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?

IT WAS 6 YEARS AGO
so tbh I have no idea I really don't why it was posted on this thread, unless it was ot make a point.
if so all it has done is cause hurt to parents of children with LD'S
her baby was not his, she has said that....
so this constant harping about it is just well............odd

I don't think people are objecting to someone being slightly alarmed. More the suggestion that people with learning disabilities aren't allowed to travel on public transport until they have passed a 'good behaviour on buses test' or something, whatever was said up thread. I'm not sure what that would include as the person concerned didn't actually do anything, but still.

Incidentally I'm a MUM on MUMSnet with a learning disabled teen rushing quickly towards adulthood (and a couple of NT kids as well, who have survived repeated close proximity to lots of different people with LD's) so I have the perspective of (1) NT kids and babies being around larger people with LD's and (2) having to suffer the general public when out and about with a non-verbal teen with SLD's.

i can understand a mother feeling alarmed in her position

i can also being a mother myself understand that we all want what is best for our children, we all want them to feel love and be safe and we all want a happy future for them

i would fight everything put in my path if my child was not treated as an equal, if i were not to do that who would. i feel sickened by what i have read on here so i can only guess how others are feeling

Wannabe, I really like your post of 22.06. No more needs to be said on this matter surely.

yes wannabe ...... we should ban drunks from public transport.

I am not sure that I have seen anyone say that generically people with disabilities should be *allowed" access to public transport therefore inferring it is not a right. I could be mistaken however as I have only read every post once and limited posts twice or more.

The point I would like to make about the public tranport issue is that there are situations where the risk of injury to other people does indeed become so high that it would be irresponsible for such a journey to take place.

Some people also carry out behaviours that would lead to arrest if a NT person did it. I can't specify particular incidents for obvious reasons but yes, there are times / persons that even with 2:1 support public transport is not practible / safe. I have experience / knowledge of situations where people not connected to the person with LD have been injured so its certainly not unkown.

BTW I also support the ejections of any persons causing distress or injury to others from public transport ..... or from any situation actually.

re explaining / education to people ..... no I dont bother with the huffy puffy / disapproving ones either .... infact was rather unprofessional assertive with one lady staring at us a while back. The people I explain to usually are the children who ask questions or who perhaps get a little startled if the person I am with makes a sudden noise and is approaching / near to him / her... to a child a 6 foot man leaping about and squealing very loudly in delight next to them in a swimming pool might be a little unusual and disconcerting. A smile and a few words when appropriate can make all the difference

I understand the point you are all trying to make, which generally seems to come back to how comments can make parents feel. I really do.

But I also think that if someone posted on here about a random experience they had with a group of old ladies on a bus, they would be likely to get a reply from someone else who wanted to share their experience with an old lady on a bus. Nothing would be thought of it by anyone.

I feel that by rounding on someone for using words in a way that you feel is offensive, when there was clearly no offence or malice intended, you are doing nothing to promote the inclusion of which you speak.

It seems to have been acknowledged that one of the main things that needs to happen to prevent bigotry and any kind of negativity towards people whose lives are affected by LDs, is that people become more educated. Educating isn't the job of families, its something that society should do for itself. One way for that to happen is for people to talk about it, and share experiences so that it becomes normal to everyone to have (positive) experiences shared with people who have SN. Because at the moment there are many many people who have no experience either way.

So when little things like that in the OP come up, it seems to me that effectively 'censoring' well intended converstaion is encouraging a lack of true inclusion. People don't feel apprehensive about sharing stories about old ladies, because there is no one waiting to pick them up on what they say and accuse them of being predjudice against old ladies. The same goes for other fully accepted groups of society.

Oh but tazzle the people who are likely to injure others are not going to be on public transport in the first place. The people I know with 2:1 would never be on a crowded bus - it wouldn't be fair on them, but there's a huge difference between that sort of situation and one such as my son who might kick off and hit himself if the bus was delayed, and although he would certainly be noisy and loud and might irritate people he wouldn't actually damage anyone else.

