Should obesity be treated as a disability?

First topic message reminder :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2656063/Should-obesity-classed-disability-Debate-rages-25st-man-takes-employer-sacked-fat.html

Cant see this on a search so thought I would start it.

I think this is a difficult one - on first thoughts it looks simple but the more you think about it the more confused it gets.

Raggamuffin wrote:So then, what do people think is reasonable when making allowances for obese people (or disabled people)? This man apparently couldn't do a lot of things which were involved in his job, so is it fair to his employer that they have to keep someone on who can't do the job?

Re building disabled toilets in installing lifts or whatever, that's probably not a problem in a large company with modern premises, but what about other smaller companies where space is limited and/or it would be too expensive to start putting in lifts or new toilets?

Reasonable adjustments include retraining to take another role within the employers structure - which would have been an option for the obese man - he could have been trained and put on the paperwork side for example which is what would have happened if he had suffered a back injury that prevented him bending over to tie laces.

The majority of smaller companies these days are in shared rented accommodation - and it is acceptable to have one disabled facility to share among several businesses, and part of the responsibility falls on the landlord. So one 3 story office block could have one lift and one disabled access toilet on the ground floor to server 6 small companies within it.

Tommy Monk wrote:I have read that thyroid problems can increase appetite.
Maybe that is The reason for any weight gain.....?

That is hyper (above normal) thyroidism not hypo (under normal) thyroidism.

The thyroid can go wrong in 2 directions - it can over produce the hormone resulting in someone feeling like they are on a permanent speed trip and eating vast amounts but not gaining weight (sometimes even loosing it despite eating vast amounts) or it can under produce resulting in tiredness, lack of energy, and meaning food is just not burned up so someone on stupidly small amounts does not loose weight and may gain.

Raggamuffin wrote:The other thing is that a lot of work contracts are temporary, so the employer doesn't have to have an excuse to lay someone off if, for example, they decide the can't afford them or there's not enough work. If someone is disabled and is on a temporary contract, are they still able to lay that person off without breaking the law?

Actually the law is that a company cannot refuse to employ someone because of disability and all companies should have reasonable accessibility and adaptations as a matter of course whether or not they at that time have a disabled employee.

If a person in a wheelchair goes for a temporary contract but is refused it despite being the best qualified simply because of their disability then they can take that employer to court.

There are rules in law about the size of company, type of job, etc etc - your epileptic cannot demand employment as a bus driver for instance but accessibility and non discrimination are legally protected. To be honest in most cases the problem is not needing a special toilet but simply needing access to the toilet everyone else uses - you would not believe how many places have their toilets up or down a small step. In such cases the answer is the installation of a ramp - however ironically it may be more expensive to install a ramp than it is to install a disabled toilet - so the toilet is installed instead.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
The other thing is that a lot of work contracts are temporary, so the employer doesn't have to have an excuse to lay someone off if, for example, they decide the can't afford them or there's not enough work. If someone is disabled and is on a temporary contract, are they still able to lay that person off without breaking the law?

Actually the law is that a company cannot refuse to employ someone because of disability and all companies should have reasonable accessibility and adaptations as a matter of course whether or not they at that time have a disabled employee.

If a person in a wheelchair goes for a temporary contract but is refused it despite being the best qualified simply because of their disability then they can take that employer to court.

.....................................

::=|Q:: 

HOW can you possibly know that a person misses out on a job because of a certain disability, unless the employer is ready to admit that this limitation(s) is the actual and primary reason for passing over that candidate ?

NOTHING to stop that potential employer proffering half a dozen other plausible reasons for not hiring anybody in the first place, is there ?

HOW can you prove that the disabled person is "the best qualified" for that position these days, anyway ~ when the privacy rights of all other applicants will trump your desire to know ?

GOOD LUCK to anyone trying this gambit in court in this day and age..

