A Deaf woman is taking legal action against the promoters of the girl band Little Mix because of the lack of an interpreter for part of a concert.
Sally Reynolds bought tickets for the concert with her daughter, and then requested a sign language interpreter. Although the promoters eventually provided an interpreter, it was only for part of the concert.
The legal action may force change in the live events industry, which has been seen by many Deaf people to behind other sectors (such as theatres) in providing access.
Reynolds appeared on BBC News and Victoria Derbyshire’s show this morning. A BBC news article also reported:
However, the concert had started with two supporting acts and the interpreter had not been booked to cover them.
“I felt that we were really part of the Little Mix experience,” said Sally, “but because it was so good I realised that we had missed out on the first two acts.
“So it was very much a disparity of experience compared with everyone else.
“We only got access to the last act. If you went to a film can you imagine only getting access to the last 20 minutes?
“We had paid for our tickets like everyone else.”
Enjoying our eggs? Support The Limping Chicken:
The Limping Chicken is the world's most popular Deaf blog, and is edited by Deaf journalist, screenwriter and director Charlie Swinbourne.
Our posts represent the opinions of blog authors, they do not represent the site's views or those of the site's editor. Posting a blog does not imply agreement with a blog's content. Read our disclaimer here and read our privacy policy here.
Find out how to write for us by clicking here, and how to follow us by clicking here.
The site exists thanks to our supporters. Check them out below:
- BSL Zone: TV programmes in BSL for the Deaf community
- Deaf Umbrella: sign language interpreting - find out about listening fatigue.
- Bellman & Symfon: home alerting solutions, including the mobile phone transceiver!
- SignVideo: Instant BSL video interpreting online
- SignHealth: check out the BSL health library
- 999 BSL: call 999 in an emergency, in BSL
- Appa: Looking for RSLIs, TSLIs and CSWs, apply here!
- Mary Hare School: Education for deaf children and young people
- Signly: Adding BSL to websites
- Signworld: Learn BSL online!
- DCAL: world-class research into deafness, cognition and language
- Action Deafness: “A Deaf-Led Charity” – interpreting & community support services
- Sign Solutions: Instant access to Interpreters, training and BSL translation nationwide
- InterpretersLive: On demand BSL video interpretation
- Lipspeaker UK: specialist lipspeaking support
- Performance Interpreting: BSL interpreting at concerts
- National Deaf Children's Society: The leading charity for deaf children
Liz
January 24, 2018
I think this is a really excellent thing that has happened. I am deaf and have a hearing daughter. We have been to many theatres together and several times i have not had as good an experience as my hearing daughter. Each time it has not been good has been for a different reason eg the loop not working , performers not wearing microphones, me initially not aware i had to buy seats in particular part of auditorium, so difficult to make generalisations re the organisers or promoters but for hearing disabled mums and our daughters bit of news is encouraging.
nathan
January 24, 2018
The question is what is “reasonable”? Is it reasonable that they paid several hundreds of pounds for an interpreter for someone who maybe paid £40 for their ticket.
Pick your battles. This can have a devastating outcome for all deaf people if the Judge rules in favour of Little Mix under “reasonable” guidelines.
I for one, am disappointed.
Editor
January 24, 2018
I’m disappointed in this comment, Nathan.
Yes it is reasonable for them to pay for an interpreter to give a deaf person equal access. Especially if a concert has hundreds of thousands of pounds in revenue.
nathan
January 24, 2018
They paid for an interpreter. They had an interpreter. This is a battle about parts of the show that wasn’t covered.
Editor
January 24, 2018
Yes – The parts of the show that didn’t have an interpreter.
Nathan
January 24, 2018
Do you not consider that may have been a mistake ? The organisers actually did provided a interpretator . Do you really think they will mess about to save a hundred or two hundred quids on not covering the supporting acts ? It most probably was an oversight by some hapless adminstrative person – and now twitter is full of people making fun of this deaf mother .
As i said – pick your battles .
Chris Bradley
January 24, 2018
I think in reality the Deaf woman ended up watching a terp whlist the children watched the group. Even without the fact that the interpretation of the lyrics wouldn’t have been word for word it all seems so pointless
Ian
January 25, 2018
Nathan – are you deaf or not? What battles do you think we should fight? Or are you one of these people who believes deaf people should sit quietly and accept everything as it is without a murmur. Are you even aware of the Equality Act?
This case has been ongoing for months and Sally has the admiration of the Deaf community for persevering with it in order for a legal precedent to be set to ensure that reasonable adjustments are made for deaf and disabled people giving them full and equal access when requested.
