- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 6,844
- Points
- 113
Search me! same as Sinkies gettin butt fook daily yet every erection they ret their butt fooker to fook em another 4 yrs.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Witnesses at zara say esme's owners were agressive first
- Thread starter makapaaa
- Start date
Search me! same as Sinkies gettin butt fook daily yet every erection they ret their butt fooker to fook em another 4 yrs.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,383
- Points
- 63
It's very clearly spelt out in the UN Convention
CONVENTION on the RIGHTS of PERSONS with DISABILITIES
Article 4 - General obligations
1. States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability. To this end, States Parties undertake:
- To adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention;
- To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities;
- To take into account the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with disabilities in all policies and programmes;
- To refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the present Convention and to ensure that public authorities and institutions act in conformity with the present Convention;
- To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability by any person, organization or private enterprise;
- To undertake or promote research and development of universally designed goods, services, equipment and facilities, as defined in article 2 of the present Convention, which should require the minimum possible adaptation and the least cost to meet the specific needs of a person with disabilities, to promote their availability and use, and to promote universal design in the development of standards and guidelines;
- To undertake or promote research and development of, and to promote the availability and use of new technologies, including information and communications technologies, mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, suitable for persons with disabilities, giving priority to technologies at an affordable cost;
- To provide accessible information to persons with disabilities about mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies, including new technologies, as well as other forms of assistance, support services and facilities;
- To promote the training of professionals and staff working with persons with disabilities in the rights recognized in this Convention so as to better provide the assistance and services guaranteed by those rights.
The security guard and store manager have direct/implied instructions to stop any big dog (guide dog or not) before this incident.
She was trying to educate them by arguing that it was a guide dog and probably had already spelled out the whole document.
It is totally 鸡同鸭讲 (chicken and duck talk). Nobody will budge.
If her point is to get in and "see" the dress, just leaves the dog with someone and goes into the shop for a quick "look".
If her point is to get the dog into the shop, then she was making a mess out of it.
If her point is to educate the shop, forgets it.
If her point is to be more famous, she got it.
If she wants to sue the shop, goes for it.
There are only 6 guide dogs currently in Singapore.
Please do not expect a quick change of mindsets just because of the document (legal or not).
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,987
- Points
- 0
Whatever her reasons are, if Singcity not ready, you got to blame this on Sing gahment for the ratification.
She is beginning to make people feel that she has all the reasons to be a bulldozer.
The security guard has no reason to step on this landmine.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,383
- Points
- 63
You don't get the point, dickhead. A blind person needs a guide dog to move around. If you disallow a dog in, you're effectively disallowing the blind person, i.e. discriminating against a blind person.
That is why govt has allowed guide dogs into the MRT.
Bottomline, it's about a citizen's right not to be discriminated on the basis of his handicap. And standing up for your rights. Not about getting famous or shopping.
About rigid mindsets, speak for yourself. That, too, is beside the point. Mindset change or not, it's about honouring the international rules against discrimination.
Well, Singaporeans love to speed and take a long time to change their mindsets about safe driving. Should the Traffic Police then abolish speed limits and traffic fines until mindsets change? Should we abolish the Sedition Act because S'poreans are all racist and it takes 3 generations to change mindsets?
Duh ...
Why are you trying to reason by calling names like dickhead? No reason to do so.
A blind person needs a guide dog. But surely he/she can manage a short moment with walking stick or a companion. To believe that he/she is helpless without a guide dog, is itself discriminating.
Don't just assume that the people are discriminating against the disabled, just because they think mindset prevails in this case.
6 guide dogs mean 6 disabled persons (using them), and do you really think things will change fast and easy here? I am sure most people doubt so.
Just be cool.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,383
- Points
- 63
Who are you to decide for the blind person whether he can walk without a dog? Have you tried blindfolding yourself and then walk around in a big store?
Discrimination is about the ACT. And the ACT is caused by narrow mindsets, like yours.
That's beside the point. We weren't talking about speed of mindset change. We were talking about LAWS, and obligations to international conventions that the govt has signed.
