Jump to content

General Random Conversation..


Scottish Mag
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

63Nbc9L.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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? :razz:

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

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

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 by Rayvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.