Little Mix sued for failing to provide an interpreter...

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-42776454

I can see her point...I just think obliging live acts to provide an interpreter seems like a step too far in placing onerous conditions on them.

Wheety

[Deleted User] wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-42776454

I can see her point...I just think obliging live acts to provide an interpreter seems like a step too far in placing onerous conditions on them.

It seems to me like they provided what she wanted for the Little Mix performance.

machiavellianme

:rolleyes: I've heard it all now...

Bob Harris

It's music. You're deaf. It's tragic that you can't hear it (well maybe not Little mix) but you have to accept reality.

It reminds me of this:

FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

STAN: I want to be one.

REG: What?

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG: What?!

LORETTA: It's my right as a man.

JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA: I want to have babies.

REG: You want to have babies?!

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: crying

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Kalyke

It was for the support act!

Jack Kanoff

How to the girls normally enjoy little mix? Do they watch TV and someone stands beside them signing? ...it's a bit daft to expect bands to provide signers...and if this goes to court and is successful...well theatre, live comedy acts etc all have to watch out as a precedent would be set

sbsquarepants

Sounds like a right cúnt.

(It's quite possible she doesn't realise that though:D)

Bob Harris

Jack Kanoff wrote: »

How to the girls normally enjoy little mix? Do they watch TV and someone stands beside them signing? ...it's a bit daft to expect bands to provide signers...and if this goes to court and is successful...well theatre, live comedy acts etc all have to watch out as a precedent would be set

The kids can hear it's the mothers who were bringing them to the concert who are deaf. Most parents who have to accompany kids to concerts usually wish they were deaf.

razorblunt

She's suing the promoter, not Little Mix.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

iamwhoiam

Some people are bloody entitled , they think the world owes them something . And the trouble is they then get it

Patser

razorblunt wrote: »

She's suing the promoter, not Little Mix.

Yes, and the promoter provided an interpretor for Little Mix but is being sued for not having the interpretor for the warm up acts.

As the interpretor had to be trained on the lyrics for the band, it does seem to put a lot of pressure on the promoter to also train them for lesser known warm up bands, that may change from gig to gig.

CardinalJ

What ever about Little Mix or a band with a big label/promoter behind them, what happens to the band playing whelans or some smaller music venue. How does an interpreter learn the lyrics? Live acts dont stick to the script.

buried

'Little Mix' PR company makes up ridiculous story about 'Little mix' so people be talking about 'Little mix' so people be finally knowing that 'Little Mix' is a pop band and not a small DJ set, bit of concrete etc

darkdubh

Entitlement much?

diomed

Never heard of them.

Mr.H

buried wrote: »

'Little Mix' PR company makes up ridiculous story about 'Little mix' so people be talking about 'Little mix' so people be finally knowing that 'Little Mix' is a pop band and not a small DJ set, bit of concrete etc

I thought we where talking about some pic n mix type company:D

tracey turnblad

Will they now provide audio description for visually impaired? Tbh while I kinda understand where she’s coming from she wouldn’t have seen much of little mix if she was looking at the interpreter

RobbingBandit

Queens of the Stone Age getting sued by this girl next for Songs for the deaf

wexie

"We consulted with her recommended agency and agreed to provide the professional interpreter of her choice for the Little Mix show.

"This included specific staging and lighting, and a set list in advance."

LHG Live also provided upgraded tickets, access to private accessible toilets and all public announcements on giant screens either side of the main stage.

Sounds to me the organizers went above and beyond to try and accommodate this lady.

"People with sensory impairment actually want to attend musical and sporting events just as anybody else does," he says.

"The fact that you have a hearing impairment or sight loss doesn't mean that you don't want to be at the event.

"So it is important that venues and promoters recognise that the legal duties to make reasonable adjustments extend to them.

What's a reasonable adjustment though?

seamus

Finding it hard to get outraged here, despite the "PC gone mad" slant some would like to put on it.

It's not like she turned up and got annoyed that there was no interpreter; she brought her disability to the promoter's attention and asked for a reasonable accommodation to be made, and the promoter just said "no".

