nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

[Deleted User]

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

CelticRambler

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.
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?

As it happens, that very point-of-principle is forcing many businesses out of mediaeval town centres in France. Legislation means that you're not allowed offer a service to the public if it's not available to all the public, and the vast majority of 12th century commercial buildings cannot be made wheelchair accessible.

So the atmospheric town centres are being deserted in favour of shiny, soulless out-of-town sheds. Too bad if you're an deaf-mute writer who used to enjoy a coffee under the eaves on the third floor café while penning your latest manuscript.

As for the dancefloor situation, the point-of-principle trumps everything, because even if a ramp was provided, the wheelchair users still won't be able to use the dancefloor. Why? Because you need working legs to be able to take part in the dances. :rolleyes:

seamus

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Imagine visiting a castle
....
Imagine a ski slope.
....
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.

Right. Reasonable attempts. I never said otherwise. Even the woman in the OP wasn't looking for anything more.

If you're creating something from scratch, then it's reasonable to require that you design it to accommodate disabled people.

The guy I was quoting was creating an event from scratch. This requires that they design it with the disabled in mind. They didn't build dancefloors inside the moat in the 1600s.

seamus

CelticRambler wrote: »

As for the dancefloor situation, the point-of-principle trumps everything, because even if a ramp was provided, the wheelchair users still won't be able to use the dancefloor. Why? Because you need working legs to be able to take part in the dances. :rolleyes:

There are a lot of wheelchair users who'd like to have a chat with you about that.

I've seen people in motorised chairs with advanced MND, ripping up dancefloors (figuratively).

Cantona's Collars

The former politician David Blunkett is an avid football fan and goes to matches all the time,he doesn't sue the club's because he's blind.
This woman is a fooking eejit.
I've been at events and in clubs with deaf people and they simply got near to the speakers to "feel" the music.

Chrongen

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?"

Seamus, while the poster's language was crass and crude the sentiment is valid. If a person with a disability can't avail of an amenity/activity then said amenity/activity should be accessible to nobody?

Take a funfare. There are plenty of games/rides/contests that would all have to be scrapped if they were supposed to be accessible/enjoyable to all. As a grown man should the kiddy bumpers or merry-go-round be abolished because I can't fit in the cars? What about the air-gun rifle range and bow and arrow shooting balloons? How can a blind person or person with one arm do these? I'm probably missing the point and I'm sorry if I am. I don't want the disabled to miss out on anything. Paraplegics should be able to do a skydive with a dude guiding them down, etc. But the dancefloor thing is just plain unfair. At holiday resorts there are sea-bars that you can wade out to and sit on a stool that's below the surface and drink beer at the bar. These are in no way wheelchair accessible as a wheelchair can barely traverse dry sand on a beach never mind sand underwater. Yeah a person could carry a wheelchair bound person out to the water-bar and plonk them on a stool for a few cocktails but the thing is still not wheelchair accessible. Should it be shutdown to those who can access it freely without assistance?

seamus

Chrongen wrote: »

Seamus, while the poster's language was crass and crude the sentiment is valid. If a person with a disability can't avail of an amenity/activity then said amenity/activity should be accessible to nobody?

You're coming at it wrong.

If you do not design a new amenity/activity with disabled access included, then you should not be permitted to open that to the public.

There is no mention of being required to modify existing amenities to suit, simply requiring that new public attractions being constructed, include disabled access by default.

The poster was part of a new venue that was being opened to the public, not an existing venue being closed down because it wouldn't change.

And even then I expect that the wording of the law includes a get-out clause that recognises that some attractions cannot be so modified due to their nature; such as a wild walking trail or a swimming pool.

Chrongen

seamus wrote: »

Right. Reasonable attempts. I never said otherwise. Even the woman in the OP wasn't looking for anything more.

If you're creating something from scratch, then it's reasonable to require that you design it to accommodate disabled people.

The guy I was quoting was creating an event from scratch. This requires that they design it with the disabled in mind. They didn't build dancefloors inside the moat in the 1600s.

And if I design a temporary climbing wall (from scratch) with an abseiling rope down the other side for the local town fare and anyone can have a go, how exactly do I design that with the disabled in mind unless the only stipulation is that the disabled be able to actually see the wall.

