Originally Posted by katmobile:
“Ok two points here then I'm done.
One - is that for what I've seen it's not uncommon practice for hotels to let you park in front of them briefly to drop off bags this one's set up is unusual in that the place in front of the hotel is probably the disabled bays.
Two - no I don't have extensive experience in dealing with people with disablities but my husband's knees disolate sometimes randomly. Not the same thing right? Yes I'd agree but the strange thing is that he is a keen runner and has run the London marathan and a lot of half marathons and 20k runs to the extent where sometimes I feel like a bit of a running widow. Not relevant right?
I don't know but you see there is possibly a very good reason to extend Nat the benefit of the doubt and ironically for all the if it were Ola diatribe it would also extend to Ola too. That is that we do know for a fact that Nat has previously been seriously injured - this could be moonshine but hubbie's example illustrates it might not be. You see the human body can be strange - hubbie's knees have never dislocated whilst he's done an official run - weird right? The point I'm making is that just because Nat's back has healed enough for her to dance again doesn't automatically mean it's healed enough for her to lug heavy bags across a car park or maybe because it's her career she considers dancing an acceptable risk but not bag lugging. Also do we know what strained it so badly in the first place - might be relevant here. It may also explain why she doesn't want to comment in that it might make the management of SCD doubt her fitness to carry on working.”
“Ok two points here then I'm done.
One - is that for what I've seen it's not uncommon practice for hotels to let you park in front of them briefly to drop off bags this one's set up is unusual in that the place in front of the hotel is probably the disabled bays.
Two - no I don't have extensive experience in dealing with people with disablities but my husband's knees disolate sometimes randomly. Not the same thing right? Yes I'd agree but the strange thing is that he is a keen runner and has run the London marathan and a lot of half marathons and 20k runs to the extent where sometimes I feel like a bit of a running widow. Not relevant right?
I don't know but you see there is possibly a very good reason to extend Nat the benefit of the doubt and ironically for all the if it were Ola diatribe it would also extend to Ola too. That is that we do know for a fact that Nat has previously been seriously injured - this could be moonshine but hubbie's example illustrates it might not be. You see the human body can be strange - hubbie's knees have never dislocated whilst he's done an official run - weird right? The point I'm making is that just because Nat's back has healed enough for her to dance again doesn't automatically mean it's healed enough for her to lug heavy bags across a car park or maybe because it's her career she considers dancing an acceptable risk but not bag lugging. Also do we know what strained it so badly in the first place - might be relevant here. It may also explain why she doesn't want to comment in that it might make the management of SCD doubt her fitness to carry on working.”
I am also done after this . If your husbands merits a blue badge then fine . If Natalie merits a blue badge then also fine . Then she should apply for one and if she merits one then display it
Until she does then don't park there





