[access-uk] Re: Fw: Response from Lloyds TSB re chip & pin at home
- From: "Colin Fowler" <col.fowler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 09:38:21 +0100
and are prepared to compromise on the disabled persons movements
interpretation of the social model of disability too! Furthermore your claim
that a civil court would accept the banks alternative option as a reasonable
adjustment is unfounded, you have no evidence of that whatsoever. It is
extremely unlikely that any UK bank would even allow such a challenge to
come to court.
You have your understanding of what is reasonable, I have mine, and the
interpretation of which would stand in a court would be down to the
ajudication of a district judge. Let's agree to disagree Derek, you frankly
don't understand the UN convention on Human Rights for Disabled people, and
as much as I'd like to enlighten you, I fear this isn't the place and I've
honestly no inclination to do so!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Hornby" <derek.hornby_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: [access-uk] Re: Fw: Response from Lloyds TSB re chip & pin at home
> Colin said
> "Obviously the principal of being treated at a disadvantage in
> respect to the security implications is beyond the simple comprehension of
> some on this list!"
>
> No, some of us just know the meaning of the word "disadvantage"
>
> Those that cannot use the key pads at home are not being told they cannot
> access the same banking services at those that can use the key pads.
> They are simply being allowed to carry on accessing the services
> same way as now. There is no lower standard of service, there is no
> disadvantage to the customer because the bank has guaranteed to cover
> for fraud.
>
> If this case was in court for a DDA judgment the bank would win,
> because the bank can show that the blind customers are *not*
> at a greater risk, compared to others.
> But not one blind person can show different.
> All that some can show is that access to the service is being offered
> in a different way, but that's not illegal under DDA.
>
>
> Regards,
> Derek
>
> e-mail: derek.hornby_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
> ** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ** and in the Subject line type
> ** unsubscribe
> ** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
> ** immediately-following link:-
> ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
> ** or send a message, to
> ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
>
>
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
Other related posts:
