Accessible events that make it impossible to book

Charity Attitude Is Everything says disabled event goers find booking tickets has its own issues, I agree. Whilst physical.access is improving booking tickets is still challenging, despite equality laws21  covering such issues there is a long way to go.

I''ve sat on booking lines for marathon sessions either to get nothing, or when I get to the end of the queue to be told I have to ring a different line for access seating, or to get carer tickets. This makes the process longer, and more complicated, making buying a ticket a more difficult and even more like trying to win the lottery.

Many disabled people need a carer to go to events, which makes attending more expensive. Venues may have a discount or free tickets scheme but this can add to the difficulties of booking. Sometimes you need to provide proof of disability before booking,  which adds another time factor. I came across  one such scheme that said it used 'judgement' to decide if someone qualified. They asked searching questions about benefits and disability needs, as well wanting to check details with a carer. After all that they only gave discounts,.which varied, to a limited number of customers per performance. I didn't sign up, whilst I understand they have  to target discounts it shouldn't feel like they just want to be nosy.

Accesaible seating, and equipment like headphones are usually limited, so those who need them  have less options fogetting tickets. There may be only a handful of places even in large theatres. This means disabled people face more of a scramble for even fewer tickets.

Special seating may be in specific areas or be only for disabled people. This makes it difficult or impossible to sit with non disabled friends especially if you are in a group. I have been asked if I really wanted to sit with the people I was with!

Things are improving, some venues offer a very customer friendly service but disabled people won't have leisure equality until they really can book just like everyone else.

Cute disability pictures on social media harm.our rights

I hate the cute disabled kid pictures on social.medis asking for a share, happy birthday or whatever because apparently nobody will. They give the wrong impression of disability and are probably posted just to get a reaction. They damage the fight for acceptance and rights. As a disabled person I'm offended that anyone thinks it ok to show us as so different and in many cases pathetic that such images have to be paraded on facebook to get us 'accepted'. If thats acceptance and normality I don't want it.

Previously posted by me on facebook

Disability rights myths, or what the Conservatives tell you

Myth Disability Living Allowance is self assessed by claimants with no checks.
Fact Decisionmakers decided all claims advised by healthcare workers. DMs chose whatever evidence they need to decide. This could be a report from a professional involved in the claimants care or a medical by a DWP appointed professional.

Myth Personal Independence Payment is targeted at those who need most help.
Fact Based on a points system it cherry picks the needs it includes. Changes in the rules mean many with significant needs, lose out because they don't have the right needs. Many get less help than under DLA.

Myths Relatively few claims for PIP are appealed.
Fact Appeals are  at record levels. Currently around two thirds of appeals succeed. This seriously  calls into question the claim decision making process.

Myth Disability and sickness benefits were changed to combat fraud.
Fact Fraud for these benefit is around 0.5 %. Much higher  for Housing Benefits and Working Tax Credit. DWP inflate stats often for benefit fraud by including official error. This idcwhere claimants gave the correct information and DWP paid the wrong amount.

Myth Disabled and elderly people get free social care.
Fact There are savings and income limits before any help with cost is given. Care needs are assessed and only eligible needs met. Means tests are carried out, most people contribute to the cost.

Myth Disabled people get free cars.
Fact People on the  higher rate mobility component of DLA/PIP or the forces equivelant can lease a car using their benefit. Its either the car or the money. Cars have advance payments that must be paid, and any adaptions must  be paid for.

Myth Disabled people don't pay rent or council tax.
Fact Housing Benefit/Local Housing Allowance rarely meets the full cost, and not everyone qualifies. Most people under 65 now have to pay some council Tax, if they get any help.

Myth Disability related equipment is free. Fact Whats on offer if you qualify is limited and there are long waits. Most people have to buy to get what meets their needs. We often pay luxury prices for essential items.

Myth DLA/PIP meets the extra costs of disability.
Fact It comes nowhere near for many. Transport a big cost for many, special clothing, footwear, prepared food if you can't cook, or special diets. Equipment that you can't have free, contributing to care. Meeting the cost of activities you have to have someone with you, LAs won't usually cover that, and more. The money runs out long before the list does.

Myth Disabled people have their bills paid. Fact Anything we owe, and its pretty much the same as anyone else plus disability costs comes out of our income. Benefits if we qualify, vary on circustances, most struggle to make ends meet.

Mental health and physical health both matter every day

Its World Mental Health Day, a day to raise awareness. It works but its not enough, those who don't have mental health needs need to be aware of mental health every day. It also needs to be viewed in exactly the way as physical health, there is no difference.

