|
Brown Moses posted:I had to explain LF as well.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Spangly A posted:But the ruling is, while hilariously badly worded, legally defensible. The wheelchair space was there and an attempt at resolution was made; the bus company have therefore acted in good faith in keeping with disabilities act. I can't see how we can hold them at legal fault for someone either being a wanker or simply not having the option to move the pram without leaving the bus, and I can't see how it would be legally defensible for a bus driver to throw a woman and child off a bus they've paid for. It isn't legally defensible. Sections 20 to 22 of the Equality Act impose a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. And bus drivers can chuck disruptive passengers off all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Is 'we are full' a legal reason for refusing a person entry onto public transport? I imagine it is so the question is 'is whoever is using the space designed to allow wheelchair users to safely travel also exercising their legitimate right?' Getting someone in a wheelchair to vacate the space so another wheelchair user can use it is dumb as hell, but people using it for prams and such? I doubt it. So yeah if disabled people have a right to public transport and transport companies have the requirement to facilitate that it seems like they should be required to clear the area for a disabled user should one appear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It isn't legally defensible. Sections 20 to 22 of the Equality Act impose a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. Their I expect their argument was that forcibly removing a mother and baby from a bus goes beyond what is reasonable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Some bus companies don't allow non-foldable buggies because it conflicts with their duty to provide adjustments for disabled people. Some other bus companies actually ask those parents to get the next bus and give them a free ticket to use. If a mother is refusing to give up her foldable buggy's space for a disabled person, I would kick her off the bus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It isn't legally defensible. Sections 20 to 22 of the Equality Act impose a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. They have made reasonable adjustments. They've redesigned the bus to add ramps for wheelchairs and removed seats to create a customised space where it can be parked. They've implemented a policy to give priority to wheelchair users. They've put signs up informing the public as to their policy. Having a standoff where the driver can't drive away without becoming liable, the 'blocking' passenger refuses to move, the police are summoned, the bus is held just isn't a practical way to run a public transport system. The judge has to have an eye for the practical consequences of imposing a legal duty to throw paying passengers off the bus - he judged that they have done enough to meet the requirements of the Equality Act. You may think it isn't "legally defensible", but that's what we have the Court of Appeal for, and they disagree. Ddraig, I do have the utmost sympathy for the position you describe - I guess I'm just saying that I can see why, under the current law, the verdict is what it is. I'm not sure I have a practical solution, beyond redesigning buses to remove more seating and create more general purpose areas. Even with the power to shift prams, you'd still be buggered if there was another wheelchair already on the bus. Prince John fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
There's been situations where there's been another wheelchair in and fair enough, even my quite grumpy Nan can see that it's unavoidable. When it's full of prams with children that are old enough to walk it does start to seem like a piss take.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It isn't legally defensible. Sections 20 to 22 of the Equality Act impose a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. But it is, and was just found to be, because those adjustments had been made. This ruling was essentially asking how far "reasonable" goes. If you'd argue that we should further adjust the phrasing to ensure all public transport companies are required to ensure that buggies do not use wheelchair spaces, I'd absolutely agree. I want that to happen. I'm pretty sure that's the spirit of the law as stands, but it isn't enforceable. That's the point of this ruling. Again this sort of poo poo is about clarifying things not a dictat. I don't really know why the news like to run stuff like this, it's kinda dull.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:There's been situations where there's been another wheelchair in and fair enough, even my quite grumpy Nan can see that it's unavoidable. When it's full of prams with children that are old enough to walk it does start to seem like a piss take. As an aside, I have a friend who works in nursery care, and has done for about 10 years now. She's said the amount of children that are kept in prams and not allowed to walk before essentially being shoved off to nursery has shot up massively. It means when she takes them out on a trip to the local park, maybe 5 minutes away almost all of them can't walk that far. Its apparently a rather large problem in childcare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Wow, I didn't realise that was a thing, I just assumed those kids were disabled and it was easier to keep them in a buggy because they were small or it was cheaper than a full wheelchair. Why is it done? I would've thought a pram would just be more of a hassle.  I was turfed out of the pram quite young because my little sister was born and needed it more than me, but our mam was pretty happy and relieved when we could both walk alongside her without her having to push a big buggy with my sister in it while keeping an eye on toddler me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Its easier since toddlers walk slowly I guess. Also theres a gigantic difference to when I was growing up and modern kids who basically go from house to car to house and don't spend a lot of time out doors, even in the garden, running around. Its not that they cant walk, its just they're not used to walking more than like 200 meters at a time, so they get tired really really easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Today, one in six emirati children is diabetic. In two generations they've gone from being nomads subsisting on berries and sheep's blood to driving porsche panameras and drinking sprite straight from the bottle. My hope is we can somehow beat this record.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
TinTower posted:If a mother is refusing to give up her foldable buggy's space for a disabled person, I would kick her off the bus. Also doesn't that judgement basically set a legal precedent that goes against the against the equality act? I know we have a couple of legal people here somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Also doesn't that judgement basically set a legal precedent that goes against the against the equality act? I know we have a couple of legal people here somewhere. I'm not one of the legal people but I'm shouting into the wind that the ruling is just saying the bus company couldn't do poo poo precisely because they can't actually throw people off the bus, and thus aren't responsible. It doesn't hurt the equality act, it just highlights a glaring problem with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:bring it back Double edged sword. I was personally held responsible for The Troubles by Maggotmaster. It's rough being British. It's ok through he later died multiple times due to earthquakes and the notorio gay explosión comité de Chile gratis gay (you had one job google).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
What they need is a G4S guy on the bus to handle difficult mothers. They need the work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
I'd like to know who these MPs are, because I can't remember anyone in government ever admitting that sanctioning bottom-rung benefits (priced out with the intention of being just enough to buy food and amenities with) directly leads to domestic poverty. As an aside, absolutely gently caress this guy: quote:The spokesman said it was important to remember "this country has been through the deepest recession in living memory, and sticking to this government's long-term economic plan is the best way to improve living standards".
