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?

My favourite graphic

"If the patron is not satisfied with the above response the House Manager should inform the patron it is illegal to discriminate against anyone with a disability or those who care for them, with reference to the Equality Act 2010, therefore The Lowry will not ask a person making involuntary noises to move unless they and/or their Personal Assistant are happy to do so.
"

This is utter bollocks though. Lying about the law gives it a bad name. Own your policies, and don't ascribe them to non-existent legal rules.

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits direct discrimination.

It does NOT prohibit indirect discrimination.

So you CANNOT have a 'no people with disabilities policy', but you CAN have a 'no noises in the theatre' policy. This IS indirect discrimination, as that would disproportionately affect people with disabilities.

The relevant section of law is here:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/15

"(1)A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if—

(a)A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and

(b)A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability."

Not having the theatre severely disrupted is a legitimate aim.

"Examples
Discrimination arising from disability –
Richard has a faulty hearing aid which
beeps loudly every few minutes.While
he is at the cinema a number of other
customers complain that this noise is
spoiling their enjoyment of the film.
If the cinema asks Richard to leave,
this may be discrimination arising
from disability unless the cinema can
‘objectively justify’ its decision. (In this
particular instance the cinema is likely to
be able to do so.) "

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85009/business-summary.pdf

The theatre can either exclude or not exclude noisy patrons, but it should document its policies in advance and refund those adversely affected by its decisions.

Hi OP, I work in theatre and YANBU.

As many have said, your enjoyment of the performance should not have been disrupted to this degree and at my theatre this would be (sensitively) dealt with. For example, we could move people to a box (more isolated), offer tickets to come and see the second half at another time if breaking it up is better and works for the customers, or ultimately, ask them to leave with a refund/cast recording/tickets to a relaxed performance/etc.

Ultimately, going to the theatre is often an expensive experience and involves the implicit acceptance of a social contract - to let others enjoy the show. I have very little sympathy for those who are aware in advance that the person they are going with will disrupt the show considerably and consistently. For everyone else, I will do my very best to ensure that their experience is 100% positive.

I'm guessing you saw Chitty on tour (apologies for not reading the entire thread), which is unfortunate as 'relaxed' performances are not quite as common as in London - yet.

It would hardly be dealing with it sensitively to ask them to leave, Nevth.

roseshippy

Your example is not comparable.

"Richard" has a piece of faulty equipment. It could easily be a beeping phone, or a repetitive personal alarm. Nowt to do wit disability per se, more a piece of failed, intrusive technology that it would be possible to control, fix or turn off.

It is also discriminatory not to make the 'reasonable adjustment' of (a) being able to hear (for people with hearing difficulties) and (b) not being subject to annoying noises (for people with autism), by refusing to enforce policies about noise during theatre performances.

There may be ways around this by for instance designating certain performances as relaxed, but in practical terms it must be difficult when a lot of touring shows are only on for a day.

"Your example is not comparable."

It's not my example, it's the government's example.

""Richard" has a piece of faulty equipment. It could easily be a beeping phone, or a repetitive personal alarm. Nowt to do wit disability per se, "

This is incorrect. The equipment is a piece of disability equipment. People who do not have disabilities do not have the equipment. Therefore it is to do with the disability. The fact that it is a hearing aid is absolutely the key to the example, and is why it can't be compared with say a phone. Disabled people are more likely to have essential equipment, which can fail, e.g., a mobility scooter. If you are not disabled you do not need to worry about the charge on your mobility scooter or on your hearing aid.

Somerville, I have seen some extremely brusque and unfair treatment of people in theatres. What I meant was that we will try to find absolutely any solution that works for all customers in the theatre. Perhaps I should not have used the words 'ask to leave' as that has actually never happened on my watch. We would always offer the alternative options I already outlined in my post, and so far, no one with a disability has been asked to leave theatre in the two years I've been there (but a significant amount of drunks have been booted out). All parties have been happy with the solution, and in many cases relieved as they probably thought ushers were there to tell them off rather than to help, which is something all theatres should work on.