I have complex PTSD, alongside a physical disability. Nobody suggests  that me saying I can't take my wheelchair down steps is not a real need they accept that. I find attending medical appointments difficult because of my PTSD, to do so I need reasonable adjustments like seeing the same people or seeing them at certain places. Under the law I can ask for that in the same way as asking  for wheelchair access. Too often though its not seen in the same way. I am told more often than not I am simply making a choice, I could do it if I wanted to.

In the street I have been called crip, spaz, mental, loony, the first two relate to my physical disability, the others to my mental health. People have defended me and reacted against the former, the latter is seen as more acceptable.

In fact treating anyone with additional needs, no matter what they are, as if its just choice is not acceptable, nor is using discriminatory language. Anyone with a disability or health condition has the same rights under the Equality Act, no mstter what the nature or cause of their condition.

My wish is that starting today and continuing every day people treat those with physical and mental health needs with the same respect, and acceptance that they have exactly the same rights That will be real progress.

Rights and responsibility go together

If we want our rights respected we have to take responsibility, for our actions. If we want equality we have to take both sides of it. We have to accept we get treated the same way as everyone else for negative reasons too.

Campaigners who are fighting for rights must do so responsibly. If we campaign in a way that causes disturbance in a manner that puts us on the wrong side of the law we must face the personal conequences. We have rights, but there are ways to claim them. Using it as a badge of honour on social media isn't appropriate. Claiming you were targeted because you were disabled won't do you any favours when 'preferred' media states you were doing what you were charged with. Not only are there personal considerations but we have to ensure we don't harm the very cause we are fighting for.  Getting arrested and shouting about it is hardly going to boost your popularity with the public. They are likely to see you as trouble makers who don't deserve rights. Nor will it increase understanding for disabled people in general. It instead increases hate and distrust. You also just made the job of other campaigners harder, those of us who use other methods will also be seen as irresponsible troublemakers who scream  when held responsible.

Lack of responsibility hasn't ended there. Its planned that any legal costs will be met by crowd funding.  I won't be contributing qqif it is set up.  I wasn't responsible I won't share the punishment. The solution is simple if you can't do the time, (next time) don't do the crime.

I can hear those who say they did it for all  disabled people. No they chose to do it, for themselves, but they didn't do it in my name, their actions don't help me. Rather it harms the rights fight. They do not listen to me or many others, they select those they listen to. They did not act or speak for me, only I can do that.

Not public property

Yesterday I met nosy person for the 2nd time in a month. Like last time she wanted to know if I was wating for a taxi, I was so she said it was ok with her. I asked why else I'd be waiting where they pick upvin the rain. She then asked if I was permanently disabled or just in the chair for now. Asked why it was her business. She then said I shouldn't be out alone. Seriously the same person same questions twice in a month.

Was whinging to someone abled bodied about it and got told its how people learn, you might have helped her. I'm all for raising awareness but eriously does that mean I'm obliged to answer nosey questions whenever they are asked? Do disabled people have no rights to privacy? I'm not public property!

I take my rights

As The British Survey of Social Attitudes shows more people think disabled people need more support I ask if they understand that we need not passive protection but our rights back? We don't need looking after but to be empowered.

The Government want disabled people to be full participants of society. I agree I want that too. I want to take an active part in society, to be able to choose to study or volunteer, if I want to. I want to have a social life, I want to be able to pay my bills without worrying. I want those who can work to be able to do so, not by force but by being given real choices that empower them I want disabled pople to able to choose where and how they live in the same way as anyone else does. I am not asking to be given these things as a favour, I'm claiming rights I have in law, the right everyone has to live life on their own terms. These are human rights and disabled people are human beings too.

To be able to use these rights disabled people need support and that has been stolen from us by The Government. Cuts that have taken our benefits have reduced our imcome so that many people can no longer make real financial choices. These changes are not because as the Govenment wants you to believe, we aren't as disabled as we claim, or so they can support those more in need. It is just because they can. Its not even because there isn't the money. The government find money to support the rich, we pay the price. It isn't possible to participate in society if keeping your home or buying food is a challenge you cannot meet. It costs more to live with a disability than to be  non disabled and the income aimed at meeting those needs often doesn't and many are being denied this at all under new rules. Cuts take away our rights.

Many disabled people need support to do daily activities, from the basic getting up and eating, to going out and being part of our community. The law says we have the right to this but the government have taken it away. The reality is that many have no support at all or so little they have to choose between eating and peeing. Without support we cannot have the lifestyle of choice other people we are denied that right.

