Partner with IBS refused SSP

t0rt0ise

soolin wrote: »

No it doesn't, are you making this stuff up?

Just looking at my coeliac disease there have been several coeliacs attempting to get confirmation legally that coeliac - which is a biopsy proven condition has an automatic disabled label attached to it. No one, as far as I am aware, have ever got past the lower ends of the law trying to force a case as they just get laughed at.Even my DS who lives with bag loads of tablets just to attempt to allow him a normal life but who has been hospitalised with crohns nonetheless is not considered disabled and he manages to hold down a full time job with a mega commute. So although he has a chronic long term condition as he manages with huge expensive bags of drugs from the NHS. In his case he carries a card basically saying that he has immediate need of a toilet, and the companies he has worked for have been completely unfazed with him disappearing to the toilets in the middle of doing something else, even in a meeting.

Why do you think your son would not be considered disabled under the Act? I bet if it were put to a test he would be.

marliepanda

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Marliepanda

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

I've always stated that [STRIKE]it is a[/STRIKE] could be 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.

Everyone has said it 'could be'

Only you have gone on about how it is under the law no matter what someone perceives their own condition as. There is no law saying IBS is a disability no matter if the person thinks that its not bad enough to warrant that. Here is the quote where you said they 'ARE' disabled, not they could be disabled.

So those who may not consider themselves disabled whist IBS, due to it not effecting them everyday or if its mild that according to law they are disabled

You cannot cycle back to what everyone was saying all along to make your argument seem valid, saying you are misunderstood and were saying that all along.

nicechap

10 characters

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Undervalued

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

I wouldn't need to post more than my initial post if people knew the law.

So everybody is out of step but you?

Genuineguy03

Sorry Marlie but not everyone said it could be. And I haven't backed tracked either. As you have taken my statement that you have quoted out of context. Because I'm pretty sure I also said that if its long term and effects their daily activities. In other words even those who have a long term condition that effects their daily activities are deemed disabled under the law, even if they don't consider themselfs to be.

Am sure there's people out there that have HIV, that don't consider themselves disable, even though the law says they are!

nicechap

Its the same tactics as Donald trump uses, throw a dead cat into the room to deflect attention from their inadequacy. Confusing HIV with IBS.

The legislation explicitly says HIV, Cancer and Multiple Sclerosis are classed as a disability from the point of diagnosis. The legislation does not say that IBS is.

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Genuineguy03

Nicechap

I never said IBS was automatically deemed a disability under that act, like HIV is!

Some its not me confusing what I've said about IBS and how the act recognises HIV as an automatic disability.

I've always maintained that if a condition (including IBS) is long term, and effects their daily activities they are deemed disabled.

Because there condition would satisfy those two requirements that the act requires.

As far as I'm concerned no one has disproved that, probably because they can't.

marliepanda

If everyone is ‘confused’ by your post maybe you should rethink your way of writing.

Maybe start by including correct information.

LilElvis

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Nicechap

I never said IBS was automatically deemed a disability under that act, like HIV is!

Some its not me confusing what I've said about IBS and how the act recognises HIV as an automatic disability.

I've always maintained that if a condition (including IBS) is long term, and effects their daily activities they are deemed disabled.

Because there condition would satisfy those two requirements that the act requires.

As far as I'm concerned no one has disproved that, probably because they can't.

Far too simplistic a view. Countless conditions can be long term and affect a person's daily activities. It's the degree to which the condition affects someone which would be the determining factor, not just that it has an affect, which could be very minor.

nicechap

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Nicechap

I never said IBS was automatically deemed a disability under that act, like HIV is!

Some its not me confusing what I've said about IBS and how the act recognises HIV as an automatic disability.

I've always maintained that if a condition (including IBS) is long term, and effects their daily activities they are deemed disabled.

Because there condition would satisfy those two requirements that the act requires.

As far as I'm concerned no one has disproved that, probably because they can't.

Except that's not what the 10 year senior management expert with dyslexia and autocorrect said: -

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

...regards to IBS being a disability. Yes it is

...
If it ends up in dismissal and you decided to claim at tribunal, claim disability discrimination, you'll get more awarded in damages if successful.

....

nothing about long term or degree of effect.

BTW I'm not engaging in debate with them, I'm posting so other readers can see what a nonsense their posts are.