However, I do stand my ground on the fact that with the exception of panto and some musicals, people should be able to have some level of quiet enjoyment. Tickets are expensive and it may be the one show other customers have saved up to see all year (someone else on this thread suggested that people can 'just come back')!

roseshippy

The reasoanable adjustment is also moot, as the person disturb can a) move, b) be refunded or c) leave.

As already pointed out, if a disabled patron requested reasonable adjustments, the staff would try and support, but that goes for everyone, including those making involuntary noises or movements.

There is no legal right to watch theatre in absolute silence.

roses

Sorry, but that's absolute bollox.

I wear a hearing aid. I carry spare batteries. I take responsibility for it. If it started playing up whilst out, I'd be off home to fix it, if I needed to, as I wouldn't be able to hear.

I'm glad you clarified about 'asked to leave' Nevth. As IonaMumsnet made clear further up thread, there are parents of children with SN on this thread and it is understandably offensive for them to read that their child might be asked to leave a theatre.

I disagree with your final paragraph - a family with one member who has SN and finds it hard to be quiet for two hours might have saved up all year as well. I personally would rather that family got the pleasure of attending the theatre without being made to feel awkward by ushers going over and offering 'alternative options' (presumably they'll have booked the seats they would like to watch the show from) even if that means a small amount of theatrical performances that I watch have some background sound. But having said that, I have never had any theatrical experience marred by anything caused by someone with SN, as far as I can tell, and think this isn't general the big issue that this thread makes it sound.

"The reasoanable adjustment is also moot, as the person disturb can a) move, b) be refunded or c) leave"

Neither a refund or leaving is a reasonable adjustment, as you are not providing the service. A reasonable adjustment is about providing service to a disabled person, not NOT providing the service.

An offer to move might help, but it won't necessarily work, if the whole theatre is being disrupted? Also if you have purchased fourth row centre stall seats and spend £00s on taxis and hotels and what-not and are offered a move behind a pillar in the Upper Circle, that might not be a reasonable adjustment either?

"Sorry, but that's absolute bollox.

I wear a hearing aid. I carry spare batteries. I take responsibility for it. If it started playing up whilst out, I'd be off home to fix it, if I needed to, as I wouldn't be able to hear."

It's not stated that the hearing aid is not working, it just says it makes annoying noises. It doesn't seem like a particularly likely example to me, but it was more an illustration that the government makes it clear you CAN exclude people from cinemas for making a noise, despite a disability.

roses

So, let me get this straight...

You're saying that there's a whole theatre full of people with varying disabilities who all want one disabled person making involuntary noises to shut up or leave and they would have the right in law to enforce this scenario....?

Neve happened. Never will happen.

"You're saying that there's a whole theatre full of people with varying disabilities who all want one disabled person making involuntary noises to shut up or leave and they would have the right in law to enforce this scenario....?"

My son would have a meltdown. Why do you think this is impossible?

PenguinRoar Theatres are wonderful, inclusive and supportive places for magical experiences, for everyone.

Sat here in floods of (happy tears) at your posts penguin and the link someone posted where Jason manfors said to come to the shows regardless of disabilities. Thank you . It's me rather then a dc, I love musicals but never go because I worry what people will think.

Ultimately, going to the theatre is often an expensive experience and involves the implicit acceptance of a social contract - to let others enjoy the show. I have very little sympathy for those who are aware in advance that the person they are going with will disrupt the show considerably and consistently.

I agree with this, for a lot of people, going to the theatre is a big treat and can often be expensive and not something you can just "re-do" if the first time is negatively impacted. Going to a movie is entirely different - you can wait until it comes out on DVD or go to different screenings (I went to see the last Hunger Games movie one weekday evening when it had been out a couple of weeks and there was only me and another couple in the entire 150 seat screen) but shows are often not around for long runs, in regional theatres, and West End shows are rarely cheap, especially if you're taking the family.

