Cancer patient awarded 7000 euro

poisonated

https://m.independent.ie/news/7000-for-cancer-patient-left-embarrassed-after-security-staff-at-concert-refused-to-let-her-use-disabled-bathroom-40262359.html

A cancer patient who was refused permission to use the disabled bathroom was awarded 7000 euro. I think it is a lot of money but she shouldn’t have been treated this way. What is your opinion?

Yyhhuuu

poisonated wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/news/7000-for-cancer-patient-left-embarrassed-after-security-staff-at-concert-refused-to-let-her-use-disabled-bathroom-40262359.html

A cancer patient who was refused permission to use the disabled bathroom was awarded 7000 euro. I think it is a lot of money but she shouldn’t have been treated this way. What is your opinion?

The same thing happened us in a certain coffee chain. A person with an invisible disability was refused entry by a thick staff member. .we complained to the management and they didnt even offer as much as a free coffee.

I keep thinking of the signs on disabled toilets in the UK that not all disabilities are visible. They would stop this from happening. A person may be an insulin-dependant diabetic wishing to administer insulin etc etc in a toilet. It's not only for wheelchair users.

Some people are so judgemental or stupid or both.

I think the award was too high.

lalababa

7,000..it would take a min wage worker in Dub over a year to save this. World gone mad....maybe 100euro voucher for dinner and an apology...but 7000? Judges gone mad...I tell ya ..mad

Strumms

She emailed MCD, she did everything she could to be fair and proactive, Yet was denied the use of the bathroom which she needed... I think it’s a fair award..she did everything to be proactive regarding the situation...to enable mcd to do the right thing, they didn’t.

What mcd should do in that situation is on receipt of her communication, tell her on arrival to bring said purchased ticket to the ticket desk at the venue, issue a ticket then for the accessible area so she will have comfortable and good access to the venue as well as bathrooms and refreshments kiosk etc...look after customers and be proactive.

Customer is happy and comfortable, good PR for the promoter...

In 2019 I emailed the organizers of an event, a sporting body asking about accessible tickets for a match, they were not seemingly on sale on the Ticketmaster site.. I was recovering from a serious medical condition and while I wasn’t sure if necessary it just would have made things easier... they replied... “ don’t buy tickets, a couple of complimentary tickets will be available for you and a buddy for collecting, access to the accessible area, brilliant seats.. no Q at bar..

Wanderer78

poisonated wrote:

A cancer patient who was refused permission to use the disabled bathroom was awarded 7000 euro. I think it is a lot of money but she shouldn’t have been treated this way. What is your opinion?

Jesus we 're weird out at times, all this over a fcuking toilet, and a cancer patient, how fcuked up have we become!

Again, there's no conclusive evidence to support that monetary fines result in change, particularly at institutional level

Peregrinus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Again, there's no conclusive evidence to support that monetary fines result in change, particularly at institutional level

If they don't, they they're clearly not high enough.

The whole point of these awards, in a commercial context, is to give commercial operators a financial incentive to obey the law - i.e. to make it cheaper for them to obey the law than to flout it. If they'd rather pay the awards than obey the law, then increasing the awards is a no-brainer.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote:

Again, there's no conclusive evidence to support that monetary fines result in change, particularly at institutional level

Peregrinus wrote:

The whole point of these awards, in a commercial context, is to give commercial operators a financial incentive to obey the law - i.e. to make it cheaper for them to obey the law than to flout it. If they'd rather pay the awards than obey the law, then increasing the awards is a no-brainer.

.........

As a person with an invisible illness, it's pretty humiliating having to explain to anyone why I need to use a disabled toilet on occasion. Thankfully the occasion hasn't arose. MCD behaved entirely in the wrong and 7000 is frankly small fry for them.

Squeeonline

Should be 7000 to her and 100x more at least donated to a relevant charity (and they dont get to claim tax relief on the donation). Gotta hit them where it hurts if you want change.

begbysback

We’re mcd the ones who managed to turn boards into China a few years back?

onrail

My sympathies with the victim here, but what does the €7000 do?

In all likelihood, it simply raises insurance premiums for the business and ultimately financially limits the ability of the employer to improve facilities or provide training for staff.

biko

It's a tricky situation.
If the person can walk to the bathroom then why do they need it?

