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?

kladdkaka this is of course true.
But also bare in mind that this is a facility that isn't really open to adults without ld.

As others has said a smaller group would probably been fine or a well supervised group.

I would suggest in the case of the playpark that actually there was an element of discrimination against the smallest children using the playpark, given that there was an unannounced group outing dominating the equipment.

It all depends if you see disabled people as 'different', and a kind of tribe, or whether you see them as equal human beings who need bespoke adjustments to social spaces in order to participate in the wider community.

The impression that i got from the op was that by 'shoved children out of the way' was that they were queue jumping, much like impatient younger children. I didnt get the impression that they were picking children up and throwing them across the playground. No one was hurt.

I also got the impression that this is more about children feeling intimidated by adults who do not act in the 'normal' way.

"You are suggesting that a service should be provided to those with disabilities on a lesser basis than those without. That is disability discrimination."

No, I am suggesting that if people who are too large to use a service safely with other users still have a requirement to use it, that a compromise could be reached whereby they could use it at certain times.

Currently the rule is that adults should not ever be on that equipment, because of their size.

Expecting LD adults to use services intended for children with no attempt to be truthful about the genuine risks posed by their size is moving into the realms of age discrimination.

What you are suggesting is that there should be nowhere for small children to play where they won't have to compete with larger people for equipment.

But also bare in mind that this is a facility that isn't really open to adults without ld.

I thought you were talking about a playground in a public park.

Currently the rule is that adults should not ever be on that equipment, because of their size.

But nobody would bat an eyelid at parents on it. Only when it's disabled adults.

(Kladdkaka - I saw you in my local grocery shop on Saturday, in the freezer section. I finally understand your name.) smile - sorry for high-jack.

:o

I'm afraid I'm with Athinginyourlife on this one.

Regardless of whether these adults had learning difficulties they were using equipment designated for children under fourteen.

It's designated that for a reason, which is probably that children under fourteen - especially very young children - are vulnerable when using it in conjunction with much larger and heavier people than themselves.

It's like a car trying to use a cycle lane, in the sense that it's unsafe and incompatible. And if it's a car being driven by a disabled person, it still doesn't make sense.

I would have no issue with the playground being booked for older people, or their using similar facilities that were not designated for young children. But this sounds madly inappropriate.

Why are small children's needs considered subsumable to those of grown ups in this instance? I think separate equipment ought to be available ideally for different sized users who wish to take part in this sort of activity.

Maybe taking them at a busy time wasn't a particularly great idea anyway, but I really can't see what the problem is. Is it enforceable that no-one over the age of 14 uses the equipment? i see loads of teenagers on our local parks who are 14 and over and no-one seems to bat an eyelid, I certainly don't. AND to be fair, alot of teenagers display inappropriate behaviour, smoking, swearing, screaming etc.

'But nobody would bat an eyelid at parents on it. Only when it's disabled adults.'

How often do you get an organised group of maybe 8 parents coming to use the play equipment, (shoving children out of the way to do so)

You might occasionally get one or two parents on something but they are there in a supervisory role, not one in which they require supervision.

I think if you think the council are going to build specific equipment for those with severe learning disabilities then you are very naive. They think people with sld's need to be walking around the shops like drones, they don't for one minute consider they might want to do developmentally appropriate activities. But they are in a minority so nobody really cares much

Agincourt, I've asked teenagers to move off equipment before as they were moving very fast and being very loud and running on it, and it was freaking my child out - he was 3. He wouldn't go on the equipment till they stopped using itand too right, it wouldn't have been safe (think chasing your mate along a chainlinked wooden bridge at 30 mph shouting)

So I asked if they would let him have a go. They made a fuss but they did it in the end. They have got other age appropriate facilities; 3yo child should take priority imo.

Yes, normal teenagers HAVE got age appropriate facilities to access, those with severe learning disabilities generally don't. But as I said, nobody cares

Agincourt, I have not said I expect the council to build special equipment for people with LDs. I have said it ought to be the case ideally. I wrote that with a heavy heart knowing that facilities are likely to be extremely lacking in many areas.

It still doesn't mean they should gatecrash the equipment that's being used by small children if it is causing the children to have to leave. (due to being pushed out the way etc)

3yo child should take priority imo.

Why?

YANBU, OP. If the park is designed for children 14 and under then it's not suitable for older teenagers and adults over 14. It's that simple. A parent in the playground wouldn't (well shouldn't) be using it in the same way as a child. They would be supporting children not bouncing and climbing on the equipment. You should contact the park owners (local council?) and make them aware of this.

And as for places for adults with special needs to go... My son's gym club has sessions for adults with special needs. So they get to run, bounce, slide and climb on fun equipment that is designed for adults and children.

seeing as the op claims to care so much....did she
a) speak to one of the carers?
B)ask where they were from so she could complain about their lack of care.
c) ring SS to complain about the lack of care.

as the op has stated that she has in the past work with people with LD'S
did she?
or did she just glare and post on here?

Do you think my cycle lane analogy has anything on this?

Or is it flawed.

I think under 14's or whatever is a recommendation. Same as 'children are to be supervised at all times' which you also see in play areas. You dont see many 13 year olds playing on the swings supervised by their mums.

To be fair the adults with severe learning disabilities were not gatecrashing the equipment, they would have no comprehension that they were doing so.

Peppermint, how do the people access that gym club though? I know loads of children and young adults who are denied such services because of ££££ and even as a parent if you offer to pay yourself you are denied access because of bureaucratic nonsense.

maybe they wanted to go then you know like your child did

it does seem that the careers were not supervising them that well but they shoudl be free to go when they want to not to fit around the needs of other children who to can go at other times. i thought we had passed the time when those with ld could not live their life with restrictions put on them by others

Kladdkaka, because the equipment was designed for small children. the teenagers were bunking off school anyway, having a fag, sitting around and then suddenly decided to get up and race about on the climbing frames that were clearly too small for them, making a heck of a racket and causing a risk to my son.

People using the equipment in such a way that it poses a considerable risk to other users ought to give way to said harmless users.

Agincourt I'm aware of that and I don't wish to imply that the adults were at fault in any respect.

The carers were at fault I think in the OP's situation. I didn't mean to use 'gatecrashing' in an inflammatory manner, sorry.

Those of you that have a problem with adults with SLD using playparks, would you get out of the small swimming pool if a group of those with SLD got in too?