leftybassman392 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 I agree that it's a very interesting case. One the one hand it's tempting to see her as a bit of a Mumsnet agitator (although calling her a chancer is a bit strong IMHO); but on the other hand it's a mother who wants to engage with her daughter's musical tastes (and when all's said & done she didn't choose to be deaf). Unless I've missed something here the issue is to do with the level of provision and support provided for the show. I'd say that both sides have a case. The promoters certainly seem to have made some effort to accommodate the mother (and while I'm on the subject, I thought the free ticket for the mother was quite a nice gesture that they didn't need to make: if an automatic free carer's ticket for every child at one of these gigs becomes a requirement then that really will open the floodgates); but on the other hand the band's music is specifically targeted at a very young audience. If people with hearing difficulties want to attend the show (be they children or adults) then the law seems to require that the organisers do as much as they reasonably can to give them as full an experience as possible. It's not enough to say 'well they're deaf; what do they expect?' I'll be interested to see whether a court decides there is a difference in law between a main act with support and a festival format - there's a pecking order even at festivals so I don't think it's as much of a foregone conclusion as some here seem to be thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earbrass Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) There is a tricky balance to be struck between catering for the needs of minorities such as the deaf, and limiting the burden that so doing imposes on the majority community. From all I've heard about this case, my opinion would be that the promoters did all they could reasonably be expected to do and the case should fail, but of course what is reported in the media may not be the full story, and the court will have access to more information than we do. On the wider issue, it is perhaps worth remembering that, in the US at least, disability campaigning has a highly unpleasant extremist fringe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-41850498 We should be on our guard against such lunacy spreading here. Edited January 25, 2018 by Earbrass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 I guess if the promoter had acted earlier and not just at the last minute as they were forced to do, they would have had time to prepare signing for the support acts too, and probably would have done. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count Bassy Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 So if for some medical reason I couldn't drive could I expect the promoter to provide and pay for a taxi both ways? And a real case: I really don't like opera, but it may be that I haven't had the correct education. Would the promoter please supply a qualified tutor to talk me through the performance so that I can fully appreciate it and get the full experience? There was a local case a few years ago where a small museum was told it had to install a lift for disabled people. It couldn't afford this and decided to close. So now nobody can visit. 95% of the population deprived for the sake of 5%. Society should take account of disabled people (although I'm not sure we can call them disabled anymore!!), but not be dictated to by them. I'm a bit grumpy topday because I normally vent myself over Private Eye (my wife calls it my Mr Angry magazine)on a Wednesday evening, but for some reason it didn't arrive yesterday. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolo Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) ... Edited January 25, 2018 by Bolo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs_triumph Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Count Bassy said: And a real case: I really don't like opera, but it may be that I haven't had the correct education. Would the promoter please supply a qualified tutor to talk me through the performance so that I can fully appreciate it and get the full experience? That's not a disability tho is it? maybe an inability. I'm really torn on this issue. Part of me thinks its crazy. Part of me sees the issue from the participants point of view that she just wants to join in with her daughter. But here has to be a line. As suggested earlier about the blind student being advised to take a film and media course, requiring a full time assistant... bonkers! any way you look at it. I knew a person years ago who was numerically dyslexic, and quite severe too, struggling with basic arithmetic. Despite failing Maths at school he was accepted on an accountancy degree course but required significant support and was provided with resources such as laptops free of charge, extra tuition and had course fees paid for due to his "disability". The thing that annoyed me about this was he was from a fairly privileged back ground with both parents in well paying jobs - GP and lawyer - who could easily have afforded to support him. He struggled constantly through the two and half years of the course, didn't enjoy it at all, before bailing out to pursue a career in retail. Edited January 25, 2018 by gs_triumph 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krysbass Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 Forgive me if this appears disrespectful ( I don't mean it to be) or if I'm missing something obvious; but rather than having someone sign the song lyrics, wouldn't it have been easier and more visible to all hearing-impaired people throughout the venue to just display the lyrics on a video screen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikel Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 17 hours ago, T-Bay said: Read the full story and the organisers did a lot, sorted the main event, free upgrade, offer of free carer tickets, access to private toilet facilities etc. As a passionate supporter of disability rights I find this a bit frustrating. Unless there is something being missed by all the media, which is possible, then it seems to be someone looking for an angle to moan at. I truly hope that isn’t the case as it’s been a hard slog to get rights for the disabled and it only takes a few freeloading idiots to spoil it for everyone. /\ This. Some people simply like to moan, about everything. Also, its funny how it got straight into the press and an interview. 