(AS FAR as disabled and wheelchair access to buildings, and disabled toilets, showers and bathrooms, goes ~ in most leading Western countries these days these are part of current building standards for workplaces, hospitals, retirement and nursing homes, and educational institutions, that are built or renovated after a certain date..).    

Lone Wolf wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually the law is that a company cannot refuse to employ someone because of disability and all companies should have reasonable accessibility and adaptations as a matter of course whether or not they at that time have a disabled employee.

If a person in a wheelchair goes for a temporary contract but is refused it despite being the best qualified simply because of their disability then they can take that employer to court.

.....................................

::=|Q:: 

HOW can you possibly know that a person misses out on a job because of a certain disability, unless the employer is ready to admit that this limitation(s) is the actual and primary reason for passing over that candidate ?

NOTHING to stop that potential employer proffering half a dozen other plausible reasons for not hiring anybody in the first place, is there ?

HOW can you prove that the disabled person is "the best qualified" for that position these days, anyway ~ when the privacy rights of all other applicants will trump your desire to know ?

GOOD LUCK to anyone trying this gambit in court in this day and age..

(AS FAR as disabled and wheelchair access to buildings, and disabled toilets, showers and bathrooms, goes ~ in most leading Western countries these days these are part of current building standards for workplaces, hospitals, retirement and nursing homes, and educational institutions, that are built or renovated after a certain date..).    

They manage it the same way they do racial discrimination and now age discrimination.

How does the black guy prove he was turned down for a job by his skin colour?

Sassy wrote:

Joy Division wrote:



 ::smthg:: 

There you go JD, Nems's agenda never changes, sad and pathetic.  

Yeah yeah yeah,it wasn't so long ago we were agreeing what a perverted little weirdo JD is. The pair of you have very short memories

You can always be sure of Spassy and that stiletto knife.

That she has the cheek to pretend it isn't her who sticks the knife in beggars belief.

Hey ho better back of today she rather lost it yesterday. She probably gets tired dragging that huge derriere around poor thing.

Nems wrote:

Sassy wrote:

There you go JD, Nems's agenda never changes, sad and pathetic.  

Yeah yeah yeah,it wasn't so long ago we were agreeing what a perverted little weirdo JD is. The pair of you have very short memories

I don't ever recall this Nems, it would just be like to cry the usual party piece with stuff like that anyway, you wouldn't be the first right enough,

So of course, as this is news to me, can you show me where you and sassy were saying such stuff? 

The truth is Nems, you love to put a wedge between people, lie about them and be malicious and hope it sticks...and you will side with anyone who has issues with either me or sassy.

Joy Division wrote:

Nems wrote:

Yeah yeah yeah,it wasn't so long ago we were agreeing what a perverted little weirdo JD is. The pair of you have very short memories

I don't ever recall this Nems, it would just be like to cry the usual party piece with stuff like that anyway, you wouldn't be the first right enough,

So of course, as this is news to me, can you show me where you and sassy were saying such stuff? 

The truth is Nems, you love to put a wedge between people, lie about them and be malicious and hope it sticks...and you will side with anyone who has issues with either me or sassy.

Why would you have been aware of it?
JD you wouldn't know the truth if it bit your arse, you tell that many lies, you are a stranger to the truth.

Nems wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


I don't ever recall this Nems, it would just be like to cry the usual party piece with stuff like that anyway, you wouldn't be the first right enough,

So of course, as this is news to me, can you show me where you and sassy were saying such stuff? 

The truth is Nems, you love to put a wedge between people, lie about them and be malicious and hope it sticks...and you will side with anyone who has issues with either me or sassy.

Why would you have been aware of it?
JD you wouldn't know the truth if it bit your arse, you tell that many lies, you are a stranger to the truth.

Oh right, I'm not In the habit of lying Nems,,,can you show me where I've been doing so?

Joy Division wrote:

Nems wrote:

Why would you have been aware of it?
JD you wouldn't know the truth if it bit your arse, you tell that many lies, you are a stranger to the truth.

