Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Cathy Stephenson on January 11, 2013 at 11:02

What a distressing experience for you all George.  I think for me, as I read this, the lack of empathy or awareness on the part of the staff is even more telling that the pathetic lift provision.  

Not sure whether you are a smartphone owner but I know there are several Apps that give reviews of access at various venues and this one, London Access (iPhone) caught my eye and provides an e-mail address to contact the team: myukaccess@hotmail.co.uk  I cannot immediately find an equivalent for an Android system but maybe other Bespoken members know of one?

It should not be necessary to have Apps to tell us whether we can get into a venue or not but sadly whilstever tokenism is allowed to continue I think the Apps have a place.

Best wishes

Cathy

 

Tobi Manikin                Daniel Biddle

 

(01442) 384866

07525 724718              07944 175349

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Perfect on January 14, 2013 at 6:07

Thanks for that Cathy. You're right - lack of empathy (and any help!) from the staff is more damning than the appalling access provision. Thanks for the iPhone app link - as an Android user I don't really follow apps for other phones - but there are several for Android. I'll do my bit to spread the word.

Equality Act or no - it's a sad fact that many venue (and other property) owners are guilty of tokenism when it comes to providing access, doing the bare minimum they think they can get away with to "comply".

The only way we can change these people's attitude is to complain loud and long whenever we come across their penny-pinching and disregard for our needs in the hope that others will help hurt them where it hurts them most - in the pocket.

George

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Jane McLean on February 23, 2013 at 13:52

Hi, George,

One or two comments, having been in similar situations with a disabled friend.

Did you know that offering "disabled access" and "accessibility" are different things? Look it up in the dictionary.

I did so many Audits which claimed to have "wheelchair access" that I thought there must be a misunderstanding.

"Access" only gives you the right to approach or enter. "Accessibility" includes the right to use.

When "wheelchair access" was requested for all new buildings, as far as I am concerned, that is what was provided.

"Accessibility" was a bridge too far!

The second option is to carry a Transit sling. This cocoons you safely as you are carried downstairs, with four handles, so that the weight is equally distributed between four. The wheelchair is brought down separately. We found this an excellent piece of equipment.

Thirdly - and I have only had to do THIS on one occasion with a flight of 22 steps - is to unlock the wheelchair, and do one step at a time. We had no option - it had to be done. So I swallowed hard, and tried to think of every step simply as a kerb.

Nerve-wracking on the first occasion, but with other helpers, as your wife and son, it is quite possible. Tough, but possible.

So the question to ask is: "Is it accessible for wheelchair users?" 

And do they know the difference?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Perfect on February 23, 2013 at 14:50

Hi Linda,

Thanks for that - though I'm not sure I agree with your definitions or that most people would make the technical distinction between them anyway.

In this instance, with the Whitehall Theatre, the venue was entirely clear what was actually *required* - ie, to get me and my wheelchair into place in front of the performance they'd sold us tickets to watch. Splitting hairs over words just gives these places a get-out.

Thanks also for the practical suggestions though I'm absolutely certain that unless there's a fire I do not want to be carried in a sling anywhere. There's such a thing as dignity to consider. And as for bumping my powerchair down stairs, I can't really see that either. I and my chair together weigh some 250Kg - that's 1/4 of a metric ton. The chair also (like most) has small anti-tip wheels behind the main rear wheels that would catch on every step - damage to the chair or the building is inevitable. They would very definitely make it impossible to drag the chair back up the stairs - so I'd be trapped down below.

If I'd been in the chair I'm sitting in right now - a mid drive model with independently sprung outrider wheels there would be no question of bumping it up and down a staircase.

Underneath all this is a simple fact. It just shouldn't be necessary to even talk about these things. The DDA and the later EA make the responsibilities quite clear. As a disabled person I have a right to "equal access", entitlements to preservation of dignity and an over-arching right not to be disadvantaged in comparison to a similar person who is not disabled.

The technology exists (this venue had installed a wheelchair lift, so their intention is clear - it's the *implementation* that they got so awfully, badly wrong) and in many cases the money exists. The legislation exists. They need to be brought together.

