doug paulley was more positive than we we re doug paulley was more positive than we were initially wereare happy to work with them even more to make them understand what we really need. thank you very much. thank you cord coming on the programme. nice to meet you. thank you. still to come, we'll be finding out how thousands of grandparents could be missing out on a special government scheme designed to reimburse them for looking after their grandchildren. and we're expecting to hear from european commission presidentjean—claude juncker at the european parliament after theresa may revealed her government's brexit plans. with the news, here'sjoanna in the bbc newsroom. wheelchair user doug paulley has partially won his case at the supreme court against bus operator first group plc. the case was triggered when doug paulley attempted to board a bus in 2012 but was unable to when a woman refused to move her buggy. the court unanimously allowed the appeal, but to a limited extent. doug told our programme he welcomes the decision. it's just been amazing the amount of support that i've had of s

but finally, doug paulley has had his day in the highest court in the country.udges agreed that the bus company's requirement of asking instead of having to give the seat up is notjustified.” of asking instead of having to give the seat up is notjustified. i am really pleased with the result. i am aware that some people will not be pleased. it has not gone as far as some people would like. it has gone further than some people would like. in the end, this is about disabled people is rights to get on a bus. this began in 2012 when he was not able to get on the bus because the wheelchair space was occupied by a mother and her pram. following today's verdict, they may have to change training. but they are pleased they will not have to force people off the bus. we welcome the fa ct people off the bus. we welcome the fact the court has confirmed that a driver is not required to remove a passenger from a bus driver is not required to remove a passengerfrom a bus if driver is not required to remove a passenger from a bus if they are refusing to move from the space. that

so doug paulley absolutely delighted.. you funded this case. why was it so important to bring it? we we re very why was it so important to bring it? we were very keen to support dog but also to clarify his position in relation to the 1.2 million wheelchair users in england and wales. ayes doug. to establish whether or not they would have priority in relation to the use of those spaces. today barossa is a victory because i think the court has actually clarified that wheelchair users do have priority. they don't have an absolute right as they absolutely set out, but it will empower those they absolutely set out, but it will empowerthose1.2 they absolutely set out, but it will empower those 1.2 million wheelchair users to live independently and to encourage them to feel confident to use public transport. does it go far enough? we have been talking about it with various lawyers outside court and it seems to put a lot of onus on the driver to make a judgment call as to whether someone in the wheelchair space shouldn't be there

today the supreme court has allowed the appeal of doug paulley, albeit toa the appeal of doug paulleynt. but it is not quite as clear—cut, because the judgment does go as far as insisting someone move from the space. i am really pleased with the result. i am aware some won't be pleased. it has not gone as far as some people would like or it has gone too far than people would like. in the end, this is about disabled people's right to access, to travel on the bus, and, hopefully, today has been a step in the right direction. it began in 2012 when doug was unable to catch a bus because the space for wheelchairs was occupied by a mum and her pushchair. she refused to move which meant doug could not get on. first group admit that following the verdict, they might have to amend training they provide staff, but are pleased drivers will not have to force people off the bus. we really welcome the fact the court confirmed that a driver is not required to remove a passengerfrom a bus if they refuse to move from the space, which is important for drivers to have that clarity. the impact of the jud

but finally, doug paulley had his day in the highest court in the country.uesting, and not requiring, a person to vacate the wheelchair space was unlawful. but it is not quite as clear—cut, because the judgment does go as far as insisting someone move from the space. i am really pleased with the result. i am aware some people won't be pleased. it has not gone as far as some people would like or it has gone too far than people would like. in the end, this is about disabled people's right to access, to travel on the bus, and, hopefully, today has been at least a step in the right direction. it began in 2012 when doug was unable to catch a bus because the space for wheelchairs was occupied by a mum and her pushchair. she refused to move which meant doug could not get on. the bus operter first group admit that following the verdict, they may have to amend training they provide staff, but are pleased drivers will not have to force people off the bus. we really welcome the fact the court confirmed that a driver is not required to remove a passenger from a bus if t

finally, doug paulley had his day in the highest court in the country.the highest court in the country. all seven judges agreed the bus company policy of requesting and not requiring a person to vacate the wheelchair space was unlawful. but it is not clear—cut because the judgment does not insist some will move from the space. i am really pleased with the result. i am aware some will be pleased. it has not gone as far as some would like or it has gone to far. this is about disabled people'srights, access, to travel on the bus and hopefully todayis travel on the bus and hopefully today is a step in the right direction. it began in 2012 when doug was unable to catch a bus because the space the wheelchairs was occupied by a mother and pushchair. she refused to move which meant dot—macro could not get on. first group admit that following the verdict they might have to amend training to staff but are pleased drivers will not have to force people off the bus. we welcome the fa ct people off the bus. we welcome the fact the court confirmed a driver is not requi

