Disabled scooter user humiliated by Train Manager for using disabled space on GWR service.

[Ianno87]

The pram should have been folded up and stowed.

*If* the mother indeed had an arm injury, then she may not have been capable of holding her child as a result.

 

[Ianno87]

As already mentioned, simple common sense and give and take would resolve problems like this.

Perhaps not having 'disabled' spaces named as such and calling them 'easy access' or something similar would reduce the arguments or sense of entitlement.

I make a point of calling them "accessible" spaces, as they are very much available for other uses when not required by a wheelchair user (e.g. prams, tip up seats, etc.)

 

[AlterEgo]

*If* the mother indeed had an arm injury, then she may not have been capable of holding her child as a result.

I think @Bletchleyite misheard in the YouTube video that the woman had a sprained wrist when it was in fact the disabled woman’s partner.

It would be really good if people commenting in this thread could watch that video.

There is no suggestion or evidence whatsoever that I can see, that the woman with the baby had a bad arm.

Other posters have repeatedly asserted that the disabled woman was evicted from the wheelchair space. This is also incorrect. Her mobility aid was moved from there. The disabled woman had transferred to a seat at the start of the journey and that is where she was when the dispute happened.

 

[whhistle]

Let's get this straight though, the GWR staff were horrified at the video... that was made sometime after the event. So they've taken what the person said as the truth, without fully investigating with the guard first. Hmm.

What, by asking a disabled person to move from a disabled space designed for disabled people?

So you're saying the mother with the new born baby and busted arm should be disadvantaged then?
Because using your logic, it's either one or the other.

You would have zero sympathy is they lose their job? Never made a mistake in your job I take it?

While I agree with you, the way it comes across isn't great.
I mean, there's a large difference between crashing a train by speeding (like the Spanish Driver - what happened to him?), or ordering blue pens instead of black. Both are mistakes, but require different levels of action.

NO! A short-term arm injury in no way, shape or form meets the legal definition of a disability

Perhaps. However...
"You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities."
https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010
Perhaps the arm injury is long term... or will lead to long term imparement.
But then I guess the next question is, what is considered "long term"?
But then I wear glasses.
Surely that considers me to be disabled as I can't see as well as 20/20 people. Maybe I should apply for a blue badge!

 

[DarloRich]

Other posters have repeatedly asserted that the disabled woman was evicted from the wheelchair space. This is also incorrect. Her mobility aid was moved from there. The disabled woman had transferred to a seat at the start of the journey and that is where she was when the dispute happened.

that seems to be the key point that has been missed in the rush to execute! I wonder if that will cool the ire of any of the proto Judge Jeffreys on this board?

 

[IanD]

Let's get this straight though...

Please do. There are two videos, one made partway through the event and one made some time after.

 

[bradders1983]

So you're saying the mother with the new born baby and busted arm should be disadvantaged then?
Because using your logic, it's either one or the other.

Correct. A mother isnt afforded any protection under the DDA. People trying to claim that her having a sprained arm (or similar) means she has a disability is desperate at best.

 

[AlterEgo]

Correct. A mother isnt afforded any protection under the DDA. People trying to claim that her having a sprained arm (or similar) means she has a disability is desperate at best.

She didn’t have a sprained arm!!! Oh my Lord.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Quite frankly the partners behaviour was reprehensible. There was no need for this to esculate, just be a decent human being and try to help out another person in a predicament rather than rant about legal rights. Yes his partner is disabled but not completely incapacitated. The guard quite rightly tried to find a compromise so that both parties could travel safely. As for the announcement, the woman admits in the video that they are getting thrown off the train as 'Kevin' got angry. Sounds to me as though Kevin has a massive sense of entitlement and zero manners or humanity.

A couple of years ago we had planned engineering work on a Saturday with rail replacement coaches between the next station and one 20 miles further. A large party rocks up wanting to go on the lash to the latter station including one person in a fairly large powered wheelchair. I explained the situation and ascertained there was no way the wheelchair user was transferring to a coach. I phone to get something sorted but have two females with alcohol bottles in hand jumping up and down in front of me shouting about disabled rights, I couldn't hear the colleague at the other end of phone because of their shouting....apparently I was abusing the wheelchair users rights - by phoning to get something sorted!

Was alcohol a factor in this case I wonder?

 

[mpthomson]

I think the relevant discussion here is whether someone with a short term injury is afforded protection under the Equality Act as a disabled person.

If it’s a broken wrist or a sprained arm, I cannot see that they are. Someone with severe burn injuries to their arm which have been healing over a year, possibly.

There is also no evidence the mother even had an injury. The disabled woman’s partner had a sprained wrist, and I think somehow his injury has been confused as belonging to the second woman, who was both pushing a pram and carrying a baby.