Oh right, I'm not  In the habit of lying  Nems,,,can you show me where I've been doing so?

Answer my question

I guess this is the fun and lightheartedness Nems was asking for.  ::D:: 

Nems wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

Oh right, I'm not  In the habit of lying  Nems,,,can you show me where I've been doing so?

Answer my question

You said in your earlier post..." Both me and sassy have short memories because she was calling me names with you"..

So exactly...if I never knew this then how can me having a short memory possibly come Into that when I never knew anyway?..

sphinx wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:
::=|Q:: 

HOW can you possibly know that a person misses out on a job because of a certain disability, unless the employer is ready to admit that this limitation(s) is the actual and primary reason for passing over that candidate ?

NOTHING to stop that potential employer proffering half a dozen other plausible reasons for not hiring anybody in the first place, is there ?

HOW can you prove that the disabled person is "the best qualified" for that position these days, anyway ~ when the privacy rights of all other applicants will trump your desire to know ?

GOOD LUCK to anyone trying this gambit in court in this day and age..

(AS FAR as disabled and wheelchair access to buildings, and disabled toilets, showers and bathrooms, goes ~ in most leading Western countries these days these are part of current building standards for workplaces, hospitals, retirement and nursing homes, and educational institutions, that are built or renovated after a certain date..).    

They manage it the same way they do racial discrimination and now age discrimination.

How does the black guy prove he was turned down for a job by his skin colour?

Exactly right Sphinx. We have laws to govern discrimination, whatever the reason, and laws to make sure that employers take disabilities into account. There is also money to help employers if they need to adapt to a disabled person.

They can't yell one minute that the disabled work or they are scroungers, and then say they can't work because they can't make a loo they can get to!

And if sassy has called me names Nems , it may be because she was pissed of at me when we fell out before as we both exchanged words at the time...

And I believe the majority of insults toward me were force fed by YOU to Sassy.

Sassy wrote:I guess this is the fun and lightheartedness Nems was asking for.  ::D:: 

Aye, typical Nems fashion   

Sassy wrote:I guess this is the fun and lightheartedness Nems was asking for.  ::D:: 

The request you responded to by saying I had an agenda and was sad and pathetic?

Nems wrote:

Sassy wrote:I guess this is the fun and lightheartedness Nems was asking for.  ::D:: 

The request you responded to by saying I had an agenda and was sad  and pathetic?

Well you do and are, as your posts on this thread show.

Now perhaps you could break the habit and discuss the thread OP?

But Nems,,on all truth, you were always one of those who would pretend and act overly offended if I said things like ' farter'  and  " red rum", then say I was a pervert for saying daft words like that...

Like I said, there are others like you too who use that as their party piece and hope it sticks  

Awa n' tell admin what bad bastards me and Sassy are Nems and what a huge mistake he's made in allowing us to be members,,,

Geez another laugh! 

..mind the kisses x

Joy Division wrote:

Nems wrote:
Answer my question

You said in your earlier post..." Both me and sassy have short memories because she was calling me names with you"..

So exactly...if I never knew this then how can me having a short memory possibly come Into that when I never knew anyway?..

To simplify for JD Yes she has a short memory treating you as NBF when she was calling you along with me.

And you have a short memory as you appear to have forgotten again that some of us remember JD when he was racist and homophobic as well as sleazy and seedy.
You are still sleazy and seedy only now its together with faux pc.

Sassy wrote:

Nems wrote:

The request you responded to by saying I had an agenda and was sad  and pathetic?

Well you do and are, as your posts on this thread show.

Now perhaps you could break the habit and discuss the thread OP?

After you.
Oh forgot to say yes I do know someone else with thyroid problems, two in fact, funny thing though, it didnt make either of them overbearing, arrogant hard faced, two faced or attention seeking

Obesity?...

