Talk:Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Untitled

Why exactly is Disability discrimination legislation so sringent in Britain compared to many other countries of the world? for example, new transit vehicles are rquired to have colour contrasted doors, why is still not required in most countries.Myrtone

Interesting question: UK disability legislation is often said to be among the most comprehensive in the World - but certain US states have had legislation for longer, and Canada (Ontario in particular) is also a real trailblazer. I do not know whether these jurisdictions have equivalents to Part 5 DDA (which gives the Secretary of State powers to make accessibility regulations for trains, buses and taxis) - but if they don't, it may not just reflect the relative strengths of the disability movement in different countries, but also the relative importance of public transport in different places. Sjoh0050 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Two drivers apply, the Health and Safety Act, from the 1970s onwards, and an EEC Directive, which you'll have to look up. Essentially, disability extends to people with reduced, but still marginal, visibility, and experience establised that colour contrast was very helpful to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

From a wider angle, it was realised that although particular classes of individual had gained various protections individually, a common set of factors, either natal or life-induced, reduced the normal capacity of a significant proportion of the population, and so a wider net has been provided to level the playing field. Hidden disabilities are now part of the agenda too. Essentially, the debate is fiscal, between Socialist causes and Capitalist politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

DDA 1992, 1995, 2005

Shouldn't the entries on the 1992 and 1995 DDAs be brought together with an inclusion of details of the 2005 act?

No. The 1992 Act is an Australian Act. The 2005 Act is an amending Act, so it is correct to talk about the 1995 Act, as amended by later legislation (which the entry explains. Sjoh0050 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Roy Kettle

Why is in inappropriate to mention the primary architect of the legislation? The DDA is in the article Roy Kettle, so why not Roy Kettle in DDA? I also fail to see my poor grammar... Call me daft... L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 23:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Because your amendment to the DDA article was too restrictive, not reflecting the role of Ministers, outside campaigners etc. As for grammar - 'architectured' simply isn't standard English and certainly isn't a verb describing the role of civil servants. Sjoh0050 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For example, a very active campaign was fought by Mrs Rose, Chair of the Greenwich Association of the Disabled (now "of Disabled People"), in a way modelled on Suffragette tactics, chaining wheelchairs to buses stopped by traffic in the right-turn outside Parliament, from Westminster Bridge onto Whitehall. This started in about 1975.

Most legislation is drafted in a cross-party environment in one of the several thousand Working Groups or Select Committees keeping an eye on each sector of the country. One member may well be asked to move the Bill, and carry it through. Ministers may take similar initiatives, and liaison happens to agree the best possible presentation. Although a senior civil servant will inevitably prepare the bill with copious help from the Speakers' Clerks, the real experts on jurisdictional precision, it is rare for them to be credited as blatantly as this, making me wonder whether self-promotion may be an issue here. Perhaps you could contact Rachel Hurst, or the secretariat of the Disability Working Group, for a neutral opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)