It seems to me that the only way to effect improvements is to "name and shame" organisations, places and venues that get it wrong or just ignore their responsibilities. You may or may not know that while commercial venues still only need to make "reasonable" changes to comply with the legislation, the 2010 Equality Act places a higher burden on public bodies (that includes local authorities, the NHS, driving test centres and, of course the government itself) to, in effect, PROMOTE equality of access and sweep away disadvantage wherever it exists.

I have recently tried to engage with my local NHS CCG (Care Commissioning Group - the bodies that are replacing PCTs in a few weeks time with control over that multi-billion Pound NHS budget). Quite apart from the fact that the organisation is the most inept and incompetent body I have had the misfortune to come into contact with in my long career, they (while promoting "equal access", public engagement and involvement etc., etc) have repeatedly organised public meetings in buildings either completely inaccessible to wheelchair users (steps, stairs, no lifts, lack of parking) or which lack, say, effective and safe escape plans in case of fire, disabled loos etc.

As a result, I have lobbed the equivalent of a small thermo-nuclear device into the midst of the Governing Body (by which I mean they are in possession of a letter from me holding them to account against their public statements, pronouncements and statutory duties) and over the next month or so I am making it my business to make sure their behaviour falls into line with their fine words. Never mind their legal obligations.

Yesterday, I had cause to visit my bank (a main branch of NatWest in a sizable city) for the first time since I became a full time wheelchair user. It took me over ten minutes and eight attempts to get into the lift. Because some joker had put up new office partitions exactly one wheelchair length in front of the lift doors - ignoring the surrounding lift door frame and the obvious fact that wheelchairs need to turn - therefore the MINIMUM gap that must exist is the diagonal dimension of the chair's floorplan. Again, the bank is going to get a "change or else" letter from me.

I feel it's only by holding organisations to account in this way that the message will get through. "Equality" is more than just paying lip service to the absolute minimum the legislation requires - it means paying due regard and respect to the needs of the disabled as individuals.

I'm happy to do my part - I have the smallest, most manoeuvrable chair I can find, act politely and comply with any and all reasonable procedures. But I expect to take part in life on an equal footing. No more, no less. If organisations deny me that right, I'll hold them to account.

I hope that everyone here does the same.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Jane McLean on February 24, 2013 at 16:16

Hi, George,

I agree. Most people would not understand the technical  difference, yet that understanding is critical.

Those who DO understand are the designers, who have complied with the letter of the law, bit not the spirit. They have provided wheelchair access: it does not matter if you cannot use it, that was not specified in the term access. It drives me nuts.

We wrote up our various difficulties, in 2004,  with Libraries, banks,  hospitals (the disabled toilet was not accessible in out local NHS hospital, built in 2000: you could open the door, but were unable to close it with a wheelchair inside!)

To date, we are still awaiting a reply.

The gentleman I cared for was extremely proud and dignified, but he had no problem using the  Transit. The attached link is not the same sling as we had - although it is a similar principle.

Ours had a much deeper back and was much more like a portable canvas seat. This meant that there was one person required at each corner, and we could go anywhere with it! It was absolutely excellent in the kind of conditions you describe. I'm sure a good OT would help with this. 

http://www.hiwtc.com/products/comfort-carrier-transfer-sling-1044-1...

Our other great discovery was telescopic, lightweight, portable ramps, which we purchased in America. This link is the UK version, and does not take quite the same weight, and \i think thst they are heavier. But again, when there were more than two steps, invaluable. We never traveled without them in the car. Again,with help,  trail and error, and with positioning them carefully -  moving them forward or backwards as required, we could manage quite a few steps,as you could achieve several times their length, once the concept was understood. They are expensive, but worth it.

http://www.completecareshop.co.uk/disability-elderly-aid-large/4422... 

I discovered that if you are really prepared to make a stand, try:

"Well, you promised both accessibility and assistance, and  sold me a ticket, understanding my disability.  So I'll require to use the stairs. Unfortunately, that means that you will have to carry me down and up in a dining room chair, and you will be liable for my safety. Failing your cooperation, I will have to consult my lawyer."

