|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Accessibility
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Why do secular event organisers tend to take equality and accessibility more seriously than Christian event organisers?
A guide dog owner friend of mine went to a christian conference and was made to use the fire exit and was not allowed to go through the Church or use the same doors as everyone else. He felt very unwelcome throughout. This is a dog which can easily negotiate busy stations and airports! He was told that his guide dog was upsetting people (which is nonsense of course).
At the very least this was a lack of education.
How good/bad is your Church when it comes to accessibility for the disabled?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
To answer the first question you ask: I think that churches and (perhaps more so) other Christian organisations can sometimes be very bad at complying with established good practices generally, whether in respect of accessibility or other fields. I suspect that it's to do with an idea that 'hey, we're good people, aren't we, what mor do you want?'
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Companies have to, by law, accommodate wheelchair users, those with sensory impairments, etc. So they're used to complying with the legislation, and automatically factor that in.
Churches, not so much. Which is surprising, given that most congregations have at least one physically impaired member (often through age), also those who can't hear or see well either.
Accessibility was something I never really gave much thought about, probably in common with lots of others. Then I started wheeling children around in a pushchair. Huge perspective change, right there.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Coa Coa
Apprentice
# 15535
|
Posted
My husband uses a service dog and except for one garden where folks were worried the dog would "do his business". (Service dogs are trained to go only in one spot or on demand- so to speak) His acceptance has been overwhelmingly positive. There is a great deal of education that needs to be done still around the rights of people with service dogs. By law, here in Canada, service dogs are allowed everywhere but sterile environments(operating rooms) but owners of businesses can provide alternative accommodation apart from the general conditions offered. The inconsistency in legislation around what constitutes a service dog and what training is required leads to confusion.
Posts: 13 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Bloody ignorance. Sometimes coupled with a lack of funds which prevents the more obvious accommodations. But mainly I think it's because with churches, everything is the Amateur Hour, and things that would never fly in the business world are "business as usual" in the churches.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827
|
Posted
Legally churches have to comply with accessibility, or is this a devolved matter? I know that if there is a sound system at all there has to be a hearing loop (if there is no sound system, then I guess everyone is deemed to be in the same boat, as it were) and if there is plumbing there has to be a disabled access loo (often the only one). Guide dogs no problem, that i've ever come across, but ramps for wheelchairs can be a nightmare for older buildings!
I know of one church which fronts a busy junction with high steps and to get a ramp at the required level of slope would have taken said ramp right into the middle of the three-way traffic. And yet disability campaigners were arguing that to do anything else - i.e. To have a ramp by a rear door - would be to discriminate. A little give and take both wayside some common sense .....
--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")
Posts: 176 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Accessibility was something I never really gave much thought about, probably in common with lots of others. Then I started wheeling children around in a pushchair. Huge perspective change, right there.
With old buildings, accommodating wheelchairs can be difficult (which doesn't mean impossible). With a modern building, there's no excuse.
As far as service animals go, there is an irreducible conflict between people who require a service animal and people who have an allergy to pet dander.
In this case, allergic people lose, and just have to suck it up (but it's reasonable to ask someone with a service animal not to share your pew).
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
The CoE does not have to abide by disability legislation in England. Now some churches have issues changing church accessibility because of the Victorian Society or other heritage groups blocking changes to the building, or the church is a listed building. However unfortunately there is an awful lot of bad practice (in many areas) that would not fly in secular business, and a feeling that being a Christian trumps having to put some effort in.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
My day job is as an accessibility counsellor at our local university. Our vestry has continually held yard sales in our inaccessible former rectory because it was " convenient, over my objections."
[ 27. May 2015, 14:12: Message edited by: Caissa ]
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
The CoE does not have to abide by disability legislation in England.
Really?
I didn't know this. What is the reasoning behind it, do you know?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Bloody ignorance. Sometimes coupled with a lack of funds which prevents the more obvious accommodations. But mainly I think it's because with churches, everything is the Amateur Hour, and things that would never fly in the business world are "business as usual" in the churches.
s
This. Well-meaning usual, but always on the cheap and very amateurish. It's one of our most charming, most maddening, and sometimes most horrible characteristics.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceesharp
Shipmate
# 3818
|
Posted
My church (RC, 100 year old mock gothic style) has disabled ramp access,induction loop,accessible toilet and disabled parking bays. We have more than one wheelchair user in the regular congregation and and at least one guide dog usually attends, although our priest has had to request that children, and some adults, do not try to pet the dog while he is working.
