Disembarkation across P & O

[zap99]

50 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

Since the lanyard seems to cover a wide range of hidden disabilities, then it is impossible for the public, and probably even lanyard aware staff, to know immediately the sort of assistance the wearer might need. In which case I question the benefit of a lanyard, as opposed to a card that can be shown to a staff member when the individual requires assistance.

 But this still does not resolve their possible lift issues on disembarkation day or during the cruise.

Do the folk wearing Lanyards need some help ? Do they want to be left alone ?. assisted , not assisted. They obviously want folk to know because they wear a lanyard, but will they be offended if you ask ' do you need any help '. I'm still a bit confused.  Probably best to just be aware,  but treat them as normal. As for lifts stopping at every floor, ..lifts do that and it's not the fault of the folk inside the lift necessarily,  but folk outside the lift can press buttons as well. We will let P&O take our cases the night before and get off as late as possible. This is where I came in.. and where I depart.

[cruising.mark.uk]

27 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Do the folk wearing Lanyards need some help ? Do they want to be left alone ?. assisted , not assisted. They obviously want folk to know because they wear a lanyard, but will they be offended if you ask ' do you need any help '. I'm still a bit confused.  Probably best to just be aware,  but treat them as normal. As for lifts stopping at every floor, ..lifts do that and it's not the fault of the folk inside the lift necessarily,  but folk outside the lift can press buttons as well. We will let P&O take our cases the night before and get off as late as possible. This is where I came in.. and where I depart.

I agree with both you and with @terrierjohn.  Your posts and that of @Megabear2 above also confirm for me that while this scheme should be beneficial in respect of staff providing assistance, it is probably largely irrelevant in respect of the general public and very unlikely to prevent members of the public from challenging the need of the wearer.  I can understand fully how an individual would use an accessible toilet to bypass a very big queue at the relevant standard toilet, having engaged discretely with a member of staff and shown them their lanyard and bowel association card.  But, it would be naïve to think that others in the queue would see the lanyard and curtail any criticism they might of that individual for queue jumping. 

 

Furthermore, some members of the public would be (rightly) sceptical that some wearers would interpret the scheme’s desire to allow them to avoid being challenged as carte blanche to circumvent or otherwise bypass delays / problems encountered by others whenever they wished and not just those directly associated with their condition / need.  And, given the implication above that 50% of people might have a hidden disability at some stage in their life, and the website's statement that 1 in 6 people have one (possibly higher on P&O cruises given the demographic?) the implications of individuals who believe it gives them carte blanche could become significant very quickly.  Again, I suspect it would be naive to think that no-one would ever seek to misuse the scheme.

 

In reality, as you and @terrierjohn imply,  I sense that it is natural that some members of the public will challenge the needs and justification of individual wearers.  And it is absolutely right that they will respect that need in context, but be less willing to recognise it out of context.  I believe that people are generally kind-hearted and willing to help, if they see a need / request as genuine and fair.  But, they are also rightly sceptical about people who secure preferential treatment or other advantages without good reason.

 

An example to illustrate my point:

-        My wife and I are sitting mid-way through our cruise in the Atrium.  About 15 feet away from us, a middle-aged woman is sitting on her own.  She appears physically well and active and is wearing a sunflower lanyard.  Immediately after a tannoy calling a medical response team, she leaps up, comes over to us and says ‘Sorry, I’m profoundly deaf.  I vaguely heard an announcement.  Is there an emergency?  Can you write down for me what is happening?’.  We, of course, do exactly that as, no doubt, would everyone else who has contributed on this thread.  And, we would do that whether or not she was wearing a lanyard.

-        A couple of days later, the same woman is in front of us for the queue to the theatre.  She is wearing her lanyard and, on entry, has a quiet word with the staff member, shows him her access card and says ‘I am profoundly deaf.  Can I have a seat right at the front, so that I can enjoy the show as much as everyone else’.  He escorts her down and clears a front row seat for her.  I suspect no-one on here would have an issue with that.  But, I also suspect the same result would have been achieved without the lanyard or access card.

-        On the last day of the cruise and having waited 15 minutes, my wife and I secure spaces in a packed lift going down to reception to debark.  The doors open on a lower floor and the same lady is there with her lanyard on.  She waves it towards the lift occupants and says ‘I have an invisible disability.  Can someone get out so that I can get in the lift?’  How many posters would voluntarily give up their space in the lift in these circumstances?  How many would feel justified to challenge the need of this lady?

 

Hopefully, this illustrates why I believe that, while awareness of the scheme by members of the public is beneficial, expecting them automatically to treat wearers of the lanyard any differently from how they treat anyone else is not, in my opinion, realistic.  Context is critical, as is a willingness for the wearer to interact and explain their needs.  I can understand how the latter would be difficult / embarrassing for them – hence why it seems to me that the scheme is more geared towards staff interaction with guests (which can be taken to a different room and / or conducted more discretely) than that of the public.

 

Having said that, though, time for me to bow out as well.