Wednesday 4 November 2009

So Much For The 1995 Disability Discrimination Act...

Arthur Holman, 73, and his wife Sylvia, 72, planned to have lunch at the Rose Cafe in, Northlands Pavements, Pitsea, because their kitchen cooker was out of action.

But the restaurant manager banned Arthur from taking his guide dog Hamish – a golden retriever – inside.
Oh, here we go...
After arguing with the owner the couple gave up and went to eat in KFC instead.

But manager of the Rose Cafe, Hussein Ksear, stood by his decision.

He said: “The dog had a bad smell and we were quite busy. I said he could leave the dog outside but he didn’t want to do that.”
Well, of course he didn't! It's his eyes, his lifeline.

It's also against the law to refuse:
According to the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act, it is against the law for a blind person and their guide dog to be refused entry to a restaurant.

George plans to report the Rose Cafe to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights who will contact the managers and remind them of their responsibility. If any establishment repeatedly flouts the law, they can be prosecuted.
Why do they have to 'repeatedly' flout the law?

Perhaps the local blind association would like to have a group lunch out, at the Rose Cafe? With the local press?

14 comments:

Quiet_Man said...

Hussein Ksear, sounds strangely Islamic, they have a thing about dogs apparently their prophet was a cat person amongst his more savoury vices.

Anonymous said...

Have to agree with the Quiet Man, there are people of a "certain religion" (you know, the peaceful one (LOL)) have rather strong and damned unenglish attitudes to dogs.

Andy said...

Spot on - would like to know if the Islam thing is in play here

Sue said...

Muslims.. they eat dogs don't they? Perhaps he was worried that the chef would think they'd just had a meat delivery!

Funny how ethnic minorities (your post about the BLACK COUPLE) are so quick to complain about how they are being treated (and they were allowed in the restaurant!)...

sobers said...

I'd be interested to see how this one plays out. Victimhood poker says muslim trumps disabled white man by miles, though in this case disabled white man has the advantage of an actual clearly stated law.

My guess is that cafe owner/manager will get a letter detailing his requirements under the law and it will be left there. What happens if Mr Holman tries to return is open to conjecture. I suspect he won't try.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Strangely, you only have to be caught once allowing smoking on your premises to be hit with a large fine.

Perhaps next time someone I know gets a speeding ticket or a parking fine, they should plead that they didn't do it 'repeatedly'.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Well, this is back to Victimhood Poker, isn't it?

The libertarian says, you can refuse entry to anybody you like, and is indifferent to this spat.

The Muslim says "No dogs" (and I have no sympathy for Muslims but I personally do not like dogs either).

The blind people say "I want to be able to take my dog anywhere".

PS, seeing as his wife was with him, would it be so terrible to leave the dog outside? And don't tell me he needs a dog to guide him to the loo. Does his dog undo his bloody fly and hold his willy for him?

PPS, bugger, having posted this, I note that sobers beat me to it. So I shall trump him by linking to true a story about the gay B&B owner who is allergic to dogs versus the blind man with the guide dog

madne0 said...

His establishment, his rules.

SpiteK said...

Wrong madne0. What the raghead restaurant owner did was illegal. Blind man with dog trumps muzzie retardedness.

JuliaM said...

"My guess is that cafe owner/manager will get a letter detailing his requirements under the law and it will be left there. What happens if Mr Holman tries to return is open to conjecture. I suspect he won't try."

No, probably not. It'd be nice to see a militant disability rights group fighting it out, though...

"Perhaps next time someone I know gets a speeding ticket or a parking fine, they should plead that they didn't do it 'repeatedly'."

Indeed!

"...having posted this, I note that sobers beat me to it. So I shall trump him by linking to true a story about the gay B&B owner who is allergic to dogs versus the blind man with the guide dog"

Ow! That makes my brain hurt... ;)

JuliaM said...

"His establishment, his rules."

Not in this instance. As SpiteK says, the law id on the customer's side here.

banned said...

Methinks a complaint to the local council licensing dept. would likely be effective here. Also, I wonder if the cafes lavatory facilities are consistant with allowing equal opprtunity access to the disabled, as required by law ?

Which incidentally is why many petrol station WCs were closed for public use over the past decade, not that it did the disabled much good.

JuliaM said...

"Also, I wonder if the cafes lavatory facilities are consistant with allowing equal opprtunity access to the disabled, as required by law ?"

Hmm. Good point.

madne0 said...

I know the law is on his side. What i meant was that the law is wrong.