Watch the reaction to that one. You don't have to mean it: you just have to state it, and there will be a great scene, which you can enjoy the memory of for many a year!

And a sad thought before I go. While assessing hotels on a Scottish island, we tried to access one that had a rolling cattle grid as the the vehicle entrance from the main road.  This gate was at an angle to the road, and it had been raining. No matter how hard I tried, I could not get the car to cope with the slip of these rollers, and obviously a wheelchair could not get across safely.. 
So we all got out the car,and tried the side gate: it was too narrow for a wheelchair.

I therefore went into the hotel - a very nice place indeed - and explained that I was looking at accessible hotels for people with disabilities, and that so far we had failed even to get into the grounds. Did they have any comments?

"Oh. good!" was the unexpected reaction. "We don't want disabled people here - they just lower the tone."

Now, until that mindset can be changed, we are whistling in the wind.

"Perpetrators, collaborators, bystanders, victims: we can be clear about three of these categories. The bystander, however, is the fulcrum. If there are enough notable exceptions, then protest reaches a critical mass. We don’t usually think of history as being shaped by silence, but, as English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ 

http://tartarus.org/martin/essays/burkequote.html

 

How do we reach the bystander? What have we to offer?

That is how we must think in order to effect change.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Perfect on February 25, 2013 at 9:42

Good morning Linda,

You raise some interesting points (as ever)!

I do think, however, that the position differs from what you describe. First, on a point of law, a word in a legal document (be it Act of Parliament or just a plain contract) is assumed to have its normal meaning in English unless specifically defined in some other way. Thus "access" in the 1995 DDA has the same meaning and interpretation as it has in everyday usage. I don't know who told you otherwise but I do believe they were talking out of their bottom.

Semantics aside, the position has in any case moved on significantly from the examples you give. In 2010 the Equality Act ("EA") was passed and it came into force in October 2010. It was enacted to clear up many of the (how shall I put it politely?) "confusions" that were left in the wake of the earlier DDA. The EA entirely replaces the DDA everywhere in the UK except in Norther Ireland where some provisions of the earlier Act remain in force.

The DWP (the disabled person's best friend - NOT) has within it an "Office for Disability Issues". Who knew? Before anyone gets too excited, the Office seems to exist to explain and give guidance to government and public bodies on their duties under the DDA and EA and what they must do to comply. The organisation has a page that concisely explains the relationship between the two Acts (DDA and EA) at http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disabled-people-and-legislation/equality-act-...

It explains that (in effect) the EA replaces the multiple "triggers" of discrimination and the infamous "reasonableness" clause with a single trigger. To quote:

The EA applies one trigger point at which there is a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. This trigger point is where a disabled person would be at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled people if the adjustment was not made.

Just to take the question of my access to the Whitehall Theatre, I think it fair to say that I was put at "a substantial disadvantage" due to the way their lift has been installed. The theatre is therefore in breach of its duty under the EA to provide equal access.

It's important to understand the significance of the shift that occurred with the introduction of the EA. Whereas the earlier DDA merely required organisations to make "reasonable adaptations" to accommodate disabled people - the individual interpretation of "reasonable" often leaving a lot to be desired, as you point out - under the EA the boot is on the other foot, so to speak.

Read again that part I quoted that says "... there is a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people". The duty to act is now on the organisation to provide equal access (and facilities, and dignity and all sorts of other commonsense things). Failure to provide equal access is now a straightforward breach under the EA ... unless the organisation can show it would be unreasonable to do so.

Let's make sure that's understood. It is no longer necessary for a disabled person to request access to public spaces, rather it is the duty of the person (company etc.) that controls that space to provide access. Failure to do so is a breach of duty under the EA and, if a complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission ("EHRC") fails to bring about the required changes then legal action (possibly and probably brought by the EHRC) normally does the trick.

The EA also swept away the confusing, ridiculous and often contradictory definitions of "disability" which is now defined as any impairment that prevents a person getting on with life in the normally expected manner.

