Renton 17632 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 10 minutes ago, Rayvin said: Struggling a bit with that one, which of my many personality quirks is that poking fun at? The giant fanny part of it, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, Renton said: Fucking hell, talk about first world problems. Sounds like a shit idea. I was reading about the prototype Amazon supermarket which automatically knows what's gone into your bags with the did of cameras literally everywhere. Very big brother to avoid a minor inconvenience and make more people unemployed. People queuing to avoid inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38584 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, Renton said: The giant fanny part of it, apparently. Is being a giant fanny the same as being a massive kernt, or is all just a bit vag(ue)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30257 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, adios said: People queuing to avoid inconvenience. It's a bit like people spending a few minutes looking for a checkout where they'll have to queue for a minute less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34190 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 I do scan as you shop at Tesco. Less hassle and I don't suffer the pressure of trying to bag faster than the checkout person can scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4949 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 33 minutes ago, Gemmill said: Nowt really they just sounded like a giant fanny. Cheers man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42776454 Is this going too far? Will cinemas now to obliged to provide someone to sit beside a blind person and describe the action? Will NUFC be required to employ someone to sign 'Get out of our club, you fat cockney bastard' to the deaf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 13988 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 I think it's reasonable that they provided a sign language interpreter for the headline act, but "If you went to a film can you imagine only getting access to the last 20 minutes?" is such a bullshit argument. It's a pop gig, the support acts will have been shite at worst and uninteresting at best. It's more like saying you weren't given access to the adverts and trailers before the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17632 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Meenzer said: "We only got access to the last act. If you went to a film can you imagine only getting access to the last 20 minutes?" is such a bullshit argument. The support acts will have been shite at worst and uninteresting at best. It's more like saying you weren't given access to the adverts and trailers before the film. As opposed to little mix? The deaf women should co7nt themselves lucky etc. I wish this story hadn't come up because it is clearly going to cause a negative public reaction against people with disabilities. It's almost like it's been designed to do just that. And let's be honest. When you use iplayer and get a version of a programme whichbis signed it's distracting to the point of being unwatchable. It is for me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4949 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 The company accepted the premise of her argument by providing the interpreter, so they've opened the door to being sued here IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 13988 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 I wonder how far you can push that line as a consumer. "The company provided an interpreter but they were a little bit behind the beat/got some of the words wrong." Also grounds for action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4949 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) That isnt the same line though. The line here is 'can the company claim to have made reasonable effort?' If they are capable of providing an interpreter for one part of the show, what legal defence will be used to explain that it was also beyond them to provide one for the rest of it? The only thing they will be able to point to IMO will be cost. And that is unlikely to get them very far unless the fee for this was utterly astronomical. Edited January 24, 2018 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 It depends on what the court ruling against them was. If it forced them to provide an interpreter for Little Mix then they did that. If it specified the entire evening then they didn't. It just seems to me to be going a bit too far. By the same reasoning all local community events would be obliged to provide interpreters for amateur events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 13988 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 8 minutes ago, Rayvin said: That isnt the same line though. The line here is 'can the company claim to have made reasonable effort?' Providing an interpreter who can interpret to the audience's satisfaction definitely falls under reasonable effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 13988 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 27 minutes ago, Renton said: I wish this story hadn't come up because it is clearly going to cause a negative public reaction against people with disabilities. It's almost like it's been designed to do just that. ...that all said, this also rings true, let's be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19743 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 Revealing expose of what the male elite like to get up to behind closed doors at the Dorchester in the FT today. Sounds a bit like a Roman orgy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 The Romans must be a bit stale at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 13988 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said: Revealing expose of what the male elite like to get up to behind closed doors at the Dorchester in the FT today. Sounds a bit like a Roman orgy I felt a bit sorry for Great Ormond Street Hospital after reading that. "Here's a big fat cheque for you from our latest event!" "Oh, lovely, what kind of sponsored activity did you do to raise that much?" "Well..