Reasonable is certainly possible for a lot of things but determines how much money should be shelled out for a reasonable request? If I'm giving a free poetry recital and people are asked to give donations most of which will go to a charity. Now let's say donations amount to £50 so I pocket £10 and give the £40 to a charity. However some deaf guy wants a sign-interpreter provided but the only one available costs £100. Should the recital be called off?

gmisk

Chrongen wrote: »

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:

Some cinema already provide headsets that audio describe the film.

I have zero sympathy for this lady, they provided a sign language person for little mix as requested plus LHG Live also provided upgraded tickets, access to private accessible toilets and all public announcements on giant screens either side of the main stage...what more does she want like!

seamus

Chrongen wrote: »

And if I design a temporary climbing wall (from scratch) with an abseiling rope down the other side for the local town fare and anyone can have a go, how exactly do I design that with the disabled in mind unless the only stipulation is that the disabled be able to actually see the wall.

Reasonable is certainly possible for a lot of things but determines how much money should be shelled out for a reasonable request? If I'm giving a free poetry recital and people are asked to give donations most of which will go to a charity. Now let's say donations amount to £50 so I pocket £10 and give the £40 to a charity. However some deaf guy wants a sign-interpreter provided but the only one available costs £100. Should the recital be called off?

You do understand what the word "reasonable" means, right? It's pretty simple. If providing disabled access is excessively expensive, time-consuming or straight-out nonsensical (such as providing a spinning class for wheelchair users), then it's not reasonable.

Where providing disabled access does not place excessive burden on the event organiser, I don't see the problem.

Like including a ramp for disabled people to access a dancefloor.

gmisk wrote: »

what more does she want like!

She doesn't want to have to threaten legal action every time she wants to be treated equally. She's fighting it on principle, not for compensation.

Chrongen

seamus wrote: »

You're coming at it wrong.

If you do not design a new amenity/activity with disabled access included, then you should not be permitted to open that to the public.

There is no mention of being required to modify existing amenities to suit, simply requiring that new public attractions being constructed, include disabled access by default.

The poster was part of a new venue that was being opened to the public, not an existing venue being closed down because it wouldn't change.

And even then I expect that the wording of the law includes a get-out clause that recognises that some attractions cannot be so modified due to their nature; such as a wild walking trail or a swimming pool.

I fully understand that and it's fair but I gave the example of beach bars. Also what about that rope bridge in Donegal, I think, that people go across just for the views. I don't think that is or could be in anyway wheelchair accessible/friendly.

Another question is this. If somebody is providing an amernity that just cannot be done by a wheelchair bound person no matter what...BUT access to that activity can be provided at exorbitant cost, should the provider bear the brunt of that cost just because someone thinks that those in a wheelchair should still be able to access the location of the activity even if they can never take part?

Chrongen

seamus wrote: »

You do understand what the word "reasonable" means, right? It's pretty simple. If providing disabled access is excessively expensive, time-consuming or straight-out nonsensical (such as providing a spinning class for wheelchair users), then it's not reasonable.

Where providing disabled access does not place excessive burden on the event organiser, I don't see the problem.

Like including a ramp for disabled people to access a dancefloor.

She doesn't want to have to threaten legal action every time she wants to be treated equally. She's fighting it on principle, not for compensation.

Well Seamus, now it's YOU who is coming at it wrongly. Let's go back to the original situation. The promoters provided an interpreter. Unfortunately that interpreter wasn't prepped to sign for the support act as well as the main act. This, in my view, was a mistake....an oversight if you will.
Consider a situation whereby there is an event at an auditorium and everyone is settled into their chairs and ready for the show. At some point during the show a small section of the auditorium falls foul of some malfunction. The sound for that section becomes intermittent or the lighting experiences erratic glitches or the closest toliet to that section gets blocked. Now the people in that section have had a "lesser" experience than all the other audience members through a mishap, accident or oversight that wasn't done on purpose. It's probably reasonable for them to get a partial refund for their degraded entertainment experience. A full refund would be a stretch but not beyond the realms of the unthinkable. A lawsuit, however, to me would be a fucking piss-take and, quite frankly, opportunistic and frivolous.

