https://burnleyfootballclub.com/more/fa ... nsory-room

Very good

Lovely to see. Hopefully it will make a real difference to some families who want to come and watch the game.

Well done Burnley FC.

These are a good idea in the right setting. It seems an odd thing to have at a football ground though imo.

Great stuff, been looking out for this to take my step son.

Please resist the urge to comment Rowls.

Boss Hogg wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 4:26 pm

These are a good idea in the right setting. It seems an odd thing to have at a football ground though imo.

Why?

Boss Hogg wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 4:26 pm

These are a good idea in the right setting. It seems an odd thing to have at a football ground though imo.

It'a literally the perfect setting

PremierLeagueClass wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 5:54 pm

Great stuff, been looking out for this to take my step son.

Please resist the urge to comment Rowls.

You’re free to disagree with me. “It’s a free country,” as people used to say.

The inability to tolerate a different opinions and the banning or shutting down of different opinions is something that should raise warning flags for everybody.

Open discussion and freedom of opinion and speech is something we should all cherish.

This is essentially a crèche facility inside a football ground.

If a child is at a development stage where they need crèche style facilities then I don’t believe it is in that child’s interests to be taken to a football ground.

Football grounds, especially at our level, are places where loud noises, crowds and boisterous behaviour are all an integral and inherent part of the experience.

I question strongly in whose benefit this is?

We can all see the allure though, it’s a lovely comfy environment, looks warm and cosy and you’re tucked away from the wind, the cold and the rain with additional staff at hand and extra facilities.

I understand perfectly the rationale behind the creation of this crèche facility. It’s simply that I disagree with it entirely.

As ever, anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to do so.

This is a private forum and the moderators might (very understandably) not want the hassle of this topic. Thats fine with me.

Reply on Twitter to BFC on them putting it on Twittler

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:43 pm

You’re free to disagree with me. “It’s a free country,” as people used to say.

The inability to tolerate a different opinions and the banning or shutting down of different opinions is something that should raise warning flags for everybody.

Open discussion and freedom of opinion and speech is something we should all cherish.

This is essentially a crèche facility inside a football ground.

If a child is at a development stage where they need crèche style facilities then I don’t believe it is in that child’s interests to be taken to a football ground.

Football grounds, especially at our level, are places where loud noises, crowds and boisterous behaviour are all an integral and inherent part of the experience.

I question strongly in whose benefit this is?

We can all see the allure though, it’s a lovely comfy environment, looks warm and cosy and you’re tucked away from the wind, the cold and the rain with additional staff at hand and extra facilities.

I understand perfectly the rationale behind the creation of this crèche facility. It’s simply that I disagree with it entirely.

As ever, anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to do so.

This is a private forum and the moderators might (very understandably) not want the hassle of this topic. Thats fine with me.

This is not essentially a crèche and I suspect many people who have relatives with special educational needs would find that comment deeply ignorant and offensive. Crèches are places primarily for young children, sensory rooms are not.

You are basically saying that live football should not be accessible to people with certain special educational needs.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:43 pm

You’re free to disagree with me. “It’s a free country,” as people used to say.

The inability to tolerate a different opinions and the banning or shutting down of different opinions is something that should raise warning flags for everybody.

Open discussion and freedom of opinion and speech is something we should all cherish.

This is essentially a crèche facility inside a football ground.

If a child is at a development stage where they need crèche style facilities then I don’t believe it is in that child’s interests to be taken to a football ground.

Football grounds, especially at our level, are places where loud noises, crowds and boisterous behaviour are all an integral and inherent part of the experience.

I question strongly in whose benefit this is?

We can all see the allure though, it’s a lovely comfy environment, looks warm and cosy and you’re tucked away from the wind, the cold and the rain with additional staff at hand and extra facilities.

I understand perfectly the rationale behind the creation of this crèche facility. It’s simply that I disagree with it entirely.

As ever, anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to do so.

This is a private forum and the moderators might (very understandably) not want the hassle of this topic. Thats fine with me.

A sensory room like this is for all ages.

You only focus on kids/children as it enables you to make the "Should they be at a football game" argument. Do you feel the same about adults with sensory issues for example?

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:54 pm

This is not essentially a crèche and I suspect many people who have relatives with special educational needs would find that comment deeply ignorant and offensive. Crèches are places primarily for young children, sensory rooms are not.

You are basically saying that live football should not be accessible to people with certain special educational needs.

I'm not saying that at all.

What I'm saying is what I've said in my own post.

