Cancer patient awarded 7000 euro

walshb

walshb wrote: »

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

Unless you specifically know the people using them, how exactly do you know? Outwardly i have no physically visible illness. And as a person who does use them and have in busy environments, you would likely assume I'm abusing them... So yes you might get abuse but it's far from rampant and anyone who uses them would more than likely agree with me.

Loveinapril

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

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 .”

This is super helpful, thanks. I know you can also buy a universal key that is used in some disabled toilets.

I have footdrop due to MS but it only flares if I have walked for a while. Stairs can be a nightmare so if there is a disabled toilet on ground level, I will use it. I have issues with urgency and used to inject my meds so have a variety of reasons to want an available, accessible toilet. But I am in my 30's and walk unaided so I am sure to some I look fine. Thankfully I haven't had issues but it's a whole other story with my disabled parking permit!

freshpopcorn

I always feel very sorry for people with hidden disabilities regarding toilet use and parking badges.
They”ve enough to be coping with and then they go to the toilet and a Karen decides to yell and shout at them over it.

gctest50

Outside of the award, a better solution would be :

1) Make all toilets at events like above accessible/disabled spec ( as well as keeping the few with the blue sign for existing users)

2) Double the amount of toilets required at events ( maybe more in the future)

BabysCoffee

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.

But it is only momentarily blocked from use - no more than if a wheelchair user had to queue to use the toilet if it was already in use by another wheelchair user.

Yyhhuuu

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.

You didnt take living expenses in your calculation so living on thin air yes.
No minimum wage worker could save like that...

bohsfan

Verification is absolutely not the way to go. Awareness from the public goes a long way here.

I have Crohns- most of the time I am absolutely fine and use the general toilet facilities. However, there are occasions when using the accessible facilities are absolutely necessary and very much appreciated. If you saw me, you'd probably think 'Feckin chancer', but you'd be wrong.

Verification doesn't work as my condition isn't classed as a disability, I wouldn't be eligible for whatever badge you would want me to carry.

As an occasional user of accessible facilities, I do not observe regular misuse- even at stadia or events with large crowds. Most people get it.

Most of the misuse I see is from whoever owns the facilities either barring access or locking the facilities and making the keys very difficult to obtain

Not everyone who needs to use these toilets is a person with a disability, so they were renamed to avoid exactly this type of scenario. The preferred name these days is "accessible" toilets/bathrooms for this reason. It is disturbingly embarrassing to have to state why you need to use one, I'd imagine, so the award should probably have been higher, if the intent is to act as a deterrent to staff.

Strumms

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.

MCD have millions in cash and assets. 7000 is nothing to mcd...

In 2019 they clocked up ticked sales revenue of 144 million.

7000 compensated the client and will act as a reminder, to mcd, to do better...happens again, 20,000.

If mcd don’t want insurance premiums to rise they need to not put themselves in situations where they are hurting clients, they need to organize events properly and have suitably professional and trained staff, to deal with every type of situation...

twowheelsonly

As someone who has worked at numerous gigs (hundreds!!) I've seen these facilities abused on a regular basis and there absolutely is a need to police them. Obviously there is a problem identifying with an 'invisible' disability or need for accessible facilities but a good event steward or security person will have the cop on to weed out the chancers just by instinct. Sounds to me like this was an inexperienced person who was obviously just told to cover that spot and only allow disabled people to use it.

BTW, Simmonscourt in the RDS was probably the worst for chancers. There's an accessible toilet just inside the door whereas the general toilets are a bit of a longer trek . That place really brought out the entitled brigade.

Kid Charlemagne

Wanderer78 wrote: »

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

No but at the same time this will have a knock on in terms of how these things are managed/staff trained in future.

Dont think this was a fine anyway - I believe the money was compensation directly to the plaintiff.
The problem with these overly large awards is they will incentivise chancers to try to get themselves excluded from the accessible toilets, just so they can stick in a claim. There were plenty of cases of people trying to get themselves accused of shoplifting for similar reasons.

The compo awards in this country are totally skewed in favour of claimants and to the detriment of society.

Demonique

ratracer wrote: »

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.

There's nothing wrong with using the word 'disabled', 'disabled' is not a dirty word.

Signed, a disabled person

Strumms

Kid Charlemagne wrote: »

No but at the same time this will have a knock on in terms of how these things are managed/staff trained in future.

Dont think this was a fine anyway - I believe the money was compensation directly to the plaintiff.
The problem with these overly large awards is they will incentivise chancers to try to get themselves excluded from the accessible toilets, just so they can stick in a claim. There were plenty of cases of people trying to get themselves accused of shoplifting for similar reasons.

The compo awards in this country are totally skewed in favour of claimants and to the detriment of society.

It’s not an overly large award.

Incentivize chancers ? Probably, maybe... that’s the fault of mcd, not the customer. If they had their shït together there is zero award. MCD have incentivized chancers.. Nobody else.

twowheelsonly

twowheelsonly wrote: »

As someone who has worked at numerous gigs (hundreds!!) I've seen these facilities abused on a regular basis and there absolutely is a need to police them. Obviously there is a problem identifying with an 'invisible' disability or need for accessible facilities but a good event steward or security person will have the cop on to weed out the chancers just by instinct. Sounds to me like this was an inexperienced person who was obviously just told to cover that spot and only allow disabled people to use it.

BTW, Simmonscourt in the RDS was probably the worst for chancers. There's an accessible toilet just inside the door whereas the general toilets are a bit of a longer trek . That place really brought out the entitled brigade.