Your beloved LKY enacted laws against spitting in public in the '70s, when spitting was prevalent and mindset change was slow. Get it, goondu?
You are indeed trying to bulldoze the path for her.
Trying to have a good exchange is not your forte.
I respect that.
Good luck.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 24,257
- Points
- 113
Appalling.
It has been established that guide dogs are allowed on premises, yet you insist blind people should be more accomodating to businesses by moving around in walking sticks because some businesses are not ready to accept this guide dogs on their premises. To use a baseball analogy, people have already moved to third base you are asking them to move back to the second. Really bizzare logic there.Appalling.
Don't get me wrong. I did not insist them going everywhere with walking sticks.
I think everyone should make the best out of the each deadlock.
If anyone cares for acceptances, then get funding (from gov/public) to provide guide dogs to every blind persons, free or subsidized.
This drive will create awareness and hopefully more and more people will start to accept.
Most people (myself included) will think that she deserves a fair and equal treatment. But I think she should have handled it better.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 24,257
- Points
- 113
Let us be very clear about one thing. When it is well within my rights to do something, I should not have to contend with every ignoramus who assumes otherwise. I am only an ordinary person, not a crusader. I have more important things in my life than to gain 'acceptance' or whatever it is you call sympathy. There are others like me, but to assume this government would accord any form of assistance is simply wishful thinking. Put on your thinking cap, that is exactly what goes through her mind when she was denied entry into the establishment.
exactly my point, as noted from the response / scuffling with the security guard by her and her husband was rather aggro and these actions does her and her cause in educating others, no good - judging from the reactions of others to this incident. as you say, if winning respect and, eventually, gaining support for her cause (even by being meek and muted whilst standing firm, in my opinion) would go a long way in achieving just that.
agreed absolutely, still a long way to go but she's getting there.
me too
She has every rights to do whatever she deemed fit, even to sue the establishment. And don't put things into my mouth again, I did not call it sympathy. Anyone wants change, he/she makes that change and hopefully things will work out for all. Don't expect gov/others to make significant changes, because of some signatures on the document, unless they see immediate interests to do so.
When her dog was denied entry, did she use her mind, or her legal knowledge/anger? Was she trying to force her way in? Nobody really knows. I am not speculating either.
Thank you for making your point clear. No pun intended.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
- Points
- 0
It is the security guard who should have handled it better but you condone a staff to be rude to its customers. It's no wonder Singaporeans are going downhill. A professional will firstly upkeep their own profession and the image of their company. Anyone who cannot do such a simple thing is not worth hiring. To the lady she is merely seeking to enjoy the rights accorded to anyone else. You disagree with this basic human right of hers. You are more at fault than her.
What do you expect from local security guard? Professional? How much are they getting?
What is most important to him - to strictly follow basic instructions (and get miserable monthly pay), basic human rights, or professional image? Most of them do not go beyond the basic instructions. And most of us (probably including her) do not want to understand that.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 37,364
- Points
- 113
!/2 of them are Malaysians, mostly Indians, the half can de divided into ex-SAF, EX-Police, those what in Cantonese called " lor tai chan" type...not pxp members qualities, & women, mostly local Indian, & retirees, same thing, unable to find work anyway...
So, what do you expect them to be? Yes, the received training, yes, they pass the course...but the S.O.P., doesn't say how to handle one woman with big knockers & a guide dog.....they are not paid enough, to use their brain..period!
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
- Points
- 0
Useless and classless Singaporeans like you are the reason why PAP has to import so many FTs. In any industry if a staff uses vulgar language at a customer then that staff is gone. No questions asked. I wonder what kind of industry you work in or are you even employed at all?
Useless and classless Singaporeans like you are the reason why PAP has to import so many FTs. In any industry if a staff uses vulgar language at a customer then that staff is gone. No questions asked. I wonder what kind of industry you work in or are you even employed at all?
Class is not someone who starts personal attacks when he runs out of reasons.
You probably agree with her, when she was the first to call the security guard an animal.
Similar threads
