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

Aren’t YOU satisfied he won’t be allowed out to maim or kill another child?

You seem quite black and white in your views. Pick a side and stick to that side of the line.

Anyway I’ve got a bloody good life to live, I’m off.

Where did I say that ? Whether or not he will be allowed out again is not for me or anyone outside the appropriate authorities to decide - hopefully the decision making processes for that will be better than the ones which led to this situation. What I will say is that it’s a certainty that his liberty will be curtailed for some time, if not permanently as a result of the incident, and that’s entirely the fault of an inadequate safeguarding system which failed to protect both him and that little boy.

I’m anything but black and white, because diverse disability isn’t black and white - your opinion seems to be sod inclusion, just lock ‘em up. My point is that if the care setting had been appropriate and secured to his needs this would likely not have happened. So not only has a little boy been severely injured, but the freedoms of a significantly disabled man will now be curtailed. Both were unnecessary. The difference between you and me, is that I have enough insight to place the blame where it belongs. On the system, and not the disabled man failed by it.

Ta ta. Nice to have debated with you.

Well that’s wonderful that you have the autonomy over body and mind to be able to do that.

But surely it is vital that the man’s freedoms are curtailed? Not sad, or unfortunate, but absolutely necessary in order to protect the public, nay, small children from someone who has committed a terrible act.

While I agree with what you’re saying in principle, my point is that the fact that safeguarding was so poor as to allow this appalling incident isn’t actually the fault of the disabled man himself. His safety and that of those around him was entrusted to professionals. Had his right to liberty been properly risk assessed and appropriate safeguards put in place, it would have protected both him and the people around him, and the incident would likely not have happened. The fact that it did happen and that another person was injured as a result, now necessitates curtailing his liberty. From an objective point of view I find both very sad.

I agree.

It is possible that if he was supervised correctly, it wouldn't have happened in the first place. It's also possible that he either had no history of extreme violence and had been to zoos etc before with no issues or he had a history of violence and this happened due to multiple safeguarding failures.

The fact of the matter is that no one knows his history, his disability etc which are all very relevant.

His freedoms should be curtailed if he hurts others.

Again, why should a screaming shouting person go to a "regular" theatre show and ruin it for everyone else. If they are screaming and shouting what can they possibly enjoy?

I also support self defense against any violent person

so your argument boils down to "fuck the 499 people in the theatre who had their enjoyment completely curtailed because one person couldn't be ejected"

yeah - you are REALLY helping persuade people that inclusion is good.

So, again: to summarise the discussion. People are surprised that some well known and well visited and profitable theatres don't put on more relaxed shows so that they can be more inclusive (an industry that boasts of how inclusive it is, turns out to think that putting up a few pride flags and faffing about with the ladies toilets is enough inclusion thank you very much)

We have also learned that many regional theatres lose money putting on relaxed performances because they can't fill them (a question of marketing i suspect, and partnering up with groups who advocate for inclusion)

We have also learned that including people who may make a lot of noise, can actually hurt (physical symptoms) other disabled people. (answer? probably more relaxed performances so people who may be disturbed by noise can go to the other ones)

And that some people are so determined to label anyone who even hints that some people need to take responsibility for themselves or the people they are caring for, and saying that sentiment is ableist (and we're all secretly hankering for a T4 type of program)

so you do agree that I have a point there? Despite your response seemingly a sanctimonious “gotcha”?…
Having seen your vitriol to posters here, I am really not bothered if you are disappointed or not!

I have some experience with accessibility at events and that’s been my take on the matter.

If i may counter... locking up people with disabilities and excluding them from society was also the norm for centuries. For inclusion to work there has to be adjustments. Give as well as take

Reasonable.

They have to be reasonable.

There hasn't been any vitriol from TGD that I've seen. I think that's an unreasonable accusation.

many of the posts, how about the one at 17:11, accusing people of wanting the death penalty for those with additional needs?

ThreadGuardDog · Yesterday 17:11
Well where or when he should be allowed out, thankfully is not down to you and your ableist opinion is it ? The likelihood is that his freedoms will be curtailed as a result of systemic failures in his care, so that should satisfy you until they bring back the death penalty for being disabled.

There has been a lot of hyperbole on this thread.
The simple message of “I don’t want to sit through a theatre performance with someone else making noise the entire time so I can’t enjoy it” has been twisted in to “you want to lock all disabled people up” or the worst one that people would be satisfied if disabled people were subject to the death penalty or that having that view is akin to eugenics.

I can’t stand it when people use hysteria to make their point. Literally nobody on this thread has said any of this but plenty have been accused of it.

That is not a solid counter. It really is not. 🙄

However, it hit me that the fact that prople think being quiet during shows is not a standard is probably going to lead demise of theaters eventually anyway. Or descent into circus. But who wants to pay that much money for circus...

Exactly this. I think it has descended into some chaos of people flinging dramatic sentences about when no one has actually said that.

Saying that one particular environment might not be suitable for one particular kind of disability is absolutely not the same as saying no disabled people should ever go anywhere

Disabled people did have a time of it in the past: marginalised, excluded, even made fun of.

Things -and attitudes - needed to change. HOWEVER as with many corrected injustices, things then tend to veer too far the other way. Witness some people claiming it is a legal right to shout in the theatre, or that throwing a child into a crocodile pit should not result in loss of liberty for the perpetrator.

As so often on MN, some pps are resorting to straw man arguments (I was once pulled up for using that expression, so for anyone not familiar with it, it means claiming your opponent is saying something much more simplistic and extreme/hard line than they actually are, and going all virtuous about it).

Of course disabled people should be able to participate in as much as they can. Being realistic, for eg, a wheelchair user would have no more issues than anyone else sitting through live theatre, But they wouldn't be able to do mountain biking. Someone who, through no fault of theirs, cannot remain quiet for any length of time could do the mountain biking but shouldn't go to live theatre and sit in the auditorium with everyone else. Maybe another space could be made available for them. The whole point of theatre (and film) is that it needs to be watched in silence, or near silence. That is crucial to the art form.

There are lots of things people who are noisy CAN do. But theatre and cinema are not in that category.

Straw man argument. You get it a lot on here. It enables some pps to feel virtuous and superior.

I agree

I think theatre ushers need a lot more training. If they see something happening that is affecting the audience, or it is drawn to there attention, they need to be empowered to step in, offer support, issue warnings, move people around. The standard of ushering outside of London is not what it should be.

I've been more disturbed by drunk stupid rude typical people than I have ever been disturbed by people with disabilities. Anyone who is having issues should raise it at the time and ask for help to make it ok. If you're just going to quietly seethe, then you've only yourself to blame really.

The arts are for everybody. All people from all walks of life should be welcome at the theatre. Call me naive if you want but that's the fundamental principle. The people who work there should have plans to make it work.