AIBU regarding theatre experience?

[WildBelle]

I took my DDs to the theatre last night as a treat. I was up to my neck in uni work all xmas holidays so we didn't really go out and do much, so I got us tickets to see a show that I knew they'd both love. I hope I don't offend anyone with this post, I have a dd with a disability so that's the last thing I want to do.

Throughout the first half there was someone in the audience who kept singing happy birthday VERY loudly. This ramped up significantly in the second half, it was pretty much constant and very distracting, and then was accompanied by someone else who was making very loud noises (and sounded quite distressed). i am assuming that they were older children or adults with learning difficulties. Now don't get me wrong, I am completely behind the idea of people with disabilities having access to theatre or anything else, but in the second half particularly the noises coming from that direction were so loud that it was impossible to hear what was going on on stage.

If someone had a baby that was crying, they would have taken them out to avoid disturbing everyone else. I can't help thinking that the carers should have done something about it, particularly when it escalated in the second half. I personally feel disppointed that the show was ruined a bit by not being able to hear, as a single parent it's not something I can afford to do that often. There was probably getting on for 1000 people in the theatre and they would have all been affected by the noise levels.

I probably sound horrible and I really don't mean to, but AIBU?

And what exactly is a compromise that includes and accommodates as many people as possible in this instance?

And why is this balance or compromise always that a person who may make noise shouldn't be there?

Your second question basically answers your first.

If you are in a situation where 100 people have paid to participate in an activity where the expected behaviour of all participants is X, if one of those people is behaving in a way that does not fit with the expected behaviour and their alternate behaviour is actively preventing the other 99 people from being able to enjoy or participate in the activity (whether it's in a class where they can't hear/see the instructor and so can't follow the instructions for their project, in a classroom where students can't understand the problem they have been given as they can't hear the teacher explaining the steps to the solution, or in a theatre where they can't concentrate to follow the production) then the one whose behaviour is disruptive is the one who needs to modify their behaviour or be removed from the activity.

In some cases, unfortunately, that one disruptive person has SN which means they can't control their outbursts or don't understand that they are being disruptive. However, that doesn't mean that their right to inclusion should automatically and unilaterally override the other 99 people's right to participate.

If their behaviour is not actively preventing other participants then they should, quite rightly, be allowed to continue in whatever way is most appropriate to them, based on their needs, but when their needs are actively overriding the majority's needs, then it becomes a problem that is affecting everyone and 99% have no way to address the problem.

when their needs are actively overriding the majority's needs, then it becomes a problem that is affecting everyone and 99% have no way to address the problem.

The 99% could campaign and demand more disability friendly/sn performances, shop opening hours, theatre shows etc etc would be a good starting point for the 99% to address the "problem" the world is catered to the 99%, if they don't want us housebound or disturbing them they should help us get more accessibility in life

BishopBrennansArse
Oh and I'll take my kids to any show they want to see. There won't be relaxed performances of everything.
If anyone has an issue with them flapping or making noises they can piss off. I'd only remove them if they're distressed.
Imagine not being able to go anywhere because there's someone who gets pissed off by your very existence everywhere. We refuse to live that way, it's very much the problem of the 'offended' person.

Wow. No wonder some people have such a negative reaction to some disabled patrons when people have this sort of attitude.

Imagine not being able to go somewhere because your own disability (usually autism) means that overwhelming noises causes you huge distress. Whose diagnoses trumps whose?

(All you in the general sense).

If the person is getting something out of being there then it is reasonable for them to be there. Occasionally those without these difficulties should just have to suck it up. The way that some people like my son have to suck things up 99% of the time.

Yanbu. I don't understand why the carer didn't go out for a period. If I were singing happy birthday there's no way I'd also be benefitting from the theatre production, so at the point the person with disabilities lost interest they should've been helped out rather than staying and disturbing everyone else.

It sounds like the carer may have wanted to enforce their rights rather than use common sense for everyone, it doesn't sound like anyone was enjoying being there, including the person with disabilities!

I'd definitely want a refund or replacement ticket.

My son by the way can't cope with others nt noises so have to leave places like playgrounds and cafes all the time but the right of someone to be somewhere comes first. It is only unreasonable if they are getting nothing out of it.

