Pathetic

[TriBsa]

12 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

And again !
Youve completely missed the point.
No one has said that a concert is all about 'just' listening to music, although I will say that is a major part of it.
What we are talking about is the womans expectation of 'full' enjoyment of said concert, which she clearly is never going to have, being deaf.
She has taken a high horse route, declaring she is entitled to full enjoyment as a paying guest.
There is no power on earth that can grant her wish, but she is clearly not happy with that.
So ,I will ask you again, what is she trying to achieve , money, publicity, notoriety, deaf rights ?

Offence. There are a whole plethora of minorities out there who feel empowered now that they have rights. Political Correctness is a jungle where all the minorities must jostle for position to advance their agenda often at the expense of other minorities. They advance this agenda by being predatory, their weapon of choice being offence. They seek out things that offend them, rather than let offence come to them. 

[grrclark]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

And again !
Youve completely missed the point.
No one has said that a concert is all about 'just' listening to music, although I will say that is a major part of it.
What we are talking about is the womans expectation of 'full' enjoyment of said concert, which she clearly is never going to have, being deaf.
She has taken a high horse route, declaring she is entitled to full enjoyment as a paying guest.
There is no power on earth that can grant her wish, but she is clearly not happy with that.
So ,I will ask you again, what is she trying to achieve , money, publicity, notoriety, deaf rights ?

The "full enjoyment of the concert" for her is unique to her own personal circumstance.  I daresay that she is acutely aware of her own limitations in having a hearing disability.

The  provision of a sign language interpreter allows her to appreciate the lyrics in time with the dancing, the light show, the theatre of the event and also the underlying beat of the music, she will still feel that if she cannot at least partly hear it.

Of course her appreciation of the gig would differ from someone with full hearing, but she still has an entitlement to enjoy that as best she can.

I do happen to think in this particular case the issue is one of principle rather than the specifics of this one event, however principle is critically important.

I am delighted that we are moving in a direction where society is more inclusive and we don't consign those with disabilities or physical limitations to a much more restrictive array of opportunity to enjoy themselves.

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

 

You just don’t get it do you? Does any of the above mean they shouldn’t complain if they get groped? And if they do complain,  would it be justifiable to be answered with your statement of what did you expect?

I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure most if not all of the hostesses there were there to work, and to get paid ( and tipped ) handsomely  for that work, and I’m equally sure there were some who had done it before, so were well aware of what could happen, but you have made a clear implication that what did happen doesn’t really matter;  of no real concern,  by your comment ‘what did they expect?’ 

Now im definitely out; this is akin to flogging a dead horse. 

No it's you that just doesn't get it? I didn't write that "it doesn't really matter" or "they shouldn't complain" those are your words!

You have conveniently ignored the qualification in my posting where I wrote "I'm not saying its right, I'm saying in the real world, that's how it often is!"

Bye the bye did you see the interview with one of the hostesses, where she said that many of the scantily clad girls were flirting, kissing and sitting on the laps of the attendees? but I suppose in your world, that is irrelevant to this story? Lol! 

I've said my piece, and retract nothing...........I'm out too!

 

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by panoma1

[grrclark]

On 1/24/2018 at 11:44, panoma1 said:

Minorities of all types are using an increasingly PC legal system to establish their "rights"...it is like the Human Rghts Act its a great idea but its being abused, which has bought it into disrepute!......

I see Great Ormand St Hospital have been embarrassed into handing back all past donations raised at a private men only club (presidents Club) auction because the women the organisers employed as hospitality staff were groped and propositioned!.....well wealthy men, attractive women, copious amounts of drink, what do the women expect? They can always choose a different occupation, turn the work down, and/or don't have to accept any unwanted advances............Now the militant feminist crusaders are up in arms claiming abuse.........the women got paid, a massive amount of money was raised for Great Ormand Street Hospital..........the ones who have lost out are the sick kids!

This was your original post, for the sake of clarity as I think in the subsequent series of posts the message has been somewhat lost, what was the original point you were trying to make?

 

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, grrclark said:

 

I do happen to think in this particular case the issue is one of principle rather than the specifics of this one event, however principle is critically important.

I am delighted that we are moving in a direction where society is more inclusive and we don't consign those with disabilities or physical limitations to a much more restrictive array of opportunity to enjoy themselves.

