To be annoyed at being told to be considerate of disabled people

This is the attitude that is an issue. There are some adults who think a baby should always come first, especially their baby or child.
So if tying up the emergency cord and moving the nappy bin so wheelchair users can not use the toilet, tough shit.

No, you’re piggy backing on a changing table placed in a toilet meant for the use of disabled people. The name change from ‘disabled’ to ‘accessible’ facilitates that without existing businesses having to spend any more money, and also allows new building planners to combine the two. And I get that parents are a source of custom and good for business, but are you saying that disabled people aren’t ?

The simplest solution is to provide a parent/child toilet with a changing table in it.

And that’s what parents should be lobbying for, in the same way as disabled people lobbied for proper disabled facilities.

Spot on. That’s always been my point. ‘Accessible’ means different things to different people, so everyone feels entitled. Disabled concessions however, are the only ones enforceable by law. For everyone else it’s a concession and not legally enforceable. That’s why I think reintroducing radar keys for locked toilet rooms is probably a good idea. ‘Accessible’ cubicles in standard blocks can be used by everyone. Toilet rooms designed for wheelchair users/significantly disabled people and their carers should be user specific.

But the mother also needs to use the loo! I have the tiniest pram on the market (it counts as hand luggage in a plane) but it won’t fit in a standard cubicle when it has a child in it! When my children were small, I did tend to change them on my knee m, often while kneeling on the floor as some places don’t bother to provide any changing facilities at all, but there is no way I’m going to leave the child in a pram outside while I have a locked cubicle door between us! The simplest solution is to provide a parent/child toilet with a changing table in it.

Bingo. And “accessibility” has given people like this a reason to think they’re the ones in the right.

Nope. We have grown adults discussing what’s acceptable and what’s not. Faced with making a decision as to whether a baby can wait a few minutes to be changed if it allows a disabled adult to access the only facility they can use (and was actually designed for them) and prevents them from having a very embarrassing and public accident I know which I’d see as the priority. I think the fact that you haven’t considered this, frankly says more about you.

you're speaking into the void. they have decided that their abled bodied childrens needs will always be greater than the disabled people she shoves them in front of, and no amount of reasonable response will change that view.

And once more with feeling, facilities for baby changing and childrens’ needs is not a legal right. Disabled facilities are. They’ve been hard fought and won over years of discrimination. Why are you so surprised that disabled people get annoyed when others consider, yet again, that they have a right to piggy back on that at their expense ? Parenthood is a choice. Disability is not.

We’re not discussing how to be more inclusive. It’s being more inclusive that has triggered this discussion. The word ‘accessible’ has replaced ‘disabled’ and taken away any real meaning behind providing these facilities for the very people who need them the most. And no-one is being excluded - there are a wide range of larger cubicles - ambulent toilet facilities within standard blocks. Those without any disability, who just need a larger facility can still use those. Lockable stand alone toilet rooms should be locked and that way they stay available for those who really need them.

And as for the notion that the thread doesn’t reflect well on disabled people - have you actually read some of the disgusting, ableist comments upthread ? Disabled people are getting sick of perfectly able bodied people trying to shoehorn themselves into eligibility for every single concession meant for the disabled - from benefits to travel concessions, priority spaces on buses and trains, and disabled access. They put up with shitty comments about being workshy and getting ‘free cars’ and now it seems they have to apologise for wanting to pee or change a stoma bag, or just use a loo that was designed for their disability, without having to wait until they have an accident, because someone has decided their need is greater.

Likewise, parents do not need to be polite when meeting their children’s basic needs.

Now we have grown adults arguing babies with soiled bottoms are lower down on the list of priorities than them.

Disabled people are not required to be polite and kind when discussing the life-limiting impacts of how the protections they fought for have been watered down. Especially not to the people who are justifying that state of affairs.

You’d just get the parents who use them now buying radar keys on ebay so that they could still use them.

The same way that some of them have abused the sunflower lanyard system to secure speedy boarding on planes.

The only solution to this is to move the baby change out of the disabled facility and into a separate location where any parent can use it. The problem is that parents don’t want to campaign for that when they can just use spaces meant for disabled people, even when that means disabled people are prevented from accessing those spaces, and argue that they’re doing nothing wrong because accessibility/child safety/whatever.

Nothing on this thread is going to convince anyone doing this otherwise. Their convenience is simply more important to them.

The problem is the facilities are there are we are using them appropriately, but you have decided we aren’t. That’s not your decision to make. Like it or not parents are a source of custom and good for business. We are not piggy backing changing our children on a table provided.

Agree. The thing is, and it’s what most people are overlooking here, there is a legal requirement for the provision of toilets that can be accessed by disabled people. But there is no legal requirement for the provision of facilities for mums with children or for baby changing facilities. They are a concession, in the same way as disabled parking spaces are legally enforceable, whereas mum and baby ones aren't.

Now before I get jumped on, I don’t agree with that, but here’s my point. Disabled people and their organisations have fought long and hard to get these concessions enshrined in law. So it can hardly be a surprise when they get pissed because someone has come up with changing ‘disabled’ to ‘accessible’ and watered down those concessions so that the world and his wife can seemingly use them at will, without any trouble, and all in the name of ‘inclusion’.

In other words if you parents out there want baby changing facilities and better facilities for keeping your children safe while using the loos, then fight the good fight to get your own stand alone facilities established, instead of piggy backing on the efforts of others. And the rest of you who have no good reason to use facilities meant for those with problems you can know nothing of without experiencing them for yourselves, try using the standard loos whenever you can instead of the accessible ones as an easy option.

It’s ironic that you’re here discussing how to be more inclusive and your solution is to exclude a whole class of people and insult them. This thread does not reflect well on disabled people.

It’s complete hyperbole to suggest every parent behaves that way.

Yes I understand the point you were trying to make. But the evolution of their use does not in turn mean that people are using them inappropriately.

The point is, disabled loo used to mean just that. Not mums with children, not those who just can’t be bothered to queue for standard facilities, but actual disabled people who had a need for the facility. They were kept locked, and the disabled person had a radar key, ensuring they could access the facility when they needed it.

But that’s not what they were saying. It was a notice to be considerate and not take up too much time. I’m a wheelchair user, and on occasion I’ve used a disabled toilet after a mum changing a baby, and they left the room in such a disgusting state I couldn’t use it. They left the baby changing table down and a dirty nappy on the floor and there was poop all over the hand basin. There is no need for it. If this has happened often enough and other people using the facility have complained, this is probably why the notice has been put up. The moral of the story is, if you are not the culprit then the notice doesn’t apply to you.

Keeping accessible toilets behind radar keys would force the business to have the baby change elsewhere, so that sounds like a solution for everyone, and it lets the CFs with more kids than they can handle keep moaning too

Yeah it would irk me that it's addressed to mums and dads.
I'd write on it in marker pen 'if you are that concerned then put the baby change in a separate unit.. it's your fault as an establishment if there is an issue with where you have placed the baby change'
Because what are you supposed to do? Not change your baby? Change your baby on the table you were eating at?
If it were a general sign to not use that toilet unless you needed to then fair enough.. but it's like they are saying 'we've put the baby change in here to save money and space but it's your fault if this negatively effects a disabled person how dare you change your baby in here'
It does get my heckles up I see what you mean.

I can hand on heart say I’ve never queued for a disabled toilet. I’ve only ever nipped into one if it’s free and available for use.

Surely the point is there’s more people that need it because it now caters for a larger class of people, rather than people using it who don’t need to?