Banging on the door of the Accessible Toilet

[HunterHearstHelmsley]

Why do people do this?!

I've just used the accessible toilet (I need to use the accessible toilet). I'd barely sat down and someone started banging on the door. I wasn't in there an unreasonable amount of time - probably about 30 seconds when the door banging started and 3 minutes overall. I was in there because I needed to be, banging on the door isn't going to make me quicker. If someone was taking the piss, it'd probably make them stay longer!

It's not the first time it's happened but it's so frustrating. It happened a few weeks ago also, that time was a woman wanting to use the baby change... the baby change wasn't even in the accessible loo!

It's really annoyed me this morning, it's not something I've noticed when using non-accesible toilets so I think it's just an accessible loo thing. But whyyyy?! I can't go faster 😩

Because government doesn’t care about disabled people. Tory government in particular. Look at how disability benefits have been tinkered with over the years so that fewer people are eligible. It’s not that they are not disabled, just that the benefits they need are put beyond their reach in the name of preventing fraud, when we all know that fraud in disability benefits is less than 2%. If they don’t care about proper support, they’re certainly not going to care about whether we can pee when we need to !!

It's absolutely appalling.

And some supposedly accessible toilets are so tiny you can barely move in them when there's a wheelchair user plus carer.

It's very obvious who is trying to get away with the minimum provision possible and who actually cares about providing a decent quality toilet for those with additional requirements.

Those who believe they have the right to harass people using these toilets would be better off expending their energies campaigning for better provision, both in quantity and quality.

Once again this is not correct and has been addressed several times on the thread. Single sex larger cubicles within standard male/female toilet blocks are meant for access by anyone who needs more space - not necessarily disabled. Think mums with pushchairs. Separate unisex large stand alone accessible toilets are meant to accommodate wheelchair users as well as the ambulant disabled, and are meant solely for the use of disabled people and their carers. They are not there to mitigate queues for standard toilets. And FYI heavy periods do not constitute a disability unless there’s an underlying condition causing them, but IBS and other conditions causing urinary or bowel urgency/incontinence, definitely do.

Just because you can’t think of a condition doesn’t mean it doesn’t exisit. That’s why people with more understanding of the individual decide who should and shouldn’t have a blue badge. in the whole they are a battle to get in the first place

They are, but the point remains that those who are mobile have options and those who are in a wheelchair do not.

It's worth reading Melanie Reid's column on this - she is a tetraplegic after a horseriding accident and wrote an article for the Sunday Times about 10 days ago. She talked about trying to get a disabled bay at a hospital and seeing ambulant people using bays. I can totally see why she'd be frustrated.

I also think it's fine for someone with heavy periods to use an accessible loo, but not if a wheelchair user is waiting. Use the standard loos instead (assuming they are available and it's not Costa with one single loo).

And FYI heavy periods do not constitute a disability unless there’s an underlying condition causing them, but IBS and other conditions causing urinary or bowel urgency/incontinence, definitely do

And FYI, heavy periods are not normal so there IS an underlying condition causing them, but most women don't know what it is.

Oh don't be ridiculous. Like has been said many times on this thread, ignorant people like yourself who take it upon yourselves to be the toilet police are causing people with less obvious disabilities distress. But you don't care about that, such is your zeal for catching out supposed pisstakers and feeling smug about it.

These are guidelines only, and ileostomy is only one of a range of stomas which deal with different aspect of bodily function. I worked and volunteered within several different disabilty charities and have known quite a few people granted a blue badge in respect of a stoma or and other bowel conditions such as severe IBS and Crohn’s disease, with no other disability present. If the stoma isn’t well controlled, Crohns or IBS is severe, or the person has little or no control over bowel or bladder, and is vulnerable to accidents then local authorities have the discretion to grant the badge according to the level of severity.

I am neither ignorant nor smug and if you read back through my posts you’ll see that I’ve tried to make considered replies from the point of view of being disabled myself. And there are several posters here posting in a similar vein. All have been similarly attacked. it’s not about catching out the pisstakers and feeling smug about it and there is no intention to cause distress to those with less obvious disabilities distress. It’s about trying to find a workable solution to make sure as far as possible that the facilities provided for the use of disabled people are kept for that purpose. It’s to the benefit of all disabled people - hidden disability or otherwise.

