Author Topic: Paultons Park  (Read 943 times)

ally

  • Diamond member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
Re: Paultons Park
« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2018, 12:43:48 PM »
Not sure how to delete post
« Last Edit: June 23, 2018, 12:20:46 PM by ally »

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4745
Re: Paultons Park
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2018, 11:26:30 AM »
I think that I have been misrepresented but I do not argue that that has been done deliberately.  The issues I raised about what adjustments Paulton's Park should or shouldn't make revolved around the issue of reasonableness, including what adjustments (not mentioned in the OP) they already make, and what evidence they might reasonably ask for of the need for further adjustments than they already make.  I did, for example, make suggestions as to two further adjustments they could make (seeking some sort of evidence as to inability to walk from ride to ride, and giving a discount for those needing supervision). 

The rates of PIP I do or don't get are totally irrelevant to the issue of what adjustments Paulton's can legally be expected to make.

I have absolutely no idea why anyone would think that I look at life in black and white, since the aspect of me that most often seems to drive people potty is the fact that I don't, that I see the 'yes, but...' in everything.  I'm the one who when drafting policies for organisations have to sleep on it and then go through my own drafting removing clause after clause that I had inserted to allow for the exceptions and variations; the one who, when debating something sees the things that aren't all or nothing, yes or no, black or white.

I get the impression that what is being confused here is whether it is my thinking that is black and white or the law that I am commenting on.  The law is open to interpretation by the courts, but it says what it says.  It says says Paulton's Park has to make reasonable adjustments, that doesn't mean they have to make unlimited adjustments, complicated adjustments, disproportionately expensive adjustments.  Thus I would enjoy debating what is or isn't reasonable, but if I say that Paulton's Park has to make only 'reasonable' adjustments, that is the nature of our legislative process that is black and white, not my thinking.

Thus my point about wheelchairs is not as to whether it is right or wrong for someone not to have one, but whether as a matter of reasonableness Paulton's Park could take the view that the ability to get from car park to entrance and thence to wheelchair hire is indicative of an ability to get from ride to ride.  My issue is as to where the threshold should lie and as to what evidence Paulton's Park could realistically be expected to accept that their existing adjustments to the rides do not suffice for the purpose of the legal requirement to make reasonable (and only reasonable) adjustments. 

However, it seems to me that there are very different views here and more to the point, different approaches to debating such points.  It is clear that Fiz has taken my approach to discussing these issues as a personal attack, and various things said to me have felt like a personal attack.  That being so, I do rather feel that this thread has gone pearshaped because we're looking for a different sort of debate. 

I apologise if I came across otherwise than intended and I hope that the above explanation will enable you to see my perspective, as I have endeavoured to see that of others.  I will leave you to discuss Paulton's Park and pop in elsethread from time to time to say hello.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

ally

  • Diamond member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
Re: Paultons Park
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2018, 12:11:35 PM »
I had no intention of attacking you.  I was actually trying to defend your views on the disability criteria for Paultons park.  Before fizz posted I'd never heard of the  place.   Now I wish I'd never heard of the place at all.  Sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intention. 

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4745
Re: Paultons Park
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2018, 12:49:20 PM »
I know you weren't trying to attack me and my problem is with my reaction to what you said, not with what you said.  I apologise for not making that clear.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

bub1

  • Gold Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Paultons Park
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2018, 02:32:43 PM »
We all agree to disagree,