Disability Discrimination

Spoonie_Turtle

MalMonroe said:

This thread hasn't been posted on since June 2020 - still relevant?

Good spot, I didn't look back at the context of the thread.

easy

Spoonie_Turtle said:

The thing is, there are lots of invisible disabilities that make queuing difficult, and they're not all to do with mobility. Not all of them would necessarily result in a Blue Badge or a benefit award either (they might make life difficult but not quite score enough points, for instance). I don't know the legal position of needing to prove one's disability but I would be inclined to suggest taking it up with the shop manager, pointing out that this kind of harassment is absolutely not the way to be treating anybody, let alone someone who already finds it difficult to do the shopping.

But then you get the situation where anybody who can't be bothered to queue can say "please let me in,  I'm disabled" . 
I'm afraid I subscribe to the school of "no rights without responsibilities".  If you want the right to queue jump,  it's your responsibillity to carry something to show why you should be treated differently.

Muttleythefrog

easy said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

The thing is, there are lots of invisible disabilities that make queuing difficult, and they're not all to do with mobility. Not all of them would necessarily result in a Blue Badge or a benefit award either (they might make life difficult but not quite score enough points, for instance). I don't know the legal position of needing to prove one's disability but I would be inclined to suggest taking it up with the shop manager, pointing out that this kind of harassment is absolutely not the way to be treating anybody, let alone someone who already finds it difficult to do the shopping.

But then you get the situation where anybody who can't be bothered to queue can say "please let me in,  I'm disabled" . 
I'm afraid I subscribe to the school of "no rights without responsibilities".  If you want the right to queue jump,  it's your responsibillity to carry something to show why you should be treated differently.

Such as what? There is no universal system available... some disabled people get PIP (but carrying your award letter around and whether people would understand it is another matter), some have a blue badge (but targeted at those with mobility issues so restricted), some get ESA or an element of U/C to show they have limitations in ability to work... none of these things are likely to detail why queueing specifically is difficult and none would be widely understood by public even if they did. And that's just one activity and people may be even affected differently depending on what type or location of queuing.

But then you also have to consider many disabilities are indeed hidden and the actual risk of confrontation or query itself may prove disabling. 

So you can get an idea of why often 'disabled' relies on self declaration... which of course then invites scepticism.. in fact I've faced scepticism on MSE regarding my disabilities over the years despite actually screenshotting medical documents and benefit award details to validate.

No rights without responsibilities of course is a bit of a nonsense concept since I doubt any reasonable person would think for example babies should have zero rights... yet we know they have zero responsibilities and wouldn't even understand such (like some disabled people!) 

TBagpuss

easy said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

The thing is, there are lots of invisible disabilities that make queuing difficult, and they're not all to do with mobility. Not all of them would necessarily result in a Blue Badge or a benefit award either (they might make life difficult but not quite score enough points, for instance). I don't know the legal position of needing to prove one's disability but I would be inclined to suggest taking it up with the shop manager, pointing out that this kind of harassment is absolutely not the way to be treating anybody, let alone someone who already finds it difficult to do the shopping.

But then you get the situation where anybody who can't be bothered to queue can say "please let me in,  I'm disabled" . 
I'm afraid I subscribe to the school of "no rights without responsibilities".  If you want the right to queue jump,  it's your responsibillity to carry something to show why you should be treated differently.

I think the problem is that not all people with disabilities have something they can show, and your suggestion also assumes that the default is that people are lying about their needs.

Personally I would rather that a few people take advantage than that people with genuine needs are unable to aces the help they need.

All other considerations side, it's possible to have genuine disabilities but not to qualify for a blue badge or disability related benefits.
On a personal note, I recall a former neighbour of mine who developed serious disabilities - she had huge difficulty accessing any kind of services because she had no specific diagnosis (her neurology team had ruled out MS and brain tumours, for instance, there was no question that something had gone very seriously wrong.  in the end, her neurologist 'diagnosed' her - I can't remember the details but I think he looked up the Latin for 'broken brain' - but she had months where she could barely walk, struggled to speak when she was even slightly tired and  had various other problems, and wouldn't have had anything she could 'show' to a doorman 

I personally suffer from chronic pain and have some issues with grip and balance. I don't normally think of myself as disabled, I've just adapted to the limitations and work around what I can and can't do, but by most definitions I do in fact have a disability.  I absolutely cannot stand in trains or buses - I need a seat.
Fortunately London Transport's system allows you request a 'please offer me a seat' badge without demanding proof, which means that I am able to use public transport when I am in London. I imagine that there are a small number of people who misuse that system , but I suspect that they are few in number compared to those who need and use it legitimately. But I am not sure what I could produce to satisfy someone who decides that I 'didn't look disabled' that I did in fact need the accommodation. 

