That sounds ridiculous if it applies to common allergies.

You may as declare that you are disabled if you can't lick your elbow.

 

you'd only actually have to declare it if you were registered as disabled. And I suspect if you tried to get registered for a nut allergy you'd get laughed at!

 

you'd only actually have to declare it if you were registered as disabled.

Ah, I misunderstood! :lol:

 

you'd only actually have to declare it if you were registered as disabled. And I suspect if you tried to get registered for a nut allergy you'd get laughed at!

You would think so but...this idiot was saying that you should register!!

 

You would think so but...this idiot was saying that you should register!!

in which case yes the world has gone mad :crazy:

 

You would think so but...this idiot was saying that you should register!!

Meaning of "disability" and "disabled person" under the DDA 1995 (Chapter 50)

1. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1, a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Does your nut allergy have a substantial and long-term effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities?

 

[QUOTE/]Does your nut allergy have a substantial and long-term effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities?[/QUOTE]

Only if i was a peanut taster!!!!!

I agree with you,the man was a moron.

 

No the world hasn't gone mad, the act is there to protect the welfare of disabled people and people who have "a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial or long term (min 12 mths) adverse effect on the persons ability to undertake their day to day activities." based from the point of diagnosis.

Basically, if someone becomes ill, but cannot be registered disabled, they are still covered under the act and cannot be discriminated against.

DDA doesn't specify what disibilities are, it merely states what conditions the Disability Discrimination 05 act applies to.
ie, under DDA, following 2005 amendments, people with long term illnesses, such as cancer, HIV, MS etc are covered by its provisions.

From my understanding of the act (as a chartered surveyor who ocasionally undertakes DDA audits) allergies very rarely fall into this and the act is about reasonableness and interpretation.
I believe the person who stated you are 'disabled' is substantially mis-informed.
D

 

No the world hasn't gone mad, the act is there to protect the welfare of disabled people and people who have "a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial or long term (min 12 mths) adverse effect on the persons ability to undertake their day to day activities." based from the point of diagnosis.

Basically, if someone becomes ill, but cannot be registered disabled, they are still covered under the act and cannot be discriminated against.

DDA doesn't specify what disibilities are, it merely states what conditions the Disability Discrimination 05 act applies to.
ie, under DDA, following 2005 amendments, people with long term illnesses, such as cancer, HIV, MS etc are covered by its provisions.

From my understanding of the act (as a chartered surveyor who ocasionally undertakes DDA audits) allergies very rarely fall into this and the act is about reasonableness and interpretation.
I believe the person who stated you are 'disabled' is substantially mis-informed.
D

ok so the worlds not mad just the guy taking the course!

If people started treating things like nut allegies as dissabilities wouldn't it end up trivialising more serious dissabilities?

PS sorry about the spelling!

 

Of course, schools do have a particular responsibility as far as nut allergies (etc) of pupils goes, and a parent should certainly be registering with the school so that they aren't fed anything (either directly, or through cross-contamination) that would cause the child harm.

But that isn't the same as the child being registered disabled. I doubt if this is what the trainer was on about (but as you work in a school, you never know). More likely to be trying to get people to understand that people with a disability aren't just people in wheelchairs. If this was the case, it wasn't very well done on his/her part, was it!

 

ok so the worlds not mad just the guy taking the course!

If people started treating things like nut allegies as dissabilities wouldn't it end up trivialising more serious dissabilities?

PS sorry about the spelling!

We have had a problem at school where a child has gluten intolerance and is entitled to school meals....however the catering firm refused to supply a gluten free option....so the pupils mother claims he is being discriminated against...which i suppose to a degree he is...is that a disability?I think it a bit o a grey area!

 

ok so the worlds not mad just the guy taking the course!

If people started treating things like nut allegies as dissabilities wouldn't it end up trivialising more serious dissabilities?

PS sorry about the spelling!

absolutely, some are sensible, ie if you have a latex allergy, or you develop one, your employer should provide a suitable alternative if yoiur job requires you to wear gloves and if they are provided to everyone else, ie you then aren't being treated different to anyone else.
People aren't treating them as disabilities, it just allows people who have different needs to be catered for the same as people who don't.
eg, i know a typist who can't see the colour red on a white background at all. Most people mark typing amendments in red, but to allow her to do her job, something else is used.
Sounds small and trivial, but its a huge impairment on her job otherwise, which incidentally she can do as well as anyone else.

It doesn't trivialise anything really in the context of the act, as it's aim is to ensure that everyone are allowed the same access, work benefits etc

 

1. the world has gone mad with stuff like this.
2. political corrctness has gone far too far.
3. I'm disabled! (well, nut allergy)

 

1. the world has gone mad with stuff like this.
2. political corrctness has gone far too far.
3. I'm disabled! (well, nut allergy)

It has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with treating people fairly. When did fairness become something to be derided?

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with treating people fairly. When did fairness become something to be derided?

absolutely agree 100%

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with treating people fairly. When did fairness become something to be derided?

I agree....the bloke was a tit.I have no intentions of working in a nut factory,so no one will ever feel they have to treat me fairly!

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with treating people fairly. When did fairness become something to be derided?

I was just saying in general political correctness has gone too far.

 

I was just saying in general political correctness has gone too far.

yes, but not in the context of the DDA 2005

 

Actually you're not required to declare any disability when applying for a job. But, should you get the job and need the employer to make adjustments, such as an orthopedic chair, or voice recognition software, then you obviously need to declare your disability. also should you need time off for medical appointments then you'd need to declare your disability then. I doubt a food intolerance or allergy would be considered under the dda, apart from extreme cases.

 

I doubt a food intolerance or allergy would be considered under the dda, apart from extreme cases.

I am not sure what is extreme but if i eat a nut,i will die.

Still not a disability though....just death.

 

i was taught about disabilities at college recently as part of my childcare course and apparently you are disabled if you are left-handed or wear glasses/contacts etc

so yeah I think the world has gone mad

 

apparently you are disabled if you are left-handed or wear glasses/contacts etc

rubbish

you were taught by someone who needs teaching I'm afraid

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with treating people fairly. When did fairness become something to be derided?

absolutely

I have spent the last 4 working days in the Employment Tribunal, representing someone who has learned how to manage a very serious mental impairment that 40 years ago could only be 'treated' by permanent incarceration in an asylum

its very easy to whine 'political correctness' and undermine an enormously important piece of legislation

I will admit that I knew little about it till I agreed to take this case on, but I have been humbled this week, no mistake, by this person and see things very differently to a month ago

 

I am not sure what is extreme but if i eat a nut,i will die.

Still not a disability though....just death.

For the purposes of the Act (and for that purpose only), it has to be something which will have a substantial adverse effect on one of

ï mobility;
ï manual dexterity;
ï physical co-ordination;
ï continence;
ï ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects;
ï speech, hearing or eyesight;
ï memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand; or
ï perception of the risk of physical danger.

for 12 months or more to count as a disability

 

I lost my left eye due to a tumour when i was a child and i'm not registered as disabled and frankly i wouldn't want to be thanks.

Unless i can get any money out of it of course :bandit: