to politely decline to use the disabled loo?

[MsIngaFewmarbles]

I was waiting in a long queue for the loo in a coffee chain and saw a lady with crutches head into the disabled toilet. She came out while I was still queueing. Another lady further back in the queue caught my eye and offered for me to go in first. I declined saying that I wasn't disabled so wasn't entitled to use it. She then countered away to her friends telling them that she was going to use it as 'it was the law' that if it wasn't being used you could use it. I couldn't face an argument so just ignored her. It's still bothering me that I should have said something to her and corrected her.

Have you seen anyone about it, unlucky? Maybe someone can help

I do also want able-bodied people to think before using the accessible loo, if there are other non-accessible ones available - I want everyone to treat each other with dignity and respect, and I want people who need accessible facilities (for whatever reason) to have them available to them.

What upsets me is that any deviation from a party line on who counts as "needing an accessible loo" is treated with mockery and called selfish. And there's lip service paid to the idea of people with invisible disabilities being allowed to use the facilities, but the overwhelming message that I get from discussions like these is that, really, if you see someone without a visible disability with a buggy using a disabled loo, then it's a safe assumption that they are a selfish, thoughtless cunt who ought to be ashamed of themselves.

There is no party line.

Many have said time and time again that obviously some people will have a real need.

I think we are reading different threads.

The whole jist if thread was people like woman in OP who had no real need but just didn't want to wait in queue. People said many times they understood if people had a medical need and their ire wasn't directed at them. I think people are feeling needlessly hurt. It's a shame that happened.

Sorry am not that coherent. Had 2 hours sleep last night. Going to bed soon.

Am.not trying to say anything harsh though.

This is how it reads to me, fanjo. It isn't how I want to read it, but that how it all too often (and in this thread too) comes across.

I'm off to make dinner now.

But ArcheryAnne doesn't this thread prove that there are " selfish and thoughtless cunts " without a disability using accessible toilets for various reasons?

OP, you are not being unreasonable.
The attitudes of many on this thread are so entitled and make me

Is it me or do there seem to be a load of threads on here recently about disabled access, parking, facilities etc? Maybe I'm just feeling sensitive but there seems to be a lot more than normal.

Anyway, this thread is depressing me at the moment so I'm going to hide it but my thoughts remain the same, that it is really quite simple despite everyone trying to list every possible scenario, a lot of which are none events!

If you do not have a disability or urgent medical need which requires you to do so, DO NOT use the toilets provided with disability facilities. You do not NEED to do so, unlike the people with a genuine disability/need who should expect to be able to find these facilities available unless it is being used by another person with disabilities/needs.

Normal pregnancy, holding a NT child, changing a mooncup, for example...these are not disabilities or medical needs and I'm sure people who use the facilities citing this reason, KNOW they are not. Vomiting, a broken leg, a child with autism for example, are disabilities or urgent medical needs.

It's really pretty simple but there are selfish people out there who would do better to admit they know they are selfish rather than using a spurious excuse to justify their bad behaviour.

The reality for me, as a disabled person, is that I would say, 9 times out of 10 when I use an accessible toilet (with a separate baby change and none accessible facilities available) it is occupied. Maybe once out of these 9 times it is someone with a disability, visible or otherwise, but the rest of the time it is someone either apologising they or their child didn't WANT to wait but they knew it was wrong (and clearly stating during this conversation they are not disabled, otherwise they would get the benefit of doubt due to invisible disabilities.)

People DO use the accessible toilets when they don't need to and there are alternatives. Posters have admitted themselves they do it on this thread! It happens, it is a huge inconvenience as I explained earlier and this is reality for me and a lot of other people with disabilities I am sure. It certainly makes my life more hard and more undignified than it already is and those of you lucky enough not to know what this feels like, doesn't mean you should dismiss it, or deny or minimise it.

No disability or urgent medical need - don't use it!

Anyway I really am hiding this now as I can't face any more arguing over it. Thanks to those of you, disabled or otherwise, who understand and aren't selfish.

Night all

I'd noticed it too yesiam, its not even that there are more disability related threads per se, i think its the kinds of posts on the threads - all very carefully worded as to how disabled people are being selfish to not share their facilities with the world and its mum. Constant picking to try to prove how unreasonable the disabled posters are for (to use an example from recently) suggesting that only disabled people should use bb spaces.

"Oh but what if i've broken my spine in an accident and am in a wheelchair, i know how bad it is and how inaccessible the world is, and that is why i defend my right to not apply for my own blue badge, just to keep using the spaces regardless."

- all very carefully worded as to how disabled people are being selfish to not share their facilities with the world and its mum

Beyond this isn't actually true. Amongst disability campaigners you won't necessarily find agreement about whether the goal should be that all facilities should be accessible (multiuse), or whether there should be specific facilities restricted for the use of disabled people only (eg radar key style). The truth is probably that you need a bit of both: that we should be striving to make as much as possible accessible to all, but that occasionally specific facilities should be provided for those who really need them. And of course people do need to act with good judgement and courtesy and consideration about this. But one can't reasonably call people names and say that we all know there is a strict moral code about how accessible loos should be used, and people who don't abide by it are this that and the other, when the design and purpose of accessible loos varies so widely and there is no real shared agreement about their use.

Can I throw a pebble in the pond here and ask whether the people who say they would nip into the disabled loo when finding a q in the ladies have ever considered that the plan B should be to use the gents?

IME the cubicles in a gents loo are almost never in use, so that would be better option for those who can't/ wont wait than using the disabled (unisex) loo. I got over myself when working in Sweden where the loos were plentiful and unisex. Urinals on the back wall, behind rows and rows of cubicles.

I'd rather have a funny look from a surprised chap than a bollocking from a carer or distressed wheelchair user.

I've used men's loos in the past. depends what sort of a place and if I would feel safe entering a men's toilet. So it's it's just three doors one female, one male, one disabled I'd use the males toilet but wouldn't in a pub.

The thread has over 400 posts. Do you really think you're the first person to mention the men's toilets?

nothing like the smell of urinals in the morning

chipping I didn't suggest I'm the first person to mention the men's loos and yes I have read the thread. No-one has really dealt with the point. I'm trying to be constructive, but as so often on here, that's not especially welcome.

Planetwaves - that's a helpful post, thank you.

Carabos - yup. That's what I mean about the party line. God forbid anyone is still working through the possibilities. If your correct position has not sprung forth fully-formed, then you are not welcome and deserve to be rebuked. (As it happens I wouldn't use the mens because it has men in it, but putting forth options for discussion is good.)

Another group that may need to use an accessible toilet are carers of older children or adults that cannot be left unsupervised. If there is a baby change that also has a toilet in it then this could be used but there are not many of these locally so I usually have to use the disabled/accessible toilet.

That clearly counts as s valid "disability" reason, lam.

I don't think there is a party line though, it's just about consideration - if you are able to do so then use a standard cubicle and leave the disabled loo for those who can't access a standard cubicle.

My mind is still boggling at RedToothBrush not being able to carry a baby upstairs. Does she think they all start walking upstairs at five months?