All those backing Sainsbury's and the police, how would you feel if she was chucked out for taking her dog into the store despite a no dogs rule? What if she explained she was blind and the dog was a guide dog? Still happy for her to be chucked out or should she have to prove that she is blind and the cause of her blindness? it’s pretty obvious that I am blind even when I’m not using a guide dog. Interestingly, there is an increasing number of people who have decided to take it upon themselves to train their own assistance dogs and to proclaim they are genuine assistance dogs, buddy dog/companion dog autism awareness dog and even guide dogs, which have led to some establishments being less forthcoming when it comes to accepting guide dogs.
It’s very simple, if you have a legitimate assistance dog that dog can be registered as an assistance dog and you can be sent an assistance dog ID card to present should you be asked to do so.
A guide dog is pretty obvious as not only is the dog wearing a harness and a “guide dog” flash on its lead, but the owner is usually fairly obviously blind.
Incidentally, guide dog puppies in training do not have the legal right to enter shops, but the vast majority of shops will allow them entry on the basis it teaches them the correct skills to be able to enter when they are fully trained and matched.
Similarly many establishments will allow retired guide dogs in, however, I have a retired guide dog and it would never occur to me to take him into a shop. And I especially wouldn’t take him in a taxi because guide dog owners find it hard enough to not be refused by taxi drivers anyway with at least 50% of guide dog owners being refused by a taxi every year, and taxi refusal is in fact a criminal offence.
Added to which, I am quite happy to prove my blindness, tbh it’s pretty bloody obvious and I would question the eyesight (or lack theirof) of anyone who couldn’t see it.
But now anyone can merrily walk into a shop say “oh, I’m exempt,” and nobody is allowed to question them.