Spoonie_Turtle

Okay the formatting is going beserk on me, so I don't think I can quote properly.

I'm afraid I subscribe to the school of "no rights without responsibilities".  If you want the right to queue jump,  it's your responsibillity to carry something to show why you should be treated differently.

I understand where you're coming from, but you have it backwards.  We are not asking for any extra rights, we just want our access needs met which are a basic right - nondisabled people have their access needs met by default (a door they can open, steps they can use, announcements they can hear, visual information they can read) and when we ask for 'accommodations' it's because the default system or building or whatever has been set up in a way that excludes us. 

So specifically with the queueing, it's not that we want to queue jump, we just need to not be made ill by queueing.  For instance, if they provided seating that would solve most of our problems.  Or a ticketing system so people can wait in their cars, or on a seat with heaters nearby in colder weather for people who don't have cars.  Or perhaps if they provided slots, bookable but also that allowed any free ones to be filled just as people turn up (for those people who are happy to take the risk of waiting, with seats provided still), on a website that was usable for all (including blind people - website design often excludes them), that would probably solve almost all the problems caused by needing to wait.  

The fact that such options are deemed 'not feasible' or 'not reasonable' is simply because the companies don't think meeting access needs is important enough, NOT that they are not possible.  They make enough profit to afford it if they really wanted to.  And granted there will never be solutions that are perfect for everyone but meeting most people's needs results in only a very few needing something different.

born_again

TBagpuss said:

On a personal note, I recall a former neighbour of mine who developed serious disabilities - she had huge difficulty accessing any kind of services because she had no specific diagnosis (her neurology team had ruled out MS and brain tumours, for instance, there was no question that something had gone very seriously wrong.  in the end, her neurologist 'diagnosed' her - I can't remember the details but I think he looked up the Latin for 'broken brain' - but she had months where she could barely walk, struggled to speak when she was even slightly tired and  had various other problems, and wouldn't have had anything she could 'show' to a doorman 

That is osis. PIP comes in as it is based on lack of ability to do daily tasks etc, not diagnosis.

ANNOYED1

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Okay the formatting is going beserk on me, so I don't think I can quote properly.

I'm afraid I subscribe to the school of "no rights without responsibilities".  If you want the right to queue jump,  it's your responsibillity to carry something to show why you should be treated differently.

I understand where you're coming from, but you have it backwards.  We are not asking for any extra rights, we just want our access needs met which are a basic right - nondisabled people have their access needs met by default (a door they can open, steps they can use, announcements they can hear, visual information they can read) and when we ask for 'accommodations' it's because the default system or building or whatever has been set up in a way that excludes us. 

So specifically with the queueing, it's not that we want to queue jump, we just need to not be made ill by queueing.  For instance, if they provided seating that would solve most of our problems.  Or a ticketing system so people can wait in their cars, or on a seat with heaters nearby in colder weather for people who don't have cars.  Or perhaps if they provided slots, bookable but also that allowed any free ones to be filled just as people turn up (for those people who are happy to take the risk of waiting, with seats provided still), on a website that was usable for all (including blind people - website design often excludes them), that would probably solve almost all the problems caused by needing to wait.  

The fact that such options are deemed 'not feasible' or 'not reasonable' is simply because the companies don't think meeting access needs is important enough, NOT that they are not possible.  They make enough profit to afford it if they really wanted to.  And granted there will never be solutions that are perfect for everyone but meeting most people's needs results in only a very few needing something different.

Well said.
So many companies don't want to make reasonable adjustments.
And taking companies to court is stressful and the compensation is minimal.  

ANNOYED1

born_again said:

TBagpuss said:

On a personal note, I recall a former neighbour of mine who developed serious disabilities - she had huge difficulty accessing any kind of services because she had no specific diagnosis (her neurology team had ruled out MS and brain tumours, for instance, there was no question that something had gone very seriously wrong.  in the end, her neurologist 'diagnosed' her - I can't remember the details but I think he looked up the Latin for 'broken brain' - but she had months where she could barely walk, struggled to speak when she was even slightly tired and  had various other problems, and wouldn't have had anything she could 'show' to a doorman 

That is osis. PIP comes in as it is based on lack of ability to do daily tasks etc, not diagnosis.

Functional Neurological Disorder? Where nerve endings are in tact but the signals to the brain are disrupted. It often goes undiagnosed if doctors cant find a physical problem from the tests the do.

Harry8767

Hi take a photo of your blue badge on your phone .