A really positive thing for those who would benefit from such a facility. They will know what a positive impact it can have. Those who criticise don't have any understanding of the needs of people who would use the sensory room, and it obviously has no impact on them whatsoever anyway.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 7:05 pm

I'm not saying that at all.

What I'm saying is what I've said in my own post.

You said;

‘This is essentially a crèche facility inside a football ground.’

A crèche is for small children.

You said;

‘If a child is at a development stage where they need crèche style facilities then I don’t believe it is in that child’s interests to be taken to a football ground.’

That is you saying you don’t believe live football should be accessible to people with certain special educational needs.

What a brilliant idea and so important to allow those who find football stadiums too overwhelming to still access and enjoy live football.

boyyanno wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:58 pm

A sensory room like this is for all ages.

You only focus on kids/children as it enables you to make the "Should they be at a football game" argument. Do you feel the same about adults with sensory issues for example?

Do I think that adults who do not enjoy certain experiences because of the inherent features of that experience should avoid them? Absolutely.

You won't find me, for example, in pubs or clubs playing loud music.

Clubs who have this facility should be congratulated. Well done Burnley.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 7:11 pm

Do I think that adults who do not enjoy certain experiences because of the inherent features of that experience should avoid them? Absolutely.

You won't find me, for example, in pubs or clubs playing loud music.

So, someone (child or older) loves football but finds it difficult in, for example, busy or loud environments, should be excluded from an opportunity to watch their team live, in an environment in which they feel safe and secure?

Shouldn’t watching and supporting Burnley be open to one and all, wherever possible?

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 7:11 pm

Do I think that adults who do not enjoy certain experiences because of the inherent features of that experience should avoid them? Absolutely.

You won't find me, for example, in pubs or clubs playing loud music.

An inherent feature of this messageboard is you wading in on subjects you don't really understand, Rowls.

However, should I avoid this messageboard? No, because I enjoy other "inherent features" of it.

Well done Burnley FC.

DCWat wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:13 pm

So, someone (child or older) loves football but finds it difficult in, for example, busy or loud environments, should be excluded from an opportunity to watch their team live, in an environment in which they feel safe and secure?

Shouldn’t watching and supporting Burnley be open to one and all, wherever possible?

Don't feed the troll.

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 7:06 pm

A really positive thing for those who would benefit from such a facility. They will know what a positive impact it can have. Those who criticise don't have any understanding of the needs of people who would use the sensory room, and it obviously has no impact on them whatsoever anyway.

I'm not quite sure how you've reached that conclusion. it clearly does benefit some people but doubts exist whether any massive demand exists for such a thing whilst a football game is going on. It'll be interesting to see how popular it becomes but fair play if it does. You can have doubts without criticising or objecting to something.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:24 pm

I'm not quite sure how you've reached that conclusion. it clearly does benefit some people but doubts exist whether any massive demand exists for such a thing whilst a football game is going on. It'll be interesting to see how popular it becomes but fair play if it does. You can have doubts without criticising or objecting to something.

Demand wasn't being discussed.

I think just about every decent person can acknowledge that this is a lovely thing for BFC to have done, and they can imagine how it will benefit others, even if they themselves won't feel the need to use it.

Unfortunately, we've got those who fundamentally lack empathy and are consumed by their own self-importance. It means they can't see a thread like this and resist the urge to mock it. Sad.

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:27 pm

Demand wasn't being discussed.

That's the point that some people don't think it's a good idea & doubts exist. If you wanted to watch a football game in a quiet environment you'd stop at home & turn the telly on. If you are that way inclined or people within a household you could effectively turn your own living room into a sensory room without leaving your house. Time will tell if it takes off with any real intent or the novelty fades.

The real issue here is that it costs little for the club to do, doesn’t affect the wider fan base, and means so much to a few people who by sheer misfortune have to live a life that they must find extremely difficult. Helping those people in a way that adversely affects nobody else is a nil brainer.

Well done Burnley.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:33 pm

That's the point that some people don't think it's a good idea & doubts exist. If you wanted to watch a football game in a quiet environment you'd stop at home & turn the telly on. If you are that way inclined or people within a household you could effectively turn your own living room into a sensory room without leaving your house. Time will tell if it takes off with any real intent or the novelty fades.

The points weren't about doubts about demand. Even if it was, demand doesn't impact on anyone commenting negatively. You then go on to question the appropriateness and use crass comments like 'if you are that way inclined' - you have no understanding of how this could positively impact people with SEND and their families.

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:37 pm

The points weren't about doubts about demand. Even if it was, demand doesn't impact on anyone commenting negatively. You then go on to question the appropriateness and use crass comments like 'if you are that way inclined' - you have no understanding of how this could positively impact people with SEND and their families.