15 minutes of fame anyone. Respect to the organisers, they did all the could, and more, and are still taking flack. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbass Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, NancyJohnson said: When I read this story earlier today, I did kind of think, 'Where does this correctness end?' What about a blind person who buys tickets for an art exhibition or a film? Yes, it's tragic this woman is stone deaf, but surely you makes your choices, deaf, blind, disabled, whatever, don't you? I'm all for equality...I'm struggling for the words here, but if I was deaf, I wouldn't have bought tickets, let alone be inclined or even know how to instruct a solicitor to take action. Going back to my 'Where will it end?' comment, where does it end? Bands playing in pubs? +1 I get just a little bit fed up with this idea that cause ur disabled the world owes you a ton of everything. I have a mildly debilitating neurological condition which is very difficult to explain, do I keep on about it.....nope, I get on with it and there are days when its so bloody difficult I just wanna lay on the sofa and to hell with it all, but you dont cause life goes on and waits for no-one so you compensate as best you can and keep going. Edited January 25, 2018 by oldbass 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 5 hours ago, uk_lefty said: It looks like the promoters did what they could, offering the free carer tickets was a nice gesture in my view, then providing an actual interpreter is a massive gesture albeit forced by the legal threat. Do they provide a carer to help people with mobility issues in or out, or just a free carer ticket, etc? For the mum to then moan about no interpreter for the support acts is a bit too much for me. It's not like it was a festival where every act is a knockout, the support would have been some never-will-be act or x factor rejects I bet. Kinda what @uk_lefty said for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaytonaRik Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 "Under the Equality Act 2010, 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." They could argue that any non-disabled person would have their fingers in their ears at a little mix concert so the experience was the same anyway 😜 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NancyJohnson Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 7 hours ago, fretmeister said: The legislation also references changes that are practical. So for those worrying about open nights or 50 punter pubs having to do this - they won’t. But a big arena show with well resources promotors will have to. I've scanned through the Equality Act 2010...there's a) a lot of pages and b) I'm supposed to be working. I would like to know where this is defined. I note for the record that the word deaf is only used once in the entire law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3below Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 22 minutes ago, NancyJohnson said: I've scanned through the Equality Act 2010...there's a) a lot of pages and b) I'm supposed to be working. I would like to know where this is defined. I note for the record that the word deaf is only used once in the entire law. Disability is one of the "protected characteristics" Age Disability Gender reassignment Marriage and civil partnership Pregnancy and maternity Race Religion and belief Sex Sexual orientation I am glad I am not on the receiving end of this one, "reasonable adjustments" were a minefield in my previous job, even when you were committed to doing the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Dare Posted January 25, 2018 Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 9 hours ago, Chiliwailer said: @Dan Dare Many young people are into Little Mix and all that comes with it, so why should a deaf person not be able to enjoy the experience of seeing them, seeing the show, being part of the crowd etc. It's the difference between saying "I was there, I loved it" or not. I'm sure you'd agree that anyone should be able to enjoy an experience, regardless of how you think music should be enjoyed, or whatever disability they have. @NancyJohnson Loads of deaf people go to gigs. Many blind people / vision impaired enjoy films too using audio descriptions, so they can either go with mates or enjoy the experience and sound, Odeon do it. For some people being disabled means that they are generally less engaged as they have less opportunities than non-disabled people, so enjoying a film that way, or going to a gig, is no less a meaningful experience that it is for those who are non-disabled - it's just different. The medical disability model says that the disability itself disables people, the social model says that restricted access is what really disables people - as do people's lack of empathy. It's sad that some people just don't get it, but then that's why disability campaigners have to fight so hard. You appear to be deliberately misunderstanding me. I didn't say the mother shouldn't have gone and been part of the occasion. Neither did I argue against her enjoying it. I do not "lack empathy". I'm delighted for hearing impaired/deaf people to go to gigs (the fact that I have played loud music for over 40 years means I may be one of their number eventually). My point was that to sue is ridiculously OTT. It seems plenty on here agree with me. So please stop setting up a straw man to argue with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiliwailer Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 8 minutes ago, Dan Dare said: You appear to be deliberately misunderstanding me. I didn't say the mother shouldn't have gone and been part of the occasion. Neither did I argue against her enjoying it. I do not "lack empathy". I'm delighted for hearing impaired/deaf people to go to gigs (the fact that I have played loud music for over 40 years means I may be one of their number eventually). My point was that to sue is ridiculously OTT. It seems plenty on here agree with me. So please stop setting up a straw man to argue with. No, I’m not deliberately misunderstanding you. I just re-read your first post, and it all still stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
