Reasonable adjustments

[Melmimi28]

ill probably get roasted for this … however I’m genuinely interested in thoughts rather than creating a huge divide/debate.
After reading the whole dog on bus /allergy thread. What are actually considered reasonable adjustments for people with actual disabilities and where it draws the line in detrimental affects to others.
I ask in relation to a particular experience of going to Musical , we were seated not far from a group of severely disabled guests, I obviously completely agree they are entitled as anyone to visit and enjoy said musical . However throughout the show these guests used multiple rattles/shaking devices almost continuously as a comfort aid . Made loud verbal sounds (likely uncontrollable) I appreciate these things they are not able to control/choose. However in the context of watching a performance which is sound/music based and these extra sounds create a significant distraction and loss of enjoyment…. (For me I’d have preferred to have not gone I really could not concentrate due to distractions) at what point does making accommodation for disability override others enjoyment being detrimented .
I felt awful for feeling this way… but I attended a musical that could not be enjoyed due to significant shaking of loud rattled and vocal noises.

A theatre isn't your front room. It's a live communal experience.
From a performers point of view we accept whoever is out there - noisy eaters, whining kids, snorers, the "recite large chunks of Shakespeare along with the actor" people. Trust me, Wednesday matinees and school parties can be a bloody challenge but if theatre is to survive, audiences need to realise that they are not in a controlled environment.

The problem will be that vast majority of the public would prefer a guaranteed quiet performance when they are spending all that money on tickets. So inevitably those performances would get booked up and will not necessarily be available for those who absolutely need quiet.

Additional needs aren't just about making noise but can also be about needing quiet in the audience.

Those of you saying there's absolutely nothing wrong with booking seats for a standard performance, when you know that you or others in your group are incapable of attending without causing significant noise disruption, preventing a large number of other people accessing the service they've paid for, because disabled people have a right in law to access, whereas there's no right to enjoy a musical… I'm sure you think you're doing marvellous disability advocacy. What you're actually doing is risking fomenting a lot of unnecessary resentment and bad feeling towards disabled people.

I believe that, while lots of people might be ignorant about disability, have outdated attitudes or beliefs, or sometimes grumble about extra costs or inconvenience to themselves, most people do want disabled people to be able to access what everyone else can access, and most people are generally happy to deal with having to make some adjustments and being mildly inconvenienced from time to time. Most people voluntarily walk past the closer, accessible loo, most people wouldn't park in the marked accessible spaces even if there were no punishment, and most people will understand if their choice of standard performances is smaller because some have been adapted to specific needs.

What the general population won't accept is having no loos they're allowed to use, no car parking spaces they're permitted in, and no performances where they can expect a reasonably uninterrupted experience. If you push for that, you'll get massive resentment, indignation and pushback from the general public, and there's a lot more of them than there are of us.

i agree with @Bumpitybumper; theatre is not like a train where most people want to make some noise - the significant majority of people going want quiet. The only ones that don’t either have additional needs or are inconsiderate. The grey ground amplified by the Manchester case is ‘audience enjoyment’ but it’s usually easy to tell which types of shows this could be an issue for. Even then, rather than have a couple of ‘quiet’ shows I would still tend towards a couple of ‘get up and dance/sing’ shows for those that want to to let down their hair. But I suspect those shows would be utterly horrific for everyone which demonstrates that most people who deliberately make noise through a show are just plain inconsiderate.

There should be (and usually are) accessible performances suitable for people with additional needs and that’s the performance they should go to. I work with people with autism and love seeing them enjoy things like that, they should of course have the chance to see the show, but only when suitable. I would be very annoyed if I’d paid loads for a professional show and had interruptions throughout at any other performance than the accessible one.

This is true but the ticket office wouldn’t be obliged to refund you/exchange your ticket. Disability rights of access are about making reasonable adjustments.
My personal thought is that it doesn’t feel like a particularly reasonable adjustment to let someone bring in and use a noise making device for self soothing to a theatre performance. It’s not a minor disruption to everyone sitting in the surrounding seats/potentially everyone in the whole section. I agree with others that having the show split to have a number of relaxed and a number of quiet performances would be a more reasonable adjustment. As long as it wasn’t just one quiet performance or just one relaxed one but relatively evenly split I can’t see why it would be an issue. That said we are going to a relaxed performance of the lion king soon & clearly it’s a relatively hard sell to get people to them since the tickets were less that half the price of other evenings. We’ve gone for it as taking younger children and it both means I won’t worry if they are not brilliantly behaved and that we will finish earlier as it starts an hour before the normal time that evening. I don’t think it’ll spoil the kids enjoyment and I’m going for them so it’s fine. If I’d paid upward of £100/ticket for the good seats at a show it would really bother me if I couldn’t hear parts of it over noise someone near me was making.

Of course they have a right to attend.

But there is also the right for everyone else who paid to get enjoyment.

Only last week there was a news story about people being removed from a theatre for disrupting a show.

And I'd argue that if they needed entertainment to watch they weren't at something suitable for them.

I have a disabled child as well so come from both sides of this.

This situation is why there are relaxed performances. Guests who aren’t able to be reasonably still and quiet during the show are encouraged to attend the relaxed performance. If you book for the standard show then it’s a reasonable expectation that you won’t make excessive noise or movement, and if you do you’ll be removed. It’s very selfish to attend a standard performance if you know you can’t comply with the behaviour expected. The people in question should have been removed for making noise.

I don't see this as a disability bashing thread because it's not a clearcut disabled access issue. It's looking at how a range of access needs are catered for in a setting like a theatre. this is MN. It wil absolutely turn into an increasingly disablist thread and you know it.

In terms of reasonable adjustment, people are misunderstanding the term. A reasonable adjustment isn’t expecting everyone else to change their expectations to accommodate the person with a disability, a reasonable adjustment is an adjustment made in order to accommodate the perso with a disability.

So e.g. the reasonable adjustment would bbe to have a performance which is suited to the needs of the people who need to make noise. And for the terms to stipulate that noise won’t be permitted throughout the regular performance, but this needs to be stipulated to everyone at the time of booking, so that when you book you know what you’re up against, and you know that the expectation is for no noise.

So the group with the shakers are welcome to attend the regular performance, but if they want to use the shakers they need to attend the specialist performance, assuming there is one.

Let’s use another example. Guide dogs are permitted in most places, however they are not permitted in many zoos or parts of many zoos because of the stress caused to the animals. The reasonable adjustment tere is to say that the guide dog owner is welcome to bring the dog, and the dog will be looked after by the staff, while the guide dog owner can either go around with their own guide or the zoo will often provide one. Perfectly reasonable adjustment.

Also, the people saying that the group were incredibly selfish need to think about what they’re saying. A group of people who are shouting, using shakers, making noise throughout a performance very likely don’t have the same capacity as you or I, so if there is any responsibility to be had, that responsibility falls to the people who are caring for that group, not the group themselves.

This.

Our local theatre does a relaxed show

I think it's interesting that as a society we accept that tall people can do nothing about their height, that they are also entitled to see the show even though their presence impedes my enjoyment and being able to see. But we are ok with that. But someone making some noise in order to watch is a disgrace and they should be sent to the relaxed version. The relaxed version should probably also not be as loud to help those who don't like noises, should have the house lights up for safety and allow children run around because it's relaxed.

The people I have a problem with here aren't the disabled people, aren't the theatre, but whoever organised this group outing knowing full well that this group would struggle with it and need to make a lot of noisy stimming to be able to cope.

If the group were keen to go and it was something they were interested in (which if they were autistic then a crowded theatre with loud noises may be the last place they'd actually choose to be) then why not contact the theatre and discuss how their needs/impact on others could be best accommodated for the benefit of everyone.

Excellent thread.

For example reasonable adjustments may mean that you out a lift in a venue that only has stairs and a cafe upstairs.

It would be unreasonable to remove the stairs to put the lift there and refuse to allow anyone who isn't disabled to use the lift.

It's about creating equal access. Not about giving people with disabilities a right to remove the enjoyment of others to attend events.

I get how hard it is to have a disability. My ds is disabled (physical and autistic).

But he wants equal access not priority access because that doesn't do anything for inclusion. It further stigmatises and minoritises the group.

And he'd HATE peoples playing shakers at the theatre. That's against the rules. 🤣

I totally disagree, people get very pissed off about being sat behind a tall person, I'm pretty sure I've read threads on it on here even. It certainly pisses me off, I can't do anything about it but it's just as annoying as kids running around or people making a lot of noise. None of them can help it but it's still very annoying.

@MySugarBabyLove I thought about it just fine before I said group.

I have no idea if it is a family group or of it is carers and their clients, that's why I used the term group.

I am well aware that the people using the shakers may well have not been able to comprehend the disruption caused but parts of their group certainly could.

I am disabled and this would have seriously stressed me out. Instead of relaxed performances which seems to annoy so many people I would prefer quiet performances where there's no kids or sweets or crisps,.just people who want peace to enjoy what they're seeing.

