Anger over no disabled toilets in the main stand at Turf Moor

[MACCA]

Lancs Telegraph running an article about a disabled mans experience when he went on Saturdays game v Brighton.


https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... OB1eK3OWmU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Be interesting to hear the opinions of the UTC community.

[Rick_Muller]

My initial thought was that he should have been permitted to use any toilet with his carer, but then I re-read the report and it seemed like another excuse to have a pop at the club - but that is likely to be the journalist and not the gentleman the article is about.

The toilet facilities are very poor at the club for everyone and the disabled toilet facilities are non existent - at least I have't seen any in the ground (perhaps someone could tell me which stands have what facilities). Where possible, I do my best to try and not to have to use the facilities at the ground, but with my disease (Ulcerative Colitis) that is not always possible and it does cause me some anxiety about going to Turf Moor because of the lack of clean toilets to use. I have had to spend 5 minutes cleaning a cubicle many times before using it because most blokes cant seem to point their inadequate things towards the target (I bet these are the same blokes who criticise our forwards for missing the goal too...!) - and that's if I can actually get something to clean them with. These days I usually go prepared though and I have a small bottle of disinfectant and cleaning wipes and some bog roll on me at all times, but I shouldn't have to.

[Cleveleys_claret]

Terrible response from the club.

[Rick_Muller]

Terrible response from the club.

A club spokesman said: “Burnley Football Club is currently investing £5m to upgrade our Accessible Stadia facilities.

“We fully appreciate they do not come up to the required standard currently and, in this instance, we made every effort to help Mr Helm by offering alternative arrangements, including using accessible toilet facilities within the same stand in corporate areas.

“However, Mr Helm was adamant that he wanted an accessible toilet in the concourse of the James Hargreaves Stand.

“At this time, regrettably, there are no such facilities in this location and never have been since the completion of the stand in 1996.

“The multi-million-pound investment will make Turf Moor fully accessible, with new facilities available to all disabled supporters attending Turf Moor.”

I dont see how it is a terrible response. They offered an alternative, and he refused.

[mealdeal]

Terrible response from the club.

The lack of facilities is poor and being addressed but I fail to see why the response to this incident is terrible. He was according to the article offered two solutions to his immediate problem and rejected them both, what is the club supposed to do?

[claretonthecoast1882]

I dont see how it is a terrible response. They offered an alternative, and he refused.

It's cleveleys, had they given him a box with a toilet with a view of the pitch and compensated him with £2,000,000 he would have moaned at the club.


Reading the article, his attitude comes across clear. The justification for not wanting to walk down the side of the pitch is weak, maybe he could have used the same facilities he has used every other game he has attended.

[wilks_bfc]

I’m not being funny here but it’s not as though it’s not like he’s a new fan to the club, he’s been a fan for years has he never had to use the toilet before?
It’s not like we have removed the disabled toilets - we’ve never had them.

I agree that the disabled facilities are shocking - and let’s be honest the, the toilets are bad for everyone - but the club are rectifying that with the new stands.

This just seems to be a non-story

[ClaretShaun]

Complete non story.

Just being a f@nny.

[Lord Beamish]

......

[jtv]

Does the story say how he relieved himself? It couldn't have been an urgent call of nature given the time spent trying to offer him alternatives, and his refusing them.

[dsr]

Shame for the lady he was with, who must also have missed much of the match.

Next time, he could use either of the main toilets, male or female. Men are probably less likely than women to object to an opposite-sex person in there, but I don't see how women could reasonably object to a blind man being in their toilets either. The whole point of segregated toilets is to avoid seeing persons of opposite gender.

As a general rule, disabled toilets are for people with mobility difficulties, which is presumably why they don't have them in places where people with mobility difficulties can't get to. It would I suppose be reasonable to have at least one single cubicle to cover all bases, but that's what they offered in the corporate zone anyway.

[Rick_Muller]

As a general rule, disabled toilets are for people with mobility difficulties, which is presumably why they don't have them in places where people with mobility difficulties can't get to.

Just want to change your view on that dsr - disabled toilets are for anyone with a disability that require them, mobility happens to be one instance where that applies.