My son who has ASD would have become distressed by the calling out....

So ...what should happen then? Does that person's disability "trump" my son's which would result in us having to leave. Or should the other person leave as they are causing distress to a disabled child with their behaviour....

t doesn't sound like anyone was enjoying being there, including the person with disabilities

We don't know, singing could be there way of expressing happiness.

The right of people to be somewhere comes first. Those that then don't want to be there can leave. As I said I have a child that is always having to leave places because of others ( the vast majority of the time nt) noise. The alternative is that some people are never allowed to go anywhere.
Of course balanced with this is showing consideration for others by thinking if the person with LD's is getting something out of being there.

I've not read the whole thread but made me think of when we went to see gangsta granny. 5 adults and 4 children aged 8 to 11. We were sat next to a family with a boy of a similar age to our lot who had some additional needs. He rocked and hit himself with the programme. My 8 YO got upset and I did my best to tell him it was ok, the boy couldn't help doing it and it was just the way he is. How do I explain this to my children?

My DS was driving me bonkers making a fuss, in the end the oldest boy in our group moved to sit by the family, but I was embarrassed with the reaction from my DS and felt like removing him!

Op you are not being unreasonable.

There has to be consideration for others and consideration of what is appropriate/ inappropriate. A few noises/ shout outs here and there isn't too bad. Continuous singing of other songs over speaking parts and songs is not appropriate and the carers should have handled it.

If my daughter (SN/LD) did that I would expect her to be taken out and if I thought due to her needs she would have been loud/unsettled throughout I would not have taken her.

Purely on the legal point, I think roseshippy is right. If someone makes loud noises throughout a performance, asking them to move, leave the auditorium temporarily or even permanently would probably not be direct disability discrimination as the reason would be the noises rather than the simple fact of disability. It could potentially be discrimination for a reason arising from disability or indirect discrimination. Actions which might constitute these types of discrimination are not prohibited if they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That requires a balancing exercise between the aim and the needs of the disabled person or people. Here the aim would be allowing the other audience members to enjoy the performance. As it's a balancing exercise, a court would take into account the extent of the disruption. I can quite see that a court might find it would not be proportionate to intervene for irregular short involuntary noises, but that it would be where the noise was drowning out the performance for a large proportion of the audience.

YANBU, OP.

As others have said the noises from one group with disabilities were distressing others with disabilities - whose needs are more important? Why should a child with sensory issues distressed by the noises be removed and not those making the noise?

It seems to me the problem was with the size of the group. It's easy to ignore a few people scattered around the theatre making noises. A whole group sitting together making a lot of noise is a different matter. The carers should have had more sense than to bring such a large group and they should certainly have addressed the amount of noise being made. But I expect they couldn't be arsed. That would be typical of some carers I've seen out and about.

I hate the "suck it up" attitude expressed by some carers of those with SNs. It's rude and inconsiderate. I will not suck it up if a person with SNs is kicking me, whacking me around the head, or making so much noise I can't begin to follow something I paid a lot of money for. I will complain to the carer and if they refuse to address the problem I'll get a refund from the theatre and try again.

It's not disablist to want to enjoy a show.

Itwillbefine, my son hits himself and I completely understand that other children may not understand this. What you said to him was fine.

Oh fgs this 'whose disability is more important?' thing is tedious. There are a million autism specific events that ds1 cannot access because his autism is too severe and those with fewer access problems are taking the space.

In all cases it's just common sense that is needed.

It sounds as if the person making loads of noise probably should have been taken out in this case. It would be nice if production companies (not theatres) offered a refund for the person being taken out (that may be one reason the carer stays there - they've paid). There may have been a particular reason they stayed - maybe they had a sibling in the cast (thinking of the one reason I did consider taking ds1) or maybe it is their all time favourite musical that they have loved for 15 years and it was their big birthday treat. In those cases I'd happily put up with it TBH.

If we left somewhere every time someone objected to ds1's existence in their vicinity we'd never go out. I'm afraid you do tend to how a tough skin if you care for someone with learning disabilities.

If you write to complain I would cc the PRODUCTION COMPANY and ask about relaxed performances. It's the production company that Herat has the power to offer that.

cc the PRODUCTION COMPANY and ask about relaxed performances.

This with bells on, people should help make life more accessible for those with SN and those with children with SN in life is the way forward for everyone, by asking and pushing for these sort of things that will mean we can access them, rather then just complaining that our presence annoying them.

And January - how many times have you been expected to suck up being kicked or whacked on the head by someone with learning disabilities? I can assure you that if ds1 makes so much as a lunge towards a member of the public it is taken incredibly seriously. Last time it happened one of the carers was in tears about it. No one is ever expected to 'suck it up'. Not least because it's one of the fastest ways for ds1 to end up in some hideous ATU - any near physical contact with a member of the public sets every alarm bell ringing.

This happened to me at the National in London last year. I complained and they gave me free tickets to see the same performance again on the following weekend. At least the second time I heard it!

So January, how many times have you been attacked by someone with learning difficulties? What proportion of attacks on strangers are by people with learning difficulties?

Its not disablist to want to enjoy a show.

It is disablist to want to exclude someone for making a noise they can't help.

Inclusion will always involve a bit of sucking it up. Which generally people dont want to do as they are selfish, hence laws were intoduced to protect peoples rights of access.

"Suck it up" generally equals dont be discriminatory on grounds of disability.

I think that the involuntary part is key here.

If I was sat next to a group of adults or children with additional needs shouting and singing loudly and messing about I would expect the carers to encourage them not to shout and sing so loudly that they were disturbing the show in the same way I would expect a parent or carer of an NT child from doing the same IF they were able to control it.

My own child has special needs but my niece has quite severe special needs and can be a bugger when out and really play up. She can control it to a point but her parents are understandably utterly knackered so she often behaves like this is public because no one tells her she can't or she kicks of more if they do. If she is out with carers she is entirely different. They encourage her to stop and she does.

HOWEVER if the person with additional needs cannot control it and it is involuntary then that is an entirely different matter.

There was a little girl in dds dance lesson who made vocal noises involuntarily and she was asked to leave as it was distracting the teacher, all hell broke lose and the majority of parents left with their children in that class too.

We had a young lad with special needs sat near us at a panto recently, by the end of the show he was literally screeching and flapping rapidly with excitement and slowly working his way towards the stage down the aisle, no one bothered, no one complained, lots of people were enjoying seeing how much HE was enjoying it tbh, His parents were mortified, they were trying to control him but pulling him back to his seat made him distressed. People were telling them it was fine, he was not disturbing them.

The problem lies when there is not anywhere to move to, my dd had a panic attack due to the steepness of the seats at Wicked in London and they had physically no where to move us to. I have asked to move because dd has been distressed at the noise created by NT people and there has been no where to move to. Telling people to leave and get new tickets is often not realistic too, many big touring West End shows book out and while there may be single tickets or a couple here or there it is often not possible to give like for like seats or even seats at all if a family needs to sit together.

Im sure people always do their best to not csuse a disturbance.

If someone cant help it then refusing to "suck it up" will sadly involve discriminating against them.

I particularly love the "its ok when its accessing transport but not when its a leisure activity" attitude.

Or "its ok unless i have saved up for ages and enjoy the show".

Its fine to really want to see a show. But it is also fine for the person with a disability to want to see the show.

This shouldn't be perceived as some shocking militant attitude. But it is as inclusion has such a way to go.

I probably cant change peoples views here as its so entrenched. It doesnt matter. If one person thinks about it that is good.

I've paid out about £600 to take my family to see a London show next month and I'd be really disappointed. A little bit of calling out I would be able to ignore but what the op describes isn't fair.

dd had a problem with over sensitive ears when she was little so I wouldn't have taken her to a football match for example. Sometimes you have to work around providing appropriate entertainment to suit disabilities rather than shoe horning people into unsuitable experiences. How would the disabled individual feel if they knew they'd upset everyone? It just doesn't work from either side.

Your DD I assume grew up and became able to access many things? Unlike some people.

If the person won't enjoy it, fine. If they would then thought should be given to including them.

It's a shame for your disappointment. But I'm sure they would be disappointed to miss out too or be complained about and hauled out.

Anyway I agree you can't rely on goodwill to avoid discrimination hence people's rights are protected by theatres in general due to the law.

This shouldn't even be a thing to argue about. It's sad.