Asda Spends More Than a Penny in it's Ongoing Support for Disabled Customers as they introduce 'Invisible Illness' Accessible Toilets - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Asda Spends More Than a Penny in it's Ongoing Support for Disabled Customers as they introduce 'Invisible Illness' Accessible Toilets

£0.00 @ Asda
Following on from Asda stores recent introduction of "Quiet Hours" for Autistic & Disabled Shoppers they are now supporting Ill & Disabled People even further by by adding signs to accessible toilets … Read More
wishihadadonkey Avatar
[mod] 9m, 2w agoPosted 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Following on from Asda stores recent introduction of "Quiet Hours" for Autistic & Disabled Shoppers they are now supporting Ill & Disabled People even further by by adding signs to accessible toilets in more than 400 stores for people with 'invisible' illnesses'.
Think it's a really great idea & a huge step forward for those people that have hidden problems, not everyone who is disabled in some way is in a wheelchair or has a condition that is obvious to the naked eye.

Link to full story in 1st post (sorry for the thread title pun, couldn't help myself, it's my age!)
Other Links From Asda:
wishihadadonkey Avatar
[mod] 9m, 2w agoPosted 9 months, 2 weeks ago
Options

Top Comments

(1)
[mod][Moderator] 6 Likes
Can I just add something here, I would say that most disabled people would not mind being asked about their problems, indeed my son is quite happy to discuss with people who are genuinely interested what is behind him being in a wheelchair, his disability is obvious, so would never be questioned when he uses a disabled toilet. However my 12yr old step niece has an issue that is not so obvious, she has Crohn’s, which means that she looks like any other teen most of the time, I'm not going in to the messy details too much, but when she has a relapse, she has to go when she needs to go & anyone spending even a minute or so questioning her would soon find out the reason why.
She does have a badge that she can wear, but doesn't like to & tbf, why should she be labelled for the world to see? I don't wear a badge saying pre-menopausal mangy cougar, approach with care esp if you're 30 & hot (though I'm sure my husband would suggest I did).
I do appreciate by doing what they have done with the signs it may make the toilets open to further abuse, but surely that is a problem with the people in society who feel it's ok to do so? There may even be some people (though maybe I'm not cynical enough) that read the sign & change their habits, realising the excuse of using it because they've seen lots of other "normal" people doing so could be invalid, they might be people who have IBD, MS, Parkinson's or other hidden illnesses
Anyway, I've waffled on enough, I understand what I'm trying to say, but looking at what I've written, I'm not so sure others will, I'll use the excuses I'm old, tired & facing yet another night of my not so hot husband snoring like a warthog with a cold! Pity me :)

Oh & I completely agree with fivegoldstars re the issue of standard toilets with 2 kids, stores should have a toilet in baby changing or provide a wider one for parents with kids. There's been many a time I've had to abandon a double buggy in the store & try to fit all 3 of us into a narrow standard cubicle, sort one out, whilst trying to prevent the other jumping on / off the foot lever on the bins & trying to climb in, & I've lost count of times one of the little darlings has played with the bolt on the door, so it opens up to reveal me frantically trying to tug up my underwear, whilst preventing them from both running out.

Edited By: wishihadadonkey on Aug 12, 2016 21:19

All Comments

(42) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
[mod][Moderator] 1 Like #1
2 Likes #2
wishihadadonkey
So, judging from the story, it's a restroom with a disabled sign on the door that anybody can use without being challenged by staff or other shoppers?

Edited By: stuarthanley on Aug 11, 2016 11:33
4 Likes #3
stuarthanley
wishihadadonkey
So, judging from the story, it's a restroom with a disabled sign on the door that anybody can use without being challenged by staff or other shoppers?
Have to agree although I do appreciate the initiative by ASDA they should concentrate on fixing what is broken like ensuring only people with disabled badges park in disabled only bays. It gets my goat that still after many years these superstores who are given planning consent with the proviso that they must "provide" disabled bays still allow this to be abused.