If you saw me walking down the street you wouldn't think I would need to use a disabled toilet because I am mobile, and you'd be wrong. Not all disabilities are visible, and not all disabilities involve lack of mobility. In my case, with my issues, I have often needed to use a disabled toilet to clean myself up after an "accident" and change underwear etc, it is impossible to do this in a normal cubicle as there is no wash basin for a supply of water to wash myself with, nor are normal cubicles in gents toilets clean enough to be able to undress and change without getting someone elses excretions all over myself.

[ClaretTony]

Terrible response from the club.

Far be it for me to back the club with the disabled facilities given my previous record on this, but on this occasion I think the club did all they could to help him. They had explained the situation and we are working towards bringing the ground up to the required standards.

No surprise to see the Lancashire Telegraph jump on this one. It's a newspaper that never misses a trick in trying to discredit the club.

We all know the disabled facilities have been, and continue to be, appalling at Turf Moor in many ways. Our club has so badly let down our disabled supporters for years and years, but the current regime at the club are finally putting things right.

[Sausage]

I'm conflicted on this. The club is finally spending money on facilities at Turf Moor, but it's only as a result of being forced to do it by the authorities. Don't be fooled into thinking the new disabled stands are being erected out some act of benevolence. They're doing so because they have no choice in the matter having been threatened with legal action by The Equality and Human Rights Commission. I therefore have no issue with a supporter calling out the club for having crap facilities on the main concourses. This could - and should - have been addressed years ago because disabled supporters aren't a new phenomenon. For heaven's sake, the club built betting booths in both new stands which are unused. Couldn't these have been put to better use given we've had five years' worth of Premier League money wash through the club in the last decade?

On the other hand, the club has not broken the law and, regardless of the motive, is now doing something to address its facilities. Although the Disability Discrimination Act came in force in 1996, the relevant provisions of the Act relating to provision of services were (I think) only enabled in law in 2001 or 2002. This means both the North and East Stands (as originally named) pre-dated the requirement to provide disabled toilets. In this respect, the club has done nothing unlawful. However, I think there is a moral duty for football clubs to modify their stadia to provide toilets for disabled supporters, particularly those clubs who deem fit to donate £250,000 to outgoing Premier League chairmen who already have a considerably-sized pot to p!ss in.

[Rick_Muller]

...Premier League chairmen who already have a considerably-sized pot to p!ss in.

they'd still miss

[Ashingtonclaret46]

".........particularly those clubs who deem fit to donate £250,000 to outgoing Premier League chairmen who already have a considerably-sized pot to p!ss in."

Whilst sympathising with the plight of the disabled fans, the above statement is fundamentally wrong because the clubs were TOLD that the amount was being taken from the Central Fund. There was no vote taken on this at all and the clubs did not donate because it was money that they never had and, because it did come out of the Central Fund, it was stated that it equated to £250,000 per each club that would not be paid when clubs received their rewards.
Hopefully, Burnley FC will continue to make the necessary improvements to ensure that disabled fans are well looked after ---it is not before time!!

[Bosscat]

Lancs Telegraph running an article about a disabled mans experience when he went on Saturdays game v Brighton.


https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... OB1eK3OWmU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Be interesting to hear the opinions of the UTC community.

Thats the LT for you

They also seemingly refuse to stop certain posters who persistently put Racist / homophobic / incestuous posts on the threads .

Any thread that puts Burnley FC in a poor light they usually allow replies to the article.... thus bringing a plethora of abuse from certain people (mentioned above).

Any thread putting Rovers in a poor light invariably no replies allowed....

I received a ban for questioning the LT on this matter.

I therefore wrote to the editor complaining and showing posts by the people who were writing abusive homophobic incestuous posts all I got was a ... I Cannot possibly comment on specifics.... reply.

The Lancashire Telegraph is losing a lot of people because of the constant abuse on the football threads.

I rejoined using a different email address and used the name {deleted} .........

[JTClaret]

These days I usually go prepared though and I have a small bottle of disinfectant and cleaning wipes and some bog roll on me at all times, but I shouldn't have to.