Don't forget that Jakub is a counsellor.

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:37 pm

The points weren't about doubts about demand. Even if it was, demand doesn't impact on anyone commenting negatively. You then go on to question the appropriateness and use crass comments like 'if you are that way inclined' - you have no understanding of how this could positively impact people with SEND and their families.

Like I already said if it benefits people it's a good positive thing but doubts exist whether it'll take off. I haven't commented negatively I want something to be a success but my honest opinion is I'm not sure it will be. Good evening.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:44 pm

Like I already said if it benefits people it's a good positive thing but doubts exist whether it'll take off. I haven't commented negatively I want something to be a success but my honest opinion is I'm not sure it will be. Good evening.

Aye, of course:

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:33 pm

If you wanted to watch a football game in a quiet environment you'd stop at home & turn the telly on. If you are that way inclined or people within a household you could effectively turn your own living room into a sensory room without leaving your house.

Good evening

DCWat wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:13 pm

So, someone (child or older) loves football but finds it difficult in, for example, busy or loud environments, should be excluded from an opportunity to watch their team live, in an environment in which they feel safe and secure?

Shouldn’t watching and supporting Burnley be open to one and all, wherever possible?

Happily, these two questios can be cleared up easily.

1. No.

2. Yes.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 7:10 pm

You said;

‘This is essentially a crèche facility inside a football ground.’

A crèche is for small children.

You said;

‘If a child is at a development stage where they need crèche style facilities then I don’t believe it is in that child’s interests to be taken to a football ground.’

That is you saying you don’t believe live football should be accessible to people with certain special educational needs.

Hi Rileybobs

Rather than phrasing your posts along the "So what you're saying is ..." and then [insert daft opinion] and misrepresenting me, you could just ask me directly what I believe.

I'm happy to share my opinions.

For example, if you'd asked, "Do you think people with SEN should be barred from Turf Moor?" I could reply with, "No, that's an utterly stupid and abhorrent idea."

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:01 pm

Hi Rileybobs

Rather than phrasing your posts along the "So what you're saying is ..." and then [insert daft opinion] and misrepresenting me, you could just ask me directly what I believe.

I'm happy to share my opinions.

For example, if you'd asked, "Do you think people with SEN should be barred from Turf Moor?" I could reply with, "No, that's an utterly stupid and abhorrent idea."

I have no intention of asking you questions which you will respond to with answers to different questions. I can read and understand what you have written, which is that you equate a sensory room with a crèche, and therefore by association equate people with special educational needs with young children.

You then go on to say that you don’t believe children who require crèche like facilities (you’ve already made the association between young children and people with special educational needs) should be taken to a football ground. So you believe that live football at Turf Moor should not be accessible to these people.

I could ask you a question, but you won’t answer it sincerely because that’s how you operate. Obviously, you have the opportunity to clarify in what ways you didn’t mean what you actually wrote, but that’s on you, as everyone can read it.

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:37 pm

The points weren't about doubts about demand. Even if it was, demand doesn't impact on anyone commenting negatively. You then go on to question the appropriateness and use crass comments like 'if you are that way inclined' - you have no understanding of how this could positively impact people with SEND and their families.

Ot course demand comes into it. I find it an odd thing to have at a football ground. I can’t imagine many people who benefit from a sensory room would want to be anywhere near a football ground. I’m not saying there aren’t any and wouldn’t expect everyone to agree. it’s a valid opinion. I think the memorial park or whatever it is is an odd thing to have the ground too. What are we putting at the ground next ? A chapel of rest, a yoga centre, a sun bed salon.

Great OP.
Most of the others..... *****

This is a facility - just like toilets, food kiosks and disabled facilities, for example.

The club should be applauded for this facility. They have made going to the football more accessible for people who needed this. Maybe this room is the difference between going to watch the game or not.

What kind of human being would have a problem with that?

Danny Ings once walked out wearing ear defenders to support an autistic child who was the mascot. So he clearly thinks football is for everyone.

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/s ... appy-tears

I can't understand for one moment why anyone would have issues with something that isn't going to have any negative impact on their life whatsoever.

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:33 pm

I think just about every decent person can acknowledge that this is a lovely thing for BFC to have done, and they can imagine how it will benefit others, even if they themselves won't feel the need to use it.

Unfortunately, we've got those who fundamentally lack empathy and are consumed by their own self-importance. It means they can't see a thread like this and resist the urge to mock it. Sad.