Scotty #

I recently fitted out a new bar in a newly licensed premises. As part of the conditions of the license the bar had to provide (a minimum of) 2 meters of 'wheelchair accessible' bar counter space. We were only informed after the counter was in so we had to modify it and only had 5 meters of counter to begin with. So now they have 3 meters of normal height counter and 2 meters of half height counter. Not only that, but there must be 6 sq meters of 'unhindered floor space' at the wheelchair bar area which means he also lost two 'pillars' of 4-6 seats each. I've been in the pub on about 6 occasions since it opened. Each time it was packed but I've yet to see anyone in a wheelchair in there.

seamus wrote: »

I mean, if it costs (say) €200 an hour for the interpreter, then that would be reasonable...

They also modified the stage, lighting, and routine to accommodate the interpreter. They should have just put up a karaoke screen. Or, maybe they offered that but she insisted on an interpreter. She did provide the details of the actual interpreter she wanted after all.

nullzero

This deaf person should be grateful for not being able to hear little mix's music.

lawred2

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.

I can't see her point

at all

the poor kid is deaf and that's tragic - but it's not called a disability for nothing.

music is to be heard is it not?

lawred2

CelticRambler wrote: »

As it happens, that very point-of-principle is forcing many businesses out of mediaeval town centres in France. Legislation means that you're not allowed offer a service to the public if it's not available to all the public, and the vast majority of 12th century commercial buildings cannot be made wheelchair accessible.

So the atmospheric town centres are being deserted in favour of shiny, soulless out-of-town sheds. Too bad if you're an deaf-mute writer who used to enjoy a coffee under the eaves on the third floor café while penning your latest manuscript.

As for the dancefloor situation, the point-of-principle trumps everything, because even if a ramp was provided, the wheelchair users still won't be able to use the dancefloor. Why? Because you need working legs to be able to take part in the dances. :rolleyes:

that's not really happening is it?

CrankyHaus

10000maniacs

Liberal fascism and political correctness are going to be kicked into touch very soon with an ass kick so hard it will knock them into oblivion.
Liberal dog whistle protests against every little perceived discrimination are driving the middle ground into a rage that is going to manifest itself at some stage.

lawred2

10000maniacs wrote: »

Liberal fascism and political correctness are going to be kicked into touch very soon with an ass kick so hard it will knock them into oblivion.
Liberal dog whistle protests against every little perceived discrimination are driving the middle ground into a rage that is going to manifest itself at some stage.

rage?

Chrongen

10000maniacs wrote: »

Liberal fascism and political correctness are going to be kicked into touch very soon with an ass kick so hard it will knock them into oblivion.
Liberal dog whistle protests against every little perceived discrimination are driving the middle ground into a rage that is going to manifest itself at some stage.

And those loony lefty liberals promote the likes of you to have the freedom of speech to vent this crap too. The nerve of them.

weldoninhio

lawred2 wrote: »

I can't see her point

at all

the poor kid is deaf and that's tragic - but it's not called a disability for nothing.

music is to be heard is it not?

No kid is deaf in this story.

10000maniacs

lawred2 wrote: »

rage?

Well in my case a placard with "Down with that sort of thing", but this kind of politically correct stuff is wrong. Another pet peeve is the "me too" witch-hunts against high profile people who are tried by twitter. There needs to be due process in a court of law before a persons career is potentially ruined on social media.

CelticRambler

lawred2 wrote: »

that's not really happening is it?

Yep. I have an acquaintance who used to be the guy who evaluated accessibility for persons of reduced mobility. He lost his job because the creators/purchasers of so many town-centre businesses (myself included) couldn't move forward with commercial projects, because the only "reasonable" solutions would involve so much destruction of the character of (or usable space in) the candidate buildings that the project lost all sense of what it was about.

seamus wrote: »

You do understand what the word "reasonable" means, right? It's pretty simple.

Where providing disabled access does not place excessive burden on the event organiser, I don't see the problem.

Like including a ramp for disabled people to access a dancefloor.

seamus wrote: »

There are a lot of wheelchair users who'd like to have a chat with you about that.

I've seen people in motorised chairs with advanced MND, ripping up dancefloors (figuratively).

And I'd be quite happy to chat to those wheelchair users too, to find out exactly how they'd manage a closed waltz hold with a "normal" person (say 5'10") doing a slow mazurka, or achieve smooth sideways motion while facing forward when doing an An Dro, or how confident would they be that their partner could get them back in their chair on the right beat at the end of the third phrase of une crouzade volante.