Im sure you are correct, I hope you are.
But as has been said, where does it stop ?
People taking wind surfing/water skiing lessons who cant swim.
Wheelchair bound people going for abseiling courses, potholing.
When people cant do something due to their shortcomings or disabilities, do they all kick off and start suing ?
No they dont, they usually crack on and live their lives the best they can.
The lady in the story is old enough to know that she is not going to be able to get a full experience at the concert, despite what the promoter did for her, she is not furthering the cause of disabled or deaf people to my mind, quite the opposite.

[henry d]

10 minutes ago, Trevorevans said:

No not for me, a concert is mainly about the music and it’s live performance, and it’s the live bit that separates it from an mp3/4 playback that was recorded in a studio. Yes there’s the atmosphere at a concert but mainly I go to hear the performance, standing in a crowd of strangers is not the main appeal for me. What is the difference between needing an interpreter in a stadium concert and a small pub type venue? Still the same for me, a deaf person can’t hear so if the stadium needs one then so does the pub. 

I see you used the phrase, "Not for me..." , well for this woman it was something that was personal to her, the physical performance she doesn`t seem to have a problem with, they asked if having the lyrics on a screen would help (a reasonable adjustment), but that would stop her from watching the show and a signer will be faster and easier to read, but it wasn`t provided for the other part of the show.

The reason I went to heavy metal or punk gigs in the 70`s and 80`s was for the "mosh pit", if there was no dance floor I wouldn`t go, just a simple choice. Gigs in the 90`s were usually pubs so we could sit and enjoy a beer and the show and sometimes there was a dance floor so you could get up if the mood took you and recently we went to the southern fried festival and it was sounds, actions and everything in between. Horses for courses, you could of course just get the bootleg, or live version or watch and listen on youtube, would that be the same? You could re-live it over and over, but I guess it is more than that is it not?

It would be a reasonable adjustment for a mega group and the promoters to put on a stage and signer, but not for a small pub, and I don`t think (and obviously I don`t know for sure), that is what she wants.

17 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

There are a whole plethora of minorities out there who feel empowered now that they have rights....

Yeah it was much better when they didn`t have rights wasn`t it (tongue in cheek, cos I know you didn`t mean that)

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, henry d said:

I see you used the phrase, "Not for me..." , well for this woman it was something that was personal to her, the physical performance she doesn`t seem to have a problem with, they asked if having the lyrics on a screen would help (a reasonable adjustment), but that would stop her from watching the show and a signer will be faster and easier to read, Really ? but it wasn`t provided for the other part of the show. Her only gripe.

The reason I went to heavy metal or punk gigs in the 70`s and 80`s was for the "mosh pit",You liked getting spat on and covered in beer ? if there was no dance floor I wouldn`t go,But did you sue them for not providing what you wanted ? just a simple choice. Gigs in the 90`s were usually pubs so we could sit and enjoy a beer and the show and sometimes there was a dance floor so you could get up if the mood took you and recently we went to the southern fried festival and it was sounds, actions and everything in between. Horses for courses, you could of course just get the bootleg, or live version or watch and listen on youtube, would that be the same? You could re-live it over and over, but I guess it is more than that is it not?

It would be a reasonable adjustment for a mega group and the promoters to put on a stage and signer, but not for a small pub, and I don`t think (and obviously I don`t know for sure), that is what she wants.

 

[grrclark]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Im sure you are correct, I hope you are.
But as has been said, where does it stop ?
People taking wind surfing/water skiing lessons who cant swim. Why not if they are wearing life jackets?
Wheelchair bound people going for abseiling courses, potholing. Again, why not if they can be secured in a suitable chair or harness?
When people cant do something due to their shortcomings or disabilities, do they all kick off and start suing ?
No they dont, they usually crack on and live their lives the best they can.
The lady in the story is old enough to know that she is not going to be able to get a full experience at the concert, despite what the promoter did for her, she is not furthering the cause of disabled or deaf people to my mind, quite the opposite.

I do actually get the gist of your posts and those that are posting similar, but  there does seem to be an assumption that the law, or those who establish the law, are incapable of understanding practical limitations.  Of course we cannot provide a level playing field for everyone, but that does not mean that we should not make effort to provide some facility to promote the inclusion of those with disabilities or limitations where it is reasonable.

Regrettably much of the example on PW, as always, relies on the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or an appeal to the extreme (logical fallacy) to discredit an argument or principle.