For her, apparently she needs extra space because she has an ostomy.
For security, she appears to be someone who does not actually need the bathroom and thus will block it from a wheelchair user.

seamus

I don't see the issue here. €7k is not really a massive chunk of money. And it's next to impossible to put a monetary value on humiliation, so it's a bit of a shot in the dark.

She said the attendant “looked me up and down and asked what was wrong with me”.

“I was upset, shocked and humiliated having to explain I have had part of my bowel and rectum removed as well as other organs and have a stoma and need access to disabled bathroom to change.”

The award is as much to highlight that the actions of the steward - while they may be "normal" - are unacceptable. Nobody should ever be required to disclose personal medical details to access basic services such as toilets, water, food, etc. "What is wrong with you", or, "Why can't you use the normal toilets" are not appropriate questions.

If MCD feel the need to police disabled toilets, then they should operate a badge system where someone gets a badge before the event or at the gate to give them access to disabled facilities. This saves any need for humiliating conversations at the side of the event surrounded by a load of randomers while you're dying to piss.

But I doubt they do need to be heavily policed. Irish people are usually very good at not using the disabled toilets, even when the queues for the others are huge.

ratracer

Is a wheelchair accessible bathroom ( as opposed to the terrible term disabled) not just that? As in, people in wheelchairs who need extra room, have a usable facility available to them. It shouldn’t mean exclusive use of said facility, there is no reason that anybody cannot use it.

spaceHopper

onrail wrote: »

My sympathies with the victim here, but what does the €7000 do?

In all likelihood, it simply raises insurance premiums for the business and ultimately financially limits the ability of the employer to improve facilities or provide training for staff.

If MCD and offered a decent appoilogy promised to train their staff better and give her tickets to another gig she's have been more than happy. Instead they gave her a glib apology

KaneToad

ratracer wrote: »

Is a wheelchair accessible bathroom ( as opposed to the terrible term disabled) not just that? As in, people in wheelchairs who need extra room, have a usable facility available to them. It shouldn’t mean exclusive use of said facility, there is no reason that anybody cannot use it.

There are many scenarios where a disability hinders your ability to control your bladder/bowel. Having to queue with everyone else in a busy venue is not always an option.

biko

biko wrote: »

It's a tricky situation.
If the person can walk to the bathroom then why do they need it?

For her, apparently she needs extra space because she has an ostomy.
For security, she appears to be someone who does not actually need the bathroom and thus will block it from a wheelchair user.

Disabled bathrooms are available for people regardless of disability. I can walk but if I have a crohn's flare, urgently needing a bathroom is pretty usual and space is somewhat helpful in that situation too tbh. It's not up to security to decide whether a person is the right kind of disabled...

So not tricky at all.

seamus

ratracer wrote: »

Is a wheelchair accessible bathroom ( as opposed to the terrible term disabled) not just that? As in, people in wheelchairs who need extra room, have a usable facility available to them. It shouldn’t mean exclusive use of said facility, there is no reason that anybody cannot use it.

No, it's not just wheelchairs, it's anyone who might have difficulty (physical or psychological) using a standard toilet stall, who may need the extra space for other reasons (such as changing a colostomy bag), who may need a carer or assistant to come in with them, or who are just in an emergency and cannot queue.

The wheelchair symbol is the universally recognised sign, but that doesn't mean the facilities are exclusively for wheelchair users.

You know yourself at a gig that the queues for the jacks are usually huge during intervals or at other points, so there's some logic in "guarding" the disabled facilities and keeping them clear for use. But demanding proof that someone needs to use them is a step too far.

strandroad

ratracer wrote: »

Is a wheelchair accessible bathroom ( as opposed to the terrible term disabled) not just that? As in, people in wheelchairs who need extra room, have a usable facility available to them. It shouldn’t mean exclusive use of said facility, there is no reason that anybody cannot use it.

They also have a washbasin inside. For someone with a stoma it's essential to have access to running water when they change.

ratracer

strandroad wrote: »

They also have a washbasin inside. For someone with a stoma it's essential to have access to running water when they change.

I understand that, and have no issue. I use the term wheelchair accessible as I was I thought 'disabled' was a term no longer allowed to be used, but the (possibly) missed point of my post was that the facility could be used by anybody, in this case it seems the MCD staff only see physical disability as a defining criteria for use.

As Seamus had said, in general, most folk have enough cop on to go to the regular jacks.

noodler

Huge money and indicative of our off-kilter compensation system.

