Not a great bit of PR... Dad’s fury at Down’s girl snub EXCLUSIVE: Theme park ‘proof’ row please log in to view this image A GIRL of seven with Down’s Syndrome wept after a theme park demanded proof of her condition before letting her in. Excited Aimee Townsend went to Flamingo Land with her parents and two sisters last week. Dad Peter was told to produce written and photographic evidence of her disability to get cheap park passes, allowing faster access to attractions. He did and was directed to the medical centre to pick them up as his family waited — only to be told Aimee had to collect the passes in person. Furious Peter, 47, said: “I’d jumped through all their hoops, but they still wouldn’t hand them over without Aimee being there. I explained all the hassle had upset her and she was outside in tears. “The guy ended up shouting at me and stormed off saying he couldn’t take it any more.” Full-time carer Peter, of Blyth, Northumberland, added: “It’s clear whether a person has Down’s Syndrome by looking. They said it’s because some people fake disability to get cheaper rides, but Aimee wasn’t faking. It was appalling.” Last night a spokesman for the park, in Malton, North Yorks, said: “We apologise for any upset, but don’t feel that our request was unreasonable. “The parent had an issue with co-operating.” http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...TheSunNewspaper-_-20150827-_-News-_-228260211
How do schemes like these normally work? I'd expect to need to provide proof of the disability, plus proof of attendance to make sure the proper person is benefiting. . Is that right? Do Flamingo Land do it differently to other places?
It's fairly easy to see if someone is down syndrome or not, they should have been able to sort this by looking, without demanding proof in writing.
Reading it, it seems the issue was that he wouldn't bring her for them to see after he'd seemingly already met the other requirements. I have no idea what the normal procedure is with such things. Clearly it needs something, or it'd be abused,
I'd assumed it was more than that, based on his “It’s clear whether a person has Down’s Syndrome by looking“ comment.
But reading it, it could only be clear if the person had seen her, which it seems dad was unwilling to do. Having already provided the paperwork, it dorsn't seem too unreasonable to see that the person in question is actually there. Anyone knowledge of how these things usually work, and if Flamingo Land do things differently?
I can now see why the Allams chose Flamingoland as they both seem to have the same attitude towards the disabled - 'PAY FULL PRICE'
It seems they had a big legal case a couple of years ago, they were sued by Scottish family for discrimination after they wouldn't allow their down syndrome daughter to eat her meal in a picnic area (the family won £4,000 compensation, but it was overturned on appeal)... http://www.disabledgo.com/blog/2014...theme-park-pursues-discrimination-case-costs/
That's a weird one. I don't think it's discrimination, I think it's just daft. It sound like that could have had their meal from the pub at that table, if they'd got it as a takeaway?
I agree with the park. It wasn't an unreasonable request. Flamingo Land isn't really suited to offer this kind of facility anyway. The rides are supervised by gormless teens who spend most of their time texting their mates.
Disabled people get stared at all the time. People can't help it, if someone is a bit different then the staring starts. I feel for the Dad because he would have seen all the other families with kids entering the park and he would have just wanted his daughter to do the same. To have to take his daughter to be 'verified' is not good for her self-esteem. The park has no doubt tightened it's rules because families have taken advantage in the past but they should show more empathy in this situation.
I feel for the Father and his daughter - it's awful enough being disabled without having to jump through all the extra hoops to prove it. It's the people who "cheat" by pretending to be disabled who need to be severely punished. It's these wan***s trying to save a few bob by cheating who are responsible for these checks being necessary.
Interesting comments seeing as none of you were there, and the Sun is not exactly known for journalistic integrity and honesty. You read it online, it suits your agenda, you start ranting. Just consider for a second, the dad was being a twat, and was lucky he wasn't ejected, that the staff there dealt with him for a while. He likes complaining about stuff. He pitches a story to the Sun. They buy it. You buy it. The truth will be somewhere between the Sun version and what I've typed above.
I'm always amazed when out and about how many blue badge holders there are these days. About 1 in 3 must have a qualifying disability (or are gaming the system).
If they have a thought through procedure they should stick with it; problems arise when folk start being selective in enforcement. If a dad wants to make use of the disabled benefit then read the requirements and do them without fuss. If he doesn't, or he worried about self-esteem, then pay the full amount,it must be worth it, surely.
Yeah doesn't seem the park was being unreasonable. The Dad's comment that you can see Down Syndrome is at odds with him refusing to let them see his daughter..
It is an odd claim that they're discriminated against because they didn't get special treatment, but want to be treat like normal people. I reckon we should always help others, particularly those less fortunate, or whatever the non-critical term is this week, and I really do count my blessings (I'm up to 14,678) but I don't really understand some of the schemes. If an individual needs a carer, I think it's fair enough if one or other gets free entry. I'm sure they'd much prefer to be able to manage on their own, but fair play for getting out there. If an individual would struggle in a queue because of their disability, then I've zero problem with them getting to the front. I don't grumble, but I don't understand when they get a reduction, or get to the front for a non-related disability. Am I being harsh and/or showing my ignorance?
