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?

saintly that's really bad tempting to teach him to stick out his tongue in situations like that :p

I'm just waiting for the day where someone posts "AIBU about my head being sniffed by a ginger child" DS2 (who has autism but that is less obvious than his ginger hair) does tend to sniff the back of peoples heads on the bus, it's a spontanious thing and cannot plan ahead for it. Sometimes he does it, sometimes he doesn't. Isn't going to make me stop using the bus though.

I am sorry whenever anyone comes across discrimination be it because of a disability, religion, sexual preference or the colour of their skin..... but equally sad when as a result of that experience that person then lets it stop them experiencing the good stuff and good people that do exist and thinking that all people of a certain group dont care or are prejudiced.

It is rather idealistic to think that there is the cash (and people) available to ensure that those who need it are provided with 2:1 support should they need it to access the community safely.... . it is a struggle a lot of the time just to have the basics. Some of that is down to political issues / funding but sometimes it is down to just not having sufficient staff or sufficient suitably trained staff.

Even if the gvt / councils put more money into the service There is a problem that is more difficult to solve.........the manpower to effectively put into place what standards of care and peoples expectations demand. The baby boomer workforce are at or reaching retirement age so there will be a reduction of people willing to do this sort of work. You would think that with the high unemployment rate there would not be a problem but there is .......there are not enough suitable people applying for the jobs...... and it is worse in care of the older people

.

I agree that there are some staff that lack incentive /attention /training /suitable attitude but please do not infer that this is uniform and that just because the pay is crap all carers are "minions". There are a lot of excellent staff that are very very fond of those they are paid to care for and who are well trained. They promote inclusion despite at times being shunned or even verbally assualted by members of the public while supporting the person they are accompanying. This while at times being at risk themselves of being verbally and physically assaulted by the person they are with. This is not a denigration of people with LD, just realism that sometimes , not by intention but by stress /reaction to some stimulus, that the person reacts in ways that impact on others.

Social inclusion for everyone is a wonderful ideal and its something I strive for..... it can be realistic for a great many people who can at times present behaviours that can be identified as unsocial ( and BTW I find people of any IQ / status who are drunk /aggressive/ violent far more offensive) BUT there are some behaviours that are very very difficult to distract the person from and managed unless by "restraint" ( which can be something as simple as holding hands / blocking) and are behaviours the majority of people find unaceptable.

The thing is that integration happens when people are not afraid of or disgusted by the behaviours that some people with LD present . We cannot force it upon society, we have to respect that there are things still fearful about some behaviours because people dont know whether its just noise / excitmentetc .

I actually belive we have come a very longway in this respect........when I first did voluntary work with people with LD it was in a huge asylum and there were people there whos only "problems" were dyslexia, being deaf/ dumb etc. Staffing for even the most profoundly physically disabled / LD was 1 staff to 6 "patients" .... a lot of the managment was by medication or physical restraint. [ angry] . The general public just did not

see /hear of such things.

blimming heck........what a long missive Have a and and

well said tazzle

such a shame awkward has left the thread and its sad that some people have thought her unreasonable because in a crowded bus she felt uneasy and felt she had to protect her baby from an adult she had been informed could lash out at youngsters.

How irresponsible she would have been called if she had failed to protect her chilld and the identified person had lashed out say if child cried and that was the trigger.

People are either tut and moan or are bloody rude, DS Down's was in John Lewis and held the door open to let people through as is he always does I counted 18 people go through not one person even acknowleged him let alone say thankyou. LUFFLEY

So you moved away then and your baby wasnt in danger! So you want this woman banned from public transport because you had to move a bit?

Im sorry but head and wall spring to mind.

This thread is a train wreck.

So what if SN people were in the play area?
So the kids got scared. Well life is bloody scary sometimes. It's unlikely to have caused lasting damage.

And it can't happen that often that it's a huge issue.

I also think many of you rounded on Awkward and were unfair. I totally understand why she was anxious. Who the fuck wouldn't be under those circumstances? I took from her posts that she thought the carer was not doing a good job, which is at the heart of many of the issues bandied about here anyway.

I have just got back form the park, with my 2. dd1 is 7 (ASD), and dd2 is a very small 5.

A really quite large child (about the size of a big 15 year old - bigger than me, and I am not small! I happen to know she is younger than that, but she is a big girl) suddenly ran up, pursued by a very harassed carer, and, before either of us could stop her, hit dd2 on the top of the head. it was not light, but dd2 was not badly hurt, iyswim. she was obviously shocked.

apologies all round, and dd2 is not in the slightest bit traumatised. why? because I explained to her that the girl did not mean it personally, that she was clearly anxious and upset about something, and that sometimes, people who have difficulties find it hard to behave in some situations. all solved.

why one earth shoudl it be down to the carer to explain to dd2 (as suggested by some on the thread)? and what right do I have to demand that the other girl not be there (dd2 was in the under 6 section) - err, none.

yes, it was a shock, but if my 5 year old can understand and accept that sometimes these things happen, why are so many posters here finding it difficult?

the whole pushing/shoving thing - where were the parents of the young children? yes, I totally get the 'not being helicopter parents' thing, but surely that assessment (on the part of the parents) would change if a loud group of much larger children/teens/adults (with or without LDs) entered the park. surely there is some responsibility on the part of the parents to be explaining to the children why these adults could not wait, and maybe helping hteir children? after the hitting incident, I did not leave straightaway with my girls. I did make sure they were both closer to me, and made sure I was ready to intervene if it became necessary (it didn't). that's my job, as their mother.

the carer's in the OP do sound crap, though.

the baby on the bus situation I am also finding hard to fully understand. if I was standing with a baby in a sling, then I would just turn around, tbh. clearly if the bus was that full, then the carer and adult with LD would not have been able to move anyway, and I would have appreciated the warning so that I could keep an eye out, and be aware. I have before said similar things about dd1 - it's to keep other people fully informed and aware of the situation too. dd1 loves babies, but has, in the past, been known to be a little too over enthusiastic. I will not keep her off buses/trains/out of public places in case there is a baby and she gets excited.

I will let other people know that she may be very interested, and do my utmost to keep her away. I feel it is better for the other person to know than for it to come 'out of the blue' shoudl anythign happen. but then, sadly, it does sometimes result in the fearful glances and twitching whenever dd1 breathes...

Brilliant post R3dh3d :)

no i have not just joined the thread

no one is saying she is wrong for feeing anxious, move away

you can not stop those with sn travelling on a bus, the career warned her what may happen if she were to have said nothing we would not even be discussing this

such a shame awkward has left the thread and its sad that some people have thought her unreasonable because in a crowded bus she felt uneasy and felt she had to protect her baby from an adult she had been informed could lash out at youngsters.

I don't think people thought her unreasonable for feeling uneasy. I think they thought her unreasonable for saying that the woman should be allowed on the bus because it made her feel uneasy.

should NOT be allowed on the bus DOH!

I regret starting this thread.
I can see that people with ld should have as much choice as anyone else.
We (me and DS) have been many places where we have encountered groups of adults with ld such as bowling, cinema etc and it has of course never been a consideration that it would be an issue because obviously it isn't. DS befriended some of the group at bowling.

It was just the sight of eight adults, some of whom were very big, in the small play area. Not very well supervised. I apologise if I have upset anyone, it was never my intention.

Why make awkward feel bad for a perfectly natural reaction. She stood on a bus and then was casually told the person next to her had a history of lashing out at babies and she's roundly condemned.

Why is the onus on awkward, why didn't this ladies carer go and speak to the bus driver and get him to forwarn her, then she could have chosen to board the bus or not...surely that would be responsible of the carer

In my area we have adults with SN's who frequently board the bus and one lady in partcular can be abusive and she sometimes travels alone...most of us from the area dont bat an eyelid but occasionally the bus driver has to explain why an elderly lady is screaming at passengers to get out of her *king seat

Like tazzle said earlier people may have rights but there's also responsibility to consider. I think that it's because this has become so polarised and each of the different fractions are so entrenched in their views that there unwilling to see that a little give and take helps everyone. I dont mind people with SN's or disabilities being in the wider community and believe that their intergration helps break down barriers but carers have a duty to forwarn people in a proper manner if there is a history of violence and not leave it till the person is already possibly in harms way i.e standing right next to that person.

silverfrog good post

I will not apologise for wondering why someone posted about a non event on a bus.
ffs her baby was not harmed, so for the life of me can't understand the need to post about it on here, unless it is now top trumps.

perhaps the sn community need to start a thread about ths shit we have to put up with....

It was just the sight of eight adults, some of whom were very big, in the small play area. Not very well supervised. I apologise if I have upset anyone, it was never my intention.

There you go, from the horses mouth. It was 'just the sight of them'.

Why is the onus on awkward, why didn't this ladies carer go and speak to the bus driver and get him to forwarn her, then she could have chosen to board the bus or not...surely that would be responsible of the carer

I don't know where you live but if I tried this with our local bus drivers I'd get a shrug at best. And anyway I'd be wrestling with ds1 - you get on a bus, you don't stand gassing in ds1 land. It sounds as if the carer shouldn't have said anything - nothing happened, not even a near miss and the warning only led to anxiety. I'll remember not to bother saying anything in future (tbh I don't anyway my attention is taken up with ds1 when we're out and about)

Sorry was just a turn of phrase. If it had been eight adults without ld I would have used the same phrase.
I didn't mean the actual sight of how they looked upset me. I also give up because everything I say is misconstrued or given more meaning that it was intended.

I was about to come on and post exactly the same as bakingaddict - maybe you live near me?

I posted earlier about this - I think for us all to understand all the issues we need to be able to listen and talk to each other openly and that means people expressing their fears openly so that people with more knowledge and experience can tell them what to do and educate them about people with ld.

Its no good just saying to someone in a frightening situation 'you were only frightened because you are anti-sn', sometimes it is genuinely hard to know what to do - I now stay on the bus having explained to my dc what the f-ing and c-ing is about but if you dont know the person in question then how are you to know if they are violent or non-violent? If you were in a pub and someone started shouting at you in that way then you would call the police.

I dont think it helps to stick our head in the sand and say that there aren't any issues with integration - especially as the cuts bite, but as communities we have to feel our way around them.

Also I get ruddy sick of the expectation that I should apologise every time ds1 steps outside the front door. Every frigging time.

It's why we go to the same places time after time - where ds1 is known and has his own little fan club (who tell others where to go if anyone has a go at him).

I've just been reminded of the time someone (not me) took ds1 to an open garden day at a large house. He was peering into somewhere forbidden and an elderly man (visitor) shook a stick at him. 2 mins later they bumped into the owner of the house who said 'he can go where he likes, I have a severely autistic brother in law I know how difficult it is'. Or something like that. . Words to that effect anyway. So yah booh sucks to the intolerant old man.

And I did not say 'just the sight of them' I said 'the sight of eight adults.'

Stating I said them implies I was making some big distinction in an us and them type way. I was not. I meant the difference between the adults and the toddlers.

genuine question:

would people rather NOT know about potential hazards/challenging behaviour, and thus go about thier journey in blissful ignorance (assuming nothng happens), or is it better to warn of known issues (and put up with increased anxiety, which in turn might actually escalate a situation) so that no one is taken by surprise?

saintlyjimjams oh I love meeting people like that second man, they are like sunshine on a rainy day>