I can only speak for myself here but your take on this fundamentally misunderstands everything I believe entirely and, worst of all, misrepresents it completely. Casting people who agree with yourself as saints and casting people who disagree with you as devils.

This isn't the case.

I can understand entirely the thinking behind this idea. And it is very clearly motivated by the best of intentions. The club's owners are, after all, devoutly religious.

I don't need to expand upon the well known idiom about the road to Hell and good intentions.

It's fully understandable that people think that this idea provides a kind of "stepping stone" for people with SEN by which they have a protected environment in which they can experience the excitement and atmosphere of attending a football game. Because they are inside a protected environment they can go to a football match safe in the knowledge that if the whole experience becomes overwhelming, they are shielded from the noise, crowd and general hustle and bustle. "Why should they miss out simply because they have a developmental condition?" is the question the proponents of the scheme would be asking.

Those of us who don't believe the scheme is a good idea also have the best interests of the people with SEN in mind too. The way we see it, if a child (or anyone) has SEN that mean they find going to football to be potentially so distressing that only a fully equipped sensory room makes the experience 'safe' then why would you risk taking them at all? After all, you're going to have to somehow get them into the ground and out of the ground. The club themselves state that the entrance is in one of the "quieter" parts of the ground but this just reinforces the point we're making - it isn't possible to completely eradicate the aspect of the crowd and noise at a high level football ground.

Given that it's an impossible task, even if you've got tickets to the sensory bubble room you risk exposing the vulnerable child / person with SEN to the thing which you're apprarently protecting them from when you go to the ground and when you leave the ground.

There is a balance in life when we approach how to educate those with SEN - We acknowledge their progress may be slower than average and may be uneven - but we still aim to have children with SEN meet the same milestones as children without development problems. So it isn't a case of saying they "should" or "should not" be given additional help or protections like the sensory room provides - it's about where we draw the line. If we provide too much in the way of protection and we lower our expectations too far the risk is that we coddle the children and stunt their progress rather than help them. That's the nub of this.

I think the level of expense, the level of exceptionalism and minimal impact that this venture will have should have seen it canned at the discussion stage.

The level of 'additional help' that people with SEN will encounter once they become adults is close to zero. Whilst we will of cours make extra allowances for them as children we should do with diminishing frequency as they mature and -essentially- make them aware that the allowances will disappear when they are an adult. To do otherwise is to sell them a lie and set them up to fail in the adult world.

Finding football matches intimidating and overwhelming isn't something unique to children or people with SEN. No very young child will enjoy or appreciate going to the football. It is loud and intimidating. There is conflict and confrontation. This is an inherent part of the experience. It is a microcosm of the harsh realities of life. We all experienced the pain of it last season.

The vast majority of children with SEN mature out of finding football overwhelmingly distressing. They will learn to actually enjoy the noise and the crowds for what they are.

If we go to extraordinary lengths to remove this for certain children / people with SEN then we are shielding them, in large part, from reality itself. We're doing them a disservice. We're inhibiting their growth as individuals. This condemns children with SEN with misplaced love. It is the soft tyranny of low expectations.

Boss Hogg wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:16 pm

Ot course demand comes into it. I find it an odd thing to have at a football ground. I can’t imagine many people who benefit from a sensory room would want to be anywhere near a football ground. I’m not saying there aren’t any and wouldn’t expect everyone to agree. it’s a valid opinion. I think the memorial park or whatever it is is an odd thing to have the ground too. What are we putting at the ground next ? A chapel of rest, a yoga centre, a sun bed salon.

I just made the point that demand hadn't been mentioned. But why does demand concern you at all? I was responding to those questioning the appropriateness of people with a disability using of a sensory room at a football club. I think a chapel of rest, yoga centre or sun bed salon would be stupid idea but then again it's a stupid comparison.

Clovius Boofus wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:27 pm

I can't understand for one moment why anyone would have issues with something that isn't going to have any negative impact on their life whatsoever.

I think it will have a negative impact on other people's lives.

Thanks Rowls. You have managed to railroad and ruin what should have been a really positive thread with your own agenda.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:14 pm

I have no intention of asking you questions which you will respond to with answers to different questions. I can read and understand what you have written, which is that you equate a sensory room with a crèche, and therefore by association equate people with special educational needs with young children.

You then go on to say that you don’t believe children who require crèche like facilities (you’ve already made the association between young children and people with special educational needs) should be taken to a football ground. So you believe that live football at Turf Moor should not be accessible to these people.

I could ask you a question, but you won’t answer it sincerely because that’s how you operate. Obviously, you have the opportunity to clarify in what ways you didn’t mean what you actually wrote, but that’s on you, as everyone can read it.

