13-08-2014, 03:03 PM
Steve H -
I won't argue with the paragraph re venues as I'm not familiar with the law in these matters. However, I don't believe that if a venue has been secured that disabled, or any other person, cannot access that the event must up sticks and move elsewhere, possibly at high cost and inconvenience to a majority of players. And it wouldn't matter how much notice or information the disabled player gives, it would likely to be impractical to change. I suggest that the wording used - must - is causing jitters and will lose support for your motion.
I do believe that you have support for the principle behind the motion, so again I suggest that a minor change of wording would make a difference.
Quote:I have said time and time again in this thread , the word used is should not mustSo you have Steve but line 1. says:
Quote:These requirements shall (my italics) be usedThat is unequivocal, it is the same as 'must'. This difference of interpretation of 'must', 'shall', whatever, will not be resolved here by endless repeating. The important point is that some are interpreting these terms as definitive and if you want support for your motion you need to allay those concerns.
I won't argue with the paragraph re venues as I'm not familiar with the law in these matters. However, I don't believe that if a venue has been secured that disabled, or any other person, cannot access that the event must up sticks and move elsewhere, possibly at high cost and inconvenience to a majority of players. And it wouldn't matter how much notice or information the disabled player gives, it would likely to be impractical to change. I suggest that the wording used - must - is causing jitters and will lose support for your motion.
I do believe that you have support for the principle behind the motion, so again I suggest that a minor change of wording would make a difference.