Posts: 629 | From: West Midlands, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
C of E guidance focuses on what is 'reasonable.'
In my church, a listed building, we have secured a disabled parking space outside the side door where someone can enter on a level and avoid the steps at the front, we have a ramp into the side chapel BUT we cannot yet affoerd disability oilets and our loop system isn't working.
It seems that as long as these shortcomings are on our 'to do' list then we are within the law.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The DDA states that 'reasonable' efforts should be made to provide access but accepts that because of the age of church buildings this may not always be possible.
At my own place we had temporary ramps from the early 1990s until 2007; at which point a 12th century doorway, blocked-up in the 16th century, was re-opened - but getting listed building consent for that (we're Grade I) was difficult, as was getting a faculty to make sure there was a path so the doorway could be accessed.
We were lucky that we had the money to do the job from a legacy, but the paperwork and meetings (drawings, applications, amendments, etc, etc, etc) meant it took 29 months before work could start.
Two things cost the most: (a) having to use a DAC approved architect when we had 2 in the wider parish family who would have done it for nothing, and one of whom had experience of being Surveyor of the Fabric at another 2 cathedrals; and (b) the insistence of the local authority Building Control department that the glass panel in the middle of the new door be double-glazed - this in a building with enough ancient and ill-fitting glass to surface a couple of tennis courts. We ended up paying for 2 doors and the cost of the drawings and re-drawings to please the DAC and local conservation officer meant architects' fees came to just over 40% of the total cost of the project.
We wanted a porch over the newly opened door because its on the side of the church that gets the worst of the weather but we've been refused permission 3 times, so even with an automatic door the disabled get soaked.
Oh, and the proper provision for a well for a doormat was not given permission so we now have a rotting floor that needs extensive repair/replacement - thanks DAC and Heritage Conservation Officer.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
We've just been refused permission yet again for a loo - either in an adjacent annexe or in the church itself.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
There is also the issue of invisible disabilities/conditions not being recognised. I think a lot of churches think that only people in wheelchairs are 'really' disabled. I have a number of chronic invisible conditions, which sometimes prevent (for example) kneeling at Communion. This happened when I attended my local church for the Christmas Day morning Eucharist, and I got some very dirty looks ![[Frown]](frown.gif) I can't face going back. I attend a different church a town over now.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A guide dog owner friend of mine went to a christian conference and was made to use the fire exit and was not allowed to go through the Church or use the same doors as everyone else. He felt very unwelcome throughout. ... He was told that his guide dog was upsetting people (which is nonsense of course).
I think that people getting "upset" over trivia is one of the real curses of the Church. How much time and energy do clergy spend/waste in calming people down? And how much energy could be diverted by said people into getting genuinely upset by real issues in the world and then getting stuck into doing something about them?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
A church in town where the vicar himself is a chair user still took something like 5 years to get around to making it accessible to him. The sticking point was that the original Norman door of this original Norman building had to be removed, and you can guess the ire that aroused in the non-church going townsfolk.
Got it through eventually - cue yet more moaning at the replacement door, which I thought actually blends in well - but life with (a) a listed building that (b) requires a PCC to (c) get faculties to alter is never going to be easy.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Only three theological colleges are themselves wheelchair accessible (Oakhill, Queen's, and St John's Nottingham). Not much help for disabled Anglo-Catholics.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Back in the 70s when wheelchair ramps were newly required, my Mom's church (quite wealthy, also an old building) complained that the government has no right to tell a church what to do, they should NOT be required to add a ramp. Peculiar stance for a church that had an internal ramp to the altar so little olds who don't do stairs (after somehow struggling up the stairs into the building) could go forward to receive communion.
I was puzzled why aren't churches leading the "include everyone" movement instead of protesting it?
In the late 80s the church I attended had a wheelchair rider who had to sit alone in a side alcove because there was no way to park a wheelchair with the congregation. (I sometimes sat on the floor next to her.)
I went to the clergy person with three different proposals of ways to seat her next to other congregation members. He laughed and said absolutely not, cutting away some pews to include a wheelchair would make the church less visually attractive for weddings.