I don't know if you're being serious or not. But this did make me laugh

[Rick_Muller]

I don't know if you're being serious or not. But this did make me laugh

Deadly serious unfortunately, with Ulcerative Colitis you have to be prepared for any eventuality - including involuntary runny stuff down your leg. Dont worry about it though, toilet humour has become the norm for me - I quite often start discussing human excrement at the strangest of times with anyone who'll listen - I often forget that the mass populace are not comfortable with talking about toilet habits, and when I realise I do chuckle to myself

[ClaretTony]

I'm conflicted on this. The club is finally spending money on facilities at Turf Moor, but it's only as a result of being forced to do it by the authorities. Don't be fooled into thinking the new disabled stands are being erected out some act of benevolence. They're doing so because they have no choice in the matter having been threatened with legal action by The Equality and Human Rights Commission. I therefore have no issue with a supporter calling out the club for having crap facilities on the main concourses. This could - and should - have been addressed years ago because disabled supporters aren't a new phenomenon. For heaven's sake, the club built betting booths in both new stands which are unused. Couldn't these have been put to better use given we've had five years' worth of Premier League money wash through the club in the last decade?

On the other hand, the club has not broken the law and, regardless of the motive, is now doing something to address its facilities. Although the Disability Discrimination Act came in force in 1996, the relevant provisions of the Act relating to provision of services were (I think) only enabled in law in 2001 or 2002. This means both the North and East Stands (as originally named) pre-dated the requirement to provide disabled toilets. In this respect, the club has done nothing unlawful. However, I think there is a moral duty for football clubs to modify their stadia to provide toilets for disabled supporters, particularly those clubs who deem fit to donate £250,000 to outgoing Premier League chairmen who already have a considerably-sized pot to p!ss in.

I don't accept that there was any threat of legal action. I totally accept that our club has been a disgrace over the years in terms of the disabled. Supporters clubs provided money for shelters in early 2009, Flood and Fletcher decided to remove them a few months later, and there are many other horror stories to tell.

But it was a thread on the message board that persuaded me to speak to the club (December 2015) after which there were some immediate improvements made. They might look insignificant improvements but they were done. You can't suddenly conjure up new seating, new toilets etc,

Plans were put in place to improve the facilities and please accept they are going beyond what we had to do as a club. The delays have been ridiculous and I don't necessarily believe some of the excuses that have come out from the club to be honest, but the work is being done and the disabled facilities will be improved to a level that is more than acceptable.

Also, your final line is incorrect, clubs didn't deem fit to donate, wherever the money came from the clubs had no choice.

[ClaretTony]

Shame for the lady he was with, who must also have missed much of the match.

Next time, he could use either of the main toilets, male or female. Men are probably less likely than women to object to an opposite-sex person in there, but I don't see how women could reasonably object to a blind man being in their toilets either. The whole point of segregated toilets is to avoid seeing persons of opposite gender.

As a general rule, disabled toilets are for people with mobility difficulties, which is presumably why they don't have them in places where people with mobility difficulties can't get to. It would I suppose be reasonable to have at least one single cubicle to cover all bases, but that's what they offered in the corporate zone anyway.

1. His carer is there to look after him, not watch the match.
2. A lot of clubs are now provided non-gender toilets.
3. Disabled toilets are for the disabled, not just those with mobility difficulties.

[dsr]

1. His carer is there to look after him, not watch the match.
2. A lot of clubs are now provided non-gender toilets.
3. Disabled toilets are for the disabled, not just those with mobility difficulties.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that disabled toilets are only for people with mobility difficulties; just that most of the special features are designed for people with mobility difficulties, and in many cases people with disabilities not related to mobility are able to use ordinary toilets.

As for the carer, I assumed she was an unpaid friend - I didn't realise she was paid to to be there. Sorry.

[South West Claret.]

Obviously most if not all on this thread are not Blind or we may hopefully have felt the same way and given that interview to the paper.

Sadly unless someone kick's up a stink these days the authorities will continue to trot out the same old excuses.