Rights theft thats what the Government are doing. Whatever they say its nothing more or less. Its not targeting support, its not stopping fraud, disability benefit fraud is less than 1%, some other benefits are significantly higher. They are not tackling equality, giving us rights or helping us be part of society. Their actions do the exact opposite on all counts. They claim they want to support us, I don't want what passes for support on their terms, I don't even want to be given my rights that will have Tory conditions attached, not the same as rights in law. I want to be empowered to live as I choose. I take my rights, they are mine to take, not theirs to give.

Blog based on a conversation with Neil Crowther via Twitter.

Have disabled people become so hated its now acceptable to be rude?

I was trying to leave a shop which was crowded, and trying to not ask someone in a much bigger chair to move because that would have made things difficult for tbem. I asked a little girl aged about 8 politely if she could move,  explaining why I couldn't go the other way. She told me it was inconvenient and refused, her mum agreed with her! As I moved away, and then had to ask another wheelchair user  to move, said child then said she is going the other way, and her mum replied she should have done that first.

I've encountered more hate and negativity recently than I have in my lifetime. I blame the media and Goverment who treat  disabled people with disdain and total ignorance, but I can't ignore the fact that responsible adults speak fot themselves and seem not to worry what their children say. I would never have replied in the way they spoke and it is never acceptable. No longer should we excuse it because of Government rhetoric people make their own choices.

If people need telling I'll say it, we are people like you with the same rights. Your rudeness and ignorance is  unacceptable.

When welfare is warfare

Stories are doing the rounds that DWP are not following the own regulations in dealing with PIP claims.

Several stories going around but the gist is that mandatory reconsiderations are  being sent out before claimants have decison  notices. They didn't ask for one, because the law says you can't before you have a decision notice. MR is the first part of the appeal process. It is for claimants  not DWP to decide if this step is taken.  It is in my opinion a cynical and dangerous attempt to squander claimants rights, and ensure they face an appeal wasting public funds. Instead the aim should be to improve the decision making process, to reduce the need for the appeal process to be used, and where it is, resolving disputes at the earliest opportunity, making it a quicker, cheaper and less stressful process.

This is very serious because it denies the right to defend rights, the right to challange. It is another flaw in a flawed system, the purpose of which seems to be to deny those who qualify their rightful enritlement. The aim should be to support those who need it, instead the process seems hellbent on proving that nobody does. It should be radically changed before it isn't used because blanket refusal becomes a given.

Original Source Disability News Service

Disabled people are people not performing seals

On the This Morning website there is a little girl with autism doing the Big Ben bongs. I have nothing against the little girl, and as a child I liked copying the bongs too. I didn't do it on TV, it was just a child playing as this is. She wants to live in the clock and be the gongs, no more than childhood fantasy.

Why has she been allowed to do this publicly? I can hear the laughter and see the looks of pity as I write. The little girl is being used as an object of redicule, and somehow its ok because she lives with autism? No absolutely not,  they are using autism to use her, for entertainment, if thats what its called. Autism is being used as an excuse by the adults to make this seem ok, but it isn't.

Disabled people are often viewed as cute, or amazing if they do quite ordinary things. People wonder how we manage and see fit to comment or even watch. I call this performing seal syndrome, treating disabled people not as a person, but as an object. This mindset and the  This Morning stunt add to the negative view of those with disabilities by society. Do most people ask how abled bodied adults make coffee or cook food? No, so why is it ok to subject disabled people to this? Would This Morning have done this if she didn't live with autism? If they would, and I doubt it, why was autism even mentioned?

Disabled people will only have real rights and equality when the standards of what is socially acceptable behaviour towards others are the same whether interacting with disabled or non disabled people. It is not ok to ask those with disabilities personal  questions, or comment on what they do if it wouldn't be seen as appropriate if asking an able bodied person.

The video

Care homes not the only option

We have an aging population and because people live longer more people will need care for longer. So the answer is thousands more care home beds then, not only for the elderly, but for disabled people needing care, easy problem sorted

No, over use of care homes institionalises people, may mean they lose independance quicker, their health may suffer, and they become isolated from their communities.

What do we need? First lets not forget they are people with rights and choices. Most people if they could, would stay at home but to do that we need a responsive care service to support people at home with enough flexibility to support lifestyles of choice, rather than the fed and watered, essentials only approach many care packages are reduced to. Its not acceptable that people have to choose between eating or using the toilet, or that people don't don't ask for help for fear of being forced into homes. This fear culture of care needs to change because far from supporting people it puts them at risk.

If someone needs or chooses to go into a supported setting, it doesn't have to be a traditional care home. Group homes where less care may be available but the companionship and peer support are big advantages. Extra care living, still your own home with care on tap. If residential provision is the only option then support should be available to ensure individual don't lose the right to their own lives.

