Oops I seem to have got quite misunderstood here. Obviously my communications skills need updating. In addition, in saying some people are 'missing the point' was missing MY point not 'don't know what they are talking about'!! Some responses are getting quite sharp aren't they? It was a question for a debate and all views are equal in my mind (even mine). I am trying to be helpful not provokotive so for any offence taken, I apologise.

The point is that those who are 'automatically' considered covered by the DDA might not even have a perceived 'level of disability' and considering the usual 8 (soon to be 9?) categories and the usual tests, would not be thought to be disabled in any way. Bizarre I know, but as a person who now suffers life long diplopia, I would be considered automatically disabled (under the DDA Blind and Partially Sighted regs) and yet there is NO significant adverse effect on any of my day to day activities and I would never consider myself disabled.... I can do everything required 'day to day' .

What significant adverse effects are there on the normal day to day activities of someone who is monocular? Check the 8 categories and come up with 'not covered' cos they will be able to do all normal activities - even drive a car. Wrong that person IS covered. Some of the people who have commented would not get that right. The individual would state NO to a pre-employment Q 'Do you have any disabilities'.

Does that clarify how very difficult the 'automatic' cases might be and where my particular interest lies? As an employee I would not be considered 'vulnerable' and therefore would not be looked at according to some of the criteria expressed so far. The obvious ones are, well, obvious. Hence me trying to explore the list approach. No further debate required - thanks again. Jane