There are lots of examples where practical limitations that cannot be reasonably overcome exclude the participation of the disabled or those with other physical limitations, for example if I offer a white water canyoning experience that by the nature of the activity itself relies on having high physical dexterity and full body mobility then there is no obligation to accommodate someone in a wheelchair, however if I am offering a basic flat water paddling experience that only relies on mobility in the upper half of the body then I should have a reasonable expectation to be able to accommodate someone with lower limb disabilities. 

The same is true of concert venues, if the sole purpose of my venue is to provide and audio visual experience then there should be a reasonable expectation that i will have to accommodate those that are hearing and/or sight impaired.  Their ability to enjoy the experience may be limited to say 20% of yours, but they should still be able to enjoy that.

Being able to accommodate those requirements may have to be by special arrangement, but i should still expect to have to do that.

[JohnfromUK]

51 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

They seek out things that offend them, rather than let offence come to them. 

There is no doubt that a lot of this goes on - see also the Lilly Allen thread in this topic for a classic example.

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, grrclark said:

I do actually get the gist of your posts and those that are posting similar, but  there does seem to be an assumption that the law, or those who establish the law, are incapable of understanding practical limitations.  Of course we cannot provide a level playing field for everyone, but that does not mean that we should not make effort to provide some facility to promote the inclusion of those with disabilities or limitations where it is reasonable.

Regrettably much of the example on PW, as always, relies on the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or an appeal to the extreme (logical fallacy) to discredit an argument or principle.

There are lots of examples where practical limitations that cannot be reasonably overcome exclude the participation of the disabled or those with other physical limitations, for example if I offer a white water canyoning experience that by the nature of the activity itself relies on having high physical dexterity and full body mobility then there is no obligation to accommodate someone in a wheelchair, however if I am offering a basic flat water paddling experience that only relies on mobility in the upper half of the body then I should have a reasonable expectation to be able to accommodate someone with lower limb disabilities. 

The same is true of concert venues, if the sole purpose of my venue is to provide and audio visual experience then there should be a reasonable expectation that i will have to accommodate those that are hearing and/or sight impaired.  Their ability to enjoy the experience may be limited to say 20% of yours, but they should still be able to enjoy that.

Being able to accommodate those requirements may have to be by special arrangement, but i should still expect to have to do that.

Absolutely.
The companies offering services and experiences usually try to accomodate people of various abilities and disabilities.
They also have a duty of care to make sure people are safe as they participate.
The issue is, how much of able bodied peoples enjoyment could be disrupted by the measures taken to include disabled people?
Im trying not to split hairs, but did anyone at the gig, feel it was diminished by a signer on stage ? Will they be sueing ?

Have we got to have a disclaimer on concert tickets saying, 'Not suitable for deaf people'
Or would that offend someone enough to want to sue them anyway, for not making sure it was suitable somehow ?

As much as some people on this thread have defended her rights, which is admirable, the fact remains, she CHOSE to do something that she knew full well she couldnt have a 'full' experience of.
She makes no complaint about Little Mixs performance, but did she ask for a signer for the whole concert?
Is that grounds for legal action.
What next, will she be offended because their costumes were too skimpy, or someone jostled her in the crowd ?
You can find offence in just about anything if youre looking for it.

[henry d]

27 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I see you used the phrase, "Not for me..." , well for this woman it was something that was personal to her, the physical performance she doesn`t seem to have a problem with, they asked if having the lyrics on a screen would help (a reasonable adjustment), but that would stop her from watching the show and a signer will be faster and easier to read, 1 Really ? but it wasn`t provided for the other part of the show. 2 Her only gripe.

The reason I went to heavy metal or punk gigs in the 70`s and 80`s was for the "mosh pit", 3 You liked getting spat on and covered in beer ? if there was no dance floor I wouldn`t go, 4 But did you sue them for not providing what you wanted ? j

1 - Yes! My wife and her friend provide this service in both BSL and makaton (SP?) and I can can get along with some of it and certainly better than reading the lyrics as I read I sometimes am trying too fast and a simple sign is easier to understand. They can also emphasise words or phrases very simply by the way they gesture.

2 - Statement or question?

3 - I think this is a poor attempt at belittling me and shows that you make assumptions too readily. Yes beer sometimes got spilled, but we were poorer then and put the glasses down on the table. The spitting never really happened where we went, I think it was an overhyped london thing that died a quick death.

