Are the disabled trying to run the country??

[looney]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are the disabled trying to run the country??

There IS an apostrophe in "There's" RETARD

FULL STOP!

 

[looney]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are the disabled trying to run th

Do a search on Looney is OWNED

Full stop!!!!
Do a Search on Cornholio is looney's Bitch.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are the disabled trying t

Are you trying to tell me "It is paste" is proper English?

Its is a possessive pronoun meaning, more or less, of it or belonging to it.

True, now how does that apply to what you said?

Looney, for sake - you are embarrassing yourself with your complete ignorance. You are unable to admit defeat and dig yourself in deeper.

You said, there is no apostrophe in it's. The sentence was referring to your use of the word past instead of paste - therefore, it is paste is a perfectly acceptable sentence although maybe not grammatically correct.

However, to what or whom do you believe paste is possesed to justify your use of its?

You have been OWNED by someone who just has a B at O Level English - wait until some real lingustic experts get their claws into your sorry behind.

 

[looney]

Ah you managed a few FULL STOPS in that major MELTDOWN.

True as a dyslexic I am out of my league in a spelling flame war but if you start having a pop at someone with a disability, spelling in this case, shouldn't you ensure your measly efforts were perfect?<---NO FULL STOP NEEDED HERE.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are the disabled trying to run the country??

Thank you.

Is everyone so effing concerned about being PC in these times that we are not permitted to debate these issues?

Sure the disabled need to get around. I'd like to know what percentage of the population use wheelchairs and then whether there can really be a case made for spending as much as we do to make the country wheelchair-friendly when there are other options, e.g. taxis subsidised by the government (read taxpayer), instead of having to scrap perfectly good trains and buses or spend thousands convert them.

And what about people who suffer from incontinence? Where are their rights? There should be public toilets every few blocks in every town and city and in every village. Instead of which they're all being closed by local councils. How can that be justified?

Anyway, back to the issue in hand....

This is nothing to do with Political Correctness, in the slightest. This is about basic human rights and efforts to diminish social exclusion. Why should the government have to subsidise taxis, when the rule books are there for a reason. The rail companies are at fault and there are no two ways at looking at this issue.

I am not sure about incontinence issues, I could be talking a load of crap here, but I think it is manageable and it is a condition, rather than a permanent infliction.

 

[looney]

Btw
Cornholed, I f***ing own your gimpy bitch ass full f***ing stop.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

Btw
Cornholed, I f***ing own your gimpy bitch ass full f***ing stop.

So that's how you win your flame wars on the gimp sites? You change a name to something that sounds rude, cuss, type a random insult, cuss again and then use an emoticon.

How can anyone possibly compete with someone like you who obviously has the wit of Noel Coward?

 

[London Calling]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are the disabled trying to run the country??

The Bendy buses may be withdrawn but be that as it may I hope for your sake you never wind up in a wheel chair. As somebody who's pushed more than one relative around in one I can tell you that its not just Public Transport that's no joke.

1. No London has the most modern bus fleet in the world. Where REGistered disabled people travel free. The old routemasters were OK for the fit and healthy but prams for example were a no no. Travelling with kids was frightening and in addition, they were dangerous for people who were not agile and where the strongest bullied the way on to the buses. Plus they were killers. With over 5 people dying per year getting off and on them.

2. So how can paying a black cab be cheaper and if all disabled people took up their right, there probably be no cabs for anyone else!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are the disabled trying to run the country??

No London has the most modern bus fleet in the world. Where REGistered diabled people travel free. The old rouremasters were OK for the fit and healthy but prams were a no no, they were dangerous for people who were not agile and where the stongest bullied the way to the front. Plus they were killers. With over 5 people dying per year getting off and on them.

So how can paying a black cab be cheaper and if all disabled people took up their right, there probably be no cabs for anyone else!

It is a good opportunity to keep them at arms length though, just in case one might catch something....

:thud:

 

[Lord Bracknell]

If people will indulge me, I’ve picked up on a few detailed comments that have been made in this thread, basing what I have to say on my experience working in accessible transport provision over many years.

I’ll leave others to debate the rights and wrongs of peoples’ attitudes to disabled people.

