In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
On 02/03/2020 08:08, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I think I'd be able to cope with houses on stilts. Its very silly at
the moment since if we are talking wheelchairs, many new builds are
inaccessible still, due to insufficient turn space inside. There is a
scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders have to
provide x percentage, and then advertise them for six months. What
tends to happen is one is fitted out but the advertising is very low
key, very few are taken so the builder say we have x left over can we
fit them out as normal flats.

I'd suggest that we scrap most of the requirements of part M, but
provide adequate funds for providing the adaptations that people need.
No two people with disabilities will have the same need, so why try and
cater for them all with prescriptive rules?


On a Disabilty Awareness course it was suggested that less than 10% of
disabled people need a wheelchair. Most disabilites aren't visible.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
On 02/03/2020 08:08, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I think I'd be able to cope with houses on stilts. Its very silly at
the moment since if we are talking wheelchairs, many new builds are
inaccessible still, due to insufficient turn space inside. There is a
scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders have to
provide x percentage, and then advertise them for six months. What
tends to happen is one is fitted out but the advertising is very low
key, very few are taken so the builder say we have x left over can we
fit them out as normal flats.

I'd suggest that we scrap most of the requirements of part M, but
provide adequate funds for providing the adaptations that people need.
No two people with disabilities will have the same need, so why try and
cater for them all with prescriptive rules?


On a Disabilty Awareness course it was suggested that less than 10%
of disabled people need a wheelchair. Most disabilites aren't visible.

Depends on how you define visible. Most mental disabilitys
are quite visible to those with even half a clue.

On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 07:43:03 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

07:43??? So you've been up and trolling for OVER THREE HOURS already, you
senile piece of ****! LOL

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On 02/03/2020 20:03, Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/03/2020 08:08, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I think I'd be able to cope with houses on stilts. Its very silly at the
moment since if we are talking wheelchairs, many new builds are
inaccessible
still, due to insufficient turn space inside.
There is a scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders
have to
provide xÂ* percentage, and then advertise them for six months. What
tends to
happen is one isÂ* fitted out but the advertising is very low key, very
few
are taken so the builder say we have xÂ* left over can we fit them out as
normal flats.

I'd suggest that we scrap most of the requirements of part M, but
provide adequate funds for providing the adaptations that people need.
No two people with disabilities will have the same need, so why try and
cater for them all with prescriptive rules?

SteveW
That is of course sensible, but politics under Blair wasn't about sense,
it was about emotion. There isn't much virtuye signalling legislation in
that is there?


--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius

On 02/03/2020 20:18, charles wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
On 02/03/2020 08:08, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I think I'd be able to cope with houses on stilts. Its very silly at
the moment since if we are talking wheelchairs, many new builds are
inaccessible still, due to insufficient turn space inside. There is a
scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders have to
provide x percentage, and then advertise them for six months. What
tends to happen is one is fitted out but the advertising is very low
key, very few are taken so the builder say we have x left over can we
fit them out as normal flats.

I'd suggest that we scrap most of the requirements of part M, but
provide adequate funds for providing the adaptations that people need.
No two people with disabilities will have the same need, so why try and
cater for them all with prescriptive rules?


On a Disabilty Awareness course it was suggested that less than 10% of
disabled people need a wheelchair. Most disabilites aren't visible.

Indeed. I once asked my BI why sockets had to be so high off the floor
'so that people in wheelchairs and the old cam reach them'
"So how do they change a light bulb then, and how many more will trip
over the flex to their vacuum cleaners?"

None of it makes a deal of sense. Its all just virtue signalling.
Only a decent corridor width made sense. And stair dimensions.

my wheelchair bound friends could easily make the 1 inch step up from a
paving slab to the threshold, but for the BI I built a detachable wooden
ramp



--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin