To be annoyed at disruption in a theatre show?

[shouldwejust]

I appreciate that this is a nuanced topic, and that there possibly isn’t a right answer.

Recently I went to watch a show in the theatre that I had been looking forward to for months. The tickets were my birthday present and something I can’t usually afford, so definitely a one off treat.

Throughout the whole show, a man who had severe disabilities was shouting out and yelling. He didn’t stop at all and continuously made very loud and disruptive noises.

It completely took me out of the show, meant I struggled to concentrate and was just annoyed!

I fully appreciate that everyone in society has a right to enjoy things, and perhaps this man was looking forward to the show just as much as me! But, I don’t think that it’s fair that he disrupted the show for the entire rest of the audience who had also paid a lot to be there.

I don’t know what the solution is to be perfectly honest. That his carer removed him when he was being disruptive? That he attended one of the “autism friendly” screenings that are expected to have more disruption?

When I said this to my partner he was shocked and said that basically we should just accept that our show was ruined for his enjoyment, as that is being inclusive. I don’t feel that inclusivity should come at the cost of everyone else?

I appreciate that I may be told I am being unreasonable here but I’d like to hear other people’s opinions here

I appreciate all of the comments understanding the nuance to the situation, and I’m saddened that some people have taken to using buzzwords and playground insults for no reason when that doesn’t help a conversation.

i agree there is no easy answer but i stand by the fact that I should be able to enjoy the show as much as a disabled person, and their needs shouldn’t trump mine. It is difficult but unfortunately some places require silence and perhaps if that’s not possible then alternatives are needed

Honestly, virtue signalling aside, there’s no nuance to the situation at all.

if you can’t behave in a socially appropriate way, you ain’t welcome. It’s really really simple.

Theatre can he hell. I see several shows a week usually and people can be god awful. Someone got a full on picnic out behind me once (not an out door place) middle of the stalls at the Barbican for a Shakespeare play.

Talking, phones, crinkling wrappers, loo trips… agggghhhhh!

On your experience. It’s hard isn’t it?! But I don’t disagree. Accessibility should be for all, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of everyone else - and the actors! Most theatres have no introduced relaxed performances for exactly this.

It was in the news recently that someone recently took a baby to the Tempest at the RSC and couldn’t understand why people were giving her evils and sushing!

That was my thought. None of us know the mental capacity of this person so shouldn't comment on whether they has the ability to understand it, but it's highly likely they themselves couldn't hear it and therefore follow it.

As a person with a disability, I will ask for reasonable adjustments, as is my right. But the key word is 'reasonable' - they have to be within the business/organisations ability to provide, and that provision needs to go at least some way to mitigating the impact of the person's disability on their ability to participate. I am unsure what adjustment would have helped here, and therefore whether the theatre is failed in their duty by not providing it?

But they definitely have failed in their duty to provide a service as promised to the other theatre goers. OP, I know it was a gift, but I wonder if any ability to do a claim back if bought via credit card

As I posted upthread, there are a couple of extreme posters on here. One justified the man throwing the child into the crocodile pit as “maybe the child annoyed him or was in his way”. Another or the same poster said the man’s trips out should not be curtailed in future.

So it’s not surprising that they consider shouting in a quiet theatre performance to be aok and to suggest otherwise makes one a bigot.

I’m so glad the actual law doesn’t agree with you.

93% of commenters on this thread would suggest the law is an ass. Hope it changes soon otherwise the economy is even more screwed.

I think the only thing these two incidents may potentially have in common is a failure in safeguarding for the disabled people involved. The man in the zoo incident was clearly in an inappropriate care setting which didn’t properly cater for his needs, with tragic results. The person in OP’s case may well have been failed by whoever cares for them if they didn’t call ahead to discuss any adjustments or alternative facilities available.

It may also have been a failure on the part of the theatre on the day, to actually implement any adjustments agreed. As an outreach worker I’ve seen this so often. You call ahead to agree what needs to be done with a venue or service provider, and when the disabled person and their carers arrive, the promised adjustments don’t materialise because someone hasn’t followed through.

Yes PP, as there are crazy people in society, there are also crazy people on this thread. Either crazy, or very bitter about their lot in life.

I worked every day within the law pertaining to the rights of disabled people. I’ve also seen over decades exactly why those laws were needed. I can assure you the law isn’t an assault. It’s designed to protect disabled people from the kind of discrimination and segregation that some on this thread seem to think perfectly reasonable.

So what would your solution be to ensure that disabled people requiring non-disruption are still able to access the theatre?

Do you live your life just doing the necessary ? If not, why are you advocating that disabled people should live that way ?

To the detriment of everyone else. And that should not be how it is.

We know those who are invested in disability rights do tend to shout the loudest.

And never have a response when you ask about conflicting needs due to disability. It’s always about the right to be disruptive.

Many venues provide private rooms where the performance is live streamed onto a screen. I’ve been involved in the provision of many such adjustments by venues and service providers. The disabled person gets to take part in the excitement of the outing and the attendance of the theatre, but can watch the performance without the worry of disturbing others.

The big problem is that many times, even though adjustment may be agreed in advance, when the person turns up on the day, for whatever reason, it’s not available. Usually because someone has messed up, the facility is double booked or whatever. That’s a symptom of just how little importance is attached to the needs of disabled people to be included in society, even though it’s a legal requirement. It’s poorly policed, which is half the problem.

I’ve given plenty of responses if you care to read them. And not one of them includes the right to be disruptive.

Sorry, you think that the safeguarding failure is for the man who threw the child into the enclosure?!
that he’s the victim in this??

Surely everyone wants non-disruption?

Don’t make me laugh. Disabled people generally have no voice beyond the organisations and charities that are supposed to represent them, many of whom do nothing but pay lip service. If you are continually ignored then you do tend to have to shout louder to be heard. If you don’t have a disability then you’re unlikely to have experienced that.

I’m talking about the parents and relatives. EXTREMELY pushy.

That isn’t what I said. But well done, I was actually waiting for someone to make that point, so you didn’t disappoint.

Nowhere in my post did I say the man was the victim. The child was the victim of the failure to provide adequate safeguarding for the man who clearly had needs relating to disability. Had he been in an appropriate care setting that met his needs, the incident wouldn’t have happened. But as usual on MN the fact that it did means he must be an absolute monster who should be locked away, rather than a severely disabled man who was failed by the people who were charged not only with his safety, but of those around him in a public setting.

But if you needed those adjustments to access the activity/venue, then you would usually return another time when they are in place. Yes it would be rubbish, and yes you would demand a refund, but if someone needs an adjustment to safely do an activity, and they then carry on and do it without the adjustment, it raises the question on whether that adjustment was actually essential in the first place?

We have to have adjustments for my daughters needs. If they are not in place we do not go. I email, call and email again in the run up to us going somewhere new to make sure it is.

Likely because they’ve had to be. I was born disabled and have worked as a disability outreach worker for over twenty years. I realised very quickly that you need to advocate for yourself (and in my case, for others too) or you will get nowhere. So for ‘pushy’ try reading ‘not prepared to be fobbed off yet again’ and you’ll be nearer the mark.

I wouldn’t disagree with any of this, just putting forward some suggestions as to what may have happened. I wouldn’t advocate for anyone going ahead in an activity without the necessary adjustments, but without knowing a lot more about how this person came to be allowed to disrupt the performance it’s hard to comment.