Where does this leave things in relation to the Whitehall Theatre and my bank branch etc? Quite simply they have no argument that their architect / designer / friend down the pub / whoever measured it all out and they did what they thought "reasonable" in the circumstances. The mere fact that I was unable to access those places as an able-bodied person would means that they haven't done enough.

They are in breach of the EA. Full stop. End of discussion.

Turning to your experience of the inaccessible "disabled" toilet and specifically the NHS as an example of a public body.

In April 2011 another part of the EA came into force - the "Public Sector Equality Duty" ("PSED") - see http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disabled-people-and-legislation/disability-eq... which I'd encourage everyone with an interest in disability rights to read.

Now here is a significant piece of legislation if ever there was. As a public body, the NHS is subject not only to the wider scope of the EA, it must act in policy and deed to eliminate discrimination, advance equality and foster good relations. Those three broad duties are worth reading through again and again until the penny drops. In my experience (as yours) many in the NHS do not understand these obligations or consciously choose to ignore them.

I don't know the situation of the specific toilet you talk about (eg; if alternatives are nearby or there really is no space to be had) but it would seem that the hospital is in breach of the EA in both its wider sense and particularly the PSED. A simple letter to the hospital's management pointing out these facts should effect the desired changes. If not a quick reference to the EHRC (or just the threat of such a reference) will do the trick. Unless the hospital can clearly and definitively show that it is impractical to make the necessary changes ("budget constraints" etc. are not enough) it is in breach of a statutory duty. Full stop. End of discussion.

In simple, financial terms alone, the hospital would find it more costly (not to mention disreputable) to try to fight against its duty than to have someone provide a suitable toilet.

There is the boot on the other foot. Post EA, the hospital now has to show it is unreasonable to provide a disabled toilet and more, it has to do so within its PSED obligations to eliminate discrimination and advance equality. Tough mountains to climb. And they are the ones who have to do the climbing.

So, we have the legislative backing ...

But enough legal talk. In the "real world" we live in we know that the EHRC is backed up till the end of time and that (as you have found) bureaucrats and "managers" in general finest attribute is dreaming up reasons NOT to do something.

So, I propose a simple mechanism of "name and shame". Each time we come across a place that is failing its duties under the EA I suggest a polite request to make the necessary changes (if necessary, referring to the EA and its implications). If the organisation fails to make the changes, name them - to warn other disabled people (and those many who care about disabled people) not to go there. In the case of public bodies that are failing under the EA and the PSED feel free to rat them out to the appropriate higher authority.

Turning to the aids you helpfully link to (many thanks). I still do not consider having to be carried in a sling an acceptable compromise other than in extreme circumstances or perhaps for an activity where nothing else truly is practical or the number of disabled people likely to access the place is so vanishingly small that asking the owners to install something more civilised really is out of all proportion to need.

I second your recommendation of cheap, light weight, sliding channel ramps. I bought a pair almost as soon as I bought my first wheelchair and they stay in the car at all times - apart from the several occasions where they have been put to good effect to (er-herm) resolve the contradiction between a venue's definition of "wheelchair accessible" and mine.

Discrimination is everywhere, sad to say, and not restricted to the disabled. As a wheelchair user, if a hotel or restaurant fails to make itself accessible or pays mere lip service, my attitude is "your loss" - I take my valuable business elsewhere. Other people are entitled to their views, however right or wrong I may see them. Somebody doesn't want me in their hotel? Fine by me. In the same way that I wouldn't be a welcome visitor to a ladies changing room I don't want to visit either place. There are other places I can happily and contentedly be.

Lest you think my views here are entirely contradictory, perhaps allow me to explain. As a (fairly recent) able bodied person, there were plenty of places that were inaccessible to me. I was never going to climb Everest, trek through Nepal or dive to the bottom of the North Sea. I never wanted (even if they'd allow my dour figure in) to go to fashionable nightclubs or "be seen" in the right places.

In short, I've always known my limitations and have made it my practice to avoid places where I'm not wanted. I'm equally grateful to people *I* do not want to see or be near for staying a good distance away ;>)

But ... some places I do want or need to be. Others I am invited to (even if just being open to the public, as a theatre, hotel, museum, hospital etc.) and those places I expect to access equally as any able bodied person does.

