Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on January 29, 2016 at 17:53

Hello David.

May I ask if our local representatives are there for us, why then, when the Pet Policy was voted in by them, was it done without any reference to anyone, like myself, who needs a dog for psychological reasons?  In fact, the vote was taken to allow only those who were physically disabled to have an assistance dog.  My own councilor knew of my case, but did not raise it.  I cannot call that looking out for any residents' interests.  Very disappointed.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Graves (your Alderman) on January 29, 2016 at 18:06

Dear Maria,

As I think you are aware, the policy would allow a dog to be kept for psychological reasons where there is evidence of genuine need from an appropriately qualified expert. You can appreciate I'm sure that if residents were able to self-certify  a psychological need with no objective back-up to support this, the system could easily be open to potential abuse. I stress I am talking in general, and not with regard to any particular individual case, as it would be quite wrong to discuss individual cases on a public forum. As such, I think the policy is reasonable in principle and tries to balance what could become competing interests if any one individual felt their wishes should unreasonably trump other peoples' reasonable interests. Genuine medical need independently confirmed can of course support a special case where appropriate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on January 29, 2016 at 19:57

Thank you David, for your views on this issue, which have been noted.  Obviously, I would never expect my councillor to discuss personal issues on a public forum.  I was referring to private correspondence, where I was badly let down.  

Regards.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on February 1, 2016 at 15:36

Dear David

I would also like to ask you, I presume you have actually seen the Pets Policy document you voted for.  Could you please show me the section of that policy where it states that a resident suffering from a diagnosed psychological illness, in need of a dog, would be allowed to keep one.  Many thanks. 

Regards.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Graves (your Alderman) on February 1, 2016 at 18:54

This isn't stated on the face of the policy - no policy can reasonably accommodate all parameters across a spectrum of possible individual cases, but in discussions which I have had with officers about the policy they have accepted that the specific example I referred to above is valid. Ultimately, each case is considered individually - the policy sets out the general framework which in principle applies, subject to any valid cases for exceptions for valid cases.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on February 1, 2016 at 20:11

Sorry David, but, unless its in writing it is not valid.  All policies have to, by Law, be clear.  If the Policy stated, in print, that dogs for physically disabled people were allowed, it would have to do the same for those people in need of a dog, with psychiatric illnesses, otherwise its a clear breach of the Equality Act.  The Policy does not even mention exceptional cases, but simply says that only those who are physically disabled are allowed an 'assistance' dog. Therefore, the Policy is discriminatory.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Graves (your Alderman) on February 1, 2016 at 22:08

Well, I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, naturally. The fact that the policy does not expressly cover every contingency or scenario does not make it discriminatory or unlawful, as I see it.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on February 1, 2016 at 22:45

Sorry again David, but this has nothing to do with my opinion, or yours, but what is down to the actual Law.  You may disagree, but the fact remains that the Pets Policy is discriminatory.  I trust you are aware of the Equality Act, and what it says?  All councilors are required to have an understanding of this Act, which is overseen by the Equality Commission.  Unfortunately, my councilor did once send me an email claiming he did not know whether the Commission 'knew the Law or not'!  Surely, you can agree that is worrying?  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Graves (your Alderman) on February 1, 2016 at 23:52

Well, in my opinion the policy is not discriminatory, or unlwful. You express the contrary view as "fact". I know from experience that there is a reasonable living to be made from providing "opinions" as to the law. That is a fact. What you say is really your opinion, rather than fact, in my opinion. I'm sorry if this does not support your view of the matter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on February 2, 2016 at 0:26

David, as I said before, what matters is the actual Law, not our opinions.  Surely, you can realise that if, for example, the Pets Policy stated that only those with psychiatric illnesses were allowed an 'assistance' dog, would you not oppose that?  The Equality Act is clear in that ALL disabilities, be they physical, or psychiatric, be treated equally.  And, again, I ask you if you have an understanding as to what the Equality Act is?  As I said, my councillor stated he did not even know if the Equality Commission knew the Law, so am sure you appreciate why I ask you.  I was of the understanding that our councillors were there to look out for the interests of the residents of our Estate. Also, as I said, it is not my view that matters, but what the Law says.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Graves (your Alderman) on February 2, 2016 at 1:03

And sometimes what the law is comes down to a matter of interpretation by lawyers - ie ultimately the judges who determine legal disputes. The policy we are discussing was very carefully considered and will I am sure be operated fairly and without any discrimination, as I have already explained. You are free to disagree with me just as I am free to disagree with you. We are now at the point, I think, of going round in circles on this, as your point just made about looking after the iterests of residents is where you started this conversation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maria Elizabeth Prior on February 2, 2016 at 1:28

David, again I ask you, if the Pets Policy stated that only those with psychiatric illnesses were allowed an 'assistance' dog, would you not oppose it?  And, again, I have to ask you if you have an understanding as to what the Equality Act is.  And, would you kindly answer my question about my councillor claiming to not know if the Equality Commission knew the Law.  As I said repeatedly, the Equality Act is clear that ALL disabilities be treated equally.  That has nothing to do with 'interpretation' by anyone.  Surely, your role is to listen and protect the rights of us residents, not to pander to the COL.  The Equality Act, again, I say, is very clear. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page