I say well done to the gentlemen who was very inconvenienced on this occasion.

If the club had been big enough and said yes he's right and allowed his lady carer to facilitate his wishes then he would have been much relieved and the club would have simply done the pragmatic decent thing, instead of that they acted like some uncaring robot and reverted to inflexibility... yes I see there are a couple words with double meanings in there

[Sausage]

I don't accept that there was any threat of legal action.

You can accept whatever you want. The threat of legal action is there in black and white in Annex 1 of the EHRC document here: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sit ... rounds.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

"Section 16 of the 2006 Act allows the Commission to conduct an inquiry into a matter relating to its section 8 duties. Section 20 of the 2006 Act allows the Commission to conduct an investigation where it suspects that a person may have committed an unlawful act, for example a failure to make reasonable adjustments."

"If, following an investigation, the Commission is satisfied that a person has committed an unlawful act, it may issue an unlawful act notice in respect of that person."

Sounds like a threat to me.

Also, your final line is incorrect, clubs didn't deem fit to donate, wherever the money came from the clubs had no choice.

Again, you can choose to believe what you want, but the proposal to give away (or surrender, if your prefer) £250,000 was a suggestion made by Bruce Buck which was subsequently endorsed by the clubs (note the plural) collectively by virtue of a majority vote of at least 14-6. I checked every Premier League clubs' website the day it was confirmed and only Burnley Football Club issued a statement about the payment. The statement endorsed the decision. Whether BFC endorsed it with a methaphorical gun pointing to its head is debatable, but it did publicly endorse the decision:

"Burnley Football Club supports the statement of the Premier League and the rationale behind such payments and the work carried out by the remuneration committee."

[JohnMac]

Taking this individual case in isolation, it appears a set up to either discredit the Club (to what end I know not), or seek publicity and/or some form of compensation. You either need to use the toilet, or you don't. In this case it appears he didn't need to use the toilet.

[ClaretTony]

You can accept whatever you want. The threat of legal action is there in black and white in Annex 1 of the EHRC document here: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sit ... rounds.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

"Section 16 of the 2006 Act allows the Commission to conduct an inquiry into a matter relating to its section 8 duties. Section 20 of the 2006 Act allows the Commission to conduct an investigation where it suspects that a person may have committed an unlawful act, for example a failure to make reasonable adjustments."

"If, following an investigation, the Commission is satisfied that a person has committed an unlawful act, it may issue an unlawful act notice in respect of that person."

Sounds like a threat to me.



Again, you can choose to believe what you want, but the proposal to give away (or surrender, if your prefer) £250,000 was a suggestion made by Bruce Buck which was subsequently endorsed by the clubs (note the plural) collectively by virtue of a majority vote of at least 14-6. I checked every Premier League clubs' website the day it was confirmed and only Burnley Football Club issued a statement about the payment. The statement endorsed the decision. Whether BFC endorsed it with a methaphorical gun pointing to its head is debatable, but it did publicly endorse the decision:

"Burnley Football Club supports the statement of the Premier League and the rationale behind such payments and the work carried out by the remuneration committee."

Where at that link does it say Burnley were facing legal action? I'm not disagreeing with you, just can't find it. And we were given an extra year to sort things out.

As for the 14-6 vote on the Scudamore money - it was reported that there was no vote taken.

[Goody1975]

Deadly serious unfortunately, with Ulcerative Colitis you have to be prepared for any eventuality - including involuntary runny stuff down your leg. Dont worry about it though, toilet humour has become the norm for me - I quite often start discussing human excrement at the strangest of times with anyone who'll listen - I often forget that the mass populace are not comfortable with talking about toilet habits, and when I realise I do chuckle to myself

I totally sympathise with you RM, i am one stage further on in the process of UC and like you said it is sometimes a necessity to have a separate toilet facility from the run of the mill supporter, until someone has suffered with an IBD they cannot fathom how it can control your life.

[Sausage]

Where at that link does it say Burnley were facing legal action? I'm not disagreeing with you, just can't find it. And we were given an extra year to sort things out.

