nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

do you think the equality act did enough for disabled people

read

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Cher_Alumni

Hi @read

Apologies, I've only just spotted this! I've voted a 'maybe'. My reason is that although on paper it sounds good, in reality there can be a lapse in implementation and no-one appears to have responsibility for enforcing it. Note - this is only my opinion

Richard_Scope

Regrettably, I have had to say no. Lack of proper enforcement and no provision for accessible housing in law. It has also been swallowed up already by the Equality Act and thus diluted further from a disability perspective.

deb74

I don't think we will ever be treated equally!

read

thanks for the opinions every one. hopefully it ill change

newborn

Having NO disabled access housing built AT ALL will have NO negative impact on old and disabled people, according to the Equalities impact 'experts' in the government consultation on housing (see elsethread). To quote '[Any option,] including Do Nothing, will have a POSITIVE IMPACT [my capitals] on the protected characteristics of Age and Disability'

So, the Disability law makes it compulsory to put some words in, in pretence that the impact of any official proposal on all 'protected characteristics' have been considered, before drawing up the document. This, plainly, has degenerated to merely asking themselves "will this have any impact on Race?" of

It is shocking these people are being paid money which could go to social care, to wheelchair services, to respite care, to the huge number of legal cases which need to take place to enforce Disability Equality. Instead, these (presumably senior, and therefore excessively highly paid) government officials are sitting on their big fat golden pension entitlements at our expense, and declaring we don't even need to have anywhere to live.(!)
Just to make it doubly certain what they think of disabilitiy equality, they add the declaration that being street homeless in a wheelchair is in our best interests,. As they word it, having NO accessible housing will have a positive impact on us.

There are various options, ranging from Do Nothing, and make No new housing accessible, to option 4, make ALL new build to at least minimum accessible standards, with an obligation to make a minimum percentage usable during all stages of life and of states of health.

There is, in U.K. housing stock, an extreme shortage of wheelchair usable housing. We argue that option 4, to have all at least accessible, i.e. M4(2) but with a MANDATORY (that's important a mandatory, nationwide) proportion of all new build must be M4(3) i.e. fully usable for life by wheelchair users.

The document suggests 10% or 20%, but because this newbuild is going to be virtually the only fully wheelchair livable standards housing in the entire housing stock, we argue it need to redress the absence. Therefor it should be 100%. As the document admits, the elderly and disabled among the population are increasing in number, and being trapped in unsuitable housing means they cannot participate in many normal life activities, and cannot manage on their own, which means either their unpaid relatives must give up work, or the local councils must send carers, and must try at huge expense to retrofit their homes to make them even slightly more suitable.

These enormous expenses in wrecked lives and impoverished futures and depleted funds in the public purses are, to a large extent, avoidable, by simply building housing to better standards, so every future wheelchair user can have the best and CHEAPEST possible way of life. NOTE The cost, at construction stage, is tiny, compared with retrofit. The document suggests £1,400 is a fair estimate of the additional costs, per unit, to the builder.

Of course, the developers' lobby tries to influence central and local governments, to have little or no control, or rules, or enforcement, and to simply give planning consent to whatever the developer wants to do, cutting corners, building badly, using shoddy materials, and dangerous cladding.

It is not a party political matter. Every time a council controlled by any party gives consent to a developer, it gives away free fortunes, because a bit of derelict land, a derelict huge building, or an open field, are all worth next to nothing without planning consent, and worth millions the day after planning consent is given. This is a conflict of interest to those who have power, and are in some way given incentives to agree whatever developers want. Whichever party is in control of central government can expect the party funds to be boosted by developers' openly declared gifts amounting to a quarter of party funding.

And here is Scope, and the various disability organisations and individuals, fighting against all that influence,
The only thing in our favour is that local authorities and central government have run out of money. This can work for us, instead of against us, if we can fill in the Public Consultation asking for Option 4, to stop building new housing that no disabled person can get into, but adding wording asking for ideally 100%, but a mandatory minimum of never less than 50%, of ALL new housebuilding to be disabled friendly standard M4(3). We can explain that being able to get in and around our homes using an e.p.i.o.c wheelchair can give us independence from needing carers, can let us get our own shopping and go to work, can free our family carers to go back to their own jobs.

