More people with brain injuries than I thought.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You would have to ensure that you're reactions didn't fall foul of the Equality Act.

There should only be the need for the other party to mention that they have a disability that affects them once. If their behaviour towards them warranted it or it was clear that their disability wasn't being taken into account, further reminders may have to be made.

You've lost me now. It's responses like that that doesn't do you any favors, it can also make you a liability. But I'm sure you will not accept that.

Everyone here knows about your brain injury, but if you're not a nice person then you're not a nice person. For all I know you might not have been a nice person before your brain injury. Having a disability isn't a get out of jail free card when things don't go your way. But it seems you hide it behind it and use it as a tool. You need to take some responsibility for your own actions and also give allowances to others but obviously you don't and won't.

Anyway, I think we're off topic, it's just another thread for you to reinstate your own problems and agendas.

So what part of the Equality Act has anything to do with how one would react to someone with a brain injury?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by peanut

You've lost me now. It's responses like that that doesn't do you any favors, it can also make you a liability. But I'm sure you will not accept that.

Everyone here knows about your brain injury, but if you're not a nice person then you're not a nice person. For all I know you might not have been a nice person before your brain injury. Having a disability isn't a get out of jail free card when things don't go your way. But it seems you hide it behind it and use it as a tool. You need to take some responsibility for your own actions and also give allowances to others but obviously you don't and won't.

Anyway, I think we're off topic, it's just another thread for you to reinstate your own problems and agendas.

I simply responded to your post, but unfortunately it hasn't taken long for you to turn a reasonable discussion into a personal attack.

The vast majority of members do not know about the brain injuries of others on the forum.

So, do you think that the lady I mentioned who was shouting & swearing was using her dementia as a 'get out of jail card' and should take responsibility for her actions or that I should do the same regarding my cognitive issues? How about someone who develops epilepsy?

If you are saying that your own injury affects how you interact, think etc then if you clearly state this then of course I will take this into account.

Finally, this thread is not about me, but about the prevelance of brain injury survivors in existence today so yes, let's get back on topic.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy

So what part of the Equality Act has anything to do with how one would react to someone with a brain injury?

The law requires disabled people covered under the Equality Act to be trrated with kindness and respect, not to treat them less favourably than others, taunt them, mock them, make upsetting remarks or harrass them in any way.

A lot of it is common sense really and down to what decent people would do. For example, if you had a class and one member had a brain injury, you wouldn't allow another member of the class to bully, mock or continually harass them in everything they did for their own pleasure or entertainment.

[peanut]

It wasn't a personal attack and had I no intent, just stating a fact. Not my problem if you don't like what you hear.

You've made a rod for your own back and you have to live with that in your own way.

As for the rest. All just noise as it doesn't mean anything to me. You're impossible to converse with so therefore on that basis I'm out.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You would have to ensure that you're reactions didn't fall foul of the Equality Act.

There should only be the need for the other party to mention that they have a disability that affects them once. If their behaviour towards them warranted it or it was clear that their disability wasn't being taken into account, further reminders may have to be made.

Assuming peanut is neither an employer, a public authority and isn't a service provider as defined in the Act - what parts are they actually bound by?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Is it hidden if they talk about it all the time?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Yeah because it is not apparent from just looking at them.

Talking about issues with people you know or on a forum is one thing but unless you wear a banner saying "I have a brain injury" strangers will have no idea

100% I understand the challenges - a family member has been diagnosed with dementia and wishes to keep it from friends and wider family. It’s not good.

You were correct in your assessment of my initial comment.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I simply responded to your post, but unfortunately it hasn't taken long for you to turn a reasonable discussion into a personal attack.

The vast majority of members do not know about the brain injuries of others on the forum.

So, do you think that the lady I mentioned who was shouting & swearing was using her dementia as a 'get out of jail card' and should take responsibility for her actions or that I should do the same regarding my cognitive issues? How about someone who develops epilepsy?

If you are saying that your own injury affects how you interact, think etc then if you clearly state this then of course I will take this into account.

Finally, this thread is not about me, but about the prevelance of brain injury survivors in existence today so yes, let's get back on topic.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 ----------



The law requires disabled people covered under the Equality Act to be trrated with kindness and respect, not to treat them less favourably than others, taunt them, mock them, make upsetting remarks or harrass them in any way.

A lot of it is common sense really and down to what decent people would do. For example, if you had a class and one member had a brain injury, you wouldn't allow another member of the class to bully, mock or continually harass them in everything they did for their own pleasure or entertainment.

What has the equality act got to do with people posting on a forum or chatting in the street etc?

They aren't an employer or business or public sector. Also people want just shout about the act because they don't like what they here. If you annoy someone or act like a fool then that's not anything to do with a disability.

I have a number of health conditions that would enable me to be classed as disabled. However aside from claiming ADP and getting aids and tools when at work to help me I would never shout about them or claim discrimination because someone responded to me in a manner I didn't like.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There should only be the need for the other party to mention that they have a disability that affects them once.

Are you discriminating against people with memory issues (possibly due to a brain injury).

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

Are you discriminating against people with memory issues (possibly due to a brain injury).

No, if the person let it be known that they had such a problem then I would take this into consideration.

---------- Post added at 09:02 ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

It wasn't a personal attack and had I no intent, just stating a fact. Not my problem if you don't like what you hear.

You've made a rod for your own back and you have to live with that in your own way.

As for the rest. All just noise as it doesn't mean anything to me. You're impossible to converse with so therefore on that basis I'm out.