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4183 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 15 minutes ago, Rayvin said: That isnt the same line though. The line here is 'can the company claim to have made reasonable effort?' If they are capable of providing an interpreter for one part of the show, what legal defence will be used to explain that it was also beyond them to provide one for the rest of it? The only thing they will be able to point to IMO will be cost. And that is unlikely to get them very far unless the fee for this was utterly astronomical. Given that the agreement was only made hours before the show and the signer would've had to learn the songs, maybe see one rehearsal if they were lucky I think they've made a perfectly reasonable effort to provide for them. The interpreter could also have had a setlist and listened to little mixs songs in the hours in between. this is the support act I believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Makhul#Discography 3 singles, no albums or eps. How was the interpreter meant to do that exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4949 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 21 minutes ago, ewerk said: It depends on what the court ruling against them was. If it forced them to provide an interpreter for Little Mix then they did that. If it specified the entire evening then they didn't. It just seems to me to be going a bit too far. By the same reasoning all local community events would be obliged to provide interpreters for amateur events. Yeah that's a technicality specific to this case tbf. In general I just meant that if a company sets a precedent in demonstrating that it can do something on the basis of 'making a reasonable effort' and then doesn't do so consistently, they're setting themselves up for legal action IMO. I certainly wouldn't have made the same call as them in a similar scenario. It would be all or nothing in this case - or at the very least an explanation out ahead of the fact stating why it had to be like this. 16 minutes ago, Meenzer said: Providing an interpreter who can interpret to the audience's satisfaction definitely falls under reasonable effort. Disagree from a legal standpoint, it's an entirely different line of reasoning. You're making an argument for something subjective that I would file under 'quality control', whereas the case being made is about delivery of a service. 11 minutes ago, Andrew said: Given that the agreement was only made hours before the show and the signer would've had to learn the songs, maybe see one rehearsal if they were lucky I think they've made a perfectly reasonable effort to provide for them. The interpreter could also have had a setlist and listened to little mixs songs in the hours in between. this is the support act I believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Makhul#Discography 3 singles, no albums or eps. How was the interpreter meant to do that exactly? Why would the signer have had to learn the songs? Why couldn't they just respond as things were being sang as they would do with standard speech in all other cases? But that said yeah, if the company turns around and says we couldn't deliver this for a legitimately good reason then fine. My only point here was that setting a precedent concerning what represents 'reasonable effort', which they have done by providing a signer at short notice, leaves them vulnerable now and in future. Yes it's an act of good faith, but presumably they will now have to do this every time (or at least every time it is requested), since they have set a precedent of what 'reasonable effort' permits them to do. I would have said it was simply an unreasonable thing to do and contested it in court if need be. Probably cheaper in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 13988 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 In other words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4183 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Rayvin said: Why would the signer have had to learn the songs? Why couldn't they just respond as things were being sang as they would do with standard speech in all other cases? Do you reckon you could go to a gig of a band whose songs you didn't know and accurately hear then re-say the lyrics to every song, whilst the following line is being sang and then still get that following line right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Andrew said: Do you reckon you could go to a gig of a band whose songs you didn't know and accurately hear then re-say the lyrics to every song, whilst the following line is being sang and then still get that following line right? They're signing to the deaf who know no different. The interpreter may have been making the whole thing up for all they know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4949 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, Andrew said: Do you reckon you could go to a gig of a band whose songs you didn't know and accurately hear then re-say the lyrics to every song, whilst the following line is being sang and then still get that following line right? I don't know tbh, but interpreters work under these conditions all the time. They'll not need to be word perfect I would think, it'll be about the overall meaning. But ultimately, I would have argued that the whole thing was unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4183 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 Just now, Rayvin said: I don't know tbh, but interpreters work under these conditions all the time. They'll not need to be word perfect I would think, it'll be about the overall meaning. But ultimately, I would have argued that the whole thing was unreasonable. So? So do actors, so do bands, you still have to rehearse man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now