And it is not Little Mix that is at fault here, but the promoter who failed to provide full interpreter access for the whole concert.
Imagine you went to watch a film but could only access the last 20 minutes even though you had paid for the whole film.
Chris, it is irrelevant if Sally watched the interpreter sign the lyrics while the children watched the group. It is about having full and equal access and having that choice which is denied to deaf and disabled people, time and time again. And why should the deaf mothers not attend concerts with their hearing daughters and enjoy the experience.
I am deaf and can hear music but am unable to distinguish the words or lyrics unless there are captions or interpreting support available. I do not derive the same benefit or enjoyment otherwise. Everyone is different and enjoys music differently so what might seem pointless to you is not the case for me.
Above all, it is important for us to have equal and full access where reasonable, and to have that choice.
nathan
January 25, 2018
I am deaf and I don’t listen to music – maybe that partly explains my apathy to this case.
What I am trying to say , if I am not clear earlier, is that this deaf lady ALREADY had an interpreter. – even though it wasn’t for the whole show.
This deaf lady has to now in order to win her case legally, demonstrate that it was a deliberate unreasonable action from the promoter that led to this situation where she didn’t have an interpreter for part of the show.
Yes she took action to force them to supply an interpreter but ultimately it is hard to legally demonstrate that it was “unreasonable” that they forgot to cover some part of it. She has to provide evidence that they were unreasonable. That is hard.
I pick my battles. This is a poor battle to fight in terms of legal speak and will backfire hugely if she lost.
And I am someone who always forces people to provide an interpreter.
Ian
January 25, 2018
You are completely missing the point Nathan. Imagine you had bought tickets for an interpreted event lasting for 3 hours only to turn up and find that interpretation is only provided for the last hour. Would you find this acceptable?
By your argument you would accept this as an interpreter had been provided. You already HAD an interpreter so you are happy with the event organisers even though they couldn’t be bothered to provide an interpreter for the first 2 hours.
Equal and full access obviously is not important to you. Effectively you are saying just be happy and grateful with what you are provided, in other words, like it or lump it.
God help us if we were all apathetic and thought like you. We would still be living in the dark ages.
I would also advise that you look at the Equality Act especially where reasonable adjustments are concerned.
Nathan
January 26, 2018
It depends.
If it was a genuine oversight , then a refund would be in order.
If it was a deliberate act, then we are talking about something else. To prove that it was deliberate, you need to provide evidence.
Now prove to me that the organisers deliberately withheld an interpreter for this deaf lady? Its quite hard to win a legal fight based on that with a lack of evidence.
Ian
January 27, 2018
I can assure you that it was not a genuine oversight. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Fry Law would not have taken on the case unless it was a strong one.
Let’s simplify things.
Imagine you have paid an x amount upfront, say £100, to eat a 3 course meal at a Michelin starred restaurant.
You turn up but find that you can only have the main course. The chef can’t be bothered to do the starter or dessert. Sorry, but that’s the way it is and nothing will change.
Would you find this acceptable?
Now substitute the following:
3 course meal (starter & dessert + main course) = concert comprising of 2 support acts + main act
Chef = Promoter
Paid full price ticket for the whole event where all acts are to be interpreted to find that only the main act is interpreted.
Nathan
January 27, 2018
I completely understand what you are saying . If that happened to me in a restaurant , I would demand a full refund as I didn’t get what I paid for
It is another thing to take the restaurant to court saying they discriminated against me for deliberately not serving the starters and desert …..I need to provide evidence that they did it on purpose to spite me .
It is much easier to take the restaurant to court if they refused to serve me at all . Eg if they not got an interpreter at all .
Good luck to Fry Law firm
Editor
January 28, 2018
It doesn’t have to be proved that it was done with ‘spite,’ it would be whether it was reasonable not to serve the starters and deserts when other diners received them.
Jim
January 28, 2018
If anything, Little Mix should *also* be suing the promoter. These guys are supposed to be experienced, professional organisers of large-scale events, in a safe, accessible, and legal manner. They will have access to lawyers, accountants, logistics and support staff to achieve this. There are probably some scary looking contractual agreements involved in all of this too. So they really, REALLY ought to know this stuff inside-out, and to be totally on the ball. (Handing out important decisions to hapless minions simply isn’t believable in this scenario. At this level of business, mistakes get you sued) It looks like they’ve rather failed on the job. Whoops!