8 replies to this topic

[Izziwhizzi]

Easyjet claimed paraplegic passengers couldn't fly alone and needed a carer

http://www.dailymail...ers-flying.html

The most amazing bit though is the selection of comments afterwards!!!

[jenny407]

Hi Izzi. It seems this subject touched some of us - first Simon posted it in this section, then I didn't see it and posted again in the travel subforum. =) I really did look before I posted but didn't see it - too much in a hurry. My bad.

What YOUR thread does add, however, are the incredible comments! Unbelievable ...


Who believes in bad karma?
Or just plain human feelings ...?

[Izziwhizzi]

Yes sometimes the best bit about an article is to see the amazing selection of ill-informed comments after it.

Sorry I missed seeing your version of it before I posted mine.

[Trinity]

Ahhh, the good old Daily Mail............

[jenny407]

Izziwhizzi, on 14 January 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Yes sometimes the best bit about an article is to see the amazing selection of ill-informed comments after it.

Sorry I missed seeing your version of it before I posted mine.

No need to say sorry - you made me feel so much less embarrassed as I'd missed Simon's thread, LOL! Thank you.

I agree about the comments. Sometimes a very interesting part of a youtube video, too. =)

[HiltonP]

As I moved inexorably towards the status of being a Grumpy Old Man I am increasingly on the view that companies would choose to discriminate against us should be hit where it hurts them the most, and hit really hard! £60,000 is small change, they should have been fined £6 million, that would have changed a couple of attitudes.

One other hand I would be perfectly happy to scrap any sort of fine if the airline agreed to also not accept any passengers under the age of 18 or over the age of 65, which in my opinion would then also exclude people who would be a liability in the case of an emergency.

I have spent much of my disabled life trying to persuade people and businesses to be more accepting of the disabled community, but my lasting impression has been that they generally are not willing to comply and rather choose the easy option of ignoring us. But I have come to believe that the only long-term solution is legislation, legal action, and active boycotting of any company which chooses to discriminate against us.

P.S..... I found the comments following the Daily Mail article to be quite illuminating, and unfortunately they do reflect the day-to-day base feeling of the man in the street. It is sad to admit it, but the average person really does honestly believe that we should just stay at home, keep quiet, and be cared for.

[greybeard]

It's a bit difficult to boycott a company that refuses you access to it's services, but I agree in principle (barring the over 65 bit - but then I don't travel now anyway )

Oh, and welcome to the Grumpy Old Men club.

[megatrig]

Comments!

Well just so long as disabled people accept that in an emergency situation it will be a survival of the fittest. There are some things that disabled people just cannot be allowed to do for the well being of the majority - and themselves - and they need to start accepting this. They cannot expect everyone to be their carers.
- micheal, belfast, 14/1/2012 12:27

Click to rate Rating 42 Report abuse

If the aircraft has to be evacuated, whether we wish to say it or not, disabled people will be in the way, being delayed or barred by a disabled person could have tragic consequences. I know it sounds unkind but I wouldn't relish being in this position. No doubt in the PC world we live in facts matter not.

- Jack, Westmorland, 14/1/2012 12:21


Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1jdeIurX8


Intriguing!

Yes in the event of a plane crash me getting off is not a probability! In reality everyone dies anyway!

So ... the people who panic or who are hurt and can't walk after the crash/accident?? Yes they would be left behind too!

Must admit to being bemused by these comments and I'm still trying to get my head around them!

[HiltonP]

greybeard, on 16 January 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

It's a bit difficult to boycott a company that refuses you access to it's services, but I agree in principle (barring the over 65 bit - but then I don't travel now anyway )

Oh, and welcome to the Grumpy Old Men club.

GB..... I think you understand the point I was trying to put across, but for the benefit of those who may not, I was wishing to indicate that if the company wished to discriminate against disabled people then they should also exclude children and elderly, both of whom would also be liabilities in the case of an emergency. In this case I agree that the boycott would be difficult, but in the case of other businesses it is a feasible option. There is no better way of drawing the attention of a company than via their income stream.