At all stages the person needing care should be in control, and if they choose should be supported to continue with their normal life. If none of the stock option suit them then a bespoke solution should be found, PAs supporting people in residential settings, 24 hour care at home, bight centres, like day centres, but where someone can sleep if they need support should be set up, the possibilities are endless. Instead of fitting people to provision, make the services that suit each person.

Being old or disabled should not mean the end of life as it was, but the same life made better because support is available in the way chosen by the individual.  Needing care doesn't mean people that stop being people, and it is never appropriate to treat them as less than the individual they are.

The right to care and support

Luke Davey has cerebral palsy and is registered blind, as a result he needs help with all aspects of daily living. He used to get that help through the Independant Living Fund which topped up his social services care package. ILF has now closed and the money passed to local authorities, but not ring fenced for those who previously had ILF. As a result Mr Davey's care package has been reduced from almost £1,700 per week to just £950 per week. He says this is both unreasonable and unlawful.

In a landmark case Mr Davey is taking Oxfordshire County Council to the Appeal Court, it will be the first time the 2014 Care Act has been used to challenge the actions of a local authority in this way. Thats the Act that was supposedly  meant to give those using care services more choice, control and rights. Mr Davey previously had this package for 23 years, and had a team of personal assistants supporting him. His needs have not decreased funding cuts have reduced his package. Cuts mean severely disabled people like Mr Davey will struggle to manage, if they do at all, and will be reduced to existing rather than living a life they choose.

In a twist disabled people were reportedly excluded from the court hearing, when staff allegedly  claimed there weren't enough staff to cope and refused to open the acessible entrance. Access was later allowed but judged poor by campaigners, whilst one risked injury.

The Government states that they want disabled people to be full participants in society, but their policies scream otherwise. If someone needs support to live, removing that support, or reducing it,  takes away their ability to choose how they live. Many disabled people have full lives, they are part of their community, taking part in events, aand may be contributing through volunteering, work.or study. They can only do this with support, support the law gives them a right to. The same support government cuts take away.

This case could have a fundamental effect on the lives and rights of disabled people. If successful it could force massive changes in practice and attitudes within support provision. It is right that disabled people would want to attend the case. To try to prevent this could be discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. That an organisation charged with upholding the law could even possibly breach it in this way is shameful. The right to defend rights through including access to justice is the most basic right  of all.

Story Source U R The Voice and Vox Political online

Disabled people are not all the same

The BBC are starting a scheme to promote disabled actors, really good. I only hope that it isn't used as a stick by the RW media to beat us. 'They can so those that can't must be lazy scroungers'

It isn't just the BBC and not just this scheme, the paralympics was used against us, they can, we all can, and a few years ago Stephen Hawkin was used by a doctor to 'prove' we could all work.

This is inequality  in its strangest form, abled bodied people are not compared to athletes, actors or anyone else in this way. Its accepted that abledbl bodied people are diverse, but not that those with disabilities are. We are not all the same, we have different strengths.

I know of disabled who dread the paralympics because it will start the rhetoric, if you can do that you could work,  why can they do that and not work? Others who won't socialise or do the things they enjoy because they might be judged.

The right wing government and their media, including the BBC have fostered the idea that anything we can do could be transferred to the workplace, and those of us that  don't conform to this are lazy. Sickness benefit criteria says that the set tasks must be repeated  and reliably carried out, if not then the person cannot do those tasks. Media and government conveniently forget this and the damage is done, many members of the generalbpublic believe what they are told. The fact is doing something sometimes, or in a very controlled and supported environment that is adapted is very different to the reality of repeatedly doing so in the workplace. Sinilarly not everybody has the same skills and they are not all transferable

Nowhere to go

A disabled woman says housing won't help her because she is either too disabled or not disabled enough. On the face of it thats discrimination and if so is wrong. Housing law is complex though and the legal definition of homlessness which gives rise to a duty to house very specific.

Much is made in the article of her disability which would make finding a home more difficult. However being disabled doesn't make getting support automatic, she has to be unintentionally homeless.

This article poses more questions that it answers. Why are the LA, not meeting their duty, or not accepting they have one? If they are sending her to providers who can't assist her, then should they not liase to help her find a solution? Why are they not working with Social Services to support her more? If they have offered her money and that isn't enough are they helping her find somewhere where that is enough?

The LA may have acted correctly and done all it can, it may not. None of that changes the fact that there needs to be more accessible housing, and more support to locate it. Even if you can buy it can take years to find a suitable property. Even getting an agent to understand what suitable for adaption means is a challenge! If you have a disability, its never as easy as find a property and move in.