Which is actually the point I was trying, possibly not brilliantly, to make. There's an awful lot of jumping to conclusions on the back of not much evidence in this thread, and people who think that writing in a harsh font in capitals makes them correct.

There will be two sides to this and it sounds like the other is now appearing. Neither side comes out covered in glory to be honest.

 

[bradders1983]

She didn’t have a sprained arm!!! Oh my Lord.

Hasnt it been claimed she had some form of arm injury meaning she couldnt hold her baby? Apologies if the thread has moved on since yesterday afternoon.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Please do. There are two videos, one made partway through the event and one made some time after.

The National Media seem to have given up on this story today- perhaps they smell a rat?

 

[mpthomson]

Correct. A mother isnt afforded any protection under the DDA. People trying to claim that her having a sprained arm (or similar) means she has a disability is desperate at best.

The DDA hasn't existed since 2010. You have no idea how serious any injury may be, or the timeframes, or the impact on her activities of daily living that it causes (if she has an injury at all, which she may not have).

My point is that you are making assumptions without understanding the applicable legislation or a person's physical condition. someone with a leg in plaster doesn't meet some of the armchair lawyers on here's definition of a disability but it clearly is in terms of use of accessible seating.

 

[DarloRich]

Can we just be clear about what actually happened here?

• A guard asked a disabled person to move their disability aid ( the scooter) out of its parking place so a buggy could be accommodated.
• The disabled person was occupying a seat on the train and was not, at that moment, reliant on the scooter.
• The scooter could be collapsed or stowed away
• The disabled person was not removed from a priority seat nor were they asked to asked to vacate a seat for someone else.
• the guard made an unhelpful announcement that caused the disabled person upset and humiliation

Is that correct?

 

[AlterEgo]

Hasnt it been claimed she had some form of arm injury meaning she couldnt hold her baby? Apologies if the thread has moved on since yesterday afternoon.

One poster claimed this, but I think they misheard the video - it is the disabled woman’s partner who had the sprained wrist, not the woman with the pram. The woman with the pram boarded using a ramp and was carrying the baby. There is no suggestion I can see that she was incapacitated in any way.

 

[bengley]

Can we just be clear about what actually happened here?

• A guard asked a disabled person to move their disability aid ( the scooter) out of its parking place so a buggy could be accommodated.
• The disabled person was occupying a seat on the train and was not, at that moment, reliant on the scooter.
• The scooter could be collapsed or stowed away
• The disabled person was not removed from a priority seat nor were they asked to asked to vacate a seat for someone else.
• the guard made an unhelpful announcement that caused the disabled person upset and humiliation

Is that correct?

If this is the case then I think the guard was correct to ask for the scooter to be moved. Perhaps the guard had been having a bad day and this passenger was being difficult to deal with, so he overreacted.

Note 'if this is the case' before berating me.

 

[RAPC]

The National Media seem to have given up on this story today- perhaps they smell a rat?

That is the normal news cycle. It gets reported and that is it. The only rat I smell is your trying to discredit the story here, what with you throwing in an unsubstantiated 'was alcohol a factor in this case?' two posts earlier.

 

[Bantamzen]

This thread has been made almost entirely upon assumed circumstances, and only partially on actual evidence from the complainants video, which in itself does not show all the circumstances involved.

Given that a person's career is on the line, and the eagerness of some to have him punished without being in full possession of all the facts, perhaps this thread needs to be locked until such time that a more comprehensive & hopefully more factual sequence of events is known?

 

[Bletchleyite]

One poster claimed this, but I think they misheard the video - it is the disabled woman’s partner who had the sprained wrist, not the woman with the pram. The woman with the pram boarded using a ramp and was carrying the baby. There is no suggestion I can see that she was incapacitated in any way.

Was this perhaps the reason he presumably declined to assist in folding the scooter (as it was a piece of luggage if she was not at that time sitting in it)?

 

[AlterEgo]

Was this perhaps the reason he presumably declined to assist in folding the scooter (as it was a piece of luggage if she was not at that time sitting in it)?

I think that is what happened, yes. I don't know whether the disabled woman herself was capable. She seems to be ambulant but with her condition, and very short arm reach, it's not clear she would be able to fold a piece of equipment.

 

[AlterEgo]

If this is the case then I think the guard was correct to ask for the scooter to be moved. Perhaps the guard had been having a bad day and this passenger was being difficult to deal with, so he overreacted.

Note 'if this is the case' before berating me.

It's wrong for the guard to ask for a mobility aid to be moved to accommodate a pram. Neither has priority over the other.

Both articles should have been folded.

 

[mrcheek]

I've just read all 7 pages of this thread and it is absolutely fascinating.
Incredible how people on this forum are able to establish the truth far better than the media ever could.

It takes me back to a very similar case some years ago, of a wheelchair user who claimed he wasnt allowed to board a train at Manchester Piccadilly to Guide Bridge. and forum users managed to find massive flaws in his claims as well!

 

[Gareth Marston]

That is the normal news cycle. It gets reported and that is it. The only rat I smell is your trying to discredit the story here, what with you throwing in an unsubstantiated 'was alcohol a factor in this case?' two posts earlier.

Ive asked the question not asserted that it was hence the use of the ? symbol. Just because someone is disabled doesn't mean that they or there companions are immune from consuming substances that can alter there judgment/behavior and as i have stated I have had experience of disabled companions "in drink" and unfortunately small things can be misinterpreted and blown out of proportion and the situation escalate very quickly the same as with any other passenger. Throw in a sense of injustice about disabled rights then you have a plausible explanation as to why this escalated.

 

[JN114]

Can we just be clear about what actually happened here?

• A guard asked a disabled person to move their disability aid ( the scooter) out of its parking place so a buggy could be accommodated.
• The disabled person was occupying a seat on the train and was not, at that moment, reliant on the scooter.
• The scooter could be collapsed or stowed away
• The disabled person was not removed from a priority seat nor were they asked to asked to vacate a seat for someone else.
• the guard made an unhelpful announcement that caused the disabled person upset and humiliation

Is that correct?

I would say that is an accurate summation of known facts, yes.

Controversial opinion I know but an un-folded mobility scooter not currently being used occupying the mobility impaired space is akin to a bag on a seat - not really an issue on a quiet train but really probably shouldn’t be there unused on a full and standing train. Due to a combination of factors the train was incredibly busy Sunday - rights or no rights there is quite obviously reasonable adjustments that could have been made by all to de-escalate the situation. It would appear none of the parties involved chose to avail themselves of those options.

Easy to sit here with 20/20 hindsight and say what we think x should have done. Instead of harping on about rights the companion could have had some humanity and offered to assist to mother and baby - perhaps offering them their seat. Instead of occupying a seat and the mobility space the claimant could have occupied one or other and (with necessary assistance) vacated the other. Instead of getting into a conflict with the claimant and their companion over the incident the Train Manager could have found somewhere else for the mother and baby; and not made ridiculous announcements over the PA. But through tension and conflict the situation escalated to where it did.

Being filmed by a member of the public when you’re trying to deal with a difficult situation for the very best of us is distracting. Having a camera shoved into my face when trying to resolve conflict in a previous (non-rail) job is without a shadow of a doubt the worst experience in my professional career - although some will react far better to it than others.

Common sense and common decency appears to have been lacking all round. Does that entail a threat on someone’s livelihood? No. Not in my book.

 

[theageofthetra]

Correct. A mother isnt afforded any protection under the DDA. People trying to claim that her having a sprained arm (or similar) means she has a disability is desperate at best.

Rightly so. Having a child or a pram so big it's unsuitable for public transport is a lifestyle choice. Disability isn't

 

[matt_world2004]

1.)wheelchair users should have priority over other users of the wheelchair space.
2.)wheelchair users should not be forced out of the wheelchair space for buggies
3.) if the mother of the child was disabled then the rules should prioritise use of the space on a first come,first served basis.

 

[Darandio]

1.)wheelchair users should have priority over other users of the wheelchair space.
2.)wheelchair users should not be forced out of the wheelchair space for buggies
3.) if the mother of the child was disabled then the rules should prioritise use of the space on a first come,first served basis.

Thanks for reminding us. But it seems none of that was applicable here.

 

[AlterEgo]

1.)wheelchair users should have priority over other users of the wheelchair space.
2.)wheelchair users should not be forced out of the wheelchair space for buggies
3.) if the mother of the child was disabled then the rules should prioritise use of the space on a first come,first served basis.

Please for the love of God could people read the thread and watch the relevant videos first? Please.

Literally none of what you said was applicable in the case in point, whereby an ambulant, non-wheelchair bound disabled person sitting in a regular train seat had her mobility aid moved for a pram which was being pushed by someone who was not disabled or injured.

 

[Robertj21a]

This thread has been made almost entirely upon assumed circumstances, and only partially on actual evidence from the complainants video, which in itself does not show all the circumstances involved.

Given that a person's career is on the line, and the eagerness of some to have him punished without being in full possession of all the facts, perhaps this thread needs to be locked until such time that a more comprehensive & hopefully more factual sequence of events is known?

Why on earth should this thread be locked ?. Have we done away with free speech ?

 

[Bantamzen]

Why on earth should this thread be locked ?. Have we done away with free speech ?

Well done! I wondered how long it would take to make the free speech statement, under two hours it seems.

Now if you'd like to go back and read what I actually posted, and why the thread should be locked because of almost pure speculation where a person's livelihood is at stake please?