Is it worth paying extra dosh so the SMALL percentage of people are not isolated and excluded?

The improvements in the accessibility of public transport have brought benefits to MOST passengers.

Wheelchair accessible buses and trains allow easier access for everyone – including parents with small children and shoppers with trolleys. The “extra dosh” is coming from extra fares revenue. Operators like B&H Buses who have invested in new, low-floor buses are carrying 50 per cent more passengers than ten years ago.

I think you'll find that the regulation concerned is an edict from the 'Perverted Socialist' EEC and is effectively outside of of the British Governments control.

Not so. The regulations are entirely British. The European dimension to this is mainly that British innovation is being followed throughout Europe and EU-wide regulations, based on the British experience, are now being formulated. The UK civil servants in the Department for Transport deserve great credit for this.

I'd like to know what percentage of the population use wheelchairs and then whether there can really be a case made for spending as much as we do to make the country wheelchair-friendly when there are other options, e.g. taxis subsidised by the government (read taxpayer), instead of having to scrap perfectly good trains and buses or spend thousands convert them.

When I was a member of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, we worked on the basis of research that showed that about one in six public transport users had some form of mobility impairment that would benefit from improvements to bus, train and taxi design.

It’s not just about wheelchair access. It’s also about the spacing between seats (to allow stiff-legged passengers the option of sitting comfortably). It’s about requiring well designed grab-rails that help older people avoid falling over. It’s about having legible and audible information, so that people with visual or auditory problems know when their stop is coming. And lots of other things.

The trains and buses that are being scrapped simply do not come up to scratch.

From 2010, the government says that all taxis must be wheelchair accessible. Bollocks to that. What about all the elderly that can walk, but won't be able to get in one of those? I've even picked up a wheelchair-bound lady who would much prefer a normal car to travel in because she feels safer and more comfortable.

The government’s Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee takes the view that a wheelchair accessible hackney carriage fleet needs to run in tandem with a buoyant private hire trade which continues to use conventional saloon cars. That way, everyone will have a choice – particularly people who want to call a cab to pick them up from home, precisely the people you are concerned about.

 

[London Calling]

Transport for all is a right, not a request!!

 

[looney]

I see what your saying LB but you miss the point. The object is access for all. Wether you can get every one on a bus(Some people with medical conditons cant), or wether it would be better value to have a more diverse transport system available.


Social incluision is a non arguement. Some disabled people may prefer taxi's or council transport, The former means your not at the mercy of bus routes and timetables as well.

To settle my point you would have to show what the feedback from different disabled groups.

Maybe I am more leftwing by not only wanting them mobile but want to give them the type of mobility they want and need.

 

[Monsieur Leclerc]

Social incluision is a non arguement. Some disabled people may prefer taxi's or council transport.

I think the Life of Brian sums that up nicely....

JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

 

[looney]

No it doesn't, what I am suggesting is REALISTIC and would give greater choice.

 

[Monsieur Leclerc]

But as it stands 'they' don't have any choice.

Why subsidise alternate transport, when something like the rail network is perfectly sufficient if the franchises followed the rules!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I see what your saying LB but you miss the point. The object is access for all. Wether you can get every one on a bus(Some people with medical conditons cant), or wether it would be better value to have a more diverse transport system available.


Social incluision is a non arguement. Some disabled people may prefer taxi's or council transport, The former means your not at the mercy of bus routes and timetables as well.

To settle my point you would have to show what the feedback from different disabled groups.

Maybe I am more leftwing by not only wanting them mobile but want to give them the type of mobility they want and need.

As I have said, I was a member of the DPTAC advisory committee from 1999 to 2002. That committee has 20 members. In my time, 15 of them were people with disabilities, representing a wide range of organisations with an interest in the topic.

The committee certainly took a "Transport For All" approach, but this wasn't confined to a belief that "One Size Fits All". The starting point, however, has to be the transport system that exists. If that can be usefully improved, then that is the first thing to do. But there still remain areas where specialised transport is appropriate. After a career planning what might be called "mainstream" public transport, I'm currently employed by an organisation that provides specialised transport specifically targeted at disabled people. So I have seen both sides.

