Was I BU to use the disabled toilet?

[Unplastered]

At a local national trust place today, just me with Dd age 6 and baby in his pram.
The baby change unit in the loos is just in the main area, there's a long row of (tiny) cubicles and a large disabled loo with a sink in.
Dd and I both needed the loo, there was nobody around, so I took both kids in the disabled loo.
As we came out there was a woman approaching the loos on a crutch. She hadn't been waiting - she was just approaching as we exited. She told me, sharply, that I shouldn't have used that loo, the baby changing wasn't in there. I said I knew that, we hadn't needed to use it, just wanted a bigger cubicle so as not to leave the baby outside. She replied it didn't make any difference as none of us was disabled.
Was I BU to use the disabled loo?

YANBU.

The lavatory is there to be used, it is just specially adapted.

If the site owner had decided to restrict access for disabled people only they would have fitted a RADAR lock.

Or perhaps trevaron they - wrongly it seems - thought that people would have the basic manners to not use a toilet they don't need which has been designed for a specific group.

Wow, Virginia.

Not sure I've ever read a post as woefully ignorant on this topic as yours.

dawndonna's DD put it better than I ever could, so I'll just echo her statements.

Generally my kids have a reasonable standard of continence.
When 3 lift loads departed not letting us on (and we were at the front of the queue, they pushed past) DS couldn't hang on any more.

Should I put my children back in day nappies to suit selfish people? Would you like me to suggest that for your child?
(They already use night products with all the skin issues that comes with it)

So, selfish people would like disabled people to do the following:

1. not go out
2. make entirely unnecessary and convoluted plans Or
3. wear incontinence products

Just so they can misuse adaptations and adjustments for disabled people.

Did I miss anything?
And is anyone else seeing why we get pissed off yet?

What an odd comment sirzy. How many buildings have you designed?

Yeeeeeah, let's just let disabled people lose their dignity just that little bit more. They don't matter, do they?

Trevaron Please read the thread.
Thank you.

Anyone else think it's really sad that the radar scheme has to exist?

Because, y'know... Those selfish people again.

We have used the disabled toilet before and been given dirty looks on exiting by able-bodied at the sinks. But, we were in there attending to DS's severe eczema which involved undressing him. Of course, in winter no one can see how bad it is but there is no room for to go through the palaver in a normal cubicle and he wouldn't cooperate getting undressed in the often small area by the sinks. Is he disabled? Not technically. Does he have a medical condition that requires use of a sink and private space? Certainly.
Don't feel guilty in those incidences at all.

I think it a shame that they must be 'disabled access' and not, as others have said, just labelled as 'accessible' and we are all sensible and know when it's right or wrong to use it.

It's not easy to leave a baby and 6 yr old or just a pram outside in some areas near here and hope they'd be safe while you had a pee, but would hope that a NT place would be safe enough.

Basket you did the right thing and excema can be very disabling, particularly if it becomes infected.

No the odd comment was you thinking that if a door isn't locked you have the right to use those facilities even if they are not intended for you or something you need.

YANBU, you also had the right to use the toilet IMO. Disabled people should be patient too, and queue just like everyone has to.

The Equality Act gives disabled people equal rights to able bodied people, not more rights. Remember that recent case about a disabled guy in a wheelchair who could not get on a bus because a mother with her pram was there already? The courts said the bus company had not discriminated against disabled people by not asking the mother to get off. She was there first and also had the right to use the space.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30376446

Disabled people can in most places access ONE toilet whereas able bodied people will probably have a choice of at least 4 cubicles. You then want to be able to use the accessible toilet too? How does that come close to equal rights?

Basket once again like the poster with IBS (sorry my name recall is shocking) a valid use of the facilities. Absolutely vital if he needs undressing.

If you think about it quite a few people need the facilities, not just wheelchair users, not just people with toileting disabilities or sensory disabilities, people who need the facilities in a disabled lol.

Which makes it even more vital that those with no need stay out!

lol loo

The problem with attitudes held by posters like mumhun

Mumhum that is not exactly what the courts said. They said it is still wheelchair priority and pushchairs should move out of the space/fold when needed by a wheelchair but that drivers cannot force a parent to leave the bus if they refuse. The judge also stated that it was unreasonable and selfish not to move out of the priority wheelchair space

Mumhun It'd only be properly equal if every other cubicle was out of order and then a wheelchair user blocked your access to the only cubicle you could use.

Just like in a bus it'd only be equal if all the seats were taken out apart from one which had something on it to stop you using it.

Reasonable adjustments are out in place to give people who have disabilities a level playing field to those who don't have disabilities. Disabled people aren't getting anything extra or anything special, just being enabled to go about their everyday lives as those who don't have disability do.

It's only be equal if disabled people put obstacles in your way every day in how you can park your car or use public toilets or public transport.

IcaMorgan, my point was that the Mum did not break the law as it stands.

Yes she did.
The bus driver just isn't expected to enforce the law.

So something needs to be illegal to stop you doing it? what happened to being able to make a moral judgement without needing a law to tell you what to do?

Without wishing permanent disability on some people here (and I really wouldn't) I just wish you could have a reality check and find yourselves having to deal with this stuff for a while.

Bishop, the Mum did not break the law. I agree with Sirzy though, if I was that Mum I would have felt difficult in staying there and it would have felt morally right to vacate the space of the wheelchair user.

Selfishness, Sirzy
'No such thing as society'

And the rest of it? Your definition of 'equality'?