I don't know how you explain to people, I can't when I'm with ds1 usually as he takes all my attention. Particularly in a swimming pool. He doesn't swim that well and has no concept of depth, I'm more concerned with making sure he isn't swooshing the water now we've lost our special individual pool sessions. About the only place I get a chance to chat to people is when he's surfing or at the beach (no traffic, if he runs off he isn't going to get run over, if he's surfing he's with someone). I'll chat to people there, but when we're in close proximity to the public I really can't.

Yes agree zzzz

And tbh if people are indulging in unacceptable behaviours that are so bad they would be arrested then really the supervision is at fault and that person's care plan needs a radical overhaul (not drugging the person concerned into a stupor which is the favoured approach to deal with challenging behaviours for some providers )

oh bethshine I meant to say again ages ago when you came back on the thread but my previous post has just reminded me, it does sound as if there were issues with supervision with this group - as I said earlier the fact that the so-called carers laughed at the person who her herself is just awful. If you see them again and the care is equally lacking it would be worth finding out where they were from and complaining. In an earlier post i also mentioned the CQC (care quality commission) who are meant to regulate adult care settings. Hopefully post Winterbourne View they might listen to concerns more seriousl.

I know saintlyjimjams ..... usually they are not ... but that is kinda the point in a way. If a risk has been identified then the person is "not allowed" on public transport and alternative transport is used . I was kinda responding to wannabe in saying that although everyone has a right to public transport sometimes a person with LD cant access it...... not just because (s)he has a disability but because certain behaviours have been presented that pose dangers to self / others.

I cant explain to everyone , I just do when I can, just like you. Most of the time actually I am so taken up interacting with someone just like your son that I dont actually notice other people reactions .... its only when its someone close to us both. Same when we go to the pub for meals after... I am so concentrating on making sure food goes where its supposed to, with appropriate tools if possible, that a marching band could pass by and I would not notice.

yes zzzz you are quite right ..... there is a difference .... I was kinda trying to make that point really and not doing a good job ..... we can't bann all members of a group can we.... just the ones in that group that are causing harm to others. Its not the "condition" / status / age / abilities of the persons concerned..... its the behaviour that impacts adversly on others that needs addressing.. and if that behaviour is challenged by someone it does not mean that the challenger is prejudiced against the group ... it might just mean the behaviour is challenged to try and prevent distress / injury.

hmmmmmm

getting late ....... good night everyone.

just back to reply though to jimjams re the "arrestable" behaviour and you saying that the supervision / care plan is at fault. No matter how closely someone is supervised / distracted / cared for there are some actions that can be desired soooooooo much or the frustration build up or just something happen internally that we have no idea about .... till that unless the person is physically restrained the action will be carried out. The action might be so quick there is no chance for the supporter /carer to do anything. The reason the actions are performed might be something that is not in our power / remit to change or might not be possible to change.

Sometimes yes it is something we can do / change but sometimes not.

Sometimes its natual behaviour but just in the wrong place / time
( eg masturbation) ..... that would get most people arrested if done in public but not in this situation. Plus it's not something we should stop as a behaviour (or have any right to) but its' very difficult to identify when the desire will occur and indeed to stop it in public. The person might not understand the "it's a private" thing.

It is a very fine line... enabling freedom of choice for a person to do what they desire and ensuring that that persons desires are not injurious to themselves or others. I can only speak for myself here but I would always be trying to identify why the person feels the need to do what they are doing and what we can do to change the situation if its adversley affecting that persons ability to go places or do anything.

Thing is cant give most examples without leaving myself open to possible accusations of "demonising" or people thinking I am betraying confidentiality.

However to illustrate the point completely away from persons with LD to show that things can happen despite good supervision........

can anyone say, hand on heart, that never ever has any toddler DC snatched hands away from parent, never ever has any toddler DC got into a cupboard thats not their toy cupboard... that never ever has any toddler DC used a swear word or hit another child. Same principle. Despite close supervision we are human and our attention can be distracted and out toddlers desires can catch us by surprise at times. I am sure that none of us think that our parenting skills are poor ... we reassess, change what we need to if needed and carry on doing our best.

must go to bed NOW !!!

I do understand the distinction zzz really I do !