4 - See Mr. Clark`s reply about reductio ad absurdum and I did not buy a ticket go and then sue knowing there was not a dance floor or that the dance floor was only there for part of the gig, again you assume too much

[grrclark]

20 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Absolutely.
The companies offering services and experiences usually try to accomodate people of various abilities and disabilities.
They also have a duty of care to make sure people are safe as they participate.
The issue is, how much of able bodied peoples enjoyment could be disrupted by the measures taken to include disabled people?
Im trying not to split hairs, but did anyone at the gig, feel it was diminished by a signer on stage ? Will they be sueing ?

Have we got to have a disclaimer on concert tickets saying, 'Not suitable for deaf people'
Or would that offend someone enough to want to sue them anyway, for not making sure it was suitable somehow ?

As much as some people on this thread have defended her rights, which is admirable, the fact remains, she CHOSE to do something that she knew full well she couldnt have a 'full' experience of.
She makes no complaint about Little Mixs performance, but did she ask for a signer for the whole concert?
Is that grounds for legal action.
What next, will she be offended because their costumes were too skimpy, or someone jostled her in the crowd ?
You can find offence in just about anything if youre looking for it.

I don't believe that her taking action against the promoter is because she was offended, in the articles that I have read I have not picked that up.  What I do see is that she is taking action because she had to push and push the promoter for something that she does have a legal entitlement to and they only delivered part of the outcome.

For what it is worth when I initially read the story I thought that she had moved beyond being reasonable in her actions, however I also recognise that we only see a small part of the story in the press and and as ever it is shaped to provoke a reaction. 

If her action is of principle that she felt that despite asking for nothing other than what the law says she is entitled to that the promoter thought they could fob her off with a lesser service then more power to her elbow, more people should do that and we would be a better place for it.  Too often we assume "might is right", i.e. the smaller party has to yield and we are intimidated into accepting something lesser than we should, she is making a stand and will face public ridicule for it, but so long as her approach is justified in principle then more power to her elbow I say.

Of course we don't know enough of the facts or details to establish whether she is justified or not in her action, but regrettably from my perspective at least, there are far too many who are rather quick to assume that she is a publicity seeking flake and castigate her for that without perhaps a broader consideration of what her motivations are.

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, henry d said:

1 - Yes! My wife and her friend provide this service in both BSL and makaton (SP?) and I can can get along with some of it and certainly better than reading the lyrics as I read I sometimes am trying too fast and a simple sign is easier to understand. They can also emphasise words or phrases very simply by the way they gesture.

2 - Statement or question?

3 - I think this is a poor attempt at belittling me and shows that you make assumptions too readily. Yes beer sometimes got spilled, but we were poorer then and put the glasses down on the table. The spitting never really happened where we went, I think it was an overhyped london thing that died a quick death.

4 - See Mr. Clark`s reply about reductio ad absurdum and I did not buy a ticket go and then sue knowing there was not a dance floor or that the dance floor was only there for part of the gig, again you assume too much

1.Fair enough

2.Statement, no question mark, and its in the original article, you have read it I assume ?

3.You appear to have a complex about 'being belittled' in what way was I doing that?
And when it comes to assumptions, Ive been to many a punk gig in the early to mid 80s, 90 % of the time if you were in the mosh pit, you were getting bruises, cut by glass and bottles,and absolutely covered in gob.
I can only assume you were lucky, or they werent punk gigs.

4.And finally the crunch !
You didnt go to a gig, if they didnt have what you want, ie a dancefloor ect.
The lady in question booked tickets knowing full well that it was not catered to deaf people.
Yet she still booked them, and then asked for the venue to adapt to her needs.
You didnt ask your venue to build you a dance floor did you ?
What part of that are you struggling with ?

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, grrclark said:

I don't believe that her taking action against the promoter is because she was offended, in the articles that I have read I have not picked that up.  What I do see is that she is taking action because she had to push and push the promoter for something that she does have a legal entitlement to and they only delivered part of the outcome.

For what it is worth when I initially read the story I thought that she had moved beyond being reasonable in her actions, however I also recognise that we only see a small part of the story in the press and and as ever it is shaped to provoke a reaction. 

If her action is of principle that she felt that despite asking for nothing other than what the law says she is entitled to that the promoter thought they could fob her off with a lesser service then more power to her elbow, more people should do that and we would be a better place for it.  Too often we assume "might is right", i.e. the smaller party has to yield and we are intimidated into accepting something lesser than we should, she is making a stand and will face public ridicule for it, but so long as her approach is justified in principle then more power to her elbow I say.