If a person is eating sensibly but cannot now matter how hard they try lose anymore weight and are still classed as a good bit overweight, then there probably is an underlying problem that is outwith their control like an underactive thyroid as Sassy said earlier...

Could even just be they are much bigger boned or their metabolism in some way?

Joy Division wrote:But Nems,,on all truth, you were always one of those who would pretend and act overly offended if I said things like ' farter'  and  " red rum", then say I was a pervert for saying daft words like that...

Like I said, there are others like you too who use that as their party piece and hope it sticks  

No JD I think you are coarse and common for using those expressions. I think you are sleazy because you are sleazy.

I've already reply to Sphinx about the OP. Funnily enough, I know someone with your problems as well, and it doesn't make her a control freak who stabs friends in the back when they won't post the way you want them to post. Now, as all of that is very old hat, and I'm sure you don't want to bore the forum to death, perhaps you could try and move on, so much better for your health.

Nems wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


You said in your earlier post..." Both me and sassy have short memories because she was calling me names with you"..

So exactly...if I never knew this then how can me having a short memory possibly come Into that when I never knew anyway?..

To simplify for JD Yes she has a short memory treating you as NBF when she was calling you along with me.

And you have a short memory as you appear to have forgotten again that some of us remember JD when he was racist and homophobic as well as sleazy and seedy.
You are still sleazy and seedy only now its together with faux pc.

Seedy? Racist? Homophobe?

I've never been any of these,malt bough I did use terms like ' horse hoof' ' shirtlfter' , as ridiculous insults to others when bickering...of course that was wrong and I was often matching the level set by opponents and at the time I thought it was a good way to hurt the,...
But it was anything but, I've learned that Nems, but you don't have seem to have learned anything in all that time that has past.



Racist?...I'm really interested in that one, have you got evidence of this racism?..something I loathe...

Seedy...that's just a thing you say because I used terms like ' farter' , to then label me as a pervert or seedy as you say...

If you want seedy then get a box of Trill...then you'll be Trilled!!


Na , your talking out of your backside Nems,,,,yet again.

Nems wrote:

Joy Division wrote:But Nems,,on all truth, you were always one of those who would pretend and act overly offended if I said things like ' farter'  and  " red rum", then say I was a pervert for saying daft words like that...

Like I said, there are others like you too who use that as their party piece and hope it sticks  

No JD I think you are coarse and common  for using those expressions. I think you are sleazy because you are sleazy.

I like soft Cell Nems..,they have a song called Seedy films!  


Coarse and common! ::smthg:: 

So you've heard my voice now then?

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The other thing is that a lot of work contracts are temporary, so the employer doesn't have to have an excuse to lay someone off if, for example, they decide the can't afford them or there's not enough work. If someone is disabled and is on a temporary contract, are they still able to lay that person off without breaking the law?

Actually the law is that a company cannot refuse to employ someone because of disability and all companies should have reasonable accessibility and adaptations as a matter of course whether or not they at that time have a disabled employee.

If a person in a wheelchair goes for a temporary contract but is refused it despite being the best qualified simply because of their disability then they can take that employer to court.

There are rules in law about the size of company, type of job, etc etc - your epileptic cannot demand employment as a bus driver for instance but accessibility and non discrimination are legally protected.  To be honest in most cases the problem is not needing a special toilet but simply needing access to the toilet everyone else uses - you would not believe how many places have their toilets up or down a small step.  In such cases the answer is the installation of a ramp - however ironically it may be more expensive to install a ramp than it is to install a disabled toilet - so the toilet is installed instead.

But there are jobs which someone in a wheelchair is clearly not suited to. Shelf stacking for example.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So then, what do people think is reasonable when making allowances for obese people (or disabled people)? This man apparently couldn't do a lot of things which were involved in his job, so is it fair to his employer that they have to keep someone on who can't do the job?

Re building disabled toilets in installing lifts or whatever, that's probably not a problem in a large company with modern premises, but what about other smaller companies where space is limited and/or it would be too expensive to start putting in lifts or new toilets?

