the Bernera cafe/dog/legal aid saga - wtf?

[AuntieBiotics]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced71ny99y5o

American woman living in Bernera is suing the local community run cafe because it would not admit her "emotional support" dog. She is being supported by the Ethnic Minorities Law Centre because Americans are ethnic minorities, and is being funded by Legal Aid. She wants £10k, which would shut them down.

I mean. What the actual fuck. Move to a tiny island with 250 people on it, claim you're being ostracised and harrassed and try to solve that by suing a charity? That'll sort it. And LEGAL FUCKING AID???

She’s an absolute fruitloop but pretty sure she’s a woman.

Not the first trans person to cause havoc in the highlands and islands - look up Lady Carbisdale.

It’s an emotional support dog I think, rather than being a legit assistance dog. It’s also a rescue and seemingly reactive/poorly trained.

Lawyers errors all the time. That doesn’t mean cases have no merit. But, if it were a simple admin error, it wouldn’t have cost the Community Association £££ in fees to sort it out. A single legal letter in response saying they have no association with the Cafe would suffice. The fact it took so much money to sort out was likely the lack of proper legal documentation, very common with these sorts of organisations who just pick a set of legal looking documents off the internet and set up a community group and think it’s ok. If there was absolutely no link between the two, why did they continue to fund the legal fees in the case until they ran out of money?

To suggest a Law Centre, established for 35 years, handling hundreds of cases each year, are so slap dash they did a quick google search and raised a claim with the wrong organisation is ridiculous. More so because the suggestion is based on media reports saying “they sued the wrong people” and nothing more.

We need a register of legitimate assistance dogs for blind and deaf only, and outlaw anyone using any sort of guise to pass their dog off as an ‘assistance’ dog for any other reason. This sort of nonsense has gone on too long. See also those ridiculous sunflower lanyards.

Yes, that’s what everyone is saying. But where is the evidence for that? I’ve seen that written everywhere, but if those two things were true, there would be no case. A lawyer would simply respond that the dog is an ESA and behaved badly. Assistance dog or not, if they behave badly, the cafe can ask them to leave and not breach the law. That would mean there is absolutely no case. None whatsoever. I can only assume that A) she has evidence it is an assistance dog and B) there is no evidence of it behaving badly.

I couldn’t care less about any trans issue personally.
I have donated as there’s frankly enough in this story already to justify donating

Owner trained assistance dogs are still valid assistance dogs however they aren't allowed anywhere guide dogs would be able to go unless they're well behaved and you can demonstrate or explain what they do to support your disability.

I don't know if she would actually have to prove what her disability is, but she should have the burden of proof for showing how exactly having her dogs with her supports her disability and basically act as medical equipment in the eyes of the law.

I did training alongside another woman who's dog was trained to help her with her diabetes by smelling blood sugars, alerting and retrieving her medical bag and bottled drinks. For this dog to come from a trained charity she would have been looking at between 10-15k, plus a lengthy wait.

We have registered our interest in various autism assistance dog charities, and again it is a similar price or a very extended wait for a reduced price or free assistance dog when we need a dog that can support my son with his behaviours now so charity trained dogs aren't actually very accessible. We have contacted multiple trainers who have specialised in assistance work so we can owner train a dog. ADUK says assistance dogs don't need to be registered with ADUK by law to still be assistance dogs but they do need to be anle to manage their behaviour in multiple settings as well as do the tasks required to support their handler with a disability. That is the standard that assistance dogs need to meet whether registered or not and so this is what she would likely have to demonstrate in court.

Both disagree and agree.

As someone upthread mentioned there are other types of valid assistance dogs, trained to alert when someone is about to have a fit, or disability assistance dogs who open doors or pick stuff up off the floor. Those are valid assistance dogs. But it would not be difficult for all the organisations/charities triaining these animals to come up with a scheme which issued a licence, pass, certificate, whatever to dogs who reach a certain level of training. That could also apply to the small number of people who are too anxious or whatever to leave home without their dog - get it trained properly, get it assessed, get its licence, bob's your uncle.

The issue is entitled people who class their pet as a support/assistance animal even though they carry out no specific tasks, and have not been trained or assessed. They've just bought a jacket for it off Amazon and kick off at people who won't let them into a shop/cafe with it, citing disability.

Then that's every diabetic / epilepsy / allergen alert dog out? Also disabled people who use them for physical tasks?

Might as well ban all dogs (and round we go again).

There has to be a really, really high bar for ‘assistance’ dogs though if you are asking cafes etc to be forced to accept them. If I ran a cafe I’d accept guide dogs, but you’re going to be forced to listen to so many nonsense stories from people who don’t want to leave their dog at home. There needs to be a licensing scheme.

Yes I do know what you mean, there is obviously something else it to have been able to take it to court. But then how much is in it if she wrote to “every law firm in the whole UK” and only one would take her on? I don’t know if she’s also going after the other 13 businesses that banned her and the dog. We’ll find out all sides in February I guess.

Someone said that a woman's guide dog couldn't be a proper guide dog because he was black, not yellow. There is a lot of hate towards those with disabilities, and many of them can't go places without their dog. I don't know this woman and can't comment on her case, but I do know of a liitle kid who is deaf, who can't get an "official" service/assistance dog, and has to rely on a pet dog.

It's very easy for those who don't have a disability to not realise or care about how hard ot can be-that boy can't go places without his dog.

Obviously no dog (or person) should be attacking people/animals, but there is a lot of ableism and if you or your child couldn't go places, it might might you feel differently. Up until recently, people weren't sympathetic towards AuDHD-that doesn't mean it isn't real.

I've already said this. There are more legitimate assistance dogs than for the blind and deaf. Epileptic alert dogs for example. I think there are dogs that alert for diabetics too.

I agree about emotional assistance dogs though. I have cancer which is considered a disability under UK law. I could easily say my pet dog is my emotional assistance dog because of my disability. I don't.

At leat Donald Trump with all his faults would have told her where to go if she tried this nonsense in the USA.

Is she the crazy looking one or the shorter one who looks like Shrek?

I struggled to decide which (if either) was a woman.

Emotional support animals aren't generally recognised as being in the same category as guide dogs, for example.

You don’t have to prove they are an assistance dog to a business owner, because doing so would mean you have to divulge your medical condition and the law can’t compel you to do so. She will have to prove it for the case, but there is no requirement for anyone to do so other than that. It’s one of those situations where the law has to balance the privacy of people, with the likelihood that the law will be abused. For a long time it has worked ok, it seems (largely)mot still be working ok, but absent actual figures of the number of people using this as an excuse to take their dog places, it’s hard to know if the problem is as widespread as anecdata suggests. If there are a handful of people who do this then changing the law to make it harder for disabled people would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We looked in to formal training for our dog an assistance dog for our daughter, because it’s really difficult to have one provided. The cost would run into the thousands. As it is, we have been able to train her ourselves to do a lot of the things my daughter needs in the home. We never take her out as an assistance dog even though some of the tasks she does would be very useful, because she is also prone to be a bit of a dickhead in public. My daughter couldn’t handle her by herself in those cases. If we make it a legal requirement that dogs must be legally trained and registered, a whole load of people will not be able to afford them.

If anyone was going to refuse, it would be a charity organisation who already have more people approaching them than they can deal with.

Are we really deciding what we think about the case based on how two women look?

Nah, I was my dog’s emotional support person!

I agree.

It's so unreasonable to expect everyone to indulge such nonsense. I hope they get their arse handed to them and then told to leave the community.

Spaniel by any chance...?

Of course not, but if a person looks crazy and acts crazy as well it sort of compounds the insanity.