Because we get about a hundred wheelchair users coming to the festival every year (2% of our attendance) and guess what - none of them dance ... because they can't.

It's the same with that woman in the OP. She claims to only be interested in having the same experience as her daughter, but that's never going to happen. The daughter was listening to four singers singing, the mother was watching some unknown woman miming on a different stage. Whatever the mother thought she was doing, she wasn't sharing her daughter's experience.

lawred2

weldoninhio wrote: »

No kid is deaf in this story.

Jeez you're right - it's the Mum that's deaf

It's even more ridiculous now

[Deleted User]

If anyone is curious, this is the level of sh1t the woman demanded access to

"Shout Out To My Ex"

This is a shout out to my ex
Heard he in love with some other chick
Yeah yeah, that hurt me, I'll admit
Forget that boy, I'm over it
I hope she gettin' better sex
Hope she ain't fakin' it like I did, babe
Took four long years to call it quits
Forget that boy, I'm over it

Guess I should say thank you
For the "hate yous" and the tattoos
Oh baby, I'm cool by the way
Ain't sure I loved you anyway
Go 'head, babe, I'mma live my life, my life, yeah

Shout out to my ex, you're really quite the man
You made my heart break and that made me who I am
Here's to my ex, hey, look at me now, well, I
I'm all the way up, I swear you'll never bring me down
Shout out to my ex, you're really quite the man
You made my heart break and that made me who I am
Here's to my ex, hey, look at me now, well, I
I'm all the way up, I swear you'll never, you'll never bring me down

Oh, I deleted all your pics
Then blocked your number from my phone
Yeah yeah, you took all you could get
But you ain't getting this love no more
'Cause now I'm living so legit (so legit)
Even though you broke my heart in two, baby
But I snap right back, I'm so brand new, baby (I'm so brand new)
Boy, read my lips, I'm over you, over you

Guess I should say thank you
For the "hate yous" and the tattoos
Oh baby, I'm cool by the way
Ain't sure I loved you anyway
Go 'head, babe, I'mma live my life, my life, yeah

Shout out to my ex, you're really quite the man
You made my heart break and that made me who I am
Here's to my ex, hey, look at me now, well, I
I'm all the way up, I swear you'll never bring me down
Shout out to my ex, you're really quite the man (You're really quite the man)
You made my heart break and that made me who I am
Here's to my ex, hey, look at me now, well, I
I'm all the way up, I swear you'll never, you'll never bring me down
You'll never bring me down

Shout out to my ex, you're really quite the man
You made my heart break and that made me who I am
Here's to my ex, hey, look at me now, well, I'm
All the way up, I swear you'll never, you'll never bring me down

Shout out to my ex, you're really quite the man (You're quite the man)
You made my heart break and that made me who I am
Here's to my ex, hey, look at me now, well, I
I'm all the way up, I swear you'll never bring me down (You'll never bring me down)
Shout out to my ex, you're really quite the man
You made my heart break and that made me who I am
Here's to my ex, hey, look at me now, well, I (you just look at me now)
I'm all the way up, I swear you'll never, you'll never bring me down

You'll never bring me down

DEFTLEFTHAND

10000maniacs wrote: »

Liberal fascism and political correctness are going to be kicked into touch very soon with an ass kick so hard it will knock them into oblivion.
Liberal dog whistle protests against every little perceived discrimination are driving the middle ground into a rage that is going to manifest itself at some stage.

Regressive Leftism not Liberalism.

inforfun

Cake of Tremendous Power wrote: »

If anyone is curious, this is the level of sh1t the woman demanded access to

"Shout Out To My Ex"

This is a shout out to my ex
Heard he in love with some other chick
Yeah yeah, that hurt me, I'll admit
Forget that boy, I'm over it
I hope she gettin' better sex
Hope she ain't fakin' it like I did, babe
Took four long years to call it quits
Forget that boy, I'm over it

Sounds like a concert to bring your 8-year old to.

old_aussie

Is this a sign of PC things to come?

B.A._Baracus

Seems as time goes by this world is turning into a sue culture.
That if things don't go your way sue sue sue until they do.

I'm waiting for the day until someone asks somebody out... then gets rejected.... then says the rejection caused them some depression or sh*t. Later tries to sue.
It'll probably be twisted into how the rejecter "handled it poorly" and "embarrassing" in public place (some crap like that, you know yourself!)