To be annoyed at disruption in a theatre show?

Well where or when he should be allowed out, thankfully is not down to you and your ableist opinion is it ? The likelihood is that his freedoms will be curtailed as a result of systemic failures in his care, so that should satisfy you until they bring back the death penalty for being disabled.

Thanks for your input, that’s really interesting.

There are mentally disabled people who are prone to extreme violence.... I don't think they should go out and hurt other people to be "inclusive"

When I go and do my business I don't make it a hassle and inconvenience for others. I don't ruin anyone else's social experiences.

Well I suspect we both agree he should not have been in an alligator zoo, I would extend there are quite a few others places he should not be allowed out to either.

And if ‘Alligator Guy’ had been in an appropriate care setting which met his needs, the toddler would never have been hurt. So your concern is misplaced.

I think the point that some people are missing is that the audience silence is integral to the enjoyment of the show, it’s not a ‘nice to have’ - all right thinking people want disabled people to live full and good lives and support adjustments to make that happen, but you know full well that if the theatre advertised a show as people were welcome to talk and make noise during the performance they wouldn’t sell many tickets, certainly not at £200 a pop!

And I do not give a hoot about the needs of the alligator guy. More concerned about the toddler.

Oh yes, correct, the needs of the many is right.

Just listen to yourself: Alligator guy, shouty person, normal thinking person. These are flesh and blood people whose lives are probably more difficult than you can imagine, and yet you think nothing of ridiculing them. In my experience over decades, it’s people like you who have made it exponentially more difficult for disabled people to establish their rights and freedoms than it ever needed to be.

Why would you assume it’s an experiment. And why would you use a highly emotive word like that in relation to a disabled person. Someone got it very wrong when assessing his care needs, with a tragic outcome. Hopefully things will be reviewed so that it can’t happen again. Unfortunately a boy has been seriously injured and a disabled man will likely have his freedom curtailed because of failings in the system that should have protected them both. I really don’t think insulting and derogatory terms like ‘experiment’ and ‘Alligator girl are appropriate when referring to such a serious incident. You don’t appear to have much filter.

Star Trek ? Mr Spock ? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one ? Which seems to be the general consensus. Ableism is neither ridiculous or new and whether it forms part of your dictionary or not is irrelevant.

Alligator guy is more concerning than opinions. Experiment gone very wrong there.

No, not what I said at all. I’ve worked within the laws protecting disabled people for long enough to know that they’re needed to protect vulnerable people - not least from some of the awful opinions expressed on threads like these, which, if they translate into wider society, are really concerning.

If you’re determined to be ableist in your outlook then that’s on you. This isn’t Star Trek.

Are you? How incredibly mean to the majority. You guard dog over the right to be selfish and disruptive?

Agree.

Re: voices for disabled people, this is absolutely true. We often have to fight harder and louder and more often, it is exhausting. My child has a voice because I am her voice, and I will (politely) not back down, we are heard because I make it so. But I am an articulate, highly educated person with lots of contacts and knowledge and it's still hard, so I agree some people do not have a voice.

But I still do not think it was right for that person to be disrupting the show. My aim is to make my daughters life better, but this does not give me the right to make others worse

I wouldn’t disagree with any of this, just putting forward some suggestions as to what may have happened. I wouldn’t advocate for anyone going ahead in an activity without the necessary adjustments, but without knowing a lot more about how this person came to be allowed to disrupt the performance it’s hard to comment.

Likely because they’ve had to be. I was born disabled and have worked as a disability outreach worker for over twenty years. I realised very quickly that you need to advocate for yourself (and in my case, for others too) or you will get nowhere. So for ‘pushy’ try reading ‘not prepared to be fobbed off yet again’ and you’ll be nearer the mark.

But if you needed those adjustments to access the activity/venue, then you would usually return another time when they are in place. Yes it would be rubbish, and yes you would demand a refund, but if someone needs an adjustment to safely do an activity, and they then carry on and do it without the adjustment, it raises the question on whether that adjustment was actually essential in the first place?

We have to have adjustments for my daughters needs. If they are not in place we do not go. I email, call and email again in the run up to us going somewhere new to make sure it is.

That isn’t what I said. But well done, I was actually waiting for someone to make that point, so you didn’t disappoint.

Nowhere in my post did I say the man was the victim. The child was the victim of the failure to provide adequate safeguarding for the man who clearly had needs relating to disability. Had he been in an appropriate care setting that met his needs, the incident wouldn’t have happened. But as usual on MN the fact that it did means he must be an absolute monster who should be locked away, rather than a severely disabled man who was failed by the people who were charged not only with his safety, but of those around him in a public setting.