In the future staff really should just not ask anyone any questions about the Disabled bathroom. It's a legal minefield.

walshb

Not sure I am getting this angle that security can’t police these toilets. They are for persons with disability. And surely disability has to be established and verified, otherwise everyone and anyone can chance their arm.

RebeccaK21

biko wrote: »

It's a tricky situation.
If the person can walk to the bathroom then why do they need it?

For her, apparently she needs extra space because she has an ostomy.
For security, she appears to be someone who does not actually need the bathroom and thus will block it from a wheelchair user.

They aren't bathrooms for people in wheelchairs though, that's just the symbol for disability access. It has nothing to do with whether the person can walk or not.
Saying that she appears to be someone who does not actually need to use the bathroom is so dismissive, and security does not get to make the decision about who is considered disabled enough the use those facilities. No one should have to explain their private medical history to security staff just to be able to go to the bathroom.

colm_mcm

noodler wrote: »

Huge money and indicative of our off-kilter compensation system.

In the future staff really should just not ask anyone any questions about the Disabled bathroom. It's a legal minefield.

If that becomes the norm, it’s the people with disabilities that will have to queue longer while chancers skip the queue for the main toilets.

RebeccaK21

walshb wrote: »

Not sure I am getting this angle that security can’t police these toilets. They are for persons with disability. And surely disability has to be established and verified, otherwise everyone and anyone can chance their arm.

What kind of verification do you have in mind? Would you like to have to explain that your rectum and part of your bowel was removed every time you need to go to the bathroom?

astrofool

colm_mcm wrote: »

If that becomes the norm, it’s the people with disabilities that will have to queue longer while chancers skip the queue for the main toilets.

After an incident like this, no disabled toilet will be policed, so that will be the outcome. I don't think there is any practical solution for it other than relying on the good will of people...

seamus

walshb wrote: »

Not sure I am getting this angle that security can’t police these toilets. They are for persons with disability. And surely disability has to be established and verified, otherwise everyone and anyone can chance their arm.

There are more sensible ways of doing it though. 99% of people won't chance their arm even if there is nobody policing it. So you don't really need a verification system. You might want stewards there to keep an eye out, look out for queue jumpers, but having someone standing there interviewing people or checking badges to use a toilet seems like overkill.

So a few people might sneak in and take a piss during the concert despite actually being abled. So long as the accessible toilets are accessible when people actually need them, then what's the harm?

walshb

RebeccaK21 wrote: »

What kind of verification do you have in mind? Would you like to have to explain that your rectum and part of your bowel was removed every time you need to go to the bathroom?

Simple:

Disability surely had to be verified...

Otherwise people will abuse the facility, and those who have a disability that requires the use of a disabled toilet will suffer

No different than disabled parking. The user needs a permit. Something that identifies their right to use the facility.

So, it is up to persons wanting to use the facility to prove they have the right to..

If that means carrying a badge/letter/cert etc, so be it.

There has to be rules and verification. In a perfect world there wouldn’t need to be. We do not live in this world.

banie01

There is a huge amount of hidden health conditions that place some quite restrictive limits upon people.

The immediate assumption is that disabled toilets are for visibly disabled or limited people.
Thing is, does someone with a stoma, or who needs to inject insulin or whom is otherwise limited but quite normal presenting be denied access to disabled toilets?

As an example currently the vaccination centres are vaccinating cohort 4.
You would be hard pressed to spend some time out in a vaccination centre and identify the disabled/infirm especially the younger ones.

Unfortunately for the premises in this instance, they rolled the dice on choosing to bar access to their disabled toilet.
They breached equality and discrimination legislation and they lost.
Further to that however, if MCD had actually handled this complaint with any degree of empathy and actual customer service?
The issue would have been resolved quite quickly.
Acknowledging the difficult position the woman was placed in, acknowledging that there is clearly a gap in the training regarding the toilet access and that it will be addressed in future training as quickly as possible.
MCD made a rod for their own back, don't pick a fight with someone who is ill and determined.

noodler

colm_mcm wrote: »

If that becomes the norm, it’s the people with disabilities that will have to queue longer while chancers skip the queue for the main toilets.

Correct.

But what do you want the minimum wage staff to do? Risk making the call themselves and costing their employer 7k?

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Simple:

Disability surely had to be verified...