Reasonable adjustments include retraining to take another role within the employers structure - which would have been an option for the obese man - he could have been trained and put on the paperwork side for example which is what would have happened if he had suffered a back injury that prevented him bending over to tie laces.

The majority of smaller companies these days are in shared rented accommodation - and it is acceptable to have one disabled facility to share among several businesses, and part of the responsibility falls on the landlord.  So one 3 story office block could have one lift and one disabled access toilet on the ground floor to server 6 small companies within it.

It's a lot easier to not employ a disabled person really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually the law is that a company cannot refuse to employ someone because of disability and all companies should have reasonable accessibility and adaptations as a matter of course whether or not they at that time have a disabled employee.

If a person in a wheelchair goes for a temporary contract but is refused it despite being the best qualified simply because of their disability then they can take that employer to court.

There are rules in law about the size of company, type of job, etc etc - your epileptic cannot demand employment as a bus driver for instance but accessibility and non discrimination are legally protected.  To be honest in most cases the problem is not needing a special toilet but simply needing access to the toilet everyone else uses - you would not believe how many places have their toilets up or down a small step.  In such cases the answer is the installation of a ramp - however ironically it may be more expensive to install a ramp than it is to install a disabled toilet - so the toilet is installed instead.

But there are jobs which someone in a wheelchair is clearly not suited to. Shelf stacking for example.

We are not discussing jobs a disabled person can't physically do, we are discussing jobs a disabled person CAN do providing they have the right assistance, ie toilets etc, that the law requires the employer to provide.

Now, you are one of the people that is most insistant that disabled people can work, so why shy away from them being given assistance to work that is required by the law?

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But there are jobs which someone in a wheelchair is clearly not suited to. Shelf stacking for example.

We are not discussing jobs a disabled person can't physically do, we are discussing jobs a disabled person CAN do providing they have the right assistance, ie toilets etc, that the law requires the employer to provide.

Now, you are one of the people that is most insistant that disabled people can work, so why shy away from them being given assistance to work that is required by the law?

I'm just being practical. An employer who rents an old building isn't going to start installing a lift - there probably isn't room anyway. I was asking about who decides what is reasonable. I assume it depends on the nature of the business and the premises.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

We are not discussing jobs a disabled person can't physically do, we are discussing jobs a disabled person CAN do providing they have the right assistance, ie toilets etc, that the law requires the employer to provide.

Now, you are one of the people that is most insistant that disabled people can work, so why shy away from them being given assistance to work that is required by the law?

I'm just being practical. An employer who rents an old building isn't going to start installing a lift - there probably isn't room anyway. I was asking about who decides what is reasonable. I assume it depends on the nature of the business and the premises.

These are the lawful requirements that all employers have to provide:

What welfare facilities do I need to provide to my employees?

The law, Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, states that employers must provide ‘suitable and sufficient’ welfare facilities for the well-being of their employees while at work.

Welfare facilities cover such areas as toilets, washing, somewhere clean to eat and drink during breaks and changing facilities.

The extent of the facilities you need to have in place will depend somewhat on the number of people you employ and the work they will be undertaking but as a guide you will need to provide:

Enough toilets and washbasins for those expected to use them – including disabled toilets.
Where possible, separate male and female facilities.
Clean, well-lit and ventilated facilities.
Supply of hot and cold running water.
Supply of toilet paper, soap and means for drying hands – eg paper towels.
An area for eating and drinking with a way of getting a hot drink e.g. kettle or vending machine.
A way of heating food eg microwave if hot food can not be purchased near by.
Supply of clean drinking water either tap or bottled.
Changing facilities if the work involves wearing specialist clothing.
Rest facilities for pregnant and nursing mothers.

'Welfare at Work - Guidance for employers on welfare provision' (172KB) gives more information

Remember if your staff work at remote workplaces or on construction sites, you still need to make appropriate arrangements – eg chemical toilets, water containers etc.

