Anna'a welsh Zoo

Barneysmom

There seems to be a few people here with a severe disability, a lack of a heart.

I think carers should get in free wherever, life is hard enough for them as it is, give them a break.

uponahill

The_mangler wrote: »

If the disabled person cannot take part in most of the attractions/features then I think they should be entitled to a reduction - some like to go to watch their kids enjoy themselves.

I am a paid carer. I receive the princely sum of £55.55 a week to care for my husband and be there for him 24/7. Im not sure what your point is? (But then, Im not entirely sure you are either.........:))

If it was a Theme Park, and I wasn't disabled I would still not go on the rides or attractions, but I would have to pay full price!
So being disabled makes no difference to me. I just go to watch the grandchildren in any event, and have a relaxing day with endless cups of tea. So I question why would I get in free or at a discounted rate just because some piece of paper says I am disabled?

I am talking about contracted paid carers, not husband 'caring' for wife or viceversa.
As has been said - DLA is for extra costs - paying a professional carer for example.

As for husband/wife who just so happens to receive Carers Allowance, going with wife or hubby, is no different than them going together if he/she wasn't disabled. They would pay full whack. So why would they expect to go in at a discounted rate just because wife/husband is a wheelchair 'pusher'? They should be treated just the same as a mum or dad taking their children and being a pushchair 'pusher'.

If you consider that wheelchair 'pushers' should get in cheaper, would you consider it the same if say I walked in with my stick and my wife helped me? She gets Carers Allowance (well an underlying entitlement) so I presume she is my 'carer'.

To me it seems that people expect concessions just because they happen to be going with a partner who is in a wheelchair. Mind you, there are posts on here that say "I get DLA, what can I get cheaper or not pay at all?"

The_mangler

uponahill wrote: »

If it was a Theme Park, and I wasn't disabled I would still not go on the rides or attractions, but I would have to pay full price!
So being disabled makes no difference to me. I just go to watch the grandchildren in any event, and have a relaxing day with endless cups of tea. So I question why would I get in free or at a discounted rate just because some piece of paper says I am disabled?

I am talking about contracted paid carers, not husband 'caring' for wife or viceversa.
As has been said - DLA is for extra costs - paying a professional carer for example.

As for husband/wife who just so happens to receive Carers Allowance, going with wife or hubby, is no different than them going together if he/she wasn't disabled. They would pay full whack. So why would they expect to go in at a discounted rate just because wife/husband is a wheelchair 'pusher'? They should be treated just the same as a mum or dad taking their children and being a pushchair 'pusher'.

If you consider that wheelchair 'pushers' should get in cheaper, would you consider it the same if say I walked in with my stick and my wife helped me? She gets Carers Allowance (well an underlying entitlement) so I presume she is my 'carer'.

To me it seems that people expect concessions just because they happen to be going with a partner who is in a wheelchair. Mind you, there are posts on here that say "I get DLA, what can I get cheaper or not pay at all?"

OK Troll, I'll bite

Just because you are happy with your lot doesn't mean everyone else is. I have no idea of your age or how long you have been 'differently abled' (seeing as you dont like the term disabled :eek:) but Im guessing as you have grandchildren, you have seen a little of life.
My husband was Production Manager at a large steel works by the age of 20. By the age of 21 he was told he would never work again. That is a difficult thing to deal with and he still hasnt come to terms with it. Unfortunately his mental health has also taken a beating. Being an engineer he likes to look at how machinery works ie canal museums etc. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever but still have to accompany him if he is to get just the slightest bit of enjoyment in his life. Should I still pay full admission fee?
As for wheelchair 'pushers', no I do not class them the same as carers. If your wife accompanies you when on walking sticks yet you do not need caring for (as defined by DLA care component) then I suggest you contact DLA and tell them you have been receiving DLA and Carers Allowance fraudulently.

And as for not considering myself as a proper carer just because I am married to someone disabled, well words fail me. The likes of myself save the NHS £119 billion a year http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/12/carers-save-uk-119bn-a-year

I would love to give up caring and go back to work, I would happily pay full price and be able to choose anywhere we like to visit, not just somewhere that is wheelchair accessible, not too busy or noisy and with adapted toilets. But I cannot because I chose to stick with my husband when he became disabled. I do not expect reductions but I think it is very welcome when companies do go that extra mile.

OneYorkshireLass

I've never got in free anywhere, uponahill. I've always found the person with a disability pays full price, the carer gets a reduced rate or goes free.

'Concessions' are now mostly students and OAPs, not disabled people.

That is a thought - why do students and OAPs get a cheap deal when most are better off than me?

The_mangler

And as for DLA paying for private care - you really are having a laugh now. If only it would pay for that

formaldehyde_perfume

The_mangler wrote: »

And as for DLA paying for private care - you really are having a laugh now. If only it would pay for that

They obviously haven't had to pay for private carers before.

lin473

It never ceases to amaze me how many times you hear the comment 'isn't that what your DLA is for'.
It really doen't stretch half as far as these ignorant people imagine.
Why do they think compensation payouts run into millions where medical negligence can be proved?
That's the real calculated cost of providing a severely disabled person a good quality of life.
DLA is a contribution to the extra expense - the minimum really.

System

lin473 wrote: »

DLA is a contribution to the extra expense - the minimum really.

Correct, and there is no way on Earth that any government can afford to pay sufficient to people claiming DLA to make everything equal.

However what tends to rile people is the attitude that anybody that doesn't bow down and give freebies/concessions is the devil incarnate.

Can you not accept that not every business wants/will give concessions and accept what you can get with good grace?

The_mangler

!!!!!! wrote: »

Correct, and there is no way on Earth that any government can afford to pay sufficient to people claiming DLA to make everything equal.

However what tends to rile people is the attitude that anybody that doesn't bow down and give freebies/concessions is the devil incarnate.

Can you not accept that not every business wants/will give concessions and accept what you can get with good grace?

Absolutely but I will continue to post details of those companies that do provide extra facilities and give concessions, and likewise the companies that dont.

Im not sure Ive said anywhere that this place is the devil incarnate but I have known more facilitating places to visit

MightyB_2

lin473 wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how many times you hear the comment 'isn't that what your DLA is for'.
It really doen't stretch half as far as these ignorant people imagine.

I'm not ignorant, I myself am a DLA claimant and believe that the DLA is to pay for the additional incidental expenses. I don't go to places on the basis that my carer can get in for free; I go to where I want and pay for myself and my carer.

I don't 'imagine' how far my DLA will stretch, I budget very carefully to make sure it does.