Yes, I do associate SEN with children.

The term might have been around longer but it normally refers to children with developmental conditions like autism, dyslexia ADHD etc.

You're right that it isn't exclusive to children but it is normally used in schooling referring to children.

Obviously you could ask me a question and I could dodge the question. But you'll only find out if you have the courage to ask me a genuine question. It's an open offer, you can continue "interpretting" my posts and guessing incorrectly at misrepresenting my "opinions" but if you ask any genuine question on this topic I'll answer you openly and honestly. That's an open offer.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:28 pm

absolute waffle

I'm very happy with my assessment of your comments. You lack empathy and you're too consumed within your own self-importance that you can't resist an opportunity to mock something you "disagree with". Your comments on it being a creche are there for all to see and they reflect very poorly you.

At least have the good grace and regard for others to leave it there for tonight.

The experts deciding on the appropriateness of using the facility are the people, their family and carers.

It's incredible that there are people who are not impacted by this positive development but feel it is necessary to show such levels of ignorance.

taio wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:36 pm

The experts deciding on the appropriateness of using the facility are the people, their family and carers.

It's incredible that there are people who are not impacted by this positive development but feel it is necessary to show such levels of ignorance.

Be comforted that those in favour are in the significant majority and those against are Rowls and Jakub Claret. Happy bedfellows.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:34 pm

Obviously you could ask me a question and I could dodge the question. But you'll only find out if you have the courage to ask me a genuine question. It's an open offer, you can continue "interpretting" my posts and guessing incorrectly at misrepresenting my "opinions" but if you ask any genuine question on this topic I'll answer you openly and honestly. That's an open offer.

I’ll be a coward and continue to interpret your posts as they’re written, ta.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:31 pm

Thanks Rowls. You have managed to railroad and ruin what should have been a really positive thread with your own agenda.

Hi Tony

My opinions have been wilfully misreprented on this thread and I feel it is only right for me to refute them and to spell out my opinions in response.

People are free to misrepresent me on this issue but I've spelled out my beliefs and why I believe them in detail. I understand entirely the thinking behind the sensory room. I can see why it will be popular and I can understand the thinking behind it. I disagree with it profoundly and believe the idea, despite its good intentions, will inhibit the growth of children with SEN / autism. This isn't a topic that can be easily holed into "postive" and "negative" - clearly what some people believe is "positive" others see as "negative".

Not only have my opinions been misrepresented, my motivations have too. So I feel duty bound to correct that.

I believe that initiatives like this will - in the long term - inhibit and prove damaging to the development children with SEN / autism.

I've posted politely and with sincerity because it's something I think is very important, not least because diagnoses and instances of SEN are going through the roof for reasons we don't yet understand clearly.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:43 pm

Hi Tony

My opinions have been wilfully misreprented on this thread and I feel it is only right for me to refute them and to spell out my opinions in response.

People are free to misrepresent me on this issue but I've spelled out my beliefs and why I believe them in detail. I understand entirely the thinking behind the sensory room. I can see why it will be popular and I can understand the thinking behind it. I disagree with it profoundly and believe the idea, despite its good intentions, will inhibit the growth of children with SEN / autism. This isn't a topic that can be easily holed into "postive" and "negative" - clearly what some people believe is "positive" others see as "negative".

Not only have my opinions been misrepresented, my motivations have too. So I feel duty bound to correct that.

I believe that initiatives like this will - in the long term - inhibit and prove damaging to the development children with SEN / autism.

I've posted politely and with sincerity because it's something I think is very important, not least because diagnoses and instances of SEN are going through the roof for reasons we don't yet understand clearly.

I’ll repeat that you have railroaded and ruined this thread. You just didn’t have the common decency to stay away from it.

I read tonight about the lady Bev sending some shirts and how that is such a positive for this board. Your contribution to this thread is just the opposite.

Burnley Football Club is there for the community.

Access to it, including things such as wheelchair access, hearing aid loops, the ability for disabled supporters to take support workers/carers and now a sensory room is just another way to allow those with additional needs to access the community.

Just because somebody can’t do something, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be given the opportunity to try.

Every day I talk to parents of children and young people with additional needs, most with some sensory issues, they struggle to access the community to do basic things like shopping or going to play areas to socialise. The fact that quiet hours and dim lights and quiet days exist in these areas highlights that there is a NEED for these people to access the community. Not just those who have additional needs but their parents and carers too.

To suggest otherwise is quite frankly disgusting and shows you have no idea about what is involved or the rationale behind it.

Well done BFC.