to get really annoyed with non-disabled people parking in disabled spaces?

[LauraKB]

and the same for parent and child spaces.

Also the same for disabled toilets (not the parking in bit), especially when parents take their same sex children into them when they would be perfectly capable of using the normal toilets. I do however understand Fathers taking their daughters to a disabled toilet cos you wouldn't want them to go into the gents and they are too small to go into the ladies alone.

Ooops I meant a previous boss - fingers working faster than brain.

Arses - Ah nightclubs, a dim and distant memory.

What's your point, cornsilk?
You said that I assumed that all people who were incontinent were learning disabled, I responded to that by saying I clearly didn't as I knew anyone could be incontinent.

Are you talking about incontinence or disability? They are not mutually interchangeable, which is what you said I was saying? So originally I was wrong as you believed I thought everyone who was incontinent was disabled and then I was wrong because I thought incontinence in pregnancy was the same as incontinence in disability (NOT what I said at all btw).

I was simply saying that the people I know in my life (e.g. not all disabled people, not necessarily representative of all disabled people) who are in wheelchairs are very clear that apart from having accessible facilities, they don't want to be treated as ah-sure-god-help-us cases and would wait for a toilet if it were occupied the same as anyone else would.

You are deliberately misconstruing my point.

All normal disclaimers apply yada yada.

You very clearly say that people with leaning disabilities might need to use the toilet in a hurry. Why did you mention people with learning disabilities at all if that was not your intention?

I have responded to this already cornsilk.

I was making the point that not all people in wheelchairs would feel happy about able-bodied people assume that they would be terribly put out to wait for two minutes for a toilet.

As I anticipated that someone would jump on this by saying "ah, but what about a child with autism or nonverbal learning disabilities who is terribly distressed by waiting for toilet for 2 minutes because they can't understand the concept that it is occupied", I added - as a disclaimer - that I understood that there are some children/adults who have learning difficulties (I should really have added autism as a separate entity here because of course you can have autism without LD) who might find it difficult to wait for two minutes due to the nature of their disability.

I thought I made this clear. Obviously not.

I still don't understand why you have decided that what I wrote equated to either
a) a belief that incontinence only occurred in people with learning disability
or
b)a belief that incontinence in pregnancy was the same as incontinence in a disabled person.

And if we're going to play silly buggers, is there something wrong or shameful about learning disability that it would be so horrifying to also consider the needs of this separate population of people who are also likely to experience continence issues?

RE: disabled toilets, surely the sign on the door just shows that this cubicle is designed for those who may need a higher toilet, handles on the wall, a longer flush, a red alarm cord, more room to manouvre. It does not mean that those who don't need all those things cannot use that cubicle!

Saying that I will not use the disabled cubicle if another one is free but I think it's odd when there's a massive Q for the ladies but everyone keeps the disabled one free 'just in case' a disabled person comes along at that very moment. the worse case scenario is that you use that toilet and then at that very moment a disabled person comes in needing that cubicle and then they have to wait 2 or 3 minutes.

Disabled parking bays are a whole different kettle of fish and they shouldn't be used by anyone without a genuine disability, visible or not. They again should be used by those people who need more room to get in and out the car and need to be closer to the store.

Mother and baby spaces do not need to be close to the store but it's fab that they are. A monther with child(ren) needs more room to get in and out the car and a bigger parking space. If this was at the back of the carpark with good footpaths leading to the store then I cannot see what the problem is.

and I am responding to you - that is allowed isn't it?
No you didn't make it clear at all
you equated being incontinent with learning disability and continue to do so

I think that when it comes to toilets, incontinence is considered just cause for using disabled toilets (when I had bad colitis I had a radar key for example - legitimately). Surely the term disabled is contextual to some degree, and although being disabled in a "public toilet" sense might overlap with some more recognised types of disability - incontinence would count whatever you physical abilities. I do not think that those with a physical need for a disabled toilet have a problem with those with a medical need using their facilities.

Basically I think this argument is getting sidetracked by people trying to compare different types of disability and assign them a priority, when all those with the different types seem to have no problems sharing such facilities with one another. At this rate we are going to end up with a hypothetical person whose range of problems would always give them priority and nobody else could ever use any of the toilets in case they came along.

How?

How did I equate being incontinent with LD?

Where did I equate being incontinent with LD?

There are people with LD who have continence issues.
There are people with MS who have continence issues.
There are people post-stroke and post-head injury who have continence issues.
There are people post-cancer who have continence issues.
There are people who have continence issues of unknown cause.
There are people who have continence issues related to physical disability.
There are people who have continence issues related to autism who do not have LD.

There are people from all of the above groups(and many more) who do not have continence issues but are equally entitled to use the disabled toilet.

I said that among the above groups of people (and yes, I know there are more) people who have LD are most likely to find it difficult to wait for a toilet in the event that it is occupied as they do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that the toilet will vbecome available in a minute.

I am also aware that are also people with continence issues who do not have LD who would find it very difficult if they did have to wait 2-3 minutes because they might soil or wet themselves and be faced with the embarrassment and indignity of that in a public place.

I could go on, but I was unaware that in posting I had to write everything I possibly could about continence.