Appearance is more important than including all of their own members in their most defining activity, the Sunday community worship? Yes, weddings are most important.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Quite right. Got a squint: what more do you want? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Every church I see here has pews cut away for wheelchairs. Unfortunately, it's a very hilly and floody place, so older churches are half a story above the street, and getting into the church in the first place is the problem--some have installed elevators, but ramps are usually physically impossible in older buildings.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The Churches I frequent, (more through work than worship), had a big drive on wheelchair ramps some years ago. Unfortunately most of the congregations are now either non-existent, or so small there's only a tiny possibility it'll include someone in a wheel-chair.
However these ramps are much appreciated by people such as myself who have the job of removing and re-installing memorials ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As for the matter of the Christian faith rendering it's practitioners petit, intolerant and less compassionate or helpful than their secular counter-parts? That certainly does appear opposite from what one might hope and expect.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
As far as I know, ramps for church access are compulsory here as for any other public buildings, and all the churches I've seen have them – but then we don't have any 12th century heritage structures. Does being the Established Church mean the CofE is exempt from other legal obligations?
If you have chairs there's obviously no worries about wheelchairs; I'm not sure whether wheelchairs I've noticed on our Praise Be TV hymn programme are inset or in a wide aisle beside the pews.
As for the dirty looks for someone who couldn't kneel, it sounds like a good church to get away from. When we Pressies first exchanged visits with St Luke's down the road, I told the vicar beforehand that if I remained standing it wasn't because John Knox didn't approve but because I'd recently had hip surgery, and that was okay for him – but I do notice that nowadays standing and kneeling seem to be equally acceptable. I can think of several of our older Anglican friends might find kneeling as difficult as I would do now.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Every church I see here has pews cut away for wheelchairs. Unfortunately, it's a very hilly and floody place, so older churches are half a story above the street, and getting into the church in the first place is the problem...
New churches where I currently live (no snow) are flat on a slab, no stairs or ramp. Older churches had to add a ramp. In either, the rider needs a companion to hold the door open to get in the building and then into the sanctuary. But how much electronics should a church be expected to spend money on?
I don't remember seeing pews cut away in any local church. (I've seen it elsewhere.) Not in any church I've ever sung in here, old or new. Catholic church (modern) and the two biggest non-denominationals have very wide aisles plus lots of space behind the pews., that works fine. Epis aisles not spacious but wide enough that a wheelchair is not a safety hazard. Methodist and Disciples of Christ a wheel chair totally blocks the aisle, creating a fire safety hazard, nor is there open space at the back of the church.
As has been said up-thread, reconfiguring old churches to accept wheel chairs can be puzzlingly difficult.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
As far as I know, ramps for church access are compulsory here as for any other public buildings, and all the churches I've seen have them – but then we don't have any 12th century heritage structures. Does being the Established Church mean the CofE is exempt from other legal obligations?
If you have chairs there's obviously no worries about wheelchairs; I'm not sure whether wheelchairs I've noticed on our Praise Be TV hymn programme are inset or in a wide aisle beside the pews.
As for the dirty looks for someone who couldn't kneel, it sounds like a good church to get away from. When we Pressies first exchanged visits with St Luke's down the road, I told the vicar beforehand that if I remained standing it wasn't because John Knox didn't approve but because I'd recently had hip surgery, and that was okay for him – but I do notice that nowadays standing and kneeling seem to be equally acceptable. I can think of several of our older Anglican friends might find kneeling as difficult as I would do now.
GG
Yes, the CoE is exempt from a few areas of legislation - although some of those exceptions apply to all religious organisations and are not specifically due to being the Established church.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Are you sure the CofE is exempt from the disability parts of the Equality Act? I've never heard this before.
The duties are not absolute: I thought the duty was to make reasonable adjustments. That will take into account the nature of the building.
I am happy to be corrected, as an ignorant (fairly) recent transplant from a free church.
And at our place, quite a few people stand for communion, I doubt anyone else has thought twice about it.
M.
[ 28. May 2015, 06:26: Message edited by: M. ]
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
M.: I think you are right.
From the Diocese of Coventry's website re. the Equality Act:
"It stipulates that all service providers should make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to their buildings and services so that disabled people can use them. ... It is therefore very important that churches engage with the Equality Act and rethink how their buildings are used by others. ... Under the Equality Act churches are ‘service providers’ (in more ways than one!) and therefore all activities that take place in the church and church hall need to be considered in terms of the risk people face when interacting with that environment".