Download 'Provision of welfare facilities at transient construction sites (29.11KB)

Download 'Provision of welfare facilities at fixed construction sites'(28.33KB)

http://www.healthandsafetyworksni.gov.uk/index/quick-help/faqs-2/welfare.htm

So if the toilets are upstairs from the working area, and there is no way a lift can be installed, what happens then?

A friend of mine had a job which involved going up and down stairs a lot. She couldn't manage it and had to leave.

Raggamuffin wrote:So if the toilets are upstairs from the working area, and there is no way a lift can be installed, what happens then?

A friend of mine had a job which involved going up and down stairs a lot. She couldn't manage it and had to leave.

I'd say the building would need to have a downstairs toilet installed.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So if the toilets are upstairs from the working area, and there is no way a lift can be installed, what happens then?

A friend of mine had a job which involved going up and down stairs a lot. She couldn't manage it and had to leave.

I'd say the building would need to have a downstairs toilet installed.

That's not always possible.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So if the toilets are upstairs from the working area, and there is no way a lift can be installed, what happens then?

A friend of mine had a job which involved going up and down stairs a lot. She couldn't manage it and had to leave.

I'd say the building would need to have a downstairs toilet installed.

That's not always possible.

Of course, the other option is to get a better location for the business.

Sassy wrote:I've already reply to Sphinx about the OP.   Funnily enough, I know someone with your problems as well, and it doesn't make her a control freak who stabs friends in the back when they won't post the way you want them to post.   Now, as all of that is very old hat, and I'm sure you don't want to bore the forum to death, perhaps you could try and move on, so much better for your health.  

How could anyone ever stab you in the back? You've that many faces we wouldn't find the back

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not always possible.

Of course, the other option is to get a better location for the business.

Just to employ a disabled person? There are many old buildings in the UK, and it's just not reasonable to expect them to be altered so much.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not always possible.

Of course, the other option is to get a better location for the business.

Just to employ a disabled person? There are many old buildings in the UK, and it's just not reasonable to expect them to be altered so much.

It is the law, is it not?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Just to employ a disabled person? There are many old buildings in the UK, and it's just not reasonable to expect them to be altered so much.

It is the law, is it not?

It doesn't seem to be set in stone. I guess it depends on the type of building. A lot of shops are in old buildings and there would be no point using sales space to build a toilet or put in a lift just to go one floor.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

It is the law, is it not?

It doesn't seem to be set in stone. I guess it depends on the type of building. A lot of shops are in old buildings and there would be no point using sales space to build a toilet or put in a lift just to go one floor.

What? Of course it is set in stone, it does not depend on the building, it is facilities that have, by law, to be provided.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Just to employ a disabled person? There are many old buildings in the UK, and it's just not reasonable to expect them to be altered so much.

It is the law, is it not?

It doesn't seem to be set in stone. I guess it depends on the type of building. A lot of shops are in old buildings and there would be no point using sales space to build a toilet or put in a lift just to go one floor.

I don't know much about how it is there; in the U.S. we have the Americans With Disabilities Act but a lot of places have been slow to implement it.

I remember when I was at university they made a big deal about adding a wheelchair access ramp to get into the basement level of the library. Once it was installed, it sloped at about a 15 degree angle and featured a right-angle turn at the very bottom -- it was a joke and an insult to our disabled students. It took them years to fix it properly.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't seem to be set in stone. I guess it depends on the type of building. A lot of shops are in old buildings and there would be no point using sales space to build a toilet or put in a lift just to go one floor.

What?   Of course it is set in stone, it does not depend on the building, it is facilities that have, by law, to be provided.

Not the disabled toilet bit. I've worked in many places which don't have one, and the toilets are upstairs.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

What?   Of course it is set in stone, it does not depend on the building, it is facilities that have, by law, to be provided.