Of course we don't know enough of the facts or details to establish whether she is justified or not in her action, but regrettably from my perspective at least, there are far too many who are rather quick to assume that she is a publicity seeking flake and castigate her for that without perhaps a broader consideration of what her motivations are.

Fair enough, I can see what youre saying, Im not sure about the legal entitlement bit, but you probably know more about that than me.

And no, we dont know the full facts.
Its just that these days I seem to see more and more of these type of 'complaints' maybe its just the media on a slow day, maybe Im getting old and cantankerous !

Trouble is ,at the end of the day, if venues or promoters are left in any way out of pocket, they will stick it on ticket prices.
Then everyone suffers.

[oowee]

13 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Fair enough, I can see what youre saying, Im not sure about the legal entitlement bit, but you probably know more about that than me.

And no, we dont know the full facts.
Its just that these days I seem to see more and more of these type of 'complaints' maybe its just the media on a slow day, maybe Im getting old and cantankerous !

Trouble is ,at the end of the day, if venues or promoters are left in any way out of pocket, they will stick it on ticket prices.
Then everyone suffers.

Or more people benefit?

[grrclark]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Fair enough, I can see what youre saying, Im not sure about the legal entitlement bit, but you probably know more about that than me.

And no, we dont know the full facts.
Its just that these days I seem to see more and more of these type of 'complaints' maybe its just the media on a slow day, maybe Im getting old and cantankerous !

Trouble is ,at the end of the day, if venues or promoters are left in any way out of pocket, they will stick it on ticket prices.
Then everyone suffers.

I can understand that, but should the majority of society really object to making what is a tiny individual contribution in order to enrich the life of those that are disadvantaged?

As with everything else there is of course a balance, the cost or impact should not be disproportionate such that the majority are materialy disadvantaged to suit a minority.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, grrclark said:

I can understand that, but should the majority of society really object to making what is a tiny individual contribution in order to enrich the life of those that are disadvantaged?

As with everything else there is of course a balance, the cost or impact should not be disproportionate such that the majority are materialy disadvantaged to suit a minority.

No Im sure they wouldnt, they in fact dont, one never knows when you might end up in the same situation.

9 minutes ago, oowee said:

Or more people benefit?

I would refer you to Grrs last paragraph, there are limits to what people will do for the  less advantaged.

[Gordon R]

In 2003, I had a couple of spells in hospital, following a motorcycling accident. I lost a vertebrae and had to learn to walk again. My son, thinking he would cheer me up, bought my wife and I a couple of concert tickets at the Manchester Apollo. At the concert, many people stood up and, as I could not stand unaided for more than a couple of minutes, I saw little of what went on. I heard it, but left halfway through.

Should I have sued the promoters? Standing up in front of other people is commonplace amongst idiots who care only for themselves and care not whose enjoyment they ruin. I didn't get the full experience.

No-one is belittling this woman's disability, but it is bordering on lunacy for each and every individuals needs to be compulsorily catered for. Do short people get a box to sit on, bigger screens for those who are short sighted,  increased volume for those who have difficulty hearing, signers to sign the lyrics, people to describe what is going on for the blind (who can hear the music, but are not getting the full experience), announcements made in each and every language on the planet - again just in case someone doesn't get the full experience.

I trust she will get the reality check she deserves.

[Rewulf]

Spot on Gordon 

[walshie]

13 hours ago, Gordon R said:

In 2003, I had a couple of spells in hospital, following a motorcycling accident. I lost a vertebrae and had to learn to walk again. My son, thinking he would cheer me up, bought my wife and I a couple of concert tickets at the Manchester Apollo. At the concert, many people stood up and, as I could not stand unaided for more than a couple of minutes, I saw little of what went on. I heard it, but left halfway through.

Should I have sued the promoters? Standing up in front of other people is commonplace amongst idiots who care only for themselves and care not whose enjoyment they ruin. I didn't get the full experience.

No-one is belittling this woman's disability, but it is bordering on lunacy for each and every individuals needs to be compulsorily catered for. Do short people get a box to sit on, bigger screens for those who are short sighted,  increased volume for those who have difficulty hearing, signers to sign the lyrics, people to describe what is going on for the blind (who can hear the music, but are not getting the full experience), announcements made in each and every language on the planet - again just in case someone doesn't get the full experience.

