Letters - February 2008

Cruising IS plain sailing

In the feature about cruising (Disability Now January, Travel), Marion Bull says: “All companies insist on a non-disabled travelling companion.”

May I correct this statement. My husband and I both use electric wheelchairs. Thanks to information given to us by Accessible Travel and Leisure, we have enjoyed three cruises with Royal Caribbean and had no problems. The disabled staterooms have a ramp to the balcony, everywhere is accessible, and we have never been asked to take anyone with us. Possibly it is just English cruise lines that insist on companions. Royal Caribbean, which is American, does not discriminate against disabled passengers.
Marion Webb, Bexleyheath, Kent

Note from Marion Bull: the requirement to have a non-disabled travelling companion applies to those who require assistance with wheelchairs, eg folding wheelchairs. Some companies may be OK with people with electric wheelchairs, although not all of them are. The usual wording in brochures is that the crew cannot assist (unless with adaptations, ramps, etc). The best advice is to check with the company.


Money was not the motivation

I was irritated to see that an Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) spokeswoman had said that “offers were conveyed to Joanne Holland that she could not refuse” (EHRC could force Arcadia to act on access, disabilitynow.org.uk) regarding settlement of my case against Arcadia. This was misleading and implied, wrongly, that Arcadia paid me off. The EHRC concedes that this might give the wrong impression about me.

Arcadia knew all along that they couldn’t buy me off. They needed to address the access issue and the discrimination it created. Money was not the reason I pursued them: disability rights was. I donated the majority of the money to charity, despite being on benefits! I gave £4,000 to Ataxia UK.

I was gutted when the lift was installed in the Burton store in Stafford, forcing me to settle. We were so close to holding Arcadia to account for flouting the Disability Discrimination Act.

I desperately hope the EHRC can be persuaded to use its statutory powers to deal with Arcadia (and other culprits) who continue to exclude disabled people. Someone has to point out that they are not above the law.
Joanne Holland, by email


Dice are loaded with benefits ‘purge’

I am very concerned by the Department for Work and Pensions drive to remove as many people from incapacity benefit as possible. I have just been “assessed” as fit to work, despite submitting a detailed form confirming why I cannot sustain any meaningful activity. I have chronic fatigure syndrome, which was confirmed by a specialist in 1992. I have seen several letters in the ME Association magazine which confirmed that people are being incorrectly passed as being fit to work.

I have lost any entitlement to income support and so do not have any income at all at this stage. I understand that legal aid is available to obtain advice prior to a tribunal hearing but will not cover representation at a hearing. It would appear that a claimant is expected to present their own case even if fatigued and mentally compromised. Is this is a fair hearing under the Human Rights Act? Having visited the benefitsandwork website, there appears to be widespread anxiety about the current “purge”. The dice seem to be loaded against the claimant.
Name and address supplied


We agreed to op 35 years ago

I have to disagree with the comment by Emma Bowler (Disability Now November, Media Watch) that “if the operation [on Katie Thorpe] is carried out, it will be the first time a hysterectomy has been performed in the UK without being needed medically”.

My daughter (now aged 48) had this operation performed at Guy’s Hospital 35 years ago, also without being needed medically. Judy cannot walk, talk, feed, dress or toilet herself. Her mental age is about one-and-a-half to two years. At the time, she was about 11 stone and wheelchair-bound. My husband and I did not take this decision lightly but having talked with a doctor and consultant at Guy’s, the operation was carried out.

Judy is now in a Scope home (having lived at home for more than 30 years), and is very well looked after, with exemplary care, and is very happy.

This decision was one of the best we have made. If Judy was ever raped, she would become pregnant. I realise each case has to be decided individually, which was so in Judy’s case.
Barbara Holloway, Biggin Hill, Kent


Tesco is scared of bay abusers

When you published the results of your Baywatch survey (Disability Now October, page 1), detailing the major supermarkets’ attitudes towards disabled parking, it showed that 63 per cent of Tesco staff had a poor or very poor response to customer complaints. The article said Tesco had no plans to introduce stricter abuse enforcement.

In December, the Daily Mail reported that the Tesco store in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, had written to a disabled couple to tell them that they had parked for more than three hours in a disabled bay while Christmas shopping and if it happened again they would be fined £100.

It would appear that Tesco is afraid of any possible confrontation from aggressive bay abusers, and would rather upset the disabled minority.
P Schofield, Market Harborough, Lincolnshire


Independence and choice are key

I was surprised at your comment about the “emphasis on institutional care and segregated settings” (Disability Now January, Religion: the final frontier) when referring to Norwood’s services. This description is both misleading and inaccurate.

The reference was about Ravenswood Village, our residential community in Berkshire for people with learning disabilities. Aside from the village, we offer  several other models of accommodation for our service-users, including supported housing, independent homes and small registered care homes across London, all of which are in the heart of urban communities, close to Jewish communities that support them.

When it opened in the 1950s, Ravenswood service-users may not have had choices but today each individual chooses whether to stay there as part of their person-centred plan.

These days, the facility is used and sought out by people who feel safer and happier in a large countryside setting with specialist support. Often, these are adult service-users who have tried living in a community house and found that it neither welcomed them nor provided for their special needs.

The aim of all our services, regardless of where they are, is to be individually focused. We support users to be as independent as possible, hence our strong emphasis on employment opportun­ities and training. You should have looked beyond location in assessing what constitutes an institution. These are created through negative attitudes and poor practices, not through buildings.
Norma Brier, chief executive, Norwood