And I'm 100% certain that any person with a disability/illness will not fault any store staff for being challenged about using a disabled toilet and would much prefer those who abuse it to be banned from using the store completely (but then that would affect store profits).
2 Likes #4
They need to start looking at the changing facilities for older disabled children that still need to use nappies
1 Like #5
philphil61
stuarthanley
wishihadadonkey
So, judging from the story, it's a restroom with a disabled sign on the door that anybody can use without being challenged by staff or other shoppers?
Have to agree although I do appreciate the initiative by ASDA they should concentrate on fixing what is broken like ensuring only people with disabled badges park in disabled only bays. It gets my goat that still after many years these superstores who are given planning consent with the proviso that they must "provide" disabled bays still allow this to be abused.
And I'm 100% certain that any person with a disability/illness will not fault any store staff for being challenged about using a disabled toilet and would much prefer those who abuse it to be banned from using the store completely (but then that would affect store profits).
yeah seems like anyone with an infatuation with their car worth more than their house feels they should be able to park in a disabled bay.
#6
Used to work for ASDA for a number of years and the car park was never monitored except for at Xmas time.
Disbaled loos ended up being chav - graffiti hotspot
People in their Bentleys/jags and posh cars would litter the disabled/electric bays or park across two spaces instead of parking normally.

Not a single F was given by the management so long as the cash kept rolling through the tills.
Good initiative so long as it doesn't get abused
#7
ceres
philphil61

And I'm 100% certain that any person with a disability/illness will not fault any store staff for being challenged about using a disabled toilet and would much prefer those who abuse it to be banned from using the store completely (but then that would affect store profits).
My local Asda has pone of these signs on the disabled loo. I'm not in a wheelchair or 'obviously' physically disabled but I have a legitimate Radar key and a card that explains why I need to use disabled loos. I have no problem with a member of staff taking me aside and talking to me discreetly. The signs aren't for members of staff though. They're for ignorant customers.
We've always had ignorant customers and that is my point. Yes the new signs will explain but I think (like others have already pointed out) the new signs will just give more "flexibility" to even more ignorant customers - it doesn't fix the main problem, whether it be disabled parking or disabled toilets, the number of ignorant customers will increase and the store can shirk even more responsibility.
1 Like #8
ceres
philphil61
ceres
philphil61

And I'm 100% certain that any person with a disability/illness will not fault any store staff for being challenged about using a disabled toilet and would much prefer those who abuse it to be banned from using the store completely (but then that would affect store profits).
My local Asda has pone of these signs on the disabled loo. I'm not in a wheelchair or 'obviously' physically disabled but I have a legitimate Radar key and a card that explains why I need to use disabled loos. I have no problem with a member of staff taking me aside and talking to me discreetly. The signs aren't for members of staff though. They're for ignorant customers.
We've always had ignorant customers and that is my point. Yes the new signs will explain but I think (like others have already pointed out) the new signs will just give more "flexibility" to even more ignorant customers - it doesn't fix the main problem, whether it be disabled parking or disabled toilets, the number of ignorant customers will increase and the store can shirk even more responsibility.
So what's your suggestion if you think Asda are failing in some way? A member of staff stationed outside each disabled loo who questions you about the nature of your disability and decides if you're eligible to enter? Or queue up at the Customer Services desk where you're similarly questioned and they award you a token to gain access? Or applying for an annual pass that you wear on a lanyard around your neck to demonstrate your eligibility?
Diss the signs but have the decency to explain your proposed improvements.

Did you miss my first comment? No
Maybe you chose to forget it?

Nothing is perfect in this world. Most superstores do little to comply with council planning instructions which is to provide disabled facilities for the use by the disabled. Yes they provide them but do nothing, or very little, to restrict the abuse of said facilities. It says all this in my first comment.

Most (means no all) disabled wouldn't mind if they were challenged "at the door" so long as they knew the available facilities were controlled. It's the ignorant lazy human being who abuses these facilities that cause issue for others and all ASDA can do is give them more "GET OUT FREE CARD's" meaning shirking their responsibilities of providing facilities for the disabled. Also stated in my first comment.

ASDA are trying to look good when in reality they've made the situation worse for those that need the facilities. How many times have you seen people abuse disabled parking bays and of those times how many have been taken to task by the stores? and the and question about the toilets?
#9
So a non-story about anyone can use the toilets from the Asda PR machine.

Ps Would never use a disabled parking space but mother and child spaces are fair game mainly to enjoy a bit more space and avoid morons banging their car door into mine. (_;) but thats a whole other bun fight.
#10
DKLS
So a non-story about anyone can use the toilets from the Asda PR machine.
Ps Would never use a disabled parking space but mother and child spaces are fair game mainly to enjoy a bit more space and avoid morons banging their car door into mine. (_;) but thats a whole other bun fight.

Parent & Child ;)
3 Likes #11
haritori
DKLS
So a non-story about anyone can use the toilets from the Asda PR machine.
Ps Would never use a disabled parking space but mother and child spaces are fair game mainly to enjoy a bit more space and avoid morons banging their car door into mine. (_;) but thats a whole other bun fight.
Parent & Child ;)

Judging by what I have seen in some supermarkets, parent isn't the correct term, sperm donor would be more accurate. The term parent implies that its a person who actually parents their child.
#12
ceres
I truly hope you never find yourself needing use of such facilities.

That's where you are totally wrong

My wife (now passed) suffered from an illness which at the beginning affected only her balance then gradually further disabilities including incontinence eventually becoming wheelchair bound. So yes I've experienced all having been a loving caring partner,

And no it wouldn't have been an issue, for me or my wife, to answer (or prove) the medical needs to any store employee when using disabled toilets but we must be different.

I did, many times, have issues with stores and the lack of responsibility regarding disabled bays and there abuse by ignorant, uncaring oxygen breathers and one time, when a store failed to take action against 4 students parking in said disabled bay, took my own action which was to place my car behind theirs, preventing them froom being able to move their car on their return and informed the store security of my actions and advised that if the other disabled vehicle parked next to had any difficulty getting out before we'd finished our shopping then I will gladly move our car to assist but would not return for any other reason.

Poor students were really "upset" (is the pc word) when we finished our shopping

So yes you are wrong again but hey ho we are all different.

And to reiterate yet again

ASDA are not helping the disabled they are shirking responsibility by giving ignorant oxygen breather a free pass.


ps forgot to add
My current situation/illness I'd assume would entitle me to a Blue Badge and possibly motability allowance but I neither want nor desire to let my pride be hurt even more than it is. Yes it would allow me more freedom to get about but to do what and with whom and with what money?

Edited By: philphil61 on Aug 12, 2016 19:46: added
1 Like #13
philphil61
ceres
I truly hope you never find yourself needing use of such facilities.
That's where you are totally wrong
My wife (now passed) suffered from an illness which at the beginning affected only her balance then gradually further disabilities including incontinence eventually becoming wheelchair bound. So yes I've experienced all having been a loving caring partner,
And no it wouldn't have been an issue, for me or my wife, to answer (or prove) the medical needs to any store employee when using disabled toilets but we must be different.
I did, many times, have issues with stores and the lack of responsibility regarding disabled bays and there abuse by ignorant, uncaring oxygen breathers and one time, when a store failed to take action against 4 students parking in said disabled bay, took my own action which was to place my car behind theirs, preventing them froom being able to move their car on their return and informed the store security of my actions and advised that if the other disabled vehicle parked next to had any difficulty getting out before we'd finished our shopping then I will gladly move our car to assist but would not return for any other reason.
Poor students were really "upset" (is the pc word) when we finished our shopping
So yes you are wrong again but hey ho we are all different.
And to reiterate yet again
ASDA are not helping the disabled they are shirking responsibility by giving ignorant oxygen breather a free pass.
I'll agree with Phil on Asda shirking their responsibilities. By changing a sign on a door (literally, that's all they've done) they've made a restroom that's reserved for those that need it most into a "anyone can use it free for all". I had an argument with a woman on Asda Facebook page who believed it was perfectly acceptable for her to use the disabled toilets because she "had a double buggy with 2 children and it wouldn't fit through the regular restroom door"
Asda have just given her and her facility abusing ilk carte blanche now.
1 Like #14
stuarthanley
philphil61
ceres
I truly hope you never find yourself needing use of such facilities.
That's where you are totally wrong
My wife (now passed) suffered from an illness which at the beginning affected only her balance then gradually further disabilities including incontinence eventually becoming wheelchair bound. So yes I've experienced all having been a loving caring partner,
And no it wouldn't have been an issue, for me or my wife, to answer (or prove) the medical needs to any store employee when using disabled toilets but we must be different.
I did, many times, have issues with stores and the lack of responsibility regarding disabled bays and there abuse by ignorant, uncaring oxygen breathers and one time, when a store failed to take action against 4 students parking in said disabled bay, took my own action which was to place my car behind theirs, preventing them froom being able to move their car on their return and informed the store security of my actions and advised that if the other disabled vehicle parked next to had any difficulty getting out before we'd finished our shopping then I will gladly move our car to assist but would not return for any other reason.
Poor students were really "upset" (is the pc word) when we finished our shopping
So yes you are wrong again but hey ho we are all different.
And to reiterate yet again
ASDA are not helping the disabled they are shirking responsibility by giving ignorant oxygen breather a free pass.
I'll agree with Phil on Asda shirking their responsibilities. By changing a sign on a door (literally, that's all they've done) they've made a restroom that's reserved for those that need it most into a "anyone can use it free for all". I had an argument with a woman on Asda Facebook page who believed it was perfectly acceptable for her to use the disabled toilets because she "had a double buggy with 2 children and it wouldn't fit through the regular restroom door"
Asda have just given her and her facility abusing ilk carte blanche now.
Some people can't see the wood/forest for the trees

I've seen all the comments in this thread and it seems only ceres has a different viewpoint - they are of course entitled to have a different viewpoint but it'd be better if they could see beyond the trees.
2 Likes #15
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
[mod][Moderator] 6 Likes #16
Can I just add something here, I would say that most disabled people would not mind being asked about their problems, indeed my son is quite happy to discuss with people who are genuinely interested what is behind him being in a wheelchair, his disability is obvious, so would never be questioned when he uses a disabled toilet. However my 12yr old step niece has an issue that is not so obvious, she has Crohn’s, which means that she looks like any other teen most of the time, I'm not going in to the messy details too much, but when she has a relapse, she has to go when she needs to go & anyone spending even a minute or so questioning her would soon find out the reason why.
She does have a badge that she can wear, but doesn't like to & tbf, why should she be labelled for the world to see? I don't wear a badge saying pre-menopausal mangy cougar, approach with care esp if you're 30 & hot (though I'm sure my husband would suggest I did).
I do appreciate by doing what they have done with the signs it may make the toilets open to further abuse, but surely that is a problem with the people in society who feel it's ok to do so? There may even be some people (though maybe I'm not cynical enough) that read the sign & change their habits, realising the excuse of using it because they've seen lots of other "normal" people doing so could be invalid, they might be people who have IBD, MS, Parkinson's or other hidden illnesses
Anyway, I've waffled on enough, I understand what I'm trying to say, but looking at what I've written, I'm not so sure others will, I'll use the excuses I'm old, tired & facing yet another night of my not so hot husband snoring like a warthog with a cold! Pity me :)

Oh & I completely agree with fivegoldstars re the issue of standard toilets with 2 kids, stores should have a toilet in baby changing or provide a wider one for parents with kids. There's been many a time I've had to abandon a double buggy in the store & try to fit all 3 of us into a narrow standard cubicle, sort one out, whilst trying to prevent the other jumping on / off the foot lever on the bins & trying to climb in, & I've lost count of times one of the little darlings has played with the bolt on the door, so it opens up to reveal me frantically trying to tug up my underwear, whilst preventing them from both running out.

Edited By: wishihadadonkey on Aug 12, 2016 21:19
#17
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
#18
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.

Edited By: fivegoldstars on Aug 12, 2016 21:35
1 Like #19
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
#20
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
Very true.
Bit of storm in a teacup this!
I suffer with Chronic Migraines with Migraine Associated Vertigo, which does fall into this "invisible Illnesses" category.
Although I'm not disabled as such, it is sometimes a struggle to get to and into the Gents at our local Asda, because of my symptoms.
Situated down a long corridor at the far end of the store from the main entrance, I have to walk past the Disabled Toilet first, then the Baby Changing Facility, then The Ladies, as it were, and finally, The Gents.
Obviously I pop in the Disabled door because I'm popping to go!
I always have a quick look around to make sure there aren't any "obviously" disabled people heading in that direction before i nip in because I'm a decent human being & don't want to inconvenience folk.

Edited By: truffle6969 on Aug 16, 2016 07:46
1 Like #21
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman lugging 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop, just to keep you happy?
Get a grip!!!

Edited By: truffle6969 on Aug 16, 2016 07:56
1 Like #22
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.

Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.


Edited By: stuarthanley on Aug 16, 2016 08:04
#23
Also worth pointing out the fact that if the non disabled toilets are locked for maintenance or cleaning, that type of thing, then the store just bungs a "Please Use Disabled Toilet" sign on the door!
Lol
I've seen this happen in all the 4 main supermarket chain shops.
Let's have a 2 year rant about that then!
3 Likes #24
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.

Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.

Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
1 Like #25
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
2 Likes #26
philphil61
stuarthanley
wishihadadonkey
So, judging from the story, it's a restroom with a disabled sign on the door that anybody can use without being challenged by staff or other shoppers?
Have to agree although I do appreciate the initiative by ASDA they should concentrate on fixing what is broken like ensuring only people with disabled badges park in disabled only bays. It gets my goat that still after many years these superstores who are given planning consent with the proviso that they must "provide" disabled bays still allow this to be abused.
And I'm 100% certain that any person with a disability/illness will not fault any store staff for being challenged about using a disabled toilet and would much prefer those who abuse it to be banned from using the store completely (but then that would affect store profits).

Gets my goat how idiots regularly park in disabled bays. Guy cut me up speeding into Tesco the other week, I parked up and walked to store entrance to be greeted by him screeching into disabled bay, strolled in happy as larry with no ailment whatsoever. Staff were nearby and did nothing
2 Likes #27
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Not others, sweetheart, just you!
I don't recall you mentioning anybody else having a go at the poor lady!
Just you!
1 Like #28
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Not others, sweetheart, just you!
I don't recall you mentioning anybody else having a go at the poor lady!
Just you!
And the disabled person in the original comment.... "sweetheart".

Edited By: stuarthanley on Aug 16, 2016 11:33: .
2 Likes #29
Youngy
philphil61
stuarthanley
wishihadadonkey
So, judging from the story, it's a restroom with a disabled sign on the door that anybody can use without being challenged by staff or other shoppers?
Have to agree although I do appreciate the initiative by ASDA they should concentrate on fixing what is broken like ensuring only people with disabled badges park in disabled only bays. It gets my goat that still after many years these superstores who are given planning consent with the proviso that they must "provide" disabled bays still allow this to be abused.
And I'm 100% certain that any person with a disability/illness will not fault any store staff for being challenged about using a disabled toilet and would much prefer those who abuse it to be banned from using the store completely (but then that would affect store profits).
Gets my goat how idiots regularly park in disabled bays. Guy cut me up speeding into Tesco the other week, I parked up and walked to store entrance to be greeted by him screeching into disabled bay, strolled in happy as larry with no ailment whatsoever. Staff were nearby and did nothing
Witnessed a member of staff at my local recreation centre park in the only remaining Disabled Bay yesterday, despite the rest of the car park being only 75% full. He then jogged in to work.
2 Likes #30
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.

Only someone without children or without any experience of the work involved in raising children could use the term "life style choices" about a mother with children.
1 Like #31
timefortea
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Only someone without children or without any experience of the work involved in raising children could use the term "life style choices" about a mother with children.
And your actual point is? Pretty sure that most disabled people didn't choose to be disabled and, for their benefit, systems have been put in place, such as disable friendly toilets, wider parking bays at the front of stores and wheelchair accessible ramps and drop kerbs.
Now if you condone the misuse of these facilities by people who don't need them but feel it's OK because it makes their life easier but, by doing so, makes the life of the intended user that little bit more difficult, then I feel ashamed for you.
2 Likes #32
I have a double pram and I can assure you I cannot fit it into a toilet cubicle or leave in the toilet area. If I left my little ones and popped to the loo they would cry and panic or worse somebody would call social services. I know people complain and moan about children easily forgetting that we all once were children ourselves.
I've seen the response issues like this get on other forums and it seems people think children are a burden on society and the 'brats' should neither been seen nor heard.
Judging by the responses on asdas Facebook the next debate will be 'who's more worthy?', im sure you'll get the odd physically visible disabled person questioning someone with a invisible illness as to why they need to use the disabled toilet and not the standard one. I would gladly have allowed them to use the loo before me but not many people want to have to tell their medical history in order to use a toilet. I was shocked to see some of the responses from wheelchair bound older women complaining that people who can walk should use the normal toilets! She was obviously educated as to why some able bodied people can't use normal facilities. Good idea and I hope other supermarkets follow suit.
2 Likes #33
timefortea
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Only someone without children or without any experience of the work involved in raising children could use the term "life style choices" about a mother with children.

Absolutely agree. Some people are just looking for something to moan about, or lack the ability to empathise with others.
#34
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
timefortea
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Only someone without children or without any experience of the work involved in raising children could use the term "life style choices" about a mother with children.
Absolutely agree. Some people are just looking for something to moan about, or lack the ability to empathise with others.
True.
It's a "life style choice" to go shopping & moaning at innocent folk while claiming to be disabled & desperately in need of a toilet.
If your so piggin desperate then get in the toilet & do your business instead of hanging about outside aiming your bile at young mothers who probably actually don't really want to use disabled facilities but have to for quite good reason.

Edited By: truffle6969 on Aug 16, 2016 14:55
#35
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
timefortea
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Only someone without children or without any experience of the work involved in raising children could use the term "life style choices" about a mother with children.
Absolutely agree. Some people are just looking for something to moan about, or lack the ability to empathise with others.
Strange. As far as I can tell, nearly every comment I've made shows empathy towards the legitimate user of these facilities - the disabled person.