( It may be in some cases we really ought to exaggerate a bit, because we are up against highly paid persuaders from the developers, who would gladly throw old and disabled people overboard to make a few extra pounds of profit per unit. ) At present, the only rule on disabled housing is that a small percentage of a large development should include one or two. The developers don't care. They just don't do it. They can get planning consent, officially agreeing to the supposedly compulsory minimum of two or three flats in a tower block being full disabled standards, but then, they easily persuade the local authority to agree they need not bother, because it would be "too expensive" after all, and the developer simply won't make "enough" profit, so he will threaten to refuse to build the housing at all. That gives the councils the excuse to give 'special exemption', by declaring it is essential to encourage him to be "economically viable" in providing the extra housing the council has declared it needs. By that ruse, all over the country, new developments contain not one home suitable for present or future disabled users.

cupcake88

I would say no I was taking an employer to tribunal over disability discrimination but they settled out of court because they knew they had done wrong . I find that having mental illnesses that affect me from working or holding a job down and affects me in a job .

I was constantly bullied and discriminated against for having a mental illness they didn’t seem to care for the disability act at all .

Tori_Scope

That's terrible, I'm sorry that you experienced that @cupcake88.

Try and be patient with yourself in terms of getting back to work, and remember that your health should come first.

read

CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION sorry about caps
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/551829

Jean Eveleigh

As with most of the other voters here, my response is no for broadly the same reasons, while the DDA and the EQA look good on paper (although both could have gone further) there is limited or no enforcement of them and big lapses in how they are used due to "reasonable adjustments" "if possible" "not needed on historic buildings if it will destroy the character" etc, there are too many loopholes that people can use to get out of having to do anything, or they do exactly what is required on paper (thinking of loos and lifts here) but when we try to use the offered facility it isn't useable as it is too small or has no turning circle etc.

newborn

There's no point having a law against anything, for instance mugging people at cash points, then telling the victim to deal with enforcing it.
Just as a side issue, I know there are many parents or carers for disabled people who cannot manage on

newborn

,,,,,,,cannot manage to work on exactly the same terms as others. They knew their child/brother loved to feel included by going to work, but also knew that the employer was acting out of goodwill, not on a sensible economic basis, if another worker had to be taken off his productive employment, to act as a one to one supervisor. These relatives were ignored by well meaning loud voices who were against people being paid according to productivity, which meant less than the so called minimum wage. There's a limit to what a business can manage simply as charity. There was understandable union objection to anyone getting 'special' employment terms, which unions . called exploitation, but was often therapeutic occupation

Its a long time since I read the DDA, but I vaguely think such dilemmas were covered. DDA was not supposed to be destroyed by Single Equality. It was supposed to be absorbed and enhanced by being equal and being enforced i.e. equal with Racism, which is a criminal offence.

tigs1993

Has it actually done anything at all.

[Deleted User]

No because since it came in 10 years ago no government has ever enforced and it's unlikely they ever will IMO.

newborn

Not ten, twenty five. And even that had a lead-time of many years, because businesses said they needed time to put ramps in .

[Deleted User]

newborn said:

Not ten, twenty five. And even that had a lead-time of many years, because businesses said they needed time to put ramps in .

Ramps aren't cheap, so they'll find some way round it because they can't be bothered to spend the loot.

[Deleted User]

No because in April 2017, I could've rightfully took a certain Charity to the Cleaners for discrimination because some old git I worked with called me a "Deaf C word", but I didn't because Gemma and the company in general would side with him and accuse me of lying.

newborn

Mr Allen1976 I noticed on another post you had mentioned your landlord and I wondered if there was a workround for that problem. The business you propose would not be the sort to involve a load of extra noise or comings and goings and parking problems or destruction of property or heavy machinery would it? The sort of activity people want to ban is that sort. If the neighbours will never know, then the landlord a) will also never know and b) will have no reason to care, nor to attempt to invoke the prohibition.

Since Covid, most homes have been used as workplaces, by people using computers. Since DDA, most businesses should have (but didn't) make every effort to enable such working from home. (Even a certain disability organisation had a blind counsellor who was obliged to travel into the office to speak to other blind people on the phone -duh.) I'm hoping a lot will change for the better. It was hilarious that one woman accountant had begged her firm to permit her to work from home, because her commute meant she never saw her baby. " Ridiculous, unthinkable, out of the question, completely impossible" was the answer. Suddenly, Covid meant the entire office was shut and all the accountants were doing that "completely impossible" working from home! Don't you bet that loads of people will refuse point blank to return to central offices?

newborn

@Mr.Allen1976 I posted above but didn't put the @ sign