[LINK] RFI: Govt Policy re Correspondence Format

[Jan Whitaker]

At 08:41 AM 7/08/2012, Tom Worthington wrote:
> > ... It is the separate entrance that is banned, not the stairs.  ...
>
>If the entrance to a building has to be accessible by wheelchair, then
>stairs are effectively banned.

No they aren't. Having a ramp does not preclude also having stairs. 
It is quite common to have both, at least in Victoria. You must not 
get out much... ;-)

I believe the issue of a separate entrance was to not relegate people 
with disabilities to entrances through dark back alleys where safety 
would be compromised as well, just because a ramp would disrupt the 
front of the venue. Hide those folks who can't walk. Bad for business.

What I find amazing is the lack of enforcement. I guess until a 
greasy wheel squeaks loud enough, those who aren't complying can do 
what they want.

Back to correspondence, Roger's observation has more to do with 
common courtesy. As far as I know, the  APF correspondence 
consistently states that responses are needed by electronic means. 
That they aren't sent that way tells me that the respondent doesn't 
read or comprehend the information, or just doesn't give a ****, 
particularly given the issue of a lack of an address to respond to in 
the original correspondence and the extra work to print, stuff an 
envelope, and post. I guess the cost of postage (and all that 
handling) is just something the taxpayer needs to continue to support 
because they always have. Pity. But I guess it does continue to 
support AusPost!

Jan



Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _