h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There's a definition in the DDA but it's indicative rather than prescriptive. So, yes there are boundaries, but as with much legislation, it's up to the courts to decide where they are. This case probably hasn't made things better for the child concerned - yet. But if the council gets its finger out and sorts a trip that she can participate in - next academic year if not this - and reconsiders how it approaches the issue of inclusion, then the case has helped not only this child, but (especially given the publicity) others as well in the future.

Yes, school sports teams discriminate on ability (although not in all schools: in very small primary schools, everybody gets roped in). But all children have the opportunity to play sport (perhaps more than they'd want, given the choice ). And there are also nowadays more opportunities to 'represent the school' (for those that want this) in areas not related to sport - maths competitions (for example) didn't exist when I was a kid.

If the girl in question hadn't been picked for the netball team, then that would be OK, because other children would also (probably) not have been picked for the netball team, and would have been with her at the side cheering the team on. That's very different from everybody else doing something while she looks on.

I wish you every success in your legal action ... my own musical handicap was a total unwillingness to practise ...

Mol

""Reasonable adjustments" would mean offering a two-person canoe (so that disabled daughter could experience being on the water, if not propelling herself),"

Hmm. If she's wheelchair-bound, can she swim? When I was a kid we were never allowed to take part in water-based activities if we couldn't swim 25 metres, so presumably she would be excluded from kayaking anyway. As indeed would any other kid that's couldn't sdwim, disabled or not.

<< yet. But if the council gets its finger out and sorts a trip that she can participate in - next academic year if not this - and reconsiders how it approaches the issue of inclusion, then the case has helped not only this child, but (especially given the publicity) others as well in the future.>>

But to do that the original trip didn't need to be cancelled. So to me it does seem a bit of a selfish attitude from the parent. What I'd like to know is what the girl involved thinks about it all.

I despair at these sorts of incidents but they are held up as reasons why things like the DDA are bad but really they are just examples of people improperly applying rules.

The "64 Thousand Dollar Question" in anything to do with DDA is the "reasonable" bit. I can't imagine for a minute that any tribunal would ever decide that the school had acted unreasonably in this case. Sometimes people with severe disabilities will not be able to do everything an able bodied person could do and the DDA law really does provide for this.

If there is a story here it is about the increasingly litigacious (spelling?) society we live in. If schools andp ublic bodies cant do stuff for fear of benig sued even when they are acting in good faith, do sometihng about that, not about important legislation designed to make the world fairer.



I thin an important thing people forget when lookng at these things (and a trap several posters have fallen into) is that "equality" of treatment does not necessarily mean the same thing as "same" treatment. Sometimes to give people equal treatment you either have to change the whole basis on which you do things, or you have to treat people differently.

In cases of people whom are disabled one of these things often has to come into play in order to give people "equal" treatment (this is for example why blind people are allowed to take guide dogs into areas where dogs are not allowed).



Discrimination. That old favourite and the schoo team thing came up . As Otto tends to put much more eloquently than I ever could it is a misnomer to suggest that discrimination is wrong. Discriminations happens all the time quite rightly. What is wrong is discrimination on *IRRELEVANT* grounds.

Discriminating in favour of talented footballers for the school football team is relevant and fair. Saying those who are gay cannot play is manifestly irrelevant and therefore unfiar and wrong.

This is the way the law works and what happens is people either through ingorance, or willfulness mis interpret it and the right wing press get carried away with stories of "political correctness gone mad".

FB

As usual with these stories that actually make being reported in the press, we never know the full context and facts. The press always like to spin a good story and edit appropriately. Superficially it looks like a bit of bloody mindedness. But I always try to remind myself that the obvious, simple and superficial reaction to press stories maybe not so appropriate. For example we don't know what sort of history this *particular* school has of making an effort to be inclusive. We see the same with schools that drag their feet over confronting the issue of 'bullying'. Sometimes sanction of law is needed to force change. Sometimes it's the only thing that works to drag some institutions kicking and screaming from the complacency of entrenched indifference to certain issues. Yes there may sometimes be the feeling that a hammer is being used to crack a nut. Sometimes it may result in situations that are less than fair, but overall I think it is a good thing that legislation is brought in to confront these things. Nothing is perfect. That's life.

I note the mother said,

'"When she wasn't in the centre she would have been asked to film them kayaking and doing the things she would love to do but she cannot do and I thought that was psychologically a pretty cruel thing to ask a child to do."

Yes that sounds horribly patronising to me, to get her to do the filming. There should have been some effort to get a helper to assist her with actually taking part in the activities in an active way as much as possible, rather than assigning the passive role of filming. If I was assigned that role as a disabled person I'd tell the school to go cluck itself. But she's a child, so probably wouldn't, and like many disabled people who are so often assigned passive roles, she may have no confidence left to tell the school where to go.

I notice swl that so often you bring in stories to threads, out of all the many you could choose from, to feed your obsession about interference of government and law, into people's lives. Yes you may sometimes have a point. But there is also needed legislation to change backwardness and complacency of attitudes, despite the ocasional hiccup. There is often much complexity to issues, and simple minded knee jerk reactions are often pretty stupid.

Note an important section of the report -

"Danny Alexander, Liberal Democrat MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, said he hoped the trip could still go ahead. He said: "I think it is very sad that the Disability Discrimination Act has been interpreted in this overzealous way by Highland Council given the efforts that the school made to make reasonable adjustments to the trip."

I'm not knocking the legislation per se, I've pointed out how I want the disabled to be included as much as anyone. I think it's quite clear that in this particular case an obstreperous and pushy mother has effectively bullied a council who were perhaps wary of complex legislation. She didn't want her child's feelings to be hurt. Diddums. Given that this is an annual excursion that has been going on for some years it appears, perhaps this devoted parent could have arranged a different activity themselves and allowed 70 children their annual day out.

It's been pointed out that other schools will learn from this. Of that I have no doubt. Why go to the bother of researching, organising and running an extracurricular activity when one bloody-minded parent can blow the whole thing out of the water by playing the discrimination card? Much easier to just cancel the whole thing. Which this school has. And the alternative too just to be on the safe side. What's the betting the trip in the New Year gets dropped?

Schools get a helluva lot of undeserved flak for the provision or non-provision of extracurricular activities. Most teachers don't seem to want the hassle. It's easy to see why.

Kerr: yes, as I was dropping off last night (or indeed this morning) I remembered the whole capsizing the canoe thing and realised that that probably wouldn't be an option. But I refuse to believe that there is no on-water activity that she couldn't do.

I'm sorry if I've not paid attention properly but I don't recall that it was the mother that cancelled the trip. She was making a legal challenge regarding the activities being offered to her disabled daughter. The *trip organisers* then cancelled the trip. So direct the anger at them (a) for not organising it properly in the first place or (b) for not sticking to the arrangements if those were in fact compliant with DDA.

Mol

>Why go to the bother of researching, organising and running an extracurricular activity <

Because that's precisely what schools have to now do thanks to legislation, to show they have properly taken account of the needs of all the children in the school. And just plonking the role of film maker on one child who needs assistance with being able to play some sort of physically active role, in an outdoor *activity* trip means that they have not properly bothered to research, organise and run the trip properly. I've worked with physically disabled people myself and its perfectly possible to assist them to play an active role so that they can push themselves as much as possible, despite the reality of the disability.. They may not be able to do everything an able bodied person can do, that's obvious. But its about properly taking on board that and finding ways for a disabled person to gain confidence, self esteem by taking part in an active way.

And I don't accept this comparison with ability in sports. All kids get the chance to actually take part actively in sport, and yes some are better than others. But those that are less good aren't prevented from taking part in trials in the first place and given some alternative role.

And an outdoor trip like this is not the same as sports trials. It's a kind of 'holiday' thing for everyone to pull together and be happy they are having a good time as equals having fun doing physical activities.

We used to have a legless armless dwarf in my school. I got to carry him from class to class. And while he couldn't throw a ball or swing a bat he always loved being used as second base. He said it gave him the best view and kept him the middle of the game.

Someone may yikes this post but I swear it's true.


~jwf~

You're the limit jwf. That's why I love yer.

And I reckon if you were running all the schools...every school would be a happy if sort of wacky one.

The world needs more of you.

Mol - the authorities cancelled the trip at the mere threat of legal action by the mother, possibly because they didn't have the time and/or resources to investigate the case properly. By all accounts, they would have won a court case but they took a safety first approach.

And that's what's wrong with society in so many ways. This fear of litigation is paralyzing many public bodies and leading to organisations bringing in the most ridiculous rules. Yes it all gets dumped at the feet of the "PC Brigade" or the "Elf n Safety crowd", but the root cause is the "no win - no fee" ambulance chasing lawyers and stroppy, bloody-minded people like this parent.

IMO, the best result in this case would have been for the authorities to have let this go to court and then for the bloody woman to have been publicly slapped down by a judge.

>> ...ambulance chasing lawyers and stroppy, bloody-minded people like this...<<

Yay! Way to drag a thread back on topic.


>> ..and then for the bloody woman to have been publicly slapped down by a judge. <<




~jwf~

First things first. Merry christmas, one and all. But I'll never let the urgency of getting the turkey on, get in the way of good debate.

>By all accounts, they would have won a court case but they took a safety first approach.<

All accounts? All? Are you sure of your facts? Whose 'all accounts'


>And that's what's wrong with society in so many ways. This fear of litigation is paralyzing many public bodies and leading to organisations bringing in the most ridiculous rules. Yes it all gets dumped at the feet of the "PC Brigade" or the "Elf n Safety crowd", but the root cause is the "no win - no fee" ambulance chasing lawyers and stroppy, bloody-minded people like this parent.<

And over the years we've had a variety of bogeymen blamed for causing 'what's wrong in society in so many ways' from you swl. The Muslims, the politicians, and yes you have on occasion laid into the 'elf and safety'crowd, the PC brigade...and not forgetting the 'positive action' lot. So now it's the 'ambulance chasing lawyers' and 'bloody minded people like this parent'. New year. New bogeymen, eh?

>IMO, the best result in this case would have been for the authorities to have let this go to court and then for the bloody woman to have been publicly slapped down by a judge. <

IMO, one of the things I like about Britain, is our tradition of fair play and justice. Yes, we may sometimes fall short of that, but its what we at least aim for in the first place, rather than deciding in advance, before court has even heard to the *full* facts of the case, based merely on media reports, that someone is a 'bloody woman' and needs a good slapping by a judge. Yes it would have been good to have had a case, but the authorities, presumably after consulting those dreadful lawyers, decided that it was a bit of a risk, once the full facts came out.

Happy, in advance, Hogmanay, swl. Now I'm off to put the turkey in, and open a bottle of something.