Talk:Disability Discrimination Act 1995
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Why exactly is Disability discrimination legislation so sringent in Britain compared to many other countries of the world? for example, new transit vehicles are rquired to have colour contrasted doors, why is still not required in most countries.Myrtone
Interesting question: UK disability legislation is often said to be among the most comprehensive in the World - but certain US states have had legislation for longer, and Canada (Ontario in particular) is also a real trailblazer. I do not know whether these jurisdictions have equivalents to Part 5 DDA (which gives the Secretary of State powers to make accessibility regulations for trains, buses and taxis) - but if they don't, it may not just reflect the relative strengths of the disability movement in different countries, but also the relative importance of public transport in different places. Sjoh0050 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
DDA 1992, 1995, 2005
Shouldn't the entries on the 1992 and 1995 DDAs be brought together with an inclusion of details of the 2005 act?
No. The 1992 Act is an Australian Act. The 2005 Act is an amending Act, so it is correct to talk about the 1995 Act, as amended by later legislation (which the entry explains. Sjoh0050 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is in inappropriate to mention the primary architect of the legislation? The DDA is in the article Roy Kettle, so why not Roy Kettle in DDA? I also fail to see my poor grammar... Call me daft... L.J.Skinnersomething to say? 23:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC) wwqewqewqeqwewqeqweqwewqewqeeqweqweqeqw Because your amendment to the DDA article was too restrictive, not reflecting the role of Ministers, outside campaigners etc. As for grammar - 'architectured' simply isn't standard English and certainly isn't a verb describing the role of civil servants. Sjoh0050 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)