It's sometimes possible to get hold of the wrong end of the stick when communicating in written form. It's also possible that brain injuries contribute to this due to cognitive issues, it's not clear if you are affected in this way, so I agree that it's best if we leave it there.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No, if the person let it be known that they had such a problem then I would take this into consideration.

---------- Post added at 09:02 ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 ----------



It's sometimes possible to get hold of the wrong end of the stick when communicating in written form. It's also possible that brain injuries contribute to this due to cognitive issues, it's not clear if you are affected in this way, so I agree that it's best if we leave it there.

No I do not have a brain injury of any kind. As for 'consideration' what does that even mean? Does it mean I've taken your injury into consideration but you're still not a nice person? Does that mean I still have to make allowances for you? No I don't. You need to be a lot clearer.

We're still waiting on a response for your threat of using the equality act if we treat you differently.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by peanut

No I do not have a brain injury of any kind. As for 'consideration' what does that even mean? Does it mean I've taken your injury into consideration but you're still not a nice person? Does that mean I still have to make allowances for you? No I don't. You need to be a lot clearer.

We're still waiting on a response for your threat of using the equality act if we treat you differently.

There was no threat, this was advice for you to take into account anti discrimination laws when speaking to a disabled person. You are free to ignore it, but you run the risk of police action.

You keep stating things about 'Not very nice' people. This is a very immature outlook, but if you feel this way it's probably best to avoid people you feel this way about, particularly if they are in a protected group. The defence of 'I don't think that they're a nice person' (particularly where their behaviour is a result of a disability) would only serve to help the prosecution.

Not liking someone or forming the view that they are 'not a very nice person' doesn't give anybody the right to treat people badly and could be against the law.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There was no threat, this was advice for you to take into account anti discrimination laws when speaking to a disabled person. You are free to ignore it, but you run the risk of police action.

You keep stating things about 'Not very nice' people. This is a very immature outlook, but if you feel this way it's probably best to avoid people you feel this way about, particularly if they are in a protected group. The defence of 'I don't think that they're a nice person' (particularly where their behaviour is a result of a disability) would only serve to help the prosecution.

Not liking someone or forming the view that they are 'not a very nice person' doesn't give anybody the right to treat people badly and could be against the law.

I'm not talking about 'people' as I'm talking directly to you.

Have I mocked you? Been untruthful? Have I treated you badly? As for the rest... I rest my case.

If you want to call the police because I called you unpleasant, go ahead.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There was no threat, this was advice for you to take into account anti discrimination laws when speaking to a disabled person. You are free to ignore it, but you run the risk of police action.

You keep stating things about 'Not very nice' people. This is a very immature outlook, but if you feel this way it's probably best to avoid people you feel this way about, particularly if they are in a protected group. The defence of 'I don't think that they're a nice person' (particularly where their behaviour is a result of a disability) would only serve to help the prosecution.

Not liking someone or forming the view that they are 'not a very nice person' doesn't give anybody the right to treat people badly and could be against the law.

This is not based on fact - there has to be verbal abuse for it even to be considered to be against the law, and disagreeing with someone isn’t verbal abuse.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Stephen

What has the equality act got to do with people posting on a forum or chatting in the street etc?

They aren't an employer or business or public sector. Also people want just shout about the act because they don't like what they here. If you annoy someone or act like a fool then that's not anything to do with a disability.

I have a number of health conditions that would enable me to be classed as disabled. However aside from claiming ADP and getting aids and tools when at

work to help me I would never shout about them or claim discrimination because someone responded to me in a manner I didn't like.

You are correct in saying that the Equality Act is intended to deal with companies etc.

If an individual is causing problems it would be dealt with by the police as a hate crime.

You are incorrect with your comment 'If someone annoys you or acts like a fool it's nothing to do with disability.

If someone annoys you because they are walking slow due to having a new prosthetic leg fitted, that is related to disability. If someone, like the woman I met recently, shouts & swears in public due to dementia, is she acting like a fool according to you?

If innapropriate comments (or actions) were made to either of the above examples or to someone whose thinking skills & ability to express themselves are affected by disability (be it a brain injury, dementia or anything else) then one of my facilitators has outlined the behaviour expected:

It is disability discrimination if someone is harassing you because of your disability. You can take action about this.

Someone is harassing you if you find their behaviour towards you offensive, frightening, degrading, humiliating or in any way distressing. Examples of harassment could involve nicknames, teasing, name-calling, pulling faces, jokes, pranks or any other behaviour which you find upsetting because of your disability. Even if this behaviour is not deliberately meant to hurt you, it may still count as discrimination if you find it upsetting.

This would be logged and treated as a hate crime.

---------- Post added at 09:46 ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

This is not based on fact - there has to be verbal abuse for it even to be considered to be against the law, and disagreeing with someone isn’t verbal abuse.

See my reply to Stephen, though of course you are correct if verbal abuse takes place.

---------- Post added at 09:51 ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

It wasn't a personal attack and had I no intent, just stating a fact. Not my problem if you don't like what you hear.

You've made a rod for your own back and you have to live with that in your own way.

As for the rest. All just noise as it doesn't mean anything to me. You're impossible to converse with so therefore on that basis I'm out.

Can you please state exactly what you mean by the comment that I have 'created a rod for my own back'?

I don't understand what you mean.

---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

I'm not talking about 'people' as I'm talking directly to you.

Have I mocked you? Been untruthful? Have I treated you badly? As for the rest... I rest my case.

If you want to call the police because I called you unpleasant, go ahead.

Thank you for making this clear.

Can you please state why you are calling me 'unpleasant' as this has upset me.