It's a bit like the world of education. Delivering better schooling for disabled students in mainstream schools is not only possible, but desirable. But that doesn't completely eliminate the need for special schools. Things get even more complex when Choice is on offer (as it should be).

Improving Quality and extending Choice to more people should be the principal objectives of public policy. And the ongoing target is to improve things incrementally.

Labels like "left wing" or "right wing" have very little practical meaning in this area.

 

[bhaexpress]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are the disabled trying to run the country??

Hardly likley as not only does the disability allowance pay more than your dole rate chester, they quite often have support from the council and funding for essential journeys.

Sure, that must be why I see so many disabled people getting out of Bentley's when they pop out to Tescos. Clearly as usual you have absolutely no idea about what you're talking about, some high IQ you must have.

 

[Everest]

The government’s Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee takes the view that a wheelchair accessible hackney carriage fleet needs to run in tandem with a buoyant private hire trade which continues to use conventional saloon cars. That way, everyone will have a choice – particularly people who want to call a cab to pick them up from home, precisely the people you are concerned about.

But private hire vehicles are not allowed to wait on taxi ranks. What if someone wants to use a normal vehicle but all they see on the ranks are WAVs?
What if an elderly lady, weighed down with shopping, decides not to walk the rest of the way home and stop a taxi instead? Private hires cannot stop for her (even though some do, breaking the law). A HC stops but she can't get into it.

Talk about discriminating against the disabled, this is surely disciminating against the abled.

I agree there should be a certain number of WAVs on the road, but why should every HC be one? Discimination gone mad.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

But private hire vehicles are not allowed to wait on taxi ranks. What if someone wants to use a normal vehicle but all they see on the ranks are WAVs?
What if an elderly lady, weighed down with shopping, decides not to walk the rest of the way home and stop a taxi instead? Private hires cannot stop for her (even though some do, breaking the law). A HC stops but she can't get into it.

Talk about discriminating against the disabled, this is surely disciminating against the abled.

I agree there should be a certain number of WAVs on the road, but why should every HC be one? Discimination gone mad.

The problem with that argument is that it flies in the face of the experience of most major cities in the UK, where wheelchair accessible hackney carriages have been required for many years.

It's really only in Sussex that there has been any serious lobbying against this policy. And this hasn't impressed the national policy makers, because - over most of Sussex - there are very few wheelchair accessible taxis available. The taxi trade have let themselves down, I'm afraid.

 

[Superphil]

I've just had a deeper look into the issue of these specific trains.

They fail to meet the Disability Discrimination Act standards not just because the signs are wrong, but also because the doors fail to meet the standard and the toilets are inadequate.

Two of the units currently operated by South West Trains are in line for transfer to Gatwick Express. Gatwick Express and Porterbrook (the leasing company that actually owns the trains) have managed to put together a successful application to allow their two trains to remain in service until 2011, with appropriate modifications to satisfy the authorities that a reasonable level of accessiblity will be offered.

South West Trains haven't bothered to come up with any proposals at all to achieve what Gatwick Express have shown can be done.

Apart from a whinge to the media, of course.

Tossers!

Thanks for that Ed, as I thought, a little more to it than just 3mm.

I take the DDA seriously, as I said, part of my job is in the production of signage for DDA complaince, which covers everything from wheelchair route signage to signs designed for maximum legibility including Braille and tactile signs (used frequently in trains). I refer to the RNIB sign design guide for guidance, but in relation to the product we make, it is down to our experience and judgment as to what passes for "DDA compliant".

In the case of these trains it appears that the operator/owner has been negligent in its responsibility to make the trains suitable.

It comes as no suprise as, in the case of the signs, they cost a lot of money, clients rarely budget accordingly, and if they find out they have bought the wrong thing, they simply won't or can't buy the signs again.

Instances like this are beneficial to make organisations comply, but taking the trains out of service is the action of incompetent buffoons with little or no sense of priority.

The owners/operators should be taken to task and an example made of them. No point fining them, as that will lead to them justifying higher ticket prices, but the directors of the companies can be punished, and that is what must happen.