Disabled access. The implications for riders.

"These laws are 'conveniently' ignored and it is for us to demand their implementation!" says Steve Yandall

The onus on 'public bodies' goes beyond the DEFRA guidance and should be noted relative to HMPI judgment that stated that whilst BS was not a legal obligation best practise was.To all intents and purposes BS and best practise were one and the same.

As far as disabled access is concerned the countryside is as closely legislated as the town.Public bodies are legally obliged to "be mindful in all they do" regarding the disabled and further they are obliged to carry out disability impact assessments prior to works.

In the case of Chailey the proximity of the Chailey Heritage should have, morally/logically and legally have started a chain of thought that protected, enhanced and ensured the access of those local residents.

On the basis that most works are carried out under public funding the failure to account for the disabled also excludes the infirm/elderly/children and carers...possibly 40% of the population. Is this acceptable in a first World country? Does this justify confidence in conservation 'morality' ? Does this represent the view of the majority?

NO to all !!!

Conservation discrimination exists and it is practised against ANYONE that has needs that fail to fit the immediate agenda being imposed on nature.

The disabled are being let down BUT lets be clear that in doing that conservation lets us all down.

Aarhus is a statute to guarantee representation.

Disability legislation should be a 'safety net' to support a moral obligation.

These laws are 'conveniently' ignored and it is for us to demand their implementation!