered a disability.

There is evidence disputing what you have said, now, please, refute it.

Genuineguy03

Were have I said specifically automatically disability such as terminal conditions, where you don't have to prove your disabled via how it effects your daily activities and weather its long term.

I have from the start stated if any condition (physical or mentally) is long term or effects their daily activities then it is a disability. The legislation say so itself.

What it doesn't do however is list every single possible condition. And it looks like this might be where all the confusion is coming from. In other words just because some conditions such as HIV are mentioned as a disability and therefore deemed autmatically covered as a disability with in the legislation. It doesn't mean conditions that aren't mentioned are deemed as a disability, because the legislation states if said condition is long term and effects their daily activities then the person us to be treated as disabled and therefore are protected under the equality act.

Even the government accepts them as disabled within the meaning of the legislation. Or are people seriously saying people in receipt of disability based benefits and legally deemed disabled by the government and disabled as per the equality act 2010. If you argued that in court you'd be laughed out of court.

Genuineguy03

Sorry meant to say "doesn't mean that conditions that aren't mentioned are NOT deemed a disability.

Genuineguy03

And "ARN'T disabled as per the equality act"

marliepanda

The confusion is coming from you, because everything you write is a wall of text of useless incorrect tosh.

You have no idea about the equality act. You have no idea of the actual implications of disability to employment and employment law.

You seem to think disability is a carte blanche to have the job tailored to suit, and it isn't.

Your views are dangerous and incorrect.

marliepanda

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

And "ARN'T disabled as per the equality act"

Maybe proofread before you post rather than continue with pointless additions which render the initial post even more gibberish than before.

Genuineguy03

Marliepanda

Not once have I stated IBS was automatically deemed a disability, like HIV and terminal conditions are.

I've always stated that it is a disability if it's a long term condition and has an effect on persons daily activities - Because that are the requirements under the equality act for a condition to be deem a disability, as far as the law is concerned.

Genuineguy03

I wouldn't need to post more than my initial post if people knew the law. And didnt then confuse the matter further by adding things I never stated in the first place, just to try disprove me.

Nor would I need to if the edit, button worked on tablet.