No sign of any special dispensation there!
P.S. In our Free Church, people sit for Communion anyway ... we don't have any kneelers!
[ 28. May 2015, 06:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I am sure you're right, M. - as is the Diocese of London, under the Equality Act (2010) all service providers have to make "reasonable adjustments" to make them accessible to disabled users.
It doesn't have to be ramps, that's just one of the options. The local church also provides:
- a hearing loop (shame they bodged it and built in some additional feedback that hurts my ears),
- large print hymn books. When I was doing it I used to produce four or five copies of a booklet for each service with all the hymns at 24pt for the two or three church members who were losing their sight and some spares for any visitors, as the large print books are big and heavy for the elderly people losing their sight, whereas an A5 booklet with the hymns in order for that service is lighter and easier to navigate;
- in house service booklets in large print versions as well as 12pt.
- readings printed as well as read so people can follow if they are losing their hearing or find it difficult to follow;
- pointing out where people can go for a quiet space if they are suffering sensory overload,
- giving enough information to enable people to decide what is appropriate for them,
- people standing near a step to warn and give a hand up and down,
- being able to position wheelchairs anywhere in church;
- bringing communion to the seats if there are people struggling with mobility
- not structuring a service so everyone moves except those with disabilities who are left marooned in their pews (as I saw done once)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Of course, the person I mentioned in the OP didn't need any adjustments at all mobility wise - his guide dog is well able to negotiate crowds and steps.
All he needed was for people to let him go where everyone else was going.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I suppose in theory a dog could upset someone. I used to support a woman with Down Syndrome who was absolutely terrified of dogs, to the extent that if she saw one, she would just freeze and shake and refuse to move for ages. Not to say that guide dogs shouldn't be allowed equal access, but sometimes different disability needs can clash and there isn't always an easy answer. Such as 'autism-friendly' showings of films, where children can make as much noise as they need to. Great for those autistic kids who need to make noise - not so much for those who find noise painful.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I suppose in theory a dog could upset someone. I used to support a woman with Down Syndrome who was absolutely terrified of dogs, to the extent that if she saw one, she would just freeze and shake and refuse to move for ages. Not to say that guide dogs shouldn't be allowed equal access, but sometimes different disability needs can clash and there isn't always an easy answer. Such as 'autism-friendly' showings of films, where children can make as much noise as they need to. Great for those autistic kids who need to make noise - not so much for those who find noise painful.
Yes, that's very true fineline - but if it were the case I would have (at the very least) expected them to explain the situation to the guide dog owner.
The same problem can happen on buses as the same space is needed for wheelchair users and guide dog owners.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I suppose the specificity or vagueness of their explanation would depend on the extent to which the other disabled person (I'm talking generally) wanted to keep their disability confidential to strangers. In reality, I find in my experience that churches are often full of people who all know each other, and they can be a little afraid of something unfamiliar, because it can threaten the comfortable situation they are in. Also, when it comes to different disabilities and needs, it is often the people who are most influential, and who are the most vocal, whose needs are prioritised, at the expense of other needs.
At a church I used to go to, there were fellowship groups which were quite big. Sometimes the pastor would ask for our suggestions and I occasionally said I'd find it easier if we sometimes could split into smaller groups for prayer. One woman always would immediately say we couldn't possibly do that because her husband had hearing problems where he couldn't hear if more than one person in the room was praying aloud at a time. She seemed to assume that her husband's difficulty automatically trumped anyone else's possible difficulties, and that it was inconceivable that he should ever be put in a situation where he couldn't hear prayers. I never felt able to join in the prayers or sharing in such a big group, and I eventually left the church. Which, looking back, was a shame, really. When different people have different needs, surely some compromise could be made.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I don't think it's just churches though - I find a similar thing can happen in small, cliquey work-places, or small, cliquey colleges, particularly in out-of-the-way places where people aren't too hot on the legal requirements, and there isn't much outside influence. You get some places, which are generally bigger and more central, which are really hot on disability equality, and general etiquette and professionalism, and other, smaller, out-of-the-way, places where everything's a lot sloppier.
But then churches aren't supposed to be 'professional', I guess, and that could maybe make this more common in churches - churches often describe themselves as a 'family' and can be over-familiar with each other, and also with new people, in a way that would be frowned on in a workplace! You don't (well, shouldn't!) get welcomed on your first day in a workplace with 'Do you have a husband and children at home? Oh, you don't? That's okay - we have other single people here too!'