Annex 1 of the link includes a letter that was sent to every Premier League club telling them to pull their finger out. The letter begins at Page 25 and the threat to use legal powers in on Page 28 (i.e. the fourth page of the letter).

Shortly after the report was published, the chair of the EHRC (who is David Isaac, a partner at the law firm Pinsent Masons) issued a clarification statement:

“Disabled fans give their money to their club just like everyone else. They buy the shirts and loyally support their teams. Premier League promised that disabled access would be improved by the start of next season so it is disappointing that a number of clubs will fail to meet that deadline. The time for excuses is over.

Clubs need to urgently demonstrate to us what they are doing to ensure they are compliant with the law and how they are making it easier for disabled fans to attend matches. If they don’t they will face legal action.”

It is true that the club was grudgingly given a further year to meet the deadline, which it has subsequently missed.

As for the 14-6 vote on the Scudamore money - it was reported that there was no vote taken.

This is impossible to prove one way or the other, as there's no way any of us can access the minutes of a PL meeting. However, it was widely reported that at least five clubs - all unnamed - had expressed their dismay at the suggestion of the £5m payout and that Bruce Buck needed 14 PL clubs in order to carry the motion. Whether a formal vote was ultimately held is anyone's guess. But I repeat that BFC did publicly endorse the decision.

[ClaretTony]

It is true that the club was grudgingly given a further year to meet the deadline, which it has subsequently missed.



This is impossible to prove one way or the other, as there's no way any of us can access the minutes of a PL meeting. However, it was widely reported that at least five clubs - all unnamed - had expressed their dismay at the suggestion of the £5m payout and that Bruce Buck needed 14 PL clubs in order to carry the motion. Whether a formal vote was ultimately held is anyone's guess. But I repeat that BFC did publicly endorse the decision.

We were given a further year and we have worked with the organisations necessary all the way through. The delays were unprecedented and were accepted. There has been no threat of legal action.

I was told from a very reliable source that there was no vote on the pay out to Scudamore, it had been agreed by some committee ahead of the meeting. I think there were clearly some dissenting clubs who leaked the info out but unless I've been told a downright lie, there was no vote, the decision had been made.

[Sausage]

We were given a further year and we have worked with the organisations necessary all the way through. The delays were unprecedented and were accepted. There has been no threat of legal action.

Jesus wept, there HAS been a threat of legal action and that threat will hang over all those clubs who cannot evidence any progress on the matter. I accept that in the current circumstances, where BFC has two new facilities under construction, the EHRC is unlikely to initiate legal proceedings. My original point was that the corner stands are not being built out of any benevolence or realignment of the club's moral compass, but because they (and other clubs, to be fair) were publicly called out by the EHRC who issued a threat to take legal action against Premier League clubs. It's there in black and white in a report published by the EHRC and is clarified in a statement by its chairman. Do you honestly think those stands would be under construction if there hadn't been such a public naming and shaming and a threat of legal action?

I was told from a very reliable source that there was no vote on the pay out to Scudamore, it had been agreed by some committee ahead of the meeting. I think there were clearly some dissenting clubs who leaked the info out but unless I've been told a downright lie, there was no vote, the decision had been made.

Fine. Dandy. But again my original point was that in an industry awash with money, where a club can endorse (and it did endorse) a £250,000 contribution to an already wealthy man, its inconceivable that we have concourses with no disabled toilets, despite the law requiring football clubs to have provided such facilities when the law changed 14 years ago.

[ClaretTony]

Jesus wept, there HAS been a threat of legal action and that threat will hang over all those clubs who cannot evidence any progress on the matter. I accept that in the current circumstances, where BFC has two new facilities under construction, the EHRC is unlikely to initiate legal proceedings. My original point was that the corner stands are not being built out of any benevolence or realignment of the club's moral compass, but because they (and other clubs, to be fair) were publicly called out by the EHRC who issued a threat to take legal action against Premier League clubs. It's there in black and white in a report published by the EHRC and is clarified in a statement by its chairman. Do you honestly think those stands would be under construction if there hadn't been such a public naming and shaming and a threat of legal action?