I don't want to come across as insensitive but at the same time if I have spent a lot of money on an experience that comes with th implicit understanding that anyone else attending is also there to watch the show and allow others to watch it without disruption, if someobody is doing just that, it is their responsibility to understand that they are disrupting others and either leave the theatre or stop their behaviour. Obviously when there are people involved with SN, they may be unaware of the impact of their behaviour, but in that case it is the responsibility of the carer/person responsible for them to make that choice for them. Yes they might be shouting/screaming/singing etc because they are expressing their enjoyment, but if their right to express their enjoyment negatively impacts on the hundreds of other paying patrons, then surely the other patrons right to not have their quiet enjoyment of the show is also being violated too.

My friend and I have been wanting to go and see Harry Potter and the Cursed Child since it hit the theatres, but tickets are like gold dust. We have managed to get tickets for a year's time and they cost us about £300 ... we live in the north west and obviously, as the show is in London, it's not a cheap trip. It is a play in two parts, ours are shown over consecutive nights so by the time the show rolls around we will have spent a lot of money on this trip - tickets, hotel stay, trains, eating out, travel in London etc ... so this trip will easily cost us about £500 each but we both turn 30 next year so this is our treat to each other and ourselves. As a single parent in a minimum wage job and a SAHM, this is a huge amount of money for us to spend on ourselves and a huge treat. If we got to the theatre and someone was yelling, shouting or in any way disrupting the performances to the point where we couldn't follow what was happening, it would be heartbreaking and I would be very upset at the amount of money we'd have lost on an experience we could never get back, and it would be evenworse to just be told "Sorry, nothing we can do". If that makes me sound selfish then so be it.

Its not unreasonable for you to be disappointed but it is unreasonable if you expected them to leave/be thrown out. They live in such a restricted world, there's so many things they'll never be able to do, and they deserve to access things like theatre shows as much as anyone else. They aren't intentionally disrupting anyone else, a bog, darkened room with lots of people might be stressing and singing is their coping mechanism. Trying to quiet them would likely distress them more and they'd be louder, upset and in minority of cases might get violent. It may well be the carer trying to get a break too by going to a show they want to see, who is a parent so full time and can't be separated from them. Dependent on the disability they would notice the show wasn't over and not understand why theyre leaving and get upset and distressed. Ideally there would be showings specifically tailored to the needs of the disabled, with small audiences, not so dim lighting, and other provisions, separately held from "regular" showings. In this instance since the disruption was enough you missed what was going on a courtesy refund or tickets to another showing would be good, but it wouldn't be fair to ban and exclude people with mental disability from even more things.

They may as well say im all for inclusion but only for those who can come across as nt and whose disability doesn't have any impact on me

It seems to me that posters at both extremes are failing to acknowledge the need for inclusion.

We need to accommodate people with involuntary noises wherever possible and tolerate some level of interruption. But, when your involuntary noises are so intrusive that an entire audience is affected, you will be having a negative impact on audience members with disabilities that are particularly affected by noise, such as sensory processing disorders and hearing impairment . We have already heard from one poster on this thread whose DS with ASD was distressed. Why is it less inclusive to consider his needs than the needs of the person who makes involuntary noise? Surely we need to do both and find a compromise that includes and accommodates as many people as possible, rather than shouting "disabilist" when a theatre tries to balance the needs of people with one type of disability against those with another type?

Compromise is, by its nature, usually sub-optimal for everyone.

Why is inherently wrong for a theatre to ask one person with a disability to leave if the alternative is (say) 10 other people with disabilities having to leave due to distress at the noise? I'm not saying that is what should have happened in the OP's case -. But I am saying that posters who take a hardline stance that 'my child's right to inclusion trumps all other considerations' need to explain why the rights of people with other disabilities that have conflicting needs aren't as important. If a child with hearing impairment is sharing a space with a child with involuntary noises, for example, aren't both children's rights equally important?