Otherwise people will abuse the facility, and those who have a disability that requires the use of a disabled toilet will suffer

No different than disabled parking. The user needs a permit. Something that identifies their right to use the facility.

So, it is up to persons wanting to use the facility to prove they have the right to..

If that means carrying a badge/letter/cert etc, so be it.

There has to be rules and verification. In a perfect world there wouldn’t need to be. We do not live in this world.

As a person who has used disabled toilets in past, I've not encountered wide spread abuse of them or anything. There are "no waiting cards" but anyone can get them so that wouldn't do a lot. There is no currently set expectation to prove your disability to a security guard and it's frankly a bit invasive to be expected to do so with a random member of the public.

Also what about if one did have a letter or badge and you simply forget it. (Could easily print your own and claim it as legit btw) Should the person with the invisible illness just put up with not being able to avail of the facilities? Wait in a queue with severe diarrhea that they potentially can't hold? Or put somebody with a stoma through a humiliating situation?

So I'd say your proposal makes people with disabilities suffer and potentially humiliates them.

retalivity

lalababa wrote: »

7,000..it would take a min wage worker in Dub over a year to save this. World gone mad....maybe 100euro voucher for dinner and an apology...but 7000? Judges gone mad...I tell ya ..mad

Not it wouldn't - minimum wage in Dublin (& Ireland) is €10.20, working a 40hr week would mean you would have €7k in less than 18 weeks, or 4 months or so.

walshb

Where widespread abuse can occur is in very busy environments..

Should it be a free for all? The disabled toilets not policed? And free for everyone? Because in a very busy environment you absolutely will see abuse..

Now, should that be let go, because nobody should be allowed challenge/verify/enquire as to persons wanting to use these facilities?

Mrs OBumble

seamus wrote: »

99% of people won't chance their arm even if there is nobody policing it.

So a few people might sneak in and take a piss during the concert despite actually being abled. So long as the accessible toilets are accessible when people actually need them, then what's the harm?

Ah, this Ireland: 99% of people will chance their arm on just about anything.

The real solution is to build all public toilets as accessible, self-contained, non-gender-specific cubicles, suitable for just about anyone.

And for the ones they don't work for, anywhere with more than 10 cubicles should have to have at least one supersized Changing Place with a hoist etc.

astrofool

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ah, this Ireland: 99% of people will chance their arm on just about anything.

The real solution is to build all public toilets as accessible, self-contained, non-gender-specific cubicles, suitable for just about anyone.

And for the ones they don't work for, anywhere with more than 10 cubicles should have to have at least one supersized Changing Place with a hoist etc.

This would just lead to every location having a maximum of 9 cubicles.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Where widespread abuse can occur is in very busy environments..

Should it be a free for all? The disabled toilets not policed? And free for everyone? Because in a very busy environment you absolutely will see abuse..

Now, should that be let go, because nobody should be allowed challenge/verify/enquire as to persons wanting to use these facilities?

So if a person forgets the pass that they're not even legally required to have.... It's pretty clear that the person preventing access is the person at fault, they have no legal standing in terms of asking. If the laws change that's potentially different but equally there should be absolutely no hurdle for the disabled person to access.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that mcd training or the person failing to follow the training is at fault. Verifying a disability is absurd at this point in time and has never been an expectation.

byhookorbycrook

biko wrote: »

It's a tricky situation.
If the person can walk to the bathroom then why do they need it?

For her, apparently she needs extra space because she has an ostomy.
For security, she appears to be someone who does not actually need the bathroom and thus will block it from a wheelchair user.

I can walk short distances, but I often need a toilet urgently and need the “ grab bars” etc. An accessible toilet is the difference between a humiliating bathroom accident or getting there “ in time .”

dragx

She should've gotten more. Remember that moron who got a huge sum for hanging off the side of a luas?

biko wrote: »

It's a tricky situation.

It really isn't.

biko wrote: »

If the person can walk to the bathroom then why do they need it?

Do you honestly think disabled toilets are exclusively for people in wheelchairs?

byhookorbycrook

For fellow MS-ers and I’m sure other groups do the same MS Ireland can send you a card that states “ I have MS, can you help” and mentions things like accessible toilets etc. It would be useful in situations like this , where people think “ you don’t look disabled .”