Fine. Dandy. But again my original point was that in an industry awash with money, where a club can endorse (and it did endorse) a £250,000 contribution to an already wealthy man, its inconceivable that we have concourses with no disabled toilets, despite the law requiring football clubs to have provided such facilities when the law changed 14 years ago.

There might have been legal threats but Burnley had that extra year and they've since consulted fully with EHRC at every turn with this development and there hasn't been a threat to us. I agree totally with you on the point of us not having the necessary facilities, it is a disgrace that those running our club over the years have allowed this to be the case for so long, but we are now doing something about it, and it is not all legal requirement. I'm not sure what the timescales are now but at least one of the new corners is starting to take shape. It's all well and good looking into the past but at least we are dealing with it.

And I agree with you on the Scudamore money. I think it is appalling that he's getting this pay out. But we didn't pay £250,000 because it came from a central fund that had been agreed by those responsible for that fund.

[JohnMac]

Regardless of 'unprecedented problems' the project gives the appearance of 'Little Old Burnley' struggling to adapt to the big bad outside world again.

The underground problems obviously mean we were taking a walk on the wildside all those times we stood on the Beehole End. We could have gone down a sinkhole quicker than we went down the leagues!

[claret59]

A robust and articulate ( almost,) post by 'sausage'. It is a pity that he chooses to offend Christian readers, Burnley fans as well, by his blasphemous use of language.

[Sausage]

Blasphemous? Where did I mention Christ?

[Bosscat]

Blasphemous? Where did I mention Christ?

Sausage wrote:
Jesus wept, there HAS been a threat.

Your opening statement Sausage lad.....

[Sausage]

You realise Jesus is a common Hispanic name, don’t you? I wrote Jesus wept, not Jesus Christ. If anyone wants to choose to take offence, that’s their choice.

[dsr]

You realise Jesus is a common Hispanic name, don’t you? I wrote Jesus wept, not Jesus Christ. If anyone wants to choose to take offence, that’s their choice.

Interesting argument. If someone were to use the same argument that when they said "I hate ...........", they meant Guy Gibson's dog and other dogs of a similar colour, would they get away with it?

[Sausage]

Interesting argument. If someone were to use the same argument that when they said "I hate ...........", they meant Guy Gibson's dog and other dogs of a similar colour, would they get away with it?

You’ve lost me. I’ve no idea what any of that means.

[ClaretAndJew]

Who gives a **** about blasphemy? Talking about a non existent deity. ******* hell. It's 2018.

Jesus, if he existed as per the bible, which has loads of authors and edited over several hundred years, was probably one of many people claiming to be the son of God.

It's not real.

[dsr]

You’ve lost me. I’ve no idea what any of that means.

You would if you had ever seen an unedited version of "The Dambusters". They've changed the dog's name on repeats now..

[Bosscat]

You’ve lost me. I’ve no idea what any of that means.

"Jesus wept"

"Jesus wept" is a phrase famous for being the shortest verse in the King James Version of the Bible, as well as many other versions. It is found in the Gospel of John, chapter 11, verse 35.

So don't try that argument Sausage

[Sausage]

The “you’ve lost me” quote was in relation to dsr’s post.

[ClaretAndJew]

The dog is called nigger

[Sausage]

39FCDCE1-3146-43FA-9191-F630BA823C6A.jpeg (88.35 KiB) Viewed 1667 times

[tim_noone]

There's some sh!t on these posts...by J Hart.

[Bosscat]

The dog is called ******

Everyone knows that C&J no need to court controversy and outrage posting it

[Rick_Muller]

Everyone knows that C&J no need to court controversy and outrage posting it

I don’t see a problem with stating a fact.

[ClaretAndJew]

Everyone knows that C&J no need to court controversy and outrage posting it

Nothing controversial about it. That was the dogs name. The word on the other hand is a different matter.

[Wokingclaret]

One thing not mentioned on this thread and one of the reasons the club could not progress with plans any earlier.

Legislation was not finalised, so we could have built something that did not meet the new standard. This may be one of ther reasons why we have been given the extra year.