Thing is, your decision to weed out "chancers" would likely hit me. How exactly would you do so? Eg why should I have to divulge to you what condition I have?

Str8outtaWuhan

is cancer a disability that is covered under the equality act?

Donald Trump

They need to have some controls over the disabled toilets. They can't leave them open to general use. That would be a bit like not having permits and just asking people not to park in disabled spots.

The jacks at a concert can be a little messy to put it mildly. They need to make sure that they can have decent ones kept aside for the actually disabled. Am talking in general

A badge might be the only way to do it.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

Thing is, your decision to weed out "chancers" would likely hit me. How exactly would you do so? Eg why should I have to divulge to you what condition I have?

Probably to stop "chancers" who just don't want to queue up for the normal toilets, from going destroying the toilets for the people who need them.


If I go into a regular portaloo and some ****er is after making shite of it (literally) then I can go into the one next over. If there is a special one for disabled - bigger or whatever - then the disabled person might not be able to use the one next over.


If they don't have the right to ask you with an (invisible) disability, then they don't have the right to question me or anyone else with none.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Probably to stop "chancers" who just don't want to queue up for the normal toilets, from going destroying the toilets for the people who need them.


If I go into a regular portaloo and some ****er is after making shite of it (literally) then I can go into the one next over. If there is a special one for disabled - bigger or whatever - then the disabled person might not be able to use the one next over.


If they don't have the right to ask you with an (invisible) disability, then they don't have the right to question me or anyone else with none.

Ya and I'd prefer that to the scenario where I'm being questioned on something that is pretty personal. And other users with similar conditions aren't very comfortable with it either. Also to be frank, the urgency of the situation for plenty of people in that scenario isn't a good time to stop for an interrogation. And there's absolutely no guarantee that the security guard will have a clue about the condition you're referring to.

So no, questioning a person on illnesses is both invasive and very much so a pot luck scenario in terms of getting in. As demonstrated by this very case.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

Ya and I'd prefer that to the scenario where I'm being questioned on something that is pretty personal. And other users with similar conditions aren't very comfortable with it either. Also to be frank, the urgency of the situation for plenty of people in that scenario isn't a good time to stop for an interrogation. And there's absolutely no guarantee that the security guard will have a clue about the condition you're referring to.

So no, questioning a person on illnesses is both invasive and very much so a pot luck scenario in terms of getting in. As demonstrated by this very case.

You'd prefer it. That's perfectly fine but that's your choice. The wheelchair user who can only fit into that single large-sized portaloo that some random drunk arsehole is after scuttering all over because he didn't want to wait in the queue for the regular ones, might not be too happy. You might be physically able to go to a cleaner regular one instead. Wheelchair user might not be

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

You'd prefer it. That's perfectly fine but that's your choice. The wheelchair user who can only fit into that single large-sized portaloo that some random drunk arsehole is after scuttering all over because he didn't want to wait in the queue for the regular ones, might not be too happy. You might be physically able to go to a cleaner regular one instead. Wheelchair user might not be

So a person with a colostomy bag for example, should they have to show it to a security guard? Do you think the person from the original piece was unfairly discriminated against? Cause that's the reality, a security guard does not have the medical knowledge to conclude whether I or anyone else might need to use the accessible bathroom.

And no, there absolutely are reasons why somebody with crohn's has to use an accessible toilet...

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

So a person with a colostomy bag for example, should they have to show it to a security guard? Do you think the person from the original piece was unfairly discriminated against? Cause that's the reality, a security guard does not have the medical knowledge to conclude whether I or anyone else might need to use the accessible bathroom.

And no, there absolutely are reasons why somebody with crohn's has to use an accessible toilet...

Nobody suggested anyone having to show anything (other than maybe a pass if they brought in passes). Just that they could have people there questioning. A lot of people would chance using them if there was nobody around but they wouldn't want to seen to be doing it.



Other extreme is to just have the larger disabled toilet and just let whoever wants to use it to use it. It will still be there for the wheelchair person. But the drunk young wan who is looking for the nearest one to throw up in can also use it as well. I wouldn't go for that option, but then I'm not disabled so maybe I'm reading too much into it and the people who need to use it would actually prefer it that way too

Treppen

begbysback wrote: »

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

I don't think your allowed talk about that... Or the other fella Dinny the N'OB

Donald Trump

Treppen wrote: »

I don't think your allowed talk about that... Or the other fella Dinny the N'OB

Can you talk about it if your daddy is a partner a certain large firm?

twowheelsonly

Deleted User wrote: »

Thing is, your decision to weed out "chancers" would likely hit me. How exactly would you do so? Eg why should I have to divulge to you what condition I have?

You don't (obviously) have to disclose your condition but generally speaking you can weed out chancers from genuine people by their approach to the situation. Some will demand to use the toilets as "There's no-one else there..." "I'll only be a second...." "The gents is miles away..." etc. Genuine cases tend to be quieter, possibly even embarrassed or just have a 'look' that says they need to use the toilet but no-one will ever get it 100% right

The other option is to just allow everyone to use all facilities but then there's queues a mile long and when you get in there the place is a mess, possibly with piss or puke all over the place. That's not much good to those looking for or needing a clean environment. MCD / Whatever promoter is then the worst in the world for not providing proper facilities. Lose/Lose for them.

IMO passes are the obvious solution.

endacl

Str8outtaWuhan wrote: »

is cancer a disability that is covered under the equality act?

Ever had to change an ostomy bag?

poisonated

Unfortunately the job does attract a lot of unsavoury characters. Most are nice though!