operative451 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 Anyone else think this sort of non-story is just click bait for brexiters*? 'PC gone mad!!' Yzwn... Clearly the BBC website is trying to snag views from the daily fail.. *yes i did that deliberately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_c2 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 As I understand it, the mum was kicking up a stink and all ready to sue Little Mix when they changed their minds and actually provided a signer/etc. However she is gripping onto the case by her fingernails and noticed that the supporting acts weren't signed, so is now suing based on these. To me, it sounds like she just wants attention/"her day in court", I can foresee her losing her court case - badly - and ending up with egg on her face. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 When you think about how many idiots there are in the world, myself included, and that everyone is included in that list of protected characteristics then it's not that surprising to find an idiot at the centre of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NancyJohnson Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 hour ago, 3below said: Disability is one of the "protected characteristics" Age Disability Gender reassignment Marriage and civil partnership Pregnancy and maternity Race Religion and belief Sex Sexual orientation I am glad I am not on the receiving end of this one, "reasonable adjustments" were a minefield in my previous job, even when you were committed to doing the right thing. No, you misunderstand me. I understand the characteristics as defined that qualify a member of public requiring protection under the act, my point here was more about classification of big venues/small venues, which going back was my opening salvo here earlier today. Legislative order aside, it's all well and good saying that <insert band name here> should be providing someone to sign their songs while they're playing live. What if you're at the O2 in Landaan and your seats are (metaphorically) in the car park? What good is someone signing when they're 200m away (and don't say that now every band should have a screen with a camera on the signer all the time). What about when Michael McIntyre or Lee Evans plays there? How do you sign a comedian, especially when his show, however well rehearsed, may not follow script night after night. I'm really not trying to make light of this. This woman's actions could set precedent and the ramifications could be immense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_c2 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 There is a reasonableness test in the law. Of course, different people have a different interpretation of what "reasonable" means, and ultimately a judge gets to decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3below Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 29 minutes ago, NancyJohnson said: No, you misunderstand me. I understand the characteristics as defined that qualify a member of public requiring protection under the act, my point here was more about classification of big venues/small venues, which going back was my opening salvo here earlier today. Legislative order aside, it's all well and good saying that <insert band name here> should be providing someone to sign their songs while they're playing live. What if you're at the O2 in Landaan and your seats are (metaphorically) in the car park? What good is someone signing when they're 200m away (and don't say that now every band should have a screen with a camera on the signer all the time). What about when Michael McIntyre or Lee Evans plays there? How do you sign a comedian, especially when his show, however well rehearsed, may not follow script night after night. I'm really not trying to make light of this. This woman's actions could set precedent and the ramifications could be immense. 19 minutes ago, paul_c2 said: There is a reasonableness test in the law. Of course, different people have a different interpretation of what "reasonable" means, and ultimately a judge gets to decide. Apologies if misunderstood. I share your concerns over the potential ramifications, what constitutes reasonable adjustments is a minefield. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulWarning Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 I do wonder if it's no win no fee lawyer, compo compo easy money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikel Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, paul_c2 said: There is a reasonableness test in the law. Of course, different people have a different interpretation of what "reasonable" means, and ultimately a judge gets to decide. OK. And just who pays for the court case in this instance? A Judge involved because a signer was not supplied/ up to speed, to do the support act. This country really is turning into the USA re litigation. Edited January 25, 2018 by mikel spelling mistakes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steantval Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, mikel said: OK. And just who pays for the court case in this instance? A Judge involved because a signer was not supplied/ up to speed, to do the support act. This country really is turning into the USA re litigation. If the woman loses, I presume she will be hit with court costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikel Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 17 minutes ago, steantval said: If the woman loses, I presume she will be hit with court costs. Good, and I hope its expensive. The courts have much better things to do than deliberate over this petty attention seeking squabble 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.