Imagine if a person in a wheelchair asked the promoter if they could provide a ramp to access the venue and somewhere that they could be placed to see the stage, and the promoter's response was basically, "No". This is the same thing.

While it does appear to be petty that the woman is taking legal action even after an interpreter was eventually provided for the main act, it's clear that her intention here is set a more broad precedent. By providing the interpreter and a load of goodies, the promoter sought to buy their way out of it and make her go away. The next deaf person will be told "no". And that's not right - they shouldn't have to threaten legal action just to be treated with a bit of respect.

So she's taking legal action to highlight the obligations of event promoters (for any kind of event) towards the disabled.

sbsquarepants

The irony of this whole situation is that little mix videos are actually improved by turning the sound off.
Much like victorian children, little mix should be seen but not heard:D

(Especially the black one, I would very much like to see more of her!)

Tenigate

A dip**** dancing to a song while pulling silly faces and doing sign language isn't a proper interpretation.

I'd have printed out the lyrics and sat them on the of a speaker.. maybe provide a dildo for the mum so she can truly get off on little mix.

wexie

seamus wrote: »

So she's taking legal action to highlight the obligations of event promoters (for any kind of event) towards the disabled.

Which is fair enough I guess, how far do these obligations stretch though?

seamus

wexie wrote: »

Which is fair enough I guess, how far do these obligations stretch though?

any organisation supplying a service to the public is under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that a disabled person's experience is as close as possible to that of someone without a disability.

"As close as possible". That sounds reasonable to me. It doesn't oblige the organisation to give them VIP treatment, just to make accommodations that can be reasonably met.

I guess in this case the argument will hinge on the effort required to source an interpreter for a music performance, and whether that effort can be considered reasonable. I mean, if it costs (say) €200 an hour for the interpreter, then that would be reasonable for a huge venue, but not some pub with 300 people in it.

CelticRambler

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We're already there. I'm on the organising committee for a trad music and dance festival here in France. We wanted to put some small dance-floors in the moat of the castle, in whose grounds the festival takes place - stone walls, good for the non-amplified fiddles and accordions.

Fine, said the powers-that-be, as long as the dancefloors are wheelchair accessible. It's the law.

:eek:

The legless have 20ha and six other dancefloors that they can visit, and could park themselves on the edge of the moat and see/hear better than anyone else, but no, if they can't take their wheels down the staircase, then no-one else is going down there. :mad:

vandriver

Tenigate wrote: »

A dip**** dancing to a song while pulling silly faces and doing sign language isn't a proper interpretation.

I'd have printed out the lyrics and sat them on the of a speaker.. maybe provide a dildo for the mum so she can truly get off on little mix.

Well that escalated quickly.

jayobray

Looking forward to the look on the interpreter's face while they do the lyrics for a Cannibal Corpse gig

Peregrinus

wexie wrote: »

Which is fair enough I guess, how far do these obligations stretch though?

The obligation is to make "reasonable adjustments". What's "reasonable" in any case is going to depend on all the circumstances of the case, so it's not possible to lay down a one-size-fits-all rule. If you have an event with an audience of 4,000 paying a ticket price of 50 euros, you have a gate of 200,000 euros; you can certainly carry the costs of a sign language interpreter in that budget, so it's reasonable to expect you to provide one. It doesn't follow that if you're paying a local garage band 200 euros to perform in a pub with patrons paying no admission charge, you also have to pay for a sign language interpreter.

frag420

machiavellianme wrote: »

:rolleyes: I've heard it all now...

She didnt...:D

seamus

CelticRambler wrote: »

The legless have 20ha and six other dancefloors that they can visit, and could park themselves on the edge of the moat and see/hear better than anyone else, but no, if they can't take their wheels down the staircase, then no-one else is going down there. :mad:

It's funny that you can't even see the unjust discrimination in your own words.

"Why can't they just be happy with what they've got? Why should they be entitled to access the same things that us normals can?"

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It's funny that you can't even see the unjust discrimination in your own words.

"Why can't they just be happy with what they've got? Why should they be entitled to access the same things that us normals can?"