I hope I did not come accross as having that attitude, concsious or not, that those with disabilities have to adapt to be accepted . My conscious attitude is the everyone in society has responsibilities not to harm others ........and that behaviours that harm others can have consequences.
.... some people might need help to understand that and some might never understand. Acceptance of a person per se to me is different from saying that all behaviours are accepted.

My comments are influenced by having worked with ( and had personal experience of ) people who are in residential setting of necessity because their physical behaviours are injuring parents / siblings and have reached the point where home life is extremely difficult. Much of the behaviours are in place before arrival and not always a result of the care setting ...... sometimes the care setting is better for an individual, sometimes not.

I have a lot rollign round my head but cant get it to come out in the way I mean it atm ... so realy really off to bed now !

I am saying that despite the care plan saying what staff / carers should when certain behaviours / triggers occur that in itself cannot always stop behaviours presenting or recurring.

The point I was making is that if an NT adult does something like punching someone / breaking a window then he she can be arrested as they are breaking the law. If a minor or an adult with LD does the same thing then depending on the age / cognition then they will not be..... thats the point, they are supported to understand , if possible, that its unacceptable to do so.

Oh this thread has saddened me,one of the fears I have for ds's future is the way that he is perceived by other people.

Ds1 has broken windows. I pointed out a year before the first one it was likely to happen and requested adaptations to prevent it happening. The DFG took 2 years to process & in that time ds1 broke 5 windows - 4 with his head. It was entirely predictable. When I rang SS after the first occasion they said 'oh at least he has now demonstrated a need for the DFG' WTAF? He could have killed himself - a year after I had first pointed out the problem.

Since installing appropriate windows he hasn't broken a single one. He hasn't even tried. Had SS acted when I alerted them to the problem (or actually even within the legal timeframe set out for the DFG) no windows would have been broken at all. I lay the blame for those broken windows entirely with SS.

Saying someone with ld's occasionally acts inappropriately is scaremongering surely. I don't really get the masturbation thing - surely you just tell them to stop as soon as their hand wanders. Ds1 managed to completely expose himself yesterday while getting changed at the beach, I told him to pull his towel down - problem solved! If someone is unable to behave appropriately then the care plan should reflect that. If with an appropriate level of care they still very occasionally do something they shouldn't then well that's what happens with ld's isn't it? Ds1 kicked off huge style a few weeks ago because I'd forgotten a routine from 3 years ago. Because I refused to do the routine (and I would have even had I remembered in advance - there were reasons for refusing) I was hit and punched until i'd dragged him across the road somewhere to calm down. That was first time he'd been physical with me for about threes years and had very obvious reasons for it. As his carer at the time it was my responsibility to ensure no-one else was hurt (that was never a risk) and that he wasn't hurt (that WAS a risk as we were on a pavement next to a road). One incident in three years which arose because I'd forgotten something we used to do is hardly worth curtailing his freedom over. If he kicked off every time we went out or every three days rather than every three years then I would insist on major changes to his package of support. If other people were ever at any risk of being hurt when he kicked off I would insist on changes (for example I have pointed out to SS that they are not providing respite via direct payments as only provide me with one person when he needs two to go out safely so I always have to go with them).

I take your point about freedom. It's why we work SO hard in ds1's behaviour as that has the potential to limit his life more than his autism or his SLD's. This hasn't always been helped by people who care for him (although specialist settings have been great and we were able to remove him from the environment that was making him worse before too many patterns were set up). sometimes some out of the box thinking is needed. I help organise surfing for some of the most challenging teens- we have never seen any bad behaviour while surfing and to see people who are usually harnessed to two carers in public have an hour of freedom in the sea is really quite special.

Awkward, seen as i was one of the posters who addressed you earlier in the thread, i apologise if you feel you are being bullied, i was merely responding to your posts, same as others responded to mine.

Good post Saintly, that is exactly how i took some of the examples given as scaremongering.

I know it's all been said but - it's a public play park and that means it will be used by everyone. So you use it at your own risk. And if LD adults are using it and you are concerned about your DC then go to another play park.

It's a shame there isn't better equipment for teens - I know my seven year old is already craving more exciting play parks as our local ones are all a bit dinky. We often get teens using them and I think more adventure style parks would help children ( and LD adults) get more exercise.