You’re posting on a thread condemning people for being judgmental, but you don’t seem to have any difficulty in being judgmental yourself do you ?

Yes, I have a blue badge myself and am well aware that it often comes down to the opinion of the person interviewing whether you need one. However, I don't think a stoma alone would mean someone gets one nowadays. They either answered the questions in a way that suggested they have additional health needs or your experience relates to a few years ago (,it has been made harder to get one more recently)

We’ll have to agree to disagree then. I’ve done several blue badge applications and if you say you have a health condition you have to back it up with medical evidence, so you can’t just suggest it. As I said, it’s my experience that local authorities can and do use discretion to award in this way when the condition dictates it.

I did actually qualify what I said - it’s even in your quote. I was making the distinction between someone needing to use the accessible toilet because of a health condition affecting periods, and someone just nipping in to change sanitary products.

You’re posting on a thread condemning people for being judgmental, but you don’t seem to have any difficulty in being judgmental yourself do you ?

I'm certainly judging you because of the ignorance of your actions, yes. Disabled people on this thread have pointed out to you how they feel when approached by the toilet police. And you keep talking about a workable solution. Well, isn't it obvious that your idea of a workable solution isn't?

Many people with hidden disabilities just want to be left alone to get on with their lives without people such as yourself intruding on their daily activities.

But no, you continue to think your own actions are perfectly fine, even when other disabled people tell you they're not.

There have been people here talking about using a stick when they don't need one, just so people like you will leave them alone.

So yes I judge you for going out of your way to make other disabled people's lives even more awkward than they already are.

Can’t be bothered with this any more. You’ve clearly not read my posts or you’ve not understood them. This is a terrible thread, way off course from the original point of the OP and a godsend for people bent on misunderstanding and attacking others. Far from discouraging judgment, the thread is full of it. I’m out.

There is a lot of variation in how LA’s interpret the blue badge guidelines so there is an element of pot luck.

No.

Larger accessible cubicles in a row of cubicles were probably installed for the use of everyone who needs more space (so people with small children etc).

Stand alone accessible toilets are installed with the intention of them being for the sole use of disabled people, unless they are the only toilets- eg, a lot of Starbucks have only one large accessible bathroom.

That is why you frequently need a special key to open them (and a lot of venues you have to go and request a key, you can’t even use your own radar key).

They are not there to ‘make everyone’s life easier’ they are there so that disabled people who are unable to use a normal toilet can actually access a toilet when they are out, and therefore we don't have to stay at home forever.

No- no one has bothered to enshrine this in law so you won’t get arrested for deciding you can’t be arsed to queue for a normal toilet and using the accessible one instead. You probably won’t even be challenged by anyone- but you will be behaving like a selfish wanker.

This thread is like banging my head against a brick wall.

I think I’m out as well. Banging your head against a brick wall describes it perfectly.

We don’t even need an interview or to be questioned here- you go online and there is a list of benefits that automatically mean you can have a blue badge (the correct level of PIP etc)-

At the time I didn’t have these benefits because of various boring admin issues so I emailed saying I need a blue badge, I’m an ambulatory wheelchair user- and they emailed back half an hour later saying that’s fine use this link to send a photo. No medical or other evidence required.

However, my uncle in a different area has severe crohns, has various bits of his inside missing, various bags, canes and wheelchairs etc and needs a carer at all times, but has been refused a blue badge because he is a stubborn old bugger and won’t claim the benefits that would entitle him 🤷‍♀️. They won’t issue one based on the fact he needs it, only if he gets the benefits.

I can relate to this too being a wheelchair user. The parking situation in my local hospital is dreadful. There is one disabled car park with twenty spaces available on a first come first served basis. I’ve now started trying to make sure my hospital appointments aren’t during hospital visiting hours because it’s a nightmare trying to get into a bay to deal with the wheelchair - standard spaces aren’t wide enough.

Numerous times I’ve been sitting waiting and I’ve seen people running back and forth to cars putting bags in, locking up and disappearing back into the hospital. It’s obvious to me that in many cases they are not disabled themselves but are using the blue badge of whoever they are visiting, to park.