If shakers etc are needed, I wonder if the outing has been booked for the benefit of the service users, or the staff. There's been a few cases of family's questioning what the service users money is being spent on, but care providers get away with it.

Someone being tall you can generally work around. If you are particular short or it particularly bugs you then you can book seats at the front of a section to start with and be confident the issue won’t arise. If you bring a child (or are extra short yourself) you can get a cushion. Seats are generally a little bit offset/you are not looking straight on at the stage so you can find a position in your seat that lets you see around someone fairly well.

Noise you can’t really adjust for yourself at all. If someone else is being noisy in the immediately surrounding seats and you want to listen to the performance you also have to listen to them. Also it isn’t one tall person blocking/partially blocking the view for 1-2 people max. It’s one noisy person disturbing likely a couple of dozen people around them to varying degrees. I don’t really think it’s totally comparable. I’m 5’6” (so hardly massive)and am yet to sit behind someone so tall and broad that I can’t see the performance pretty well regardless. Certainly better than in some of the restricted view seats.

So in your workd, Op everybody booking tickets would now have to be asked if anybody in their group has a disability and if so will that cause a noise disturbance for others? Then they are told they must attend a different performance? Frankly, I think that's disgusting and we would back to the days of segregation. I have been to numerous theatre performances and there's been a member of the audience making noise during the performance. It can't be helped and most people are understand. I'd rather that than the people who treat musicals like a sing along.

I have people with different special needs. I think of reasonable adjustments as things that help the disabled person participate without inconveniencing others.

In a noisy restaurant, I ask for a quiet table out of the way when booking, for the hard of hearing person. If I then find a loud party next to us or loud music above us, I will ask to be moved to a quieter spot. I don't ask them to move someone else.

An autistic person might need some adjustments but they shouldn't be unduly imposing on someone else. If my child can't handle the environment, they are not ready for it and they don't go there. That means I don't go there.

I don't think anyone who has to make noise during a performance should be there. They impose on others who have paid to enjoy the show. Rather, there should be special shows put on that allow them to be louder than would normally be expected. That way they are accommodated by being able to participate without causing distress for others.

Agree with this.
Alternatively if we decide that ‘regular’ performances are unregulated with respect to audience noise/ participation , including the drunken women singing, then there must be the ‘quiet’ alternative.

It's a tricky one, I think it's great that musicals are accessible, and if they enjoyed the performance than bloody brilliant I genuinely think that's fantastic. However if it's wildly distracting to others then it's not a reasonable adjustment.

People have often been asked to leave musicals I've been at for singing or talking loudly, I know that in this case it's not people consciously making a noise so it's different, but the effect on others in the audience is the same. There should be accessible shows or something similar, I think we've entered this space where yes of course everyone should be able to access the arts but similarly there's a reasonable expectation when you buy a ticket that you'll actually be able to hear what's going on, that's not unreasonable. What if others in the audience had sensory issues etc too, could be very distressing and distracting for them.

How many performances of this show are there in total?

I agree with PPs. My issue is with the group organisers, noise makers are completely inappropriate in a theatre performance which isn’t labelled as “relaxed”.

I agree with another PP, decisions like this made by presumably non disabled adults regarding disabled people are doing disabled advocacy a real harm.

I am disabled (enough to qualify for the Severe Disability Premium benefit 😁) and my DS has autism.

We couldn’t have coped with the rattles near us, it would have been excruciating (shoutout to PP who mentioned it being against the rules 😆) .

Whose disability takes precedence? Or, rather than grading disability, which in my mind is an appalling idea, we do offer Relaxed Performances and Quiet ones too, on a regular basis. Keep the majority of performances for anyone else.

And keep throwing out the drunk eeejits. Mainly so I can watch TikToks of such events with Benny Hill music in the background.

Many tall people try and minimise their impact though. (Obviously yes yes some don't etc etc). My grandfather was 6ft7. He would only book back row seats or end of aisle seats (so he could lean out etc). He would often turn down events if he couldn't get a seat he thought was appropriate. Was that fair for him? No. But he was being a considerate person. This is what is lacking in society generally now. Just a bit of consideration for others. It's always about rights. "It's my right to be there" etc. I totally get that people do have "the right" to be there. But sometimes just thinking about something a bit more and how you can be a tiny bit more considerate would go a long way. And that applies to everyone. Tall, short, overweight, thin, disabled, abled, absolutely everyone.
Same as my grandad trying to get a back row seat as much as possible, maybe if you know you/ who you're going with will make lots of noise just see if there's a way to minimise disruption. Whether that's a different relaxed show, a different seating area etc. It's worth just asking and seeing what choices is available.