[Archived] Supermarket Parking

[thenodrog]

You consider those who park in disabled park bays as ignorant and lacking regard for others, I'd say they are basically lazy and unthinking. The comments you make expose a level of ignorance on the subject. Disabled people have battled for decades against such remarks, and have made significant progress in their efforts to have society see the person and not the disability. Consider please some examples, the blind, those with serious heart or breathing conditions, people with severe mental difficulties, carers. Under your suggestion you'd exclude these people effectively because they have no obvious disability?

Thats somewhat contradictory Paul. If disabled people have as you say battled to be treat the same as anyone else then surely mobility must be the only criteria for using the parking bays.

This may sound a stupid example so dont take it too seriously but why should a load of people with only one arm park nearer to the doors than a load of people with only one leg? At the moment that is the situation, and that is why there are too many bays...... imo.

[KimberleyBRFC]

6,602,224,175 = World population at current

650000000 Estimated disabled people (taken last year)

66022241.75 = 1% of worlds population

Divided..

% of disabled people in total world population = 9.8451670644764194181576695704974

Near enough 10% of the world is disabled.

Makes those 50-60 parking spaces look pretty meagre doesn't it

Although I don't suppose it is a fair estimation because of those disabled people, a lot will be people with disablilities that won't hinder their abilities to get out of cars etc. I would, at a guesstimate, say 4-5% of the world could need those extra parking spaces if they all drove.

Wow Impressive! where you bored LOL?

[Paul]

Thats somewhat contradictory Paul. If disabled people have as you say battled to be treat the same as anyone else then surely mobility must be the only criteria for using the parking bays.

This may sound a stupid example so dont take it too seriously but why should a load of people with only one arm park nearer to the doors than a load of people with only one leg? At the moment that is the situation, and that is why there are too many bays...... imo.

It may surprise you to learn that mobility is the criteria for the issue of a blue badge. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, to qualify for a blue badge the holder must be in receipt of at least the lower level of mobility allowance. It's difficult to get this umless one is already in receipt of DLA (Disability Living Allowance). There are some considerable hoops to jump through to qualify for either of these benefits.

While I don't take your example seriously it does illustrate again the point I was making. One cannot look at a person and assume because he/she has two legs that mobility is not a problem, similarily observing an individual with one arm cannot inform as to whether or not that person has mobility issues. A blind person will have serious mobility issues which will probably not be apparent to the casual observer, thus making the observer's opinion invalid.

There is nothing contradicatory about my post. Disabled people have asked for inclusion and equal treatment in society. They ask only that account be taken of their additional needs in any given circumstance. In some areas we see excellent examples of inclusion, others appalling examples of exclusion. Mostly this is a result of thoughlessness on the same level that assumes having two legs means mobility is OK.

As this is a football website I'll give you a very clear football related example. Wigan Football Club's ticketing policy provides for disabled persons and their carer to enter the ground together, the carer being given free entry. Wigan also provide excellent wheelchair facilities. Fantastic initiative EXCEPT the only people who qualify are wheelchair users. All other forms of disability are excluded. Wigan score 1/10

At BRFC the club provide each disabled spectator who applies with two tickets, one for the disabled person and another free for the carer. The criteria at BRFC being the level of care and assistance the individual requires within the ground. This is a totally inclusive policy and a shining example of inclusion, though I understand the wheelchair facilities at Ewood are poor. BRFC probably score around 7/10.

Few areas in our society are black and white and this is certainly not one. Commenting on the provision or use of disabled bays in this way does little to help those whom they are provided for.

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Wow Impressive! where you bored LOL?

Yes, very.

[Alan75]

When any building that has to go for planning permission and has a huge public carpark then they have to have something like 10% off the total spaces to be disabled MINIMUM.

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

The Act states that it is unlawful for a Service Provider to discriminate against a person with disabilities.

DDA Minimum Required Provision of Dedicated Parking Spaces

Workplaces - 1 per disabled employee plus 1 space or 2% of the total capacity, whichever is the greater.

Shopping, recreation & leisure - 1 per disabled employee plus 6% of the total capacity.

Rail Car Parks - 1 per disabled employee plus 5% of the total capacity.

Churches - 2 spaces.

Crematoria - 2 spaces.

Legal Requirements of Disability Discrimination Act

This Act Part III requires Service Providers to take reasonable steps to ensure that disabled people do not find it impossible, or unreasonably difficult, to enjoy the service on the same basis as non-disabled people. This has implications for Service Providers that operate car parks, who will have to demonstrate that as well as marking out disabled persons' parking spaces, they have taken reasonable steps to ensure that they are available to disabled people.

By fining abled bodied persons for parking in disabled bays, the supermarkets are protecting themselves from the legal implications, should they be taken to court for not taking reasonable steps to ensure that bays are available to disabled people.

The cost of failing to comply

£500-£5000, one off or unforseen cases of discrimination

£5000-£15000, forseeable or repeated discrimination

£5000-£25000, for serious cases of discrimination

[SAS]

Presumably that means that 10% of the population are severely disabled? If so it must be an overestimation imo.

well if you went off blackburns stats for incapacity benefit its probably nearer 50% :ph34r:

[Paul]

Incapacity benefit is related to ability to work, not to disability.

[SAS]

even so, a large proportion of those on incapacity will be claiming disability as the reason why they cannot work

[Paul]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on what you actually mean on that one. In regard to this topic incapacity benefit has no relation to the blue badge scheme and being disabled does not entitle one to a blue badge. It's worth being careful to avoid mixing these things up as it leads to yet more half-truths becoming fact.

[blue phil]

Incapacity benefit is related to ability to work, not to disability.