as he makes his way to the supreme court on one of the most important days of his life, doug paulleytle will end in victory for all disabled people who need to use a wheelchair spaces on buses. hi, jeff, nice to see you. this all began back in 2012 when doug was unable to catch a bus because the space for wheelchairs was occupied by a mum and her pushchair. she refused to move, which meant that doug could not get on. inside court, all sevenjudges unanimously agreed that first group's policy of requesting and not requiring a person to vacate the wheelchair space was unlawful. but it is only a partial victory. as it does not go as far as insisting someone move from this space. i feel like it will create a cultural shift and that is what they said in court as well. so people will be aware of the fact that the wheelchair area is for wheelchair users and that they should take priority. the impact of today's judgment will still have wider implications. for example, any service provider with a space for disabled people will notjust have to request that a non—disabled person move, they will

the case was triggered when wheelchair user doug paulley attempted to board a bus in west yorkshire.oman with a sleeping baby in a pushchair refused to move out of the designated area when asked by the bus driver. what began as one man trying to catch a bus has turned into a nearly five—year legal battle. in a bid to clarify a grey area when it comes to wheelchair spaces on buses. thank you! back in 2012 douglas unable to catch a bus because the space will wheel chairs was taken by a mum with a wheelchair. she refused to move, which meant doug couldn't get on. his case centred around the bus company first group and their policies requesting, requiring, someone policies requesting, requiring, someone to move out of the wheelchair space if a disabled person wants to get on. it is a big issue for disabled people. it is plymouth having fully accessible bus services when in fact people can't use the space. —— pointless having. today's final ruling at the supreme court could have wide implications that stretch further than public transport. it is amazing that so few cases make to the supre

as he makes his way to the supreme court on one of the most important days of his life, doug paulleyive—year legal battle will end in victory for all disabled people who need to use a wheelchair spaces on buses. hi, jeff, nice to see you. this all began back in 2012 when doug was unable to catch a bus because the space for wheelchairs was occupied by a mum and her pushchair. she refused to move, which meant that doug could not get on. inside court, all sevenjudges unanimously agreed that first group's policy of requesting and not requiring a person to vacate the wheelchair space was unlawful. but it is only a partial victory. as it does not go as far as insisting someone move from this space. i feel like it will create a cultural shift and that is what they said in court as well. so people will be aware of the fact that the wheelchair area is for wheelchair users and that they should take priority. the impact of today's judgment will still have wider implications. for example, any service provider with a space for disabled people will notjust have to request that a non—disabled perso

as he makes his way to the supreme court on one of the most important days of his life, doug paulleyar legal battle will end in victory for all disabled people who need to use a wheelchair spaces on buses. hi, jeff, nice to see you. this all began back in 2012 when doug was unable to catch a bus because the space for wheelchairs was occupied by a mum and her pushchair. she refused to move, which meant that doug could not get on. inside court, all sevenjudges unanimously agreed that first group's policy of requesting and not requiring a person to vacate the wheelchair space was unlawful. but it is only a partial victory. as it does not go as far as insisting someone move from this space. i feel like it will create a cultural shift and that is what they said in court as well. so people will be aware of the fact that the wheelchair area is for wheelchair users and that they should take priority. the impact of today's judgment will still have wider implications. for example, any service provider with a space for disabled people will notjust have to request that a non—disabled person move

five years ago, wheelchair user doug paulley tried to get onto a bus in yorkshire.o move, which meant doug couldn't get on. his case centred around the bus company first group and their policy of requesting, not requiring, someone to move out of the wheelchair space if a disabled person wants to get on. it's a big issue for disabled people. it's pointless having fully accessible bus services when in fact people can't use the space. today's final ruling at the supreme court could have wide implications that stretch further than public transport. it's amazing that so few cases make it to the supreme court and it is the first time that it's ever had a case about rights of access to goods and services for disabled people. yeah, i never thought about five years ago when i tried to catch that bus that we would still be talking about it now. if found in doug's favour, it would mean any company that provides a space for disabled people would need to make sure they are prioritised for disabled people. if not they could open themselves up to legal action. so many of you getti