Please feel free to continue to stalk me around the misc section making sly comments though. :)
#36
truffle6969
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
timefortea
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Only someone without children or without any experience of the work involved in raising children could use the term "life style choices" about a mother with children.
Absolutely agree. Some people are just looking for something to moan about, or lack the ability to empathise with others.
True.
It's a "life style choice" to go shopping & moaning at innocent folk while claiming to be disabled & desperately in need of a toilet.
If your so piggin desperate then get in the toilet & do your business instead of hanging about outside aiming your bile at young mothers who probably actually don't really want to use disabled facilities but have to for quite good reason.
Yes. Let the disabled wheelchair user struggle in the gents restroom. That'll teach him to be more considerate of the young.
2 Likes #37
stuarthanley
timefortea
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Only someone without children or without any experience of the work involved in raising children could use the term "life style choices" about a mother with children.
And your actual point is? Pretty sure that most disabled people didn't choose to be disabled and, for their benefit, systems have been put in place, such as disable friendly toilets, wider parking bays at the front of stores and wheelchair accessible ramps and drop kerbs.
Now if you condone the misuse of these facilities by people who don't need them but feel it's OK because it makes their life easier but, by doing so, makes the life of the intended user that little bit more difficult, then I feel ashamed for you.
I feel ashamed for you, that your disability has left you cold to the simple basic niceties in life, like tolerance & basic good manners & decency!
You make the Grinch look like Peter Andre!!!
Lol
1 Like #38
truffle6969
stuarthanley
timefortea
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Only someone without children or without any experience of the work involved in raising children could use the term "life style choices" about a mother with children.
And your actual point is? Pretty sure that most disabled people didn't choose to be disabled and, for their benefit, systems have been put in place, such as disable friendly toilets, wider parking bays at the front of stores and wheelchair accessible ramps and drop kerbs.
Now if you condone the misuse of these facilities by people who don't need them but feel it's OK because it makes their life easier but, by doing so, makes the life of the intended user that little bit more difficult, then I feel ashamed for you.
I feel ashamed for you, that your disability has left you cold to the simple basic niceties in life, like tolerance & basic good manners & decency!
You make the Grinch look like Peter Andre!!!
Lol
Perhaps you can't read properly or something so I'll let it slide but I've never said I was disabled. I've never said I was present when this incident happened. I've never said I've had a face to face argument with a parent outside of a toilet.
1 Like #39
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
timefortea
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Only someone without children or without any experience of the work involved in raising children could use the term "life style choices" about a mother with children.
And your actual point is? Pretty sure that most disabled people didn't choose to be disabled and, for their benefit, systems have been put in place, such as disable friendly toilets, wider parking bays at the front of stores and wheelchair accessible ramps and drop kerbs.
Now if you condone the misuse of these facilities by people who don't need them but feel it's OK because it makes their life easier but, by doing so, makes the life of the intended user that little bit more difficult, then I feel ashamed for you.
I feel ashamed for you, that your disability has left you cold to the simple basic niceties in life, like tolerance & basic good manners & decency!
You make the Grinch look like Peter Andre!!!
Lol
Perhaps you can't read properly or something so I'll let it slide but I've never said I was disabled. I've never said I was present when this incident happened. I've never said I've had a face to face argument with a parent outside of a toilet.
If you're not disabled, & assuming you don't hang about outside public lavvies, spoiling for a rumble with the mothers of young children, then why are you so short off good manners & decency, face to face, virtually or otherwise!
Are you just an argumentative **** , like me?

Edited By: truffle6969 on Aug 16, 2016 15:24
1 Like #40
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
timefortea
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
truffle6969
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
stuarthanley
fivegoldstars
I'm not sure if there's some element of confusion here.
The law states that companies etc have an obligation to provide facilities for the disabled, but I have never seen anything which states that these should be for the exclusive use of disabled people. Disabled toilets are not a 'perk' - they are provided so that disabled people have an accessible space i.e. wider doors, grab rails. To exclude others would be as discriminatory as failing to provide the toilets in the first place. Should non-disabled people always access buildings by the stairs and avoid the ramp, a legal accessibility obligation for those in wheelchairs?
As for the lady with the double buggy - I'm with her. With regards to the law surrounding these issues, the key is 'less favourable treatment'. If she is forced to struggle into a standard toilet - perhaps having to leave the buggy outside - then she is receiving less favourable treatment than someone who can use the disabled toilet, opening up the owner of the facility to prosecution.
Personally, I always toilet my daughter in the disabled toilets if a toilet has not been provided in the baby changing room. I don't think it appropriate to take her in the men's, nor do I like squeezing two people in a small cubicle and kneeling in the pool of fluids. I've never had an issue, never caused a disabled person to explode in a shower of urine, and would happily 'discuss' it with anybody who tried to tell me that I shouldn't be there.
I don't see the double buggy woman the same way. She's made a choice to use a wide double buggy and is therefore stopping someone with a genuine need for the room because of it.
But is she stopping someone? I've never had to queue. Using a toilet is hardly 'abusing the facilities'. It's not like she's throwing a party in there.
Sorry, I should have said that part of her story was that when she came out, there was a wheelchair user waiting to go in and he moaned at her. She was on the Facebook page trying to garner approval and justify herself.
For goodness sake Stuart.
If you have 2 kids, young enough or for whatever reason, to need to sit in a buggy during a shopping trip, then, believe me, a Double Buggy is the only way to go!
Would you have the poor woman luggage 2 separate buggies about while trying to shop?
Get a grip!!!
But she doesn't then have to use the disabled toilet cubicle because it's "more convenient" for her when there are other people, with legitimate needs, needing to use it.
Every other parent in store manages perfectly well with the facilities provided. What makes her so special? I find its much easier to park on the disabled bays at the front of the store. It's closer to the doors and the bays are wider. I DON'T DO IT because it's selfish and unfair on those needing the facilities.
Having Googled "double buggy", the majority of those on sale are one in front of the other. Theyre no wider than a standard buggy and maybe a little longer. No requirement to use the wider access etc.
Perhaps she made the choice to buy the side by side buggy instead.
Probably a good bit cheaper and roomier for older toddlers.
The single file style buggies tend to be for smaller babies, where the side by side will take up to around 3-4 year olds, depending on their size/weight, of course.
As a parent of 2 young boys (7 & 4 yrs in June) I can assure you that you need all the help you can get.
And not all stores have baby or children facilities.
I think you're wrong in your opinion re the lady with the kids.
Surely it isn't abusing the system of Disabled facilities in the same way as a perfectly fit able bodied person flagrantly disregarding the system for their own selfishness!
This mother of at least 2 had a genuine reason to need to use the facilities available for the easy access convenience, sure, then, obviously, for the safety & security of her children, to be in the same room as her, without having to leave any of her children outside a cubicle.
To have to take one or the other, or even both, into a tiny cublicle with you is both time consuming, unsanitary & distressing for parent & child.
As a parent I've had to do it once or twice and it's not easy.
Taking 1 child to the toilet is bad enough, I assure you.
Give this mother a break. She was arguably trying to do the best for her kids!
If that is being selfish then she's only as selfish as you for moaning at her.
So others should be inconvenienced because of her life style choices. Got ya.
Only someone without children or without any experience of the work involved in raising children could use the term "life style choices" about a mother with children.
And your actual point is? Pretty sure that most disabled people didn't choose to be disabled and, for their benefit, systems have been put in place, such as disable friendly toilets, wider parking bays at the front of stores and wheelchair accessible ramps and drop kerbs.
Now if you condone the misuse of these facilities by people who don't need them but feel it's OK because it makes their life easier but, by doing so, makes the life of the intended user that little bit more difficult, then I feel ashamed for you.
I feel ashamed for you, that your disability has left you cold to the simple basic niceties in life, like tolerance & basic good manners & decency!
You make the Grinch look like Peter Andre!!!
Lol
Perhaps you can't read properly or something so I'll let it slide but I've never said I was disabled. I've never said I was present when this incident happened. I've never said I've had a face to face argument with a parent outside of a toilet.
If you're not disabled, & assuming you don't hang about outside public lavvies, spoiling for a rumble with the mothers of young children, then why are you so short off good manners & decency, face to face, virtually or otherwise!
Are you just an argumentative **** , like me?
I was originally arguing with the woman on Asda Facebook page who was trying to argue her point of using the toilet when a disabled man in a wheelchair was stuck outside, waiting to use the facilities and he'd had a go at her for it.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!