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I suppose the specificity or vagueness of their explanation would depend on the extent to which the other disabled person (I'm talking generally) wanted to keep their disability confidential to strangers.
None of us have the right to expect people to take account of our disability if we are equally determined that we shouldn't have to divulge its existence. The argument 'he/she should have known/been able to guess' is passive aggression in spades. quote:
... At a church I used to go to, there were fellowship groups which were quite big. Sometimes the pastor would ask for our suggestions and I occasionally said I'd find it easier if we sometimes could split into smaller groups for prayer. One woman always would immediately say we couldn't possibly do that because her husband had hearing problems where he couldn't hear if more than one person in the room was praying aloud at a time. She seemed to assume that her husband's difficulty automatically trumped anyone else's possible difficulties, and that it was inconceivable that he should ever be put in a situation where he couldn't hear prayers. ...
I suppose when it comes to what trumps what, there's a difference between whether one is just giving vent to a preference, or whether this is based on an objective problem. I accept that you think she was just making a fuss on her husband's behalf, but partial deafness doesn't involve white sticks or wheel chairs. Much of the time it is invisible. There are quite a lot of people in the general population who have the sort of difficulties she was describing, particularly once they are past middle age. You may be dismissing her complaints as preciousness, but at least it might make you and others aware of something that is much more prevalent than most young people with good hearing in both ears will have realised.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think it says quite a lot, in that little anecdote, that it was the wife of the partially deaf man rather than the man himself who would speak up. One wonders whether the disability was more of a big deal to her- as an opportunity to draw attention to herself- than it was to him. I have seen people behave like that.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think it says quite a lot, in that little anecdote, that it was the wife of the partially deaf man rather than the man himself who would speak up. One wonders whether the disability was more of a big deal to her- as an opportunity to draw attention to herself- than it was to him. I have seen people behave like that.
Sure. But it's also true that often the spouse is more willing to advocate for you than you are yourself. The man may have been prone to just slink off and stop attending, while the wife is the one to speak up and advocate on his behalf. I've seen that dynamic quite often.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Maybe. Perhaps just projecting across from people I've known (and been annoyed by).
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I suppose the specificity or vagueness of their explanation would depend on the extent to which the other disabled person (I'm talking generally) wanted to keep their disability confidential to strangers.
None of us have the right to expect people to take account of our disability if we are equally determined that we shouldn't have to divulge its existence. The argument 'he/she should have known/been able to guess' is passive aggression in spades.
Obviously you have to disclose it someone in order to have it accommodated for, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to know. If you've told the person in charge that, say, you have a mental health problem that means you need certain certain support, then that is confidential. They should not then be saying to everyone else 'Oh, we can't do this because someone's got a mental health problem which makes it difficult for them.' That would go for a workplace, a university setting, and a conference setting.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
It's a hard one isn't it?
Say the reason was that someone was terrified of dogs - who gets the reasonable adjustments, the person who needs the dog for mobility or the person who is afraid of the dog?
Taxi firms have no choice but to take guide dogs, some have refused and got into a lot of trouble.
Here is an example of this.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that you think she was just making a fuss on her husband's behalf, but partial deafness doesn't involve white sticks or wheel chairs. Much of the time it is invisible. There are quite a lot of people in the general population who have the sort of difficulties she was describing, particularly once they are past middle age. You may be dismissing her complaints as preciousness, but at least it might make you and others aware of something that is much more prevalent than most young people with good hearing in both ears will have realised.
Wait - why do you accept that I 'think she was just making a fuss on her husband's behalf'? I didn't say that, and it's not even what I was thinking, so you shouldn't accept something I haven't said.
I'm very aware of the reality of hearing problems and auditory processing problems, and the impact they have. The disability he had was real. I don't think she was being 'precious'. I think it was important that she speak up for him - but what I am challenging here is that she totally dismissed the difficulties I was having. She was perhaps thinking I was being 'precious' - I don't know. But I think with more understanding, and a willingness to acknowledge and hear others' difficulties, a compromise could have been reached. I was quite young at the time - I just felt I had been silenced by her, that we couldn't possibly ever do it any other way because her husband had hearing problems and that was that.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Sorry, I was told by a member of the clergy that the CoE was exempt from the disabilities act - sorry if that's wrong!