Out of interest would subtitles displayed somewhere be as good? Because even with an interpretor the only thing about the audio they're accessing is the lyrics.

CelticRambler

seamus wrote: »

It's funny that you can't even see the unjust discrimination in your own words.

"Why can't they just be happy with what they've got? Why should they be entitled to access the same things that us normals can?"

So by that logic, the Hokey-Cokey should be banned at parties, seeing as people with no right leg or left arm won't able to put it in/out/shake it all about?

CrankyHaus

seamus wrote: »

It's funny that you can't even see the unjust discrimination in your own words.

"Why can't they just be happy with what they've got? Why should they be entitled to access the same things that us normals can?"

Where access can be provided it should be mandatory to do so. However not using dancefloors because wheelchair access cannot be provided to them seems perverse in circumstances where multiple wheelchair accessible dancefloors exist in the venue.

On topic the woman seems either opportunistic or a little touched (with her solicitor pushing her along). I can't believe any parents would really feel like they're missing out by not knowing the lyrics of whatever teeny-bopper racket their 8 year olds love.

sbsquarepants

Hokey cokey should be banned certainly, not for that reason though. Just cos it's a load of shíte!

whoopsadoodles

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Hokey cokey should be banned certainly, not for that reason though. Just cos it's a load of shíte!

But that's what it's all about.

wexie

seamus wrote: »

It's funny that you can't even see the unjust discrimination in your own words.

"Why can't they just be happy with what they've got? Why should they be entitled to access the same things that us normals can?"

I dunno Seamus....I very much agree with the fact that reasonable action should be taken to ensure people with disabilities have as full a life experience as possible.

But when it comes to the attitude of 'if we can't make it safe or accessible for people with disabilities then nobody is allowed (as seems to be the case in the moat example above) then I have to say it kinda rubs me the wrong way.

I guess my main problem with these things tends to be the ones that end up in the news (like this one) cause one or both sides were being a knob and just couldn't come to a sensible solution together, nicely. EDIT : I'd imagine there are many many examples we never hear about because people sit down together over a cuppa and work out what's feasible and reasonable under the circumstances, or at least that's what I like to think

I think we should just outlaw being a knob

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest would subtitles displayed somewhere be as good? Because even with an interpretor the only thing about the audio they're accessing is the lyrics.

Yeah, maybe? Probably need a deaf person to comment on it. There might be something more energetic/interactive in a sign language interpretation, or it may be easier to watch someone sign than read lyrics from a screen.

CelticRambler wrote: »

So by that logic, the Hokey-Cokey should be banned at parties, seeing as people with no right leg or left arm won't able to put it in/out/shake it all about?

:rolleyes:

I guess my main problem with these things tends to be the ones that end up in the news (like this one) cause one or both sides were being a knob and just couldn't come to a sensible solution together, nicely.

Aha, but there shouldn't "sides" in the first place. Disabled people shouldn't have to fight for access or point out that they don't have it. Anything designed for public use should be designed from the ground up with disabilities taken into account.

I can totally understand frustration in the dancefloor example, but ultimately whoever designed it made a mistake. If it failed on health and safety grounds, you wouldn't say, "Anyone who doesn't want to die can go to one of the other dancefloors", you'd acknowledge that you messed up your design and correct it.

That's basically the point behind the legislation - so that disabled people don't have to spend their lives having to complain and fight their way to equal access. But rather so that equal access comes by default.

It's always fascinated me how deaf people only watch tv in the wee hours of the morning. That's when the sign language interpreter comes out, must only be available for night shifts.

Also, this is the best thing I've ever seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pagg6qpdkhI

dr.fuzzenstein

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Where access can be provided it should be mandatory to do so. However not using dancefloors because wheelchair access cannot be provided to them seems perverse in circumstances where multiple wheelchair accessible dancefloors exist in the venue.

On topic the woman seems either opportunistic or a little touched (with her solicitor pushing her along). I can't believe any parents would really feel like their missing out by not knowing the lyrics of whatever teeny-bopper racket their 8 year olds love.

