Has she a point?

Has everybody laying into this woman actually read the article in full? My initial reaction was she might just be trying to make a point, but then having read the article and thought about it, so what if she is? Somebody has to or nothing ever changes for people living with disability.

People questioning why she went to a gig if she's deaf, isn't it obvious? She was taking her kid. Taking your child to a concert and seeing how much they buzz off the whole thing is a joy for many parents.

It must feel pretty shit and isolating at the best of times being deaf, and missing out on sharing certain experiences with your child can only add to that. Looking at it from the kid's perspective too, they also miss out on certain things with their parents that other children take for granted. So if her mum wants to take her to the concert and partake in the whole spectacle of it, I can understand how the provision of a sign language interpreter can lift that and give both parent and child something ever so slightly closer to what everyone else is experiencing. I really don't think it's a lot to ask for and i don't know why the promoter didn't just suck it up when it was requested. The cost would have been a drop in the ocean compared to how much arena shows cost and generate.

As the article says, people with sensory impairment can still enjoy live events. It's probably a different experience to everyone else's but i think it sounds a bit cunty really people coming on here and questioning why someone with a disability might want to do x, y or z.

The way I see it, people with disabilities have to put up with all kinds of shit every single day. Maybe she's drawn on her own past experiences and times she's felt needlessly excluded and thought to herself "well yeah, maybe i will make a point". Now she's made that point, maybe other deaf kids who want to enjoy the same kind of events as their peers will get to go to concerts and enjoy them without having to go through this rigmarole.

Somebody mentioned earlier on that the promoter bent over backwards to accommodate her. That's clearly bullshit. They bent over backwards to avoid giving her the one thing she requested and even when their hand was eventually forced, they made sure it was the bare minimum (just the headline act). Sounds like the initial request was treted with contempt and they never really gave a shit.

Finally, regardless of what you think, the article also states the following:

"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."

So actually, it seems to me she was entirely within her rights to make that request.

But yeah, just seems like the normal decent to do in the circumstances. Think it was Sunderland last year who made a special room available for people with autism to watch the matches from at the ground. Thankfully, I don't recall many people asking "urgh why would you go to a match if you're autistic and hate loud noise" at that time.
 
geoff clipp said:
Has everybody laying into this woman actually read the article in full? My initial reaction was she might just be trying to make a point, but then having read the article and thought about it, so what if she is? Somebody has to or nothing ever changes for people living with disability.

People questioning why she went to a gig if she's deaf, isn't it obvious? She was taking her kid. Taking your child to a concert and seeing how much they buzz off the whole thing is a joy for many parents.

It must feel pretty shit and isolating at the best of times being deaf, and missing out on sharing certain experiences with your child can only add to that. Looking at it from the kid's perspective too, they also miss out on certain things with their parents that other children take for granted. So if her mum wants to take her to the concert and partake in the whole spectacle of it, I can understand how the provision of a sign language interpreter can lift that and give both parent and child something ever so slightly closer to what everyone else is experiencing. I really don't think it's a lot to ask for and i don't know why the promoter didn't just suck it up when it was requested. The cost would have been a drop in the ocean compared to how much arena shows cost and generate.

As the article says, people with sensory impairment can still enjoy live events. It's probably a different experience to everyone else's but i think it sounds a bit cunty really people coming on here and questioning why someone with a disability might want to do x, y or z.

The way I see it, people with disabilities have to put up with all kinds of shit every single day. Maybe she's drawn on her own past experiences and times she's felt needlessly excluded and thought to herself "well yeah, maybe i will make a point". Now she's made that point, maybe other deaf kids who want to enjoy the same kind of events as their peers will get to go to concerts and enjoy them without having to go through this rigmarole.

Somebody mentioned earlier on that the promoter bent over backwards to accommodate her. That's clearly bullshit. They bent over backwards to avoid giving her the one thing she requested and even when their hand was eventually forced, they made sure it was the bare minimum (just the headline act). Sounds like the initial request was treted with contempt and they never really gave a shit.

Finally, regardless of what you think, the article also states the following:

"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."

So actually, it seems to me she was entirely within her rights to make that request.

But yeah, just seems like the normal decent to do in the circumstances. Think it was Sunderland last year who made a special room available for people with autism to watch the matches from at the ground. Thankfully, I don't recall many people asking "urgh why would you go to a match if you're autistic and hate loud noise" at that time.
Click to expand...

I have read the article and I also have sympathy and understanding for any one with a disability. This woman was offered a free ticket so that she could take someone of her choosing to sign for her. The organisers even offered to move her entire party so that it would be in a better, more disabilty friendly area, she refused this offer and instead looked to get the concert halted by means of a court order. She was willing to spoil thousands of peoples enjoyment becasue she was a selfish cow. Under the threat of the concert not going ahead the organisers provided a professional signer at their own costs. They thought that would be sufficient and it would be for most people but not Mrs Spoilt woman, the signer was only provided for the main act. This selfish cow has decided that is not good enough and is again taking to the courts.

The company did more than enough to try and ensure she had a pleasurable evening out with her child and the rest of the party. it is a shame she cannot be grateful.
 
The outcome of this, of course, is that every live concert from now on will have to have a signer. What about the blind person who comes to football game will they have to have the announcer give running commentary?
 
Blue Mist said:
I have read the article and I also have sympathy and understanding for any one with a disability. This woman was offered a free ticket so that she could take someone of her choosing to sign for her. The organisers even offered to move her entire party so that it would be in a better, more disabilty friendly area, she refused this offer and instead looked to get the concert halted by means of a court order. She was willing to spoil thousands of peoples enjoyment becasue she was a selfish cow. Under the threat of the concert not going ahead the organisers provided a professional signer at their own costs. They thought that would be sufficient and it would be for most people but not Mrs Spoilt woman, the signer was only provided for the main act. This selfish cow has decided that is not good enough and is again taking to the courts.

The company did more than enough to try and ensure she had a pleasurable evening out with her child and the rest of the party. it is a shame she cannot be grateful.
Click to expand...

Are you relaying info from a different article? (genuine question). I can't see anywhere that she tried to have the concert stopped (and let's be honest, it would never in a million years have come to that).

She took out an injunction to force them provide it. The fact the promoter backed down before the hearing suggests to me they knew they were failing to comply with the law. All of those added extras were also only offered when they finally agreed to the interpreter.

Offering her a carer pass falls short IMO. I think it's unreasonable to expect her (or indeed every single deaf person at every concert) to have acess to someone who can provide that specialised service. Makes much more sense that promoters provide this as standard or on request (providing enough warning is given ) and then also any deaf child or parent wanting to attend can benefit.

Personally, whether people think she's ungrateful or a busy body or whatever, this will probs set a precedent now and other families won't have to fight for it and therefore might feel more able to attend things like this. A positive outcome if you ask me.
 
Fred_Quimby said:
The outcome of this, of course, is that every live concert from now on will have to have a signer. What about the blind person who comes to football game will they have to have the announcer give running commentary?
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a difficult thing to provide and would shake football's foundations to its very core. It'd be a piece of piss and cost next to nothing to provide earphones with in house audio commentary and I wouldn't be surprised if lots of clubs already do. If I went blind, I'd probably still want to go to the games and soak up the atmosphere (I think blind fans do go to games anyway) and I like to think they would provide that if asked.
 
geoff clipp said:
You say that like it's a difficult thing to provide and would shake football's foundations to its very core. It'd be a piece of piss and cost next to nothing to provide earphones with in house audio commentary and I wouldn't be surprised if lots of clubs already do. If I went blind, I'd probably still want to go to the games and soak up the atmosphere (I think blind fans do go to games anyway) and I like to think they would provide that if asked.
Click to expand...

You are perfectly correct, of course. There is already a radio commentary from Radio Manc and would hardly be a chore to ensure it is accessible from inside the ground. Although hopefully not using the WiFi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.