Either way the CoE (and many other churches) is still pretty bad at accessibility provisions.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
We made some expensive alterations to make our church wheelchair accessible, and to incorporate a disabled toilet. I was under the impression we had to, to conform to current legislation. The wheelchair access is through a side door, rather than the main door.
We also removed two side pews (one from either side of the church), to create two wheelchair / pram-friendly spaces. We have occasionally found that that wasn't enough; not at regular services, but at funerals when we have more very elderly / disabled people in the church.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Say the reason was that someone was terrified of dogs - who gets the reasonable adjustments, the person who needs the dog for mobility or the person who is afraid of the dog?
I don't think it always needs to be so black and white - especially not in a church setting, where hopefully we are motivated by more than just the desire the meet the minimum legal requirements. Compromises can be made, and both parties can be considered and made to feel valued. Some situations may be impossible to resolve, but I'm pretty sure in a lot of situations, some kind of compromise could be made, and both sides could reach a better understanding of each other and more compassion.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I was surprised when visiting London that all tube stations were not accessible. This would not be acceptable here. It's an absolute given that any publicly accessible space is accessible.
Churches are generally retrofitted to be accessible, with any new construction requiring it. I don't think I've heard controversy about it. It it just required. Toilets/washrooms - I cannot recall seeing any within the past 20+ years that were not accessible.
The current debate locally is whether public institutions should provide toilets/washrooms for people who identify as neither male or female.
Re dogs. They are automatically allowed if they are service dogs. They cannot be refused under any circumstances. Our church has a service dog in training coming. It was simply an announcement and is a short paragraph in the bulletin (pew service leaflet). The church went with it without any question whatsoever.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I was surprised when visiting London that all tube stations were not accessible. This would not be acceptable here. It's an absolute given that any publicly accessible space is accessible.
You know how old some of those stations are?
(The answer is 1863, btw.)
[ 28. May 2015, 19:07: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
Orginally posted by no prophet's flag has set:
quote:
I was surprised when visiting London that all tube stations were not accessible. This would not be acceptable here. It's an absolute given that any publicly accessible space is accessible.
Churches are generally retrofitted to be accessible, with any new construction requiring it.
As somebody has already posted up-thread, the UK Equalities legislation specifies that organisations providing services to the public must take "reasonable steps" to ensure access. This is interpreted to allow reasonable time for adjustments to be made. The London underground stations are gradually being retrofitted to be accessible and I enjoy watching new "accessibility" symbols appearing on the tube maps. For a lot of the older stations on cramped premises this is quite a challenge - as it is for older churches - but when a station is refurbished or newly constructed it is compulsory.
As far as assistance dogs are concerned, I thought they were allowed anywhere and have been for years. I'm sure I can remember signs reading "No dogs except guide dogs" from my childhood. I'm surprised a church wouldn't accept a person with a guide dog as fully mobile throughout the premises. What did they think the dog was going to do????
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I wonder if it's just that not everyone knows all the rules and legislation - that even though they are supposed to read it and know it, realistically not everyone does. You start a job and are supposed to read all the policies and procedures, in huge folders, but many people just skim though.
And I guess lack of awareness will happen more often in an environment where the people in authority are not challenged by people who know the legislation. When I was studying recently, I asked if I could go part time because of my disability, and the head of department said no, absolutely not - that no one was permitted to study the course part time. When I had my needs assessment, I was told that I have a legal right to be able to go part time, and the disability coordinator emailed the department to inform them of this, and so they had to let me go part time. But they clearly hadn't known (or had known but were hoping it wouldn't be challenged!) beforehand. It was a similiar story for other things - like asking if I could have lecture notes beforehand. They were very reluctant to do anything to help, but since then, more people with disabiliities have done the course, because now they can go part time, and now the department is hopefully more aware of the legislation and more accommodating.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Photo Geek
Shipmate
# 9757
|
Posted
My very small Episcopal Church has a ramp into our narthex and is currently searching for a way to also make our undercroft accessible, so that everyone can enjoy coffee hour. The cost of any project is always a big issue but we believe this is very important.
--------------------
"Liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.
Posts: 242 | From: Southern Ohio, US | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Maybe. Perhaps just projecting across from people I've known (and been annoyed by).
I can certainly resonate with that! there are those
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) folks.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
