Mike Stranks wrote:Returning to the O/P's point... I recall that not too long ago the BBC made provision for those who were deaf by having a signer present at a big staff presentation. When the signer arrived she/he asked where they should stand so that their signing could be seen. "Actually, no-one who's coming has indicated that they need a signing facility."
"OK; fair enough, I'll go. Just pay me the cancellation fee."
"No; we'd like you to stay and sign - otherwise it looks as though we're not inclusive." (or words to that effect.)
Having been a member of a BBC Regional Advisory Council at one point, I can't say that this story overly surprised me....
Not sure what you mean by this story. Is the intended comment that it was wrong to hire a signer, or a waste of money?
In that case, I do not agree that it is.
Making provisions for people with physical handicaps should happen regardless whether or not they ask for it or not. That's because asking in itself can be a difficult thing, as it places the burden of action onto individuals who, for a number of completely unrelated reasons, may not be able to bear it. Think how difficult it is, for example, for people with mental health issues to do the obvious thing - ask for help.
If the objective is a level playing field , lots of provisions are "just in case" - and most often won't be actually used or necessary. A wheelchair-friendly pathway in the subway, for example, is used much more rarely than a regular one, because people in wheelchairs are much less than people with working legs. Having one is still right, innit?