I think I know her solicitor

valoren

She seems like the kind of person that when this goes to court for a 'hearing', she will complain about that as well.

Jack Kanoff

Bob Harris wrote: »

The kids can hear it's the mothers who were bringing them to the concert who are deaf. Most parents who have to accompany kids to concerts usually wish they were deaf.

Apologies..I had misread the article...and I agree, not hearing little mix is a blessing

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Finding it hard to get outraged here, despite the "PC gone mad" slant some would like to put on it.
...
Imagine if a person in a wheelchair asked the promoter if they could provide a ramp to access the venue and somewhere that they could be placed to see the stage, and the promoter's response was basically, "No". This is the same thing.

Yeah, I did say in the OP I can see her point. Maybe the issue is the whole "newness" of it all, we are used to wheelchair facilities, we are used to accommodation being made for other conditions, why not deaf. For me it sets the bar very high, on all acts and promoters of even the most minor performance, the local drama group etc. But if it's the law, so be it.

GLaDOS

Do they want all live performances to provide an interpreter? Would be a problem for smaller bands/promotors/venues. What about instrumental acts?

Chrongen

Would it be reasonable for a blind person to expect a cinema to provide those contraptions that plug sensors into your brain so you can "see" some of the images that others are seeing during the movie or would the cinema need to provide a person who could provide a running visual description of the movie scenes. Lawnmower Man and Total Recall could be a challenge or any sci-fi for that matter.....Inception :eek:

dr.fuzzenstein

seamus wrote: »

It's funny that you can't even see the unjust discrimination in your own words.

"Why can't they just be happy with what they've got? Why should they be entitled to access the same things that us normals can?"

Imagine visiting a castle and this castle has a tower.
This tower has a very narrow spiral staircase that able bodied people find challenging.
Should this tower be closed because the only way to get a wheelchair user up there is either by 4 strong blokes to carry him up (tower would have to be closed for an hour for that one), or by external winch?
Should the organiser be forced to build an external elevator at a cost of millions at every tower of every castle in the land?

Imagine a ski slope. It has a blue run, a red run and a black run. I am able to do the blue and the red run, but no way could I do the black run. Should the black run be closed, or should the organiser be forced to drive me down the black run on a Skidoo or should he be forced to build a special lift or gear-driven train so I can also enjoy the black run as well?

Maybe Mount Everest should be made wheelchair accessible.
The reality is that not everyone is able to access everything and while reasonable attempts should be made to accomodate evryone, the harsh reality is that not everything can be made accessible for everyone.
Life is tough.

Bob Harris

Will it be the same at cinemas? If you take a tour bus will there be a person signing the recorded audio
at the front of the bus? Will there be someone signing mass? The practicalities of implementing what this woman wants are quite simply not feasible in the majority of situations.
Some people have disabilities and the reality is that often they will affect their ability to enjoy and participate in certain activities.

wexie

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Imagine visiting a castle and this castle has a tower.
This tower has a very narrow spiral staircase that able bodied people find challenging..

I was just thinking about Hook light house earlier and trying to remember if there was a lift there or not

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The reality is that not everyone is able to access everything and while reasonable attempts should be made to accomodate evryone, the harsh reality is that not everything can be made accessible for everyone.
Life is tough.

The way is see it is that yes, reasonable accommodation needs to be made and in many cases probably isn't, or not without some hassle.

But equally, like you said, it's sometimes just not possible and then there are people who demand 'equality' where there just isn't any to be had. We're not all equal abled, equal bodied, equal minded etc. etc. and while that's not fair it's also not really something anybody can solve.

Tis not an easy situation

BattleCorp

seamus wrote: »

"As close as possible". That sounds reasonable to me. It doesn't oblige the organisation to give them VIP treatment, just to make accommodations that can be reasonably met.

I'm a Chinese deaf person and my deaf friend is from Papua New Guinea. We speak different languages. Can we have sign language interpreters too?

There's a speed rap music festival on too. Good luck getting someone who can sign to that.

Chrongen

The promotoer should have simply provided her with a pair of cheap binoculars.

"If you can sign then surely you can lip-read too. Enjoy the show" :pac: