adults with learning difficulties on small childrens' play area.

[Bethshine82]

Took DS to the play area on Friday, it is not a huge play area and has one of those signs saying it is designed for use by children 14 and under.
Whilst we were there a group of around eight adults with learning difficulties and their carers arrived. The adults proceeded to go onto the playground.
AIBU to think this isn't very fair? They were adults and they weren't really aware of their strength and size. The carers weren't supervising brilliantly and twice I saw one of the adults just shove the children out of the way. Also some of the adults were shouting and screaming which frightened some of the toddlers. Many of the children left. I'm not in any way suggesting that adults with learning difficulties shouldn't be able to go out and enjoy themselves or that they shouldn't be part of the community, I'm just not sure a small childrens' play area is the place for an adults' afternoon out.

I think that the playground should only be used by children, it isn't safe otherwise really. AIBU?

claw not if they are suddenly violent then NO of course not Kaldakaka.

Im going to ask again as nicely as I can -

PLEASE report instances of poor care as soon as you can after an incident as the disabled are SO very vulnerable and need the publics vigilance for protection.

Often relatives may suspect something untoward is going on with a persons care but be unable to obtain the proof needed to take action. This is especially true of adults with disabilities. I have a cousin in his 50s whose Mum is now dead and whose father is in his late 80s and himself wheelchair bound in a care home.

Do make it clear to your elected representatives that you as a voter expect appropriate care and facilities to be provided for the most vulnerable members of society. In this uncaring age of austerity the onus is on ALL of us to protect our weakest.

Most of you are Mums and so understand and expect children to be protected in a civilised society and wouldnt hestitate to report abuse or poor care in a nursery. Im just asking you to expand that concept to those vulnerable adults you come across.

It's not OK for people to die of thirst on NHS wards, or for carers to mock the vulnerable in public when they fall and may be hurt. If noone complains then standards will continue to slide, more services and facilities will be withdrawn and slowly we will all lose our humanity.

Sorry above post for claw

Baking, "but once they lash out at babies" no one lashed out at Awkward's baby, you stated it as if fact. She didnt say that she lashed out at babies, just that she could lash out. I must have missed the post about the carer barely coping, i read that she was very lively and interested in all around her. I dont see how this amounts to the carer barely being about to cope.

'You can use public transport, facilities etc but if your behaviour affects other users then who takes precedence' The only way it affected Awkwards journey was that in her words, she felt uncomfortable

But I also felt scared claw I put that down too....I was afraid.

Well said bochead. When I got thrown out, the staff treated me appaulingly. I tried to stand up for myself in what became a very distressed state, but they just ganged up on me. Lots of other members of the public there, plenty stopping to have a good gawp at what was going on and you could see on their faces that they knew it was wrong. But not one person stepped forward and said 'STOP!'

If i were you then Awkward i would be more worried about the other people you are sharing a bus with, as statically you stand more chance of being attacked by one of them, than you do a person with SN's.

Awkward, i think being scared of peope with disabilities and not knowing what they are capable of is one of the biggest problems. But you not knowing what they are capable of or being scared isnt a good reason to stop them from using public transport.

But none of them were announced to be a threat Claw were they? I don't assume the worst about anyone...but being told that a person with SN might lash out at your baby if you don't keep her away from that person IS scary! Especially on a crowded bus!

And I DID know what the person was capable of because her carer TOLD me.

So if you were black and someone said, "Mind that white person, they have mental health issues, and can have a tendency to lash out at black people, so you should stay out of their way, be warned", or you were a man and someone said, "Mind that woman, she has past domestic violence issues and has a tendency to lash out at men, stay out of her way, be warned" you wouldn't be surprised he/she was on a packed bus being put in the position where exactly that might happen, then?

That's not anti-SN. That's being baffled as to why you were suddenly put in a position where you have to worry about your physical safety, or that of your child. And nobody should have to put up with that when using public transport.

but why is it acceptable for people who have a history of lashing out at babies to use the bus with less than adequate supervision

I don't know, it is a question I have asked my social worker several times tbh. My social worker who has cut our care package as per bpcheads earlier post, so i get no support AT ALL with managing a child with severe and complex needs including medical. I wont be alone.

So what do suggest I and everyone else with children (which will include adults) do?

Do we
(a) stay indoors
or
(b)
stay indoors

or I suppose the alternative might be

(c) jump off a bridge/under a train and save everyone alot of hassle?

Bloody hell Kladdkaka:(

Where was it?

Awkward, i understand that you would of been scared especially as you had a small baby. But the fact is the woman didnt lash out, made no attempt to lash out. I dont know it for a fact, as obviously im not the womans carer, but seems she was just being attentive to potential problems and better to have warned you than not.

I also feel sure that if this woman had a history of hitting babies, she wouldnt have been on a bus.

You also stayed on the bus, if you felt this woman was truly going to hit your baby at any moment, wouldnt you have got off?

Agincourt I am sure some of the people in this country would liketo choose your option c. What a vile thread.

I repeat, if bus stress and lashing out is an issue, then individuals need to use the bus at quieter times to become properly habituated to other users, working up to being able to cope with being on a bus during peak periods.

It's not rocket science.
And it's mean not to support them in being able to do this.

Violence has with it an element of intention. When people with ld's lash out it is usually described as challenging behaviour rather than violent. A person wi ld's may lash out because they're frightenend or frustrated, but they're not generally violent in the sense that the drunk man glassing someone in the pub is.

An important distinction I think.

Incidentally I have spent a lot of time with babies around teens with learning disabilities who cannot be trusted with babies. Either because they were over keen, or because they couldn't bear the noise of babies or because they were unaware babies were there and woukd sit on them (have leapt in to grab a bay in such a case). When these were my babies I just held on to them - it wasn't that difficult. I knew it wasn't safe to put my baby down - and woukd have been very unfair on the person with ld's to have done so - so I kept hold of them. Sure it's not as easy as being in an NT only area, but it wasn't THAT difficult.

I'm not allowed to say Agincourt, because in the end they settled out of court and one of the stipulations of the settlement was keeping quiet. All I wanted was for them to accept that they were wrong, apologise and take steps to make sure it never happened again. They refused because they felt they were justified in their actions. Only when it reached a point where they realised they didn't have a cat in hell's chance of winning did they back down.

I'm pleased to say that they have since updated their policies, rolled out disability awareness training to all their staff and I'm pretty confident nobody else will have to go through it.

Boffin - many people will never get to the situation where you are able to guarantee they will be able to cope with any eventuality.

If someone shows challenging behaviour in public then social services should fund 2:1 carers, and they should fund alternative transport. I don't believe that they should fund it if the behaviour is able to be dealt with (and in the baby in the bus case nothing actually happened).

My son loves going on trains. I took him on one last week with another adult. We mistimed it a bit and had to wait on the train for it to start so he got upset. No-one was hurt- he hit himself and headbutted the window and back of the chair (once) whike waiting. Bloke sitting the other side of the chair still managed to do a full blown lemon suck. Luckily we had a granny travelling on the sam's train who was off to see her severely autistic grandson and she sat behind him and went on a monologue about how awful e public are when people with ld's kick off. Once the train started ds1 was in heaven and the granny kept saying 'see it's worth the screaming to see such a happy look on a child's face'. Anyway I digress - I will never be able to guarantee ds1's behaviour in public because unforeseen circumstances can always set him off, but I'm not going to deny him a train ride (or bus ride come to that) or swimming or anything else where the public get upset by his very existence. I will ensure that no-one is physically damaged by him, but I'm not going to hide him away.

Oh and I meant to add social services rarely do what they 'should'.

Ds1 is 'properly habituated to using a bus' but cannot cope with any delay. In any aspect of life. He has had years of 'training' and still can't. If we didn't ever go anywhere where we might be delayed then he really would never go out.

We don't fly because there's so much waiting around but I'm buggered if I'm never going tk put him on a bus or a train (which he loves) or go to a cafe, or go on water slides becuse he isn't properly habituated to waiting. Bugger that.

Good post Saintly.

Another train ride was delayed because a drunk was falling all over the track. To make a bad situation worse the drunk was stumbling around near a bend in the track leading to ds1's favourite bridge. The one he had been going on about all week. So not only did the train randomly stop (in his eyes) it also stopped just before the bridge he was so desperate to see. Well the fall out was noisy and cleared the carriage (leaving behind the adult with ld's who thought ds1 was hilarious) and the adult's carer - so we had a good chat the rest of the journey. Of course he was fine once the train started again. I'm not sure why I should keep him at home in case a drunk stumbles onto some tracks (I did cheer the policeman who eventually rushed the drunk and frog-marched him off)

but why is it acceptable for people who have a history of lashing out at babies to use the bus with less than adequate supervision

This is exactly the same logic as the OP. Just as the question is not whether people with LDs should be "allowed" to use equipment, but wtf aren't they being given sufficient quality support to keep them and others safe on it, the question is not whether someone who gets easily spooked and panics should be "allowed" to use the bus, but whether they should be provided sufficient support (and 2:1 would be standard here) to do so safely.

The government is, as they keep telling us, busted for cash atm, and has passed down cuts to local councils at the same time as slyly removing the "ring fencing" that ensured a fixed % was spent on, amongst other things, quality care to help people with LDs do the stuff everyone else takes for granted. Like having a bit of fun (whether that be going to the pub or the park). Or getting on a bus. When the ring fencing went, so did the services because councils know they get voted in based on how bad the potholes are and whether the bins are emptied once a week rather than fortnightly. Councils know that they can leave the disabled unsupported, and people won't be posting on Mumsnet asking why the quality of care is so bad and where is the supervision and wtf are the council up to? They will be posting saying that disabled people should be removed from parks and buses, to make life easier for the normal people.

It's unbelievably depressing. Stop for just one minute and think about what the real problem is here, and where the fault lies. And if you don't like the fact that council cuts are putting the vulnerable - with and without LDs - at risk, write to them and say you will vote accordingly.

saintlyjimjams good post.

this is a very disgusting thread,
I do hope the shits people who don't want people with sn/ld's arround them
realise they are just a car crash away from it them selves, so are their children.

r3dh3d sorry that won't happen,
mn as a whole is more upset about loss of CB to some, that the cuts to the disabled.