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

I can walk but if I have a crohn's flare, urgently needing a bathroom is pretty usual and space is somewhat helpful in that situation too tbh. It's not up to security to decide whether a person is the right kind of disabled...

So not tricky at all.

Thanks, yes that makes sense.

But of course if anyone should be able to use the disabled toilets then there may be a line next time with drunk people that don't appear to actually require it.
That is probably the reason for the security in the first place.

lalababa

noodler wrote: »

Huge money and indicative of our off-kilter compensation system.

In the future staff really should just not ask anyone any questions about the Disabled bathroom. It's a legal minefield.

And there you have it....any auld scummer will be using the disabled toilet and not a hoot given

lalababa

retalivity wrote: »

Not it wouldn't - minimum wage in Dublin (& Ireland) is €10.20, working a 40hr week would mean you would have €7k in less than 18 weeks, or 4 months or so.

I said save, not, make. Put on your reading glasses...

biko

biko wrote: »

Thanks, yes that makes sense.

But of course if anyone should be able to use the disabled toilets then there may be a line next time with drunk people that don't appear to actually require it.
That is probably the reason for the security in the first place.

I imagine the security at a gig does not exist to query people's disabilities... It's also generally not an issue so to assume it's suddenly gonna become so is a leap.

spurious

Yet another issue that decent parenting would have made a non-issue.
Do not use 'disabled' toilets if you do not need to.

walshb

dragx wrote: »

Do you honestly think disabled toilets are exclusively for people in wheelchairs?

Is there a list of illnesses/conditions/disabilities that cover the use of disabled toilets?

If not, then it it is a free for all type situation..

And if there can be no challenges or verifying, then it is a free for all

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Is there a list of illnesses/conditions/disabilities that cover the use of disabled toilets?

If not, then it it is a free for all type situation..

There is not but creating an exhaustive list for illnesses and physical impairments that are reasons one should be allowed to use a disabled toilet is virtually impossible. The issue remains that a security guard overstepped and you're just attempting to justify it...

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

There is not but creating an exhaustive list for illnesses and physical impairments that are reasons one should be allowed to use a disabled toilet is virtually impossible. The issue remains that a security guard overstepped and you're just attempting to justify it...

I am not justifying anything...

Disabled toilets are for people who need them, people that have a disability requiring their use..

The issue is should any type verification/policing be allowed?

I think it makes sense that it should be allowed.

Otherwise scrap their use for disabled people, because you will have the system being abused.

seamus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ah, this Ireland: 99% of people will chance their arm on just about anything.

And half of the Dublinbikes will end up in the Liffey. It's just in our nature isn't it, savage, stupid Irish people.

I guess we'd need someone who routinely uses these facilities to confirm; but I haven't observed widespread abuse of these facilities.

Any time I have seen long queues for toilets, I have also observed the accessible toilets left untouched.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

I am not justifying anything...

Disabled toilets are for people who need them, people that have a disability requiring their use..

The issue is should any type verification/policing be allowed?

I think it makes sense that it should be allowed.

Otherwise scrap their use for disabled people, because you will have the system being abused.

The thing is, you haven't illustrated that there is an actual issue of rampant abuse of disabled toilets. You've just claimed it while ignoring the posts of posters who use them....

seamus

walshb wrote: »

Disabled toilets are for people who need them, people that have a disability requiring their use..

Not necessarily though.

Some disabled toilets double as the baby changing room. But ignoring that, a parent might have a child who is about to pop while there are huge queues for the toilets.

They're not disabled, but they do have an urgent need. Nobody (no parents anyway) would begrudge that individual skipping the queue and using the disabled toilet.

Even imagine someone who goes out and then suddenly finds themselves struck down with the vomiting bug. If you've ever had that, you'll know the need to sh1t comes on strong and it comes on fast. Should that person be forced to queue and probably sh1t themselves, while an empty disabled toilet is there?

So an exhaustive list of "people who are allowed to use disabled toilets" is ultimately an unreasonable ask. They are for the most part self-policing, and it works.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing is, you haven't illustrated that there is an actual issue of rampant abuse of disabled toilets. You've just claimed it while ignoring the posts of posters who use them....

I said that in any busy environment you will have abuse..,

So, there. Do these facilities need policing during very busy environments?

Yes, they do. Because you will have people not with any disability trying to access them.

I have seen it many times in busy pubs

And I am sure many others have as well