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Stottie Kyek posted:Wow, I didn't realise that was a thing, I just assumed those kids were disabled and it was easier to keep them in a buggy because they were small or it was cheaper than a full wheelchair. Why is it done? I would've thought a pram would just be more of a hassle. I would say it's because little kids are really REALLY annoying. They either walk really slowly, or run away and try to get themselves ran over while giggling gleefully at you screaming at them, or grab things when you're in shops - and they are experts at wiggling out of your hand no matter how tight you think you have them. Baby reins were a good stop gap in the stage of being able to walk everywhere physically but not being able to stop themselves from being evil but for some reason there's a stigma creeping in about them. Saying that I made my kid walk everywhere from about 18 months because pushing a pram along the access path to my house was more annoying and I don't care if people think baby reins are demeaning to kids, it's a lot better than seeing them squished under a car tyre.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I'm also working with CENTRIC, with our initial aim being to write a textbook on open source investigations by the 2nd quarter of 2015 for use at universities, etc. I gave a lecture to police at Sheffield Hallam a couple of weeks ago, and their reaction was very interesting. Seems there's all kinds of problems and pitfalls for them using open source investigative techniques, and there was a lot interesting debate on what that means for them in the future. Don't get disheartened, it's just because the police have to adhere to stricter regulations than citizen journalists. Reasonable doubt and all that. SA doesn't have a terribly good record in its wartime
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:I would say it's because little kids are really REALLY annoying. They either walk really slowly, or run away and try to get themselves ran over while giggling gleefully at you screaming at them, or grab things when you're in shops - and they are experts at wiggling out of your hand no matter how tight you think you have them. Baby reins were a good stop gap in the stage of being able to walk everywhere physically but not being able to stop themselves from being evil but for some reason there's a stigma creeping in about them. Wait there are people who would rather let their curious kids who have yet to develop common sense run free instead of keeping them on baby reins? Are they insane? I would probably never have seen 3 if I hadn't been kept on a leash whilst out walking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:Wait there are people who would rather let their curious kids who have yet to develop common sense run free instead of keeping them on baby reins? Are they insane? I would probably never have seen 3 if I hadn't been kept on a leash whilst out walking. Putting someone old enough to sound vaguely like a person on reins causes a pretty strong reaction. I know I hate seeing them and they make me twinge, but then I remember my nephews are monstrous little things who love to steal and pinch and run into animals. It's just a reflex, people need to think about it to get over it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Me and the ex-wife had a brief reins phase with my daughter, 2 months'ish. Worked really well, got the walking practice and learnt that roads are bad. You do see some people using them on kids that seem way to old for it though, but who knows what their situation is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Yeah it's a little bit of a "Well that looks wrong" initially but once you think about it for a second you realize "Kids are really loving stupid, this is probably a very good way of preventing them from killing themselves" It's rather unfortunate that most people never progress beyond the initial gut reaction. This seems to be what tabloids feed on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
For us it was that sort of 2.5 years old bit, they can walk for a bit without getting pissed off but have zero common sense and will leg it towards the nearest interesting looking cat/dog/flower/whatever at a suprising turn of speed if you turn you back for 1 second.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Me and the ex-wife had a brief reins phase with my daughter, 2 months'ish. Worked really well, got the walking practice and learnt that roads are bad. You do see some people using them on kids that seem way to old for it though, but who knows what their situation is. Yeah its tough to know the circumstances, I've just started helping out at the resource base in the school my mother teaches at and some of the kids in there despite being say 8 years old could very easily be a risk to themselves on the road say if a loud noise scares them and they just run off, if you saw them on reins you would think honestly what the gently caress but there would be a legitimate argument for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
You can get harnesses now that look more like a backpack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
I think we've all learnt today that it's important not to be judgemental except about tories death to tories
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:death to tories