It’s infuriating and it’s why I’m one of the posters on here asking what the solution is if we can’t challenge something we see as amiss. Hidden disability is a problem and of course we don’t want to unnecessarily distress people, but eventually these concessions are going to be meaningless unless some way is found to tackle abuse.

That's interesting about LA's different ways of assessing for Blue Badges. Where I live it used to be just answering questions, but it's now tightened up so that you have to send a benefits letter and doctor's letter about the disability. Plus you may be asked to go in for an interview. My mum's had one for many years now, so the letters are enough to get it renewed.

With the BB I'm the driver. So there are times when I've had to drop off, find somewhere to park, then go back. When doing thus I park in ordinary bays but use the badge mostly, but if some of the posters on this thread saw me they'd be having a seizure. Other times I park in a disabled bay with my mum, take my mum somewhere, but then for whatever reason have to come back to the car myself for something, or to move it closer to where my mum is to pick her up (if it's raining for example).

As for toilets, it's no one's business who is using them. I've just reread the entire thread, and early on there were examples of two teenage girls smoking weed, and a woman using the toilet to calm her tantrumming child. Apparently it was obvious that none of these people was disabled and the poster could tell they weren't disabled.

But how can anyone tell? I mean, really? You just can't.

If some disabled people are happy being challenged, fine, many aren't.

I've a hidden disability, my mum's physical one is obvious, but she also has a hidden one. People rattling at toilet doors absolutely terrifies her! We have received looks and comments on exiting when others decide she's taken "too long".

I get looks when I use the accessible toilets, which unnerves me and I start questioning myself, and probably then look flustered or guilty. Is that the proof some people use to determine how "obvious" it is that someone's taking the piss.

I dread going out sometimes. The sheer inadequacy of most disabled toilets when I'm with my mum, the judgmental looks when I'm parking the car on my own or going to the loo.

Jesus Christ, life is difficult enough for disabled people and their carers, and the last thing we need is other disabled people joining the lookers and questioners.

Speaking for myself, I just want to be left alone!

I think the problem is that the rules are open to interpretation and some local authorities are better than others at recognising real need and using common sense. That said however, I think I would be querying with the local authority why they are insisting on him being in receipt of disability benefits before they will issue a badge.

A fair number of people I’ve assisted with blue badge applications don’t qualify for PIP in a way that would automatically entitle them to a blue badge - some don’t qualify at all as they miss the threshold by minimal points. In those cases the LA has always applied their own medical assessment to determine entitlement. Crohns is really debilitating and if he uses walking and mobility aids too, then someone somewhere isn’t doing a proper job of assessing his needs, and are relying on ticking a box to prove eligibility. PM me if you think I can help.

If some disabled people are happy being challenged, fine, many aren't.

I'm quoting myself here because I can't edit any more.

Those of you who are fine with being questioned and therefore have decided that because you're fine with it, then it's obviously okay to approach anyone else...

I.e. I'm fine, therefore it is fine, and others should be fine with it too.

Have you no idea how arrogant that is?

As for toilets, it's no one's business who is using them. I've just reread the entire thread, and early on there were examples of two teenage girls smoking weed, and a woman using the toilet to calm her tantrumming child. Apparently it was obvious that none of these people was disabled and the poster could tell they weren't disabled.

No. The poster actually said that in those cases it wasn’t that their appearance suggested no disability, but their behaviour - they clearly weren’t using the facilities for their intended purpose. I think the whole point here seems to be that if we can’t challenge for fear of causing distress or offence to someone, then there is no reasonable solution so the concessions continue to be abused. So no point in complaining.

So what’s the solution ? The facilities continue to be abused and if no-one says a word even when it’s clear there’s abuse, then the concessions will end up meaningless. In the case of disabled parking spaces they already are in some places. You only have to walk along the disabled spaces at the front of our local supermarket to see that lots of people are now arrogant enough to park in them without a badge at all - because they’re not being called out on it, so the abuse continues.

But if they'd been two teenage girls with wheelchairs smelling of weed, or a mother in a wheelchair with a tantrumming toddler, op might have reached a different conclusion. It's the assumption that no visible disability= no disability.

Did you read my reply? I can run and then ONE MINUTE LATER be in terrible pain from walking. And mine is hardly a rare and exotic disability.