You deliberately misconstrued my post. You say that I equated being incontinentwith LD and continue to do so? I didn't because I don't. There has been miscommunication, nothing more, nothing less.

Also, you know nothing about my experience with either LD or continence issues so you assume a lot.

One of my close friends has terminal cancer, and has recently been given her blue badge. She's just been through chemo and didn't lose her hair, which she was very pleased about, so to many observers, all they will see when she gets out of her car is a nicely dressed middle aged lady, who is very slim. This is why I would never challenge someone with a blue badge as it is not always apparent what is the problem.

In fact, I didn't even say that disabled people should ever wait, merely that sometimes in our non-ideal world they may do so due to the location of babychange facilities in disabled toilets and that some disability activitists do not take kindly to people without disability assuming they understand their experience.

I was adding a different viewpoint that occurred to me as I read LauraKB's post, not everything-I-know-and-believe-about-disability.

Sorry to hear about your friend Scuttlebutter. As per my previous post this if why I would never challenge a badge holder either, although my boss is lucky and the last I heard was still in remission.

I love this old debate!

Tis hilarious - noone will ever agree as everyone's experience is so different. I do think this should be taken far LESS SERIOUSLY - they're facilities not divine rights!!!!!!!!!!

When it comes to toilets, the disabled loo is the most sensible place for the baby change facilities, otherwise it's going to be rather tricky for a disabled person to change their baby. It doesn't bother me if there's a queue for the main toilets and people are using the disabled loos aswell (annoying when there isn't a queue and they could have used the normal one), but I'd expect to jump to the front of the queue. Also juggling young children or a parent supervising a child of the opposite sex is perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

As for parking, to be honest if it's late in the evening in a big supermarket and there's loads of empty disabled spaces it doesn't bother me if someone parks there to pop into the store quickly, though I have had polite words with a few people about how it would be nice if they didn't take the space closest to the shop since that's the one that's most useful, but one of the further away one's I really don't see a problem. Obviously if it's remotely busy then no they shouldn't do it.

I'd never question someone with a blue badge because even though a lot are used fraudulently it's not up to me to police it and a lot of people do have non obvious disabilities. I also try to tell myself that a car parked without a badge is someone who's just forgotton to put their badge up, though I do report it if it's obvious where to report it to. I'll challenge someone if I actually see them arriving, I go with the phrase "excuse me, you've forgotton to put your badge up", sounds nice and non accusatory (and admittedly rather sarcastic!).

I'm always astonished at the number of stories I hear about people being rude to blue badge holders, in 3 years the worst I've had is a few dirty looks off old people who then look rather sheepish when I get out of the car with my walking sticks or better still start unloading the wheelchair.

"Are you entitled to a blue badge due to autism? "

Stressheadearic- depends. My severely autistic son has been awarded higher rate mobility for life (so automatically gets a blue badge). He gets higher rate mobility because he (1) is in receipt of higher rate care DLA (2) & has 'severe mental impairment' and (3) severe challenging behaviours.

He needs someone holding onto him at all time near roads (often wears a harness to aid in this) - and therefore cannot walk independently.

Those who are higher functioning and can walk down a street independently generally do not qualify.

my neighbours had a lot of trouble getting a blue badge for thier son with spinabefita - he was paralised from the shest down, apparently the problem was with deciding if he was paralised enough as he had use of his arms and a wheel chair

Oh that's ridiculous ivykaty, but fairly typical, they often don't make it easy - when really it should be simple.

I think it is often easier to qualify for higher rate mobility (long form but clear criteria for qualification) and then qualify for a blue badge that way. The council blue badge bods seem to be a law unto themselves.

Everyone is disabled nowadays if benefit figures are to be believed. Certainly a lot of blue badges around that in another time might not have been awarded.

I feel sorry for the genuinely disabled, but when a system is abused as much as disability allowances have been, people are bound to be a little sceptical of fair use disabled spots. And why so many of the things? I have never once seen a row of disabled parking bays even half full.

Parents and child parking spots should be at the BACK of the carpark. If parents are going to be given bigger spaces for loading/unloading their 4*4s, why does it have to be in premium parking position near the store entrance? I can understand why this new brand of preferential treatment is being ignored/abused by non-parents.

Really? I frequently find the disabled bays to be often full.

Oh yes ccpccp. It's great being disabled. Everyone wants in on the act. So, have you decided what disability you want yet? Have mine if you like. Please.

I nearly parked in a P&T bay on Friday when I had ds1 with me - but I was worried about having my car keyed (Mumsnet passim). Luckily a disabled space became free because I did really need it then.

Agree that P&T should be at the back - would be safer too.

DIsabled parking bay just outside my window. Unless disabled people only ever drive new Mercedes landrovers and Bmws and always forget their badges.. than I think YANBU and people really take the piss with it. Saw a white van man park in the one disabled spot leaving and old boy and a woman in crutches waiting for the spot ages.. then when the older guy tried saying anything was ignored outright.. Makes me very angry, we have loads of on road parking too. People just don't want to walk across the street or rish their precious cars.

As I said antoinettechigur - I feel sorry for the genuinely disabled.

No-one can deny the system has been abused though. You should save your scorn for the people who have blue badges but with no apparent disability other than a crippling lack of shame.