Not Really AIBU but amusing twist on old favourite: Disabled/Baby Change Loos

[QueenSconetta]

I know its quite a regular topic here, and I myself have moaned complained whined discussed parents using a disabled toilets with their children.

The other day I was a supermarket in a different town and was quite amused to see all the old ladies going into the baby change room cos it was big enough to fit their trollies in! I did wonder how they got on with using the mini toilet though

One can never win this one me thinks.

saintlydamemrsturnip - Oh yes I don't disagree. I think though that if we had a better understood and agreed definition of what the facilities are FOR, then there would be little or no dispute over how they should be used. Your and MmeLindt in particular seem to have problems around needs that make queuing itself an accessibility issue - which DOES suggest that the disabled loo should not be used by anyone else - if that is agreed to be it's purpose.

(BTW - would you take your 11 year old into the gents to avoid issues around being in the wrong gendered toilet now or when they are older? I think that is what I would do in your position in the absence of approriate facilities. This has nothing to do with my other points, I'm just curious)

Galena- I think the point really is that the world doesn't revolve around you or your young child.

I don't use the disabled toilets with ds2 and ds3 because they don't need them. 99% of the time I'm sure we could and it wouldn't affect anyone, but I don't particularly want that 1% of the time to ruin someone else's day when we have alternative options.

If you look at my posts you'll see I've said their for the use of baby change if that's where the facilities are. I don't think that needs to extend to every NT child up to the age of 5 just because it's more convenient.

It's only a case of being thoughtful isn't it.

Galena
The point is that you do not know by looking at a person if they are able to queue, or incontinent, or have other SN.

And that your baby will survive two minutes more with that dirty bum, even if he/she has nappy rash, however horrible that may be.

In this situation, I would always let a disabled person go first as I have an alternative, they don't.

saintly Yours in obviously an exceptional case though, not every disabled child/person has a waiting issue. Other people probably don't have a clue that your child is behaving in the way he does because he is having to wait. If you asked to go first I a sure most people would happily oblige.

galena I agree with you.

No thecoalition- I'm not saying it has to be empty so my son never has to queue. I'm just saying a side effect of only using it when there's no alternative is that it might make our day a little easier.

No I wouldn't go into the Gents. For starters its more open. The Ladies has cubicles so there's no real reason for anyone to complain about ds1 being there. Whereas if a man is at a urinal then my presence might be rather trickier.

Claw3 - I know it's for both physical and mental disabilitites - my question was about the purpose of provision. What is the purpose as you understand it?

Where do you draw the line was a question - IF part of the provision is for those who for whatever reason can't queue, should this be restricted to someone who is registered disabled? I don't have experience of this so I don't know what the criteria for being registered disabled are and if chronic continence issues are included.

TheCoalition
Sorry, I missed your earlier post. I would agree with Saintly, that initially disabled toilets were made for access reasons (space for a wheelchair) and privacy. I do agree though that this should be extended to include those who cannot for some reason or other queue - and I would certainly not expect a person who was suffering from diarrhea to soil themselves rather than use the disabled toilet.

I do think that it is a lot to do with respect, and thinking of others. Not being selfish.

wcgrime - I doubt very much that anyone would let us queue jump. I also can't have nice little chit chats when I'm holding ds1 - he is big and very strong - if he's upset I have to deal with that. I do say 'waiting, waiting - just 3 waits' and do lots of counting etc. So it's really should be bloody obvious to anyone what the problem is.

RADAR keys were meant to be for those registered disabled weren't they? But they now get sold on ebay for mums with pushchairs which makes me a bit

But if the toilet is empty and there is no one queueing and the toilet clearly states "disabled/baby change" why on Earth would I change my baby on a park bench? There are so many scenarios we could all argue about. But I am doing nothing wrong by using the facilities for there intended purpose. I would never queue jump, never ridicule anyone for using the facilities who look/don't look disabled. Have Mumsnet got a campaign for this?

I don't think anyone has said you shouldn't use babychange facilities pebble if that's where they are.

On my lovely day trip to a local amusement place, there was an otherwise normal looking boy of about 11 I would've said, in the ladies with his Mum.

Two old bitches ladies were muttering loudly about him being in there.

Saw him later in the place in a full on meltdown with his poor mum having to restrain him.

You can't always tell if someone is disabled.

My DS1 has severe hearing loss. I guarantee you would never know.

TCNY - personally i think its a silly idea, having a baby changing area in a disabled toilet, as it leaves the purpose open to interpretation. I would hope that people would use common sense.

Restricted to someone who is registered disabled would be difficult, as many adults/children have a disability which is/has been being assessed for many years and dont have a 'label' as yet.

"Galena- I think the point really is that the world doesn't revolve around you or your young child."

Correct. Nor does it revolve around you and yours. I am not saying that children up to the age of 5 should be allowed in. I have already said I would ask a disabled person if they'd like to go ahead of us. It's funny how high some people's horses are...

Blimey botty I am wondering whether that was me We do have the problem that ds1 doesn't look remotely disabled so people struggle to understand that developmentally in many areas (language for example) he's about 18 months old.

I haven't said it revolves around my child. Have said if we have to wait we have to wait.

Well if you did let us go in front Galena you would be the first person in 11 years. You may understand why I am doubtful.

Saintly - was it Barrys in Portrush??!!

Seriously, people need to understand that there are more disabilities than being in a wheelchair - and I am not having some sort of pissing contest (sorry!!) about what sort of disability is "worse".

DS2 went through a series of awful UTI's - he ended up having an operation - wheh he had to go he had to go - had a situation at school when he was about 13. If out, I would've let him use the disabled loo to avoid wetting himeself.

Actually said if the disabled toilet is occupied we just have to use the ladies, rather than wait. I often try to wait, but when ds1 starts hitting the door I think it isn't fair if there is someone disabled in there so we head to the Ladies. We haven't yet managed about more than 30 seconds.

But yes if the disabled toilet is occupied by someone who needs to use it so be it. If it is occupied by someone who doesn't need to be there, well thanks a bunch.

Last time I was in Barrys in Portrush was when ds1 was..... 9 I think. Maybe it was us :o (he's quite tall).

Although, never happened coz there isn't usually a queue for the gents!!

I am now trying desperately to remember whether we used the toilets in Barry's..... Probably not because dh would have been with me so he would have taken him into the Gents.

Then apologies, I've obviously read/interpreted posts differently.

I think the 'family friendly' mumsnet post should definitely address these issues.