Chester Zoo now charge for carers

LittleTinker

bigturnip wrote: »

And you accused somebody else earlier of being judgemental? Yet you are making wild judgements and even making up facts about the percentage of disabled people who wouldn't go to the zoo on their own. Pots and kettles come to mind.

Pot and kettle why?
Someone else was being judgemental as they assumed I was abled bodied.....no accusation. It is a statement of fact.

I might not have any links to back up the percentages but they wont be far off...... who have I been 'Wildly' judgemental about?

Indie_Kid

Disabled people pay more than a child to get into Chester Zoo - so there's not that much of a saving. (or any)

bigturnip

LittleTinker wrote: »

Not everyone who disagrees is able bodied....why do you assume that they are?

If I had a child of 8 and he wanted to go to the Zoo, it might cost me £20 for me and £15 for the child. Alls well. My child has a day looking at the animals and I get to see them and my child have a nice day.

If I had a child who was disabled and he wanted to go to the zoo, it might cost £15 for him and £15 for me as his carer.......£5.

What difference would it make if I were taking my child to the Zoo for a day out anyway?

My Mum is wheelchair bound......she would not ever go to somewhere like the Zoo even if she could.....so why should the person who Mum wants to go for a day out with get in for free if they are going to enjoy the day out with her anyway?

Chester Zoo and many places like it will abolish these concessions because (as it always happens) too many people abuse the system.
The No Waiting in Lines is being abused, Blue Badges are being abused and the whole system is being abused (look what Cameron is doing now)......its not surprising that the reins are now being pulled in......and the ones who suffer are the ones who really DO need the service the most.

In this case, theme park consessions, should be hourly paid carers and that is it.

But not everybody is in the same situation as you, nobody is forcing you to take the concession, if you would have gone together as a family anyway and feel it is unfair that you get a concession, simply don't take it.

But there are many other disabled people with a wide variety of situations, not all of them will be the same as you, what about the people who live alone and the only time they can get out is when their carer takes them? Unfortunately a lot of disabled people do live solitary lives because they find it hard to make friends, or people find it hard to make friends with somebody who has a disability, therefore they are far more likely to want to do things on their own.

bigturnip

LittleTinker wrote: »

Pot and kettle why?
Someone else was being judgemental as they assumed I was abled bodied.....no accusation. It is a statement of fact.

I might not have any links to back up the percentages but they wont be far off...... who have I been 'Wildly' judgemental about?

We've already been through your lack of understanding of the English language and why the poster you accused of being judgemental could just have easily been talking about able bodied people in general, so no they might not have been assuming that you were able bodied, you just chose to take one meaning of the sentence and make it fact.

You claim that 90% of disabled people would not go to the zoo alone, that is extremely judgemental, if you look at my above post I have explained why I think disabled people are far more likely to want to go to the zoo alone, but it is an opinion and I haven't presented it as fact.

LittleTinker

bigturnip wrote: »

We've already been through your lack of understanding of the English language and why the poster you accused of being judgemental could just have easily been talking about able bodied people in general, so no they might not have been assuming that you were able bodied, you just chose to take one meaning of the sentence and make it fact.

You claim that 90% of disabled people would not go to the zoo alone, that is extremely judgemental, if you look at my above post I have explained why I think disabled people are far more likely to want to go to the zoo alone, but it is an opinion and I haven't presented it as fact.

You think that I have a problem with English....I think your problem is greater!!

I have told you twice now that the comment was talking about me......if you bother to follow the conversation you would know that........instead you keep bleating on making the same derogatory remarks, trying to look clever by belittling someone on a message board.

As for my percentages post......I suggest you read it again.....you have read what you think it says instead of actually reading it properly.

Indie_Kid

bigturnip wrote: »

We've already been through your lack of understanding of the English language and why the poster you accused of being judgemental could just have easily been talking about able bodied people in general, so no they might not have been assuming that you were able bodied, you just chose to take one meaning of the sentence and make it fact.

It was in general.

Barneysmom

LittleTinker wrote: »

Not everyone who disagrees is able bodied....why do you assume that they are?

If I had a child of 8 and he wanted to go to the Zoo, it might cost me £20 for me and £15 for the child. Alls well. My child has a day looking at the animals and I get to see them and my child have a nice day.

If I had a child who was disabled and he wanted to go to the zoo, it might cost £15 for him and £15 for me as his carer.......£5 cheaper.

What difference would it make if I were taking my child to the Zoo for a day out anyway?

My Mum is wheelchair bound......she would not ever go to somewhere like the Zoo alone even if she could.....so why should the person who Mum wants to go for a day out with get in for free if they are going to enjoy the day out with her anyway?

Chester Zoo and many places like it will abolish these concessions because (as it always happens) too many people abuse the system.
The No Waiting in Lines is being abused, Blue Badges are being abused and the whole system is being abused (look what Cameron is doing now)......its not surprising that the reins are now being pulled in......and the ones who suffer are the ones who really DO need the service the most.

In this case, theme park consessions, should be hourly paid carers and that is it.

Why should it be hourly paid carers? Because you say so?

The whole system isn't being abused by everyone.
It's being abused by certain people, I agree.

But if someone's disabled, they should have a few consessions, surely..
else this country has no compassion at all.

Broken_hearted

Barneysmom wrote: »

Why should it be hourly paid carers? Because you say so?

Agreed a lot of us work yes work for nothing, we cannot afford to pay for carers.

pstuart

Another Moneysaving thread going of on a tangent.

I bet the suits who run the business called Chester Zoo were clenching at the beginning but soon heaved a sigh of relief at the usual cross opinions.

The 'Staycation' has resulted in massive price hikes in most attractions, either by stealth as in this case or just plain old increases on admission and on site charges.

The bottom line for any business is profit.

Reading through, there seems to be a 'Daily Mail' attitude by some contributers that didn't seem to be so apparant before the Banks crippled the country and now it seems that the disabled are just as much to blame.

Both our current leaders worked in PR, can't you tell or are you falling for it.

bigturnip

LittleTinker wrote: »

You think that I have a problem with English....I think your problem is greater!!

I have told you twice now that the comment was talking about me......if you bother to follow the conversation you would know that........instead you keep bleating on making the same derogatory remarks, trying to look clever by belittling someone on a message board.

How do you know the comment was about you in particular? If I said "As a fire-fighter, you have to be over 6 foot" would I be assuming you were a fire-fighter? And that you were over 6 foot? Maybe, maybe not, I could just as easily be talking about fire-fighters in general.

The poster of the comment has come back on here twice (admittedly once after you made this post) and said they weren't talking about you in particular so why you maintain that they were I am not sure. Just because you have decided to read something in one way does not make it so.

LittleTinker wrote: »

As for my percentages post......I suggest you read it again.....you have read what you think it says instead of actually reading it properly.

Here is what you said:

LittleTinker wrote: »

I am also aware that a large percentage of disabled people do not need someone with them all the time and of the ones who do, 90% of them would not go to the zoo all by themselves even if they were able bodied anyway.

What made you aware of this statistic?