And there's me thinking it was related to the desire to manipulate the unemployment figures .

Maybe that's another half truth

[den]

And there's me thinking it was related to the desire to manipulate the unemployment figures .

Maybe that's another half truth

Yes, you're right. The tories certainly did use that ploy in the 1970's. Michael Howard instructed managers of Job Centres in high unemployment areas to put as many people as possible on to IB in order to reduce their unemployment register. For first time in thirty years, the number of people on incapacity benefit is now falling almost 100,000 people taken off incapacity benefit in the last two years.

[blue phil]

Ah it's Den ...the would be New Labour spin doctor

So how many does the recent "reduction" leave on IB then ........?

And how many more did Labour add to the Tories list since they came to power ?

[den]

Ah it's Den ...the would be New Labour spin doctor

So how many does the recent "reduction" leave on IB then ........?

And how many more did Labour add to the Tories list since they came to power ?

Hmmm, - you said the IB figures were going up - in order to mask the unemployment figures didn't you?

Take a happy pill Phil. Be positive.

[thenodrog]

Incapacity benefit is related to ability to work, not to disability.

Is there much difference? You make it sound like a scroungers charter.

[blue phil]

Hmmm, - you said the IB figures were going up - in order to mask the unemployment figures didn't you?

I didn't say that at all , Den .

Were my questions a little difficult for you by the way ?

Keep on spinning , Labour boy

[den]

I didn't say that at all , Den .

Were my questions a little difficult for you by the way ?

Keep on spinning , Labour boy

Go on then, what did you mean?

[blue phil]

And there's me thinking it was related to the desire to manipulate the unemployment figures .

That's what I meant , Den .

You only needed to scroll up a bit .....

[den]

That's what I meant , Den .

You only needed to scroll up a bit .....

Got that - and?

[blue phil]

...... and what ?

You feeling all right , Den ?

Maybe if you try and answer the two questions* I asked the mental exercise may put you to rights

* So how many does the recent "reduction" leave on IB then ........?

And how many more did Labour add to the Tories list since they came to power ?

( There ! . You don't even need to scroll up the page )

[den]

...... and what ?

You feeling all right , Den ?

Maybe if you try and answer the two questions* I asked the mental exercise may put you to rights

* So how many does the recent "reduction" leave on IB then ........?

And how many more did Labour add to the Tories list since they came to power ?

( There ! . You don't even need to scroll up the page )

OK Phil, here you go. If you want to look back at '97 and '98 you can do it. Feel free. As for your question "how many unemployed did Labour add to the Tories list since they came to power" - none. There's no proof that Labour added anything to the list. Of course you insinuate that they did, but you don't have any proof.

Now a question for you: How many unemployed were undeniably ADDED to the incapacity benefit list by the tories during their 18 yrs in charge? - on top of the 3m+ claiming unemployment benefit.

Incapacity benefit.

Caseload (Thousands)

Aug-99 2,355.24

Nov-99 2,361.30

Feb-00 2,348.39

May-00 2,352.52

Aug-00 2,380.31

Nov-00 2,387.86

Feb-01 2,415.02

May-01 2,420.88

Aug-01 2,435.42

Nov-01 2,425.57

Feb-02 2,427.22

May-02 2,471.14

Aug-02 2,478.84

Nov-02 2,489.91

Feb-03 2,493.87

May-03 2,494.89

Aug-03 2,502.06

Nov-03 2,509.01

Feb-04 2,509.67

May-04 2,508.77

Aug-04 2,514.27

Nov-04 2,514.73

Feb-05 2,503.53

May-05 2,490.85

Aug-05 2,478.16

Nov-05 2,466.20

Feb-06 2,464.24

May-06 2,449.99

Aug-06 2,447.96

Nov-06 2,441.03

Feb-07 2,433.40

[Paul]

Is there much difference? You make it sound like a scroungers charter.

Could you explain that remark? I have simply pointed out that incapacity benefit is directly related to one's (in)ability to work and has no direct relation to disability. I know you find it hard to stomach plain, accurate facts, so please answer my question.

[blue phil]

You take the biscuit with this spinning , Labour boy .

Disregarding what the Tories did (and they are as bad as Labour in my book) your main claim was that Labour were reducing the numbers of those on IB .

From your own figures the number claiming has risen since they came to power and has not by any stretch of the imagination gone either up or down to any significant extent .

If the Tories dreamed up the wheeze then Labour have certainly embraced the principle . They are as bad as each other - that's my point !! How you can condemn one without the other is a bit strange ......unless you have a previously undeclared political affiliation

Or maybe you really do believe that there really are 2.5 million incapacitated "workers"

[den]

You take the biscuit with this spinning , Labour boy .

Disregarding what the Tories did (and they are as bad as Labour in my book) your main claim was that Labour were reducing the numbers of those on IB .

From your own figures the number claiming has risen since they came to power and has not by any stretch of the imagination gone either up or down to any significant extent .

If the Tories dreamed up the wheeze then Labour have certainly embraced the principle . They are as bad as each other - that's my point !! How you can condemn one without the other is a bit strange ......unless you have a previously undeclared political affiliation

Or maybe you really do believe that there really are 2.5 million incapacitated "workers"

This is the discussion:

And there's me thinking it was related to the desire to manipulate the unemployment figures .

Maybe that's another half truth

Where's your proof that government have moved people from unemployment benefit, to Incapacity benefit?

PS; please don't call me labour boy. I don't appreciate that.

[thenodrog]

PS; please don't call me labour boy. I don't appreciate that.

Has he missed out the word 'New' Den?

[Flopsy]

This is why you need disabled parking

Btw if you laugh, you're a bad bad person