Therefore I am allowed I feel to allow the way the issue was handled to allow my  opinion of both the club and the bouncer to be tainted. So I believe I have the right to be annoyed at the difficulties I have in gaining access to a venue that a "normal" person would have no prpooblem with under normal circumstances.

My apologies for arriving late on the scene. I have some trouble with the above scenarios. It occurs to me that Chav A is communicating something, while Chav B is doing his utmost not to communicate anything it all, except a bland statement that he will only get away with because it will be instantly poohed away. Chav A is confrontational, sure. And I can understand this can be intimidating, especially to someone who perceives to be at a disadvantage. But Chav B is stating an academic point of view for sake of argument, while Chav A is expressing a genuine ill-at-ease with Bluefaerie being out on the streets. So where do you leave his freedom of expression? His 'moronic reasoning' - thanks for being condescending, it`s appreciated - might be that he`s actually concerned about her wellbeing and safety. Crude, no doubt, but a lack of patience with the hassle of having to deal with the disabled can only stem from an obligation to do so, whether internal or (perceived?) external and as such should not be considered to be a negative thing. The only thing he might be educated about is the fact that it`s not his hassle. None of it. The polite kind of indifference Modern society propagates. Don`t bother. Don`t engage.
(Funnily enough, many people also feel obligated to look after the wellbeing of their pets, so when blind people start tripping over them, even though the polite thing to do would be to ignore the blind person`s stumbling, for their pet`s sake, they will make some territorial gesture. If they were to merely ignore the blind person`s disability, I`m sure said gesture would be a bit more elaborate, as either premeditation or carelessness might then be assumed.)

It also occurs to me that in the above scenarios you`re making a judgement based on the Chav`s ability to express himself in that particular flavour of politeness you`d wish to have enforced upon society. Given that we`re not all identically mentally endowed I think I may as well say that you`d be discriminating him based on his disability to express himself on your 'level'.

________________________________________________________

IRL: Edwin Hofstra

- mostly crewing at the moment

and flannel my friends that were taking me round town picked the club

The from the post you made, the doorman was trying to do his job. He has been instructed that the club's policy is this and that he will get it in the neck if that is not enforced. He probably has several people every night tell him this reason or that reason as to why they should be an exception, but that isn't the point, the point is he has been given clear instruction and is doing his job.

It is not the fault of the doorman that there are no allowances made for your condition. However, he is institutionally complicit in denying you access to the facilities. As a private establishment, the owners/management feel they have every right to enforce unilateral policy - which whilst not aimed at you, hinders your particpation. No national allowance can be made for this, because it is a private establishment. To do so would undermine the ethos of private ownership.

However, what you are suggesting is a change in attitude in relation to the circumstances of individuals who are permitted to enter - a case by case discretion. This would require more trust of employees and would alter the condition of the crowd waiting outside. By not having unilateral rules, things would slow down as each individual tried to push the boundaries. I am sure that if you were allowed in, someone would try to insist they were allowed simply because they weren't prepared to run home and change etc...

So from their point of view it is easier and more efficient to have unilateral rules.  

Please do note, I'm not saying either policy is the right thing to do.

Oh and by the way, Flannel doesn't discriminate. He is just as acerbic to everyone

*nods* he's right you know.

Ta Allen

Aye.

Any club that discriminates on footwear is not worth going in. Its pathetic, if your going to discriminate on footwear you should discriminate on the persons entire dress sense. Which makes more sense.

*nods*

If your going to be facist you may as well be properly facist.

Like G.A.Y. who constantly discriminate against me on the basis of my sexuality.

Hetero-phobic swine like they are.....

(please note the above comments may be slightly tounge in cheek.)

Thats just not true Allen.  According to disability discrimination law you're not allowed to deny someone access to goods/services due to their disability.  If a blanket policy has the effect of denying someone with a disability access to those goods/services because of that disability then it is discriminatory.  Although I'm not sure whether a similar senario to the 'doorman' incident has been heard by the courts I do think that there would at least be a better than evens chance that a court would rule that a club who had such a policy and made no exception for those with relevant disabilities would fall foul of the Disability Discrimination Act.  Just because the policy does not refer to people with disabilities it does not mean that its not discriminatory and therefore DDA compliant.  I'm not going to go into exact reasons and case law but what you seem to be suggesting that the government can't do is exactly what they have done. 

There is alot of ignorance in the UK regarding disabilities.  I think Flannel is being completely unreasonable by suggesting that paranoiddroid is somehow blaming his disability for a policy against footwear.  Unless the policy makes exceptions for people with disabilities it is discriminatory.  Thats the law (in a nutshell at least).

Matt J

If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I'd fart!