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:For us it was that sort of 2.5 years old bit, they can walk for a bit without getting pissed off but have zero common sense and will leg it towards the nearest interesting looking cat/dog/flower/whatever at a suprising turn of speed if you turn you back for 1 second. Yeah. Honestly it can be easy to underestimate how stupid kids can be. They can walk a lot earlier than they can understand that eating rocks is bad for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Burqa King posted:Don't get disheartened, it's just because the police have to adhere to stricter regulations than citizen journalists. Reasonable doubt and all that. SA doesn't have a terribly good record in its wartime It's not that, just it was interesting to hear the complexity of the situation for them. One example I was given was a guy in the UK who has been entrapping paedophiles on their webcams by posing as a young girl on social media. He then shares the info online, and now the police have to decide what to do. If they arrest the men then their condoning his activity, which would possibly lead to him doing it more of it and encouraging others to do the same, and if they ignore then they could end up being criticised for that, especially it one of them offends in the future. Or what happens when people like myself pass our investigative work to the police? At what point is that seen as acting as investigators for the police, bypassing the restrictions they face?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Or what happens when people like myself pass our investigative work to the police? At what point is that seen as acting as investigators for the police, bypassing the restrictions they face?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:One example I was given was a guy in the UK who has been entrapping paedophiles on their webcams by posing as a young girl on social media. He then shares the info online, and now the police have to decide what to do. If they arrest the men then their condoning his activity, which would possibly lead to him doing it more of it and encouraging others to do the same, and if they ignore then they could end up being criticised for that, especially it one of them offends in the future. There was a channel 4 documentary recently about that guy. Seemed like he hardly ever got any meaningful convictions, just got himself some online notoriety. And one of the paedos killed himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Pedos often kill themselves. Once they're caught that is. There was a fairly dark documentary on the beeb a while back following a police unit that investigated pedophiles and it seems that a high number of them kill themselves soon after being arrested or charged. I think they know they're guilty and have a good idea that once they get into prison life will more likely than not become very uncomfortable. Say what you like about cops being bastards the ones that actually do try to catch and prosecute pedophiles are doing tough, depressing work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Aatrek can't do anything right apparently
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
I often wonder about the mentality of someone who does a job like that. Do they take it all the heinous poo poo they see to heart, or do they have to become desensitised merely to cope? I imagine it's a job that kills certain aspects of your life completely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Pedos often kill themselves. Once they're caught that is. I might have seen this. It was a few years back and the one person I remember was a fat guy who lived in squalor with his pet ferrets. He left incriminating stuff lying around the house (some of it very tame, like packets of boys' underwear with child models on the packaging). It was like the investigating officers were the closest thing he had to friends and he wanted their attention. He killed himself later and it was probably for the best. Depressing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Just had a rather heated argument with a co worker on the way home from work. Its amazing how otherwise normal, intelligent well adjusted people start throwing around the most right wing gently caress you got mine rhetoric when its all about MY TAX MONEY being spent on those filthy poors. But they don't mean all the poors mind, just the ones who actually can't be bothered to get a job. Of course for some reason they only mean that when you call them out on the stuff they are saying. Even though if their rhetoric was implemented they'd gently caress over everyone and not just the "real scroungers". Reminds me of some people I knew who would often rant on Facebook about people living a life of luxury on benefits, who later promptly lost their jobs, and suddenly the money they got from the government wasn't enough to live on. Even though its exactly the same money that these unemployed folk were supposedly living a life of luxury on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:I might have seen this. It was a few years back and the one person I remember was a fat guy who lived in squalor with his pet ferrets. He left incriminating stuff lying around the house (some of it very tame, like packets of boys' underwear with child models on the packaging). It was like the investigating officers were the closest thing he had to friends and he wanted their attention. He killed himself later and it was probably for the best. Depressing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Ludicro posted:Just had a rather heated argument with a co worker on the way home from work. Its amazing how otherwise normal, intelligent well adjusted people start throwing around the most right wing gently caress you got mine rhetoric when its all about MY TAX MONEY being spent on those filthy poors. Express headline today was "MIGRANT BENEFITS BUILT MY HOUSE", just a hatchet job on romanian romani, immigrants and the welfare system really. I hate to think tabloids like that have any impact, but in my experience whenever a story like that's run on the front page there is an upswing in racism for a couple of days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Spooky Hyena posted:Express headline today was "MIGRANT BENEFITS BUILT MY HOUSE" I'm guessing that's not the angle that they took though. What was the story?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:21
|
|