I don't want or expect "special" provision, I don't need to be treated as extra-precious. I merely expect to engage in life as others do.

Your Burke quote is apt. As disabled people we need to give voice to our frustrations and the impediments that others place in our way. This place is becoming one venue in which we might make that happen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Jane McLean on February 25, 2013 at 11:58

I think that we're singing from the same Hymn sheet.

I understand perfectly:we never went where we were not wanted either!

And thanks for  taking the time to respond at length like that.

Sorry you feel that way about the transit. We had friends in Galashiels with a house perched prettily on a hillside. The view  was spectacular from inside, but there were 18 steps to access it. At a party, or with friends, we found it ideal, no problem, and certainly much more dignified that the position you found yourself in at the theatre!

We did take the toilet problem to the NHS. Especially as the gentleman in question was in for six weeks, and the only solution was to take in his own commode! They said that it was not their problem because the building was provided by a PFI.  It was interesting to see them wash their hands of such a problem. At the time, he was dying, and I did not have the stamina to continue the fight. There were other priorities.  I think people depend on that.

I provided the meaning of "access"and "accessible" as provided in the dictionary.(Collins)

There were so many things that the NHS did not care about, that it does not surprise me that it is getting such a bad name.  If you want to lead any organisation well, you must CARE first!!

http://leadchangegroup.com/who-cares-the-origins-of-the-lead-change...

Have a great day!

Linda

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Perfect on February 25, 2013 at 13:34

Hi Linda,

I'm quite sure we're singing from the same hymn sheet - and that we're on the same page and singing in tune.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines access as "the means or opportunity to approach or enter a place". I think that's pretty clear but you can read the whole definition at http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/access?q=access

Similarly, accessible is defined at http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/accessible?q=acces... as "(of a place) able to be reached or entered". Accessible is the adjective (descriptive) form of the noun access.

"Reasonableness" is at the heart of UK law - whether the word is used or not, in the absence of a specific definition, a court is likely to ask "how would a reasonable person interpret this?" or colloquially, "What would the man on the Clapham Omnibus say?"

Hence a place that claims "wheelchair access" is reasonably understood to be saying that its premises and facilities can be entered and used by those in wheelchairs. On the commonsense argument that asks why on earth someone would want to approach a venue but then get stuck in the lift or find themselves burned to a crisp in the event of a fire!

But we split hairs :)

Back to the NHS - PFI or no PFI is but a smoke screen. If my company leases its premises it is not immune from the law of the land and remains primarily responsible for ensuring compliance. Nor is the NHS immune from its PSED obligations just because its hospital is leased under a PFI arrangement. The NHS (as operator of the building) retains its responsibilities.

The simple analogy is anyone who drives a Motability vehicle - a lease in contract law. If, while driving your Motability vehicle you drive in such a way that you injure someone, the law will hold you personally liable - not the nice folks at Motability.

Similarly the means the NHS uses to finance its premises do not effect and do not allow it to evade its statutory duties.

If any manager in the NHS needs this explaining them, a quick call to Monitor (the NHS equivalent to OFSTED for schools) or the NHSCB (NHS Commissioning Board) should produce someone to re-educate them with a sharp stick!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Jane McLean on February 25, 2013 at 18:07

George,

I think you're simply wonderful!

Long may you continue to do things: raise awareness; and introduce the sharp sticks!

There are some things which are so obvious to us,which the general public just don't understand in the slightest. It is truly another world.

As an example, my friend told me that when he lived in Canada, the Police raided his house one night. During their search, they discovered that he had dynamite in the drawer of his bedside cabinet.   They were unperturbed.

"Why was that?" I asked.

He looked at me sadly, as if I were simple.

"If you're going to keep dynamite in the house, a drawer is the safest place to keep it!"

And I realized that he was  probably right; it's just that I had never considered keeping dynamite in my house........But then, I haven't worked in a gold mine, or needed to use it.

And some people have never considered mobilizing without their legs, or  needed to use an alternative:it's another mind-set.

• ▶ Reply