To be annoyed at disruption in a theatre show?

[shouldwejust]

I appreciate that this is a nuanced topic, and that there possibly isn’t a right answer.

Recently I went to watch a show in the theatre that I had been looking forward to for months. The tickets were my birthday present and something I can’t usually afford, so definitely a one off treat.

Throughout the whole show, a man who had severe disabilities was shouting out and yelling. He didn’t stop at all and continuously made very loud and disruptive noises.

It completely took me out of the show, meant I struggled to concentrate and was just annoyed!

I fully appreciate that everyone in society has a right to enjoy things, and perhaps this man was looking forward to the show just as much as me! But, I don’t think that it’s fair that he disrupted the show for the entire rest of the audience who had also paid a lot to be there.

I don’t know what the solution is to be perfectly honest. That his carer removed him when he was being disruptive? That he attended one of the “autism friendly” screenings that are expected to have more disruption?

When I said this to my partner he was shocked and said that basically we should just accept that our show was ruined for his enjoyment, as that is being inclusive. I don’t feel that inclusivity should come at the cost of everyone else?

I appreciate that I may be told I am being unreasonable here but I’d like to hear other people’s opinions here

A disabled person who has bladder and bowel problems wouldn’t think of leaving the house without adequate protection - both for their own peace of mind and that of others. Terrible analogy.

I remember that, too.

I also remember a thread some time ago where the OP’s child (and others in their class) were being touched inappropriately (to put it mildly) by another boy in their class due to a disability he had. There were many posters on there saying that if parents were concerned about their children being touched inappropriately that way, that they should remove their children from that school and send them elsewhere.

A private venue can't make decisions that aren't lawful.

It wouldn't be lawful to remove someone on the grounds of disability, unless in very extreme circumstances (even then it woukd be a grey area that would be interesting to see played out in court), which this wasn't as the event still continued.

Yet again you have failed to read and understand properly. Your lack of comprehension skills is outstanding.

Under UK law a private venue does not have to permit behaviour which prevents the service they are providing to others being done in the intended way. That includes removing those with disabilities if their behaviour is disruptive.

I understand you do not like it but that is the law.

It’s also the law that they have to provide reasonable adjustment for disabled people - or did you forget that bit ?

I don’t think I can accept that until we’ve really tried OP and that’s a sweeping statement when accessibility is dreadfully limited. Have all measures been tried? Doubt they have

yes they do, and if their reasonable adjustments are impossible OR do not work then they can legally remove that person.

Should've just been removed tbf.

What do you class as a reasonable adjustment?

An adjustment has to be reasonable. if having them there is causing too much issues just remove them

You can shout about my comprehension all you like, but you're the one who doesn't have a grasp of the law in this respect.

A private venue can remove someone whose behaviour prevents it from providing its service (which it didnt) even if the behaviour results from a disability. But it's not as simple as 'it's a private venue, so it can remove anyone.' The Equality Act 2010 still applies, so the venue must avoid disability discrimination and consider reasonable adjustments. Whether removal is lawful depends on the circumstances, it would be interesting to see it played out in court, but you're very much overstating the rights private venues have.

How is it reasonable to have one person shouting out continuously throughout a performance and thereby disrupting it for everyone else? That’s unreasonable.

I really do think you have a reading issue because we have both essentially said the same thing.

I am a person with a disability who caused more than her fair share of disruption in public spaces as a child and was always removed from them by my family. For me that's the correct thing to do and so in that situation I'd have been looking at the people accompanying this individual and wondering what they were doing. For all they knew someone in the crowd was going to react with violence or aggression, would not have been in the person's best interests whatsoever. And that would be unusual but not unprecedented, I have heard of fights breaking out before in theatres over disruptive behaviour.

That's a really good point. The actors in the theatre get paid whatever goes on in the audience (although their concentration and patience might well be tested to the limit), but professional tennis players....if their concentration is affected by noisy people, and Wimbledon allowed it, that's a serious matter for them.

Jeez - the people on here who think that the rights of someone who can't be quiet trump absolutely EVERYTHING else. I just despair.

The irony is that it won't be disabled person themselves who insists on attending the theatre in the face of so many people's spoiled experience - it will be some 'activist' determined to prove a point.

You think we have said the same thing and I'm the one with reading issues?

Sure.

To be practical for a second, some theatres are better than others at holding relaxed performances. IME The Kiln (Kilburn) has some great shows and always seems to have a relaxed performance for each show. Similarly the Old and New Vics are good and have some great performances. The National Theatre has great provision for the physically disabled and provision for the hard of hearing (signing and the really innovative caption glasses). Relaxed performances are shown as something that the NT do, but I cannot see any on the current calendar. Most big West End shows do not offer relaxed performances, or if they do they are fairly few and far between. At this time of year I also find Open Air theatres quite useful. I can manage noise so long as we sit at the back and have a clear exit.

🤣 I despair with you

@WillThingsEverBeFergaliciousAgain you'd better tell the National Autism Society their advice to theatres is legally incorrect then.

https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/going-out-leisure-and-travel/going-to-the-theatre/theatres

Which I have said: and the theatre are not asking a disabled person to leave because they are disabled

Can you answer my question?

A few years ago at an evening performance at The Savoy Theatre the first half was disrupted continuously by two women who obviously had special needs. They were in wheelchairs and seated in a special area with their two carers - it wasn't a 'Relaxed' performance. Post interval both of them were asleep so no further disruptions

To their great credit the performers carried on regardless!

At the interval I witnessed many people making complaints to staff who, again to their credit were sympathetic but said there was nothing they could do

Some weeks later we received complimentary tickets to another performance, via the social club that we had booked with

I live in London and had cheap tickets so it was no big deal for me and my friend but for many people it would have been a special occasion and cost a lot of money

It might seem harsh but I do think the two women should have been taken to a Relaxed performance so as not to spoil the event for the other 99% of the audience

But why don't you ask for a refund and explain to the person who paid for the tickets what happened, so they then give you the refund ?

Except:

1 - He had asked NOT to be seated near a microphone
2 - The whole audience had been informed as to the situation and what might happen and why.

Reasonable accomodations.

Not his fault, or the men on the stage, that his request and assurance, that he would not be sat next to a microphone was not honoured.

He also wasn't there simply to enjoy the show, but because he was a part of it, as a nominee for an award.

Er oh and the audience weren't people who had paid significant sums to attend, they were either there for free or in fact, paid to be there.

So really, not at all comparable to someone who cannot behave in an appropriate way for the event, being at an event people have paid significant sums to attend, wrecking the event for everyone else.

This isn’t possible though is it? Not always. As the response of one disabled person may mean another disabled person can’t share that space.

i know I could not and my autistic daughter could not be in an environment as OP describes. So the inclusivity for that person means we are excluded.

It's not realistic to make all spaces inclusive for all. Sometimes you have to go with the majority and the thing that is going to sustain that space, hard as that is to accept. Sadly having a disability means that certain things are closed off to that person, it’s not fair but it’s the case. I’ve had to accept that for myself and family members. Instead I try to embrace and enjoy what is open to me.

I think in this instance the wants and needs of the many, including the staff, should have outweighed the wants of the one.

Stop quoting me in things then if you don't like my responses