I trust she will get the reality check she deserves.

[Scully]

15 hours ago, Gordon R said:

In 2003, I had a couple of spells in hospital, following a motorcycling accident. I lost a vertebrae and had to learn to walk again. My son, thinking he would cheer me up, bought my wife and I a couple of concert tickets at the Manchester Apollo. At the concert, many people stood up and, as I could not stand unaided for more than a couple of minutes, I saw little of what went on. I heard it, but left halfway through.

Should I have sued the promoters? Standing up in front of other people is commonplace amongst idiots who care only for themselves and care not whose enjoyment they ruin. I didn't get the full experience.

No-one is belittling this woman's disability, but it is bordering on lunacy for each and every individuals needs to be compulsorily catered for. Do short people get a box to sit on, bigger screens for those who are short sighted,  increased volume for those who have difficulty hearing, signers to sign the lyrics, people to describe what is going on for the blind (who can hear the music, but are not getting the full experience), announcements made in each and every language on the planet - again just in case someone doesn't get the full experience.

I trust she will get the reality check she deserves.

Good post. ?

[henry d]

21 hours ago, Gordon R said:

In 2003, I had a couple of spells in hospital, following a motorcycling accident. I lost a vertebrae and had to learn to walk again. My son, thinking he would cheer me up, bought my wife and I a couple of concert tickets at the Manchester Apollo. At the concert, many people stood up and, as I could not stand unaided for more than a couple of minutes, I saw little of what went on. I heard it, but left halfway through.

Should I have sued the promoters? Standing up in front of other people is commonplace amongst idiots who care only for themselves and care not whose enjoyment they ruin. I didn't get the full experience.

No-one is belittling this woman's disability, but it is bordering on lunacy for each and every individuals needs to be compulsorily catered for. Do short people get a box to sit on, bigger screens for those who are short sighted,  increased volume for those who have difficulty hearing, signers to sign the lyrics, people to describe what is going on for the blind (who can hear the music, but are not getting the full experience), announcements made in each and every language on the planet - again just in case someone doesn't get the full experience.

I trust she will get the reality check she deserves.

The two instances are quite dissimilar. She asked for a reasonable adjustment, did you ask the promoters/venue if they had an area for people like yourself, which would have been reasonable? If not then the fault was with the people standing up in front of you. It isn`t about compulsory catering to demands that may not be there, working on the same principle that you use, buses and trains should stop and get out their ramps at every stop, but they don`t they rely on people with a specific problem to contact them. She did that, they partially complied and she was upset at the lack of experience. I also think you are taking things to the extreme without thinking, eg. what do we do for the person who has been blind from birth? "The girls are wearing lovely red dresses..." describe to someone who has never seen red what it looks like.

There are too many pedants who look toward a slippery slope as the only outcome here

[Rewulf]

38 minutes ago, henry d said:

 

There are too many pedants who look toward a slippery slope as the only outcome here will argue for the sake of it, whilst never trying to see others point of view .

Because they believe , with their superior moral compass built in, that they are automatically right, no matter how ridiculous the argument.

[Gordon R]

Quote

The two instances are quite dissimilar. She asked for a reasonable adjustment

We will have to disagree. I don't see it as reasonable.

Rewulf - I have to agree.

[das]

On 24/01/2018 at 14:22, henry d said:

Good point, but where do we draw the line? Can`t get your wheelchair on the bus, tough! Dodgy hip and can`t walk too far and you want parking for free in the middle of the city centre, beat it and throw away that silly blue badge!

If anyone is too fat due to their inability to pass Greggs without stopping (or similar) and buying, then you can do something about it, but some people have hearing impairment from birth and not due to their own failings. Why not think about how to be more inclusive rather than exclusive when it comes to people who may want to access what you could quite easily and fully enjoy.

Yeah, what is this world coming too!

I'm well retired, reasonably able but with the usual age related issues that make one not as lively as one was.
More often than not when I use the towns carparks, I always see a younger person park in a disabled spot (blue badge (no pay),  jump out and smartly sprint away.
I think my next step is to get nice Motobility car ( I can afford an upgrade as I don't want to be seen in Honda Jazz), maybe something like BMW 320.
If it all comes together I'll let you know, if I can fudge a M3, I'll post some pictures of it.
You never know with the clowns who run this type of service