Not the disabled toilet bit. I've worked in many places which don't have one, and the toilets are upstairs.

Did they have disabled people working there? If a disabled person applied for the job, had the best credentials and got it, they would have to provide a disabled loo. If on the other hand, the disabled person had the best credentials and didn't get the job, they could take the company to court for discrimination.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not the disabled toilet bit. I've worked in many places which don't have one, and the toilets are upstairs.

Did they have disabled people working there?   If a disabled person applied for the job, had the best credentials and got it, they would have to provide a disabled loo.   If on the other hand, the disabled person had the best credentials and didn't get the job, they could take the company to court for discrimination.

It's probably better if the disabled person applies for jobs in buildings which are more modern rather than expect someone to change an old building just to build a toilet.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not the disabled toilet bit. I've worked in many places which don't have one, and the toilets are upstairs.

Did they have disabled people working there?   If a disabled person applied for the job, had the best credentials and got it, they would have to provide a disabled loo.   If on the other hand, the disabled person had the best credentials and didn't get the job, they could take the company to court for discrimination.

It's probably better if the disabled person applies for jobs in buildings which are more modern rather than expect someone to change an old building just to build a toilet.

Of course, that assumes a pretty good job market.

JD was the target for some of the most vindictive and disgusting abuse that I have witnessed on some forums and much of what he went back with was just getting back at people. People were calling him stuff like Spazzy (spastic) and Downy (Downs Syndrome) and a paedo child fiddler and I didn't see many jumping in to condemn that at the time. And all because he was anti-Tory and got stuck in about them.

JD will admit himself that some of his stuff was wrong and over the top at the time but he has come a long way since those days. You know, sometimes people actually benefit from being on forums and JD is one of them in that he has for a long time not been much like what he was back in those early days.

He runs his own business and has a family that he looks after just as much as anyone else.

Just a bit of backgound really and a reminder that abuse sometimes cuts both ways.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't seem to be set in stone. I guess it depends on the type of building. A lot of shops are in old buildings and there would be no point using sales space to build a toilet or put in a lift just to go one floor.

I don't know much about how it is there; in the U.S. we have the Americans With Disabilities Act but a lot of places have been slow to implement it.

I remember when I was at university they made a big deal about adding a wheelchair access ramp to get into the basement level of the library. Once it was installed, it sloped at about a 15 degree angle and featured a right-angle turn at the very bottom -- it was a joke and an insult to our disabled students. It took them years to fix it properly.

"Americans With Disabilities Act"

My god Benji, what about everybody else?

Disgusting!

Irn Bru wrote:JD was the target for some of the most vindictive and disgusting abuse that I have witnessed on some forums and much of what he went back with was just getting back at people. People were calling him stuff like Spazzy (spastic) and Downy (Downs Syndrome) and a paedo child fiddler and I didn't see many jumping in to condemn that at the time. And all because he was anti-Tory and got stuck in about them.

JD will admit himself that some of his stuff was wrong and over the top at the time but he has come a long way since those days. You know, sometimes people actually benefit from being on forums and JD is one of them in that he has for a long time not been much like what he was back in those early days.

He runs his own business and has a family that he looks after just as much as anyone else.

Just a bit of backgound really and a reminder that abuse sometimes cuts both ways.

I could never have put that better myself Irn, i really appreciate that and although I've been in feuds with some who had actually started them , I can honestly admit as you say Irn,I did rise to it at times with stupid insults of my own, but never near the depths of what has been thrown at me...

And tbh, I was t the only target, yourself, KD , Scrat and some others were also targeted , I was just a bit too naive and daft to let those insults get to me, especially the ones that target my kids to get a reaction .


Thanks Irn

sphinx wrote:Fred I think you mean an under-active thyroid not over-active.

As for costs - it would cost less to put obese people on benefits than it would to give them effective treatment.

Maybe he's referring to those instances where people have an overactive removed or knocked out, leading to consequent hypothyroidism.