Dsabled Access To Manx Glens.

[Gladys]

“Your post has confirmed that you are a small-minded and mean-spirited person, with little humanity in you.”

 

I had to laugh at that bit! Both things that you accuse me of are attributes that I hold in high esteem!

 

Also I did mean fiscal. Think it through.

 

That you hold such attributes in high esteem is evident in just about every post you make. I find the use of the word cripple by you as denegrating and derogatory. True it is a proper word, but has come to be offensive. I am not a follower of the politically correct, but I do believe that tolerance, understanding and a drop of compassion goes a long way.

 

You go on in a later post to mention not wanting to have drooling and jabbering individuals at places of beauty. Perhaps the best thing to do with them is round 'em up and dispose of them in some super-efficient way, eh Rog?

 

You really are the most offensive person to post on this forum. I wish you no ill, but do not wish you any good either.

 

PS After about 30 seconds of thinking about it I still think your use of fiscal was wrong. The fiscal impact on companies spending on additional facilities for disabled would be to reduce the amount of tax paid by offsetting against income (either as a revenue item or by capital allowances) . On a national level this will matter little as the cost to one taxpayer will be income to another.

[Rog]

“Your post has confirmed that you are a small-minded and mean-spirited person, with little humanity in you.”

 

I had to laugh at that bit! Both things that you accuse me of are attributes that I hold in high esteem!

 

Also I did mean fiscal. Think it through.

 

That you hold such attributes in high esteem is evident in just about every post you make. I find the use of the word cripple by you as denegrating and derogatory. True it is a proper word, but has come to be offensive. I am not a follower of the politically correct, but I do believe that tolerance, understanding and a drop of compassion goes a long way.

 

You go on in a later post to mention not wanting to have drooling and jabbering individuals at places of beauty. Perhaps the best thing to do with them is round 'em up and dispose of them in some super-efficient way, eh Rog?

 

You really are the most offensive person to post on this forum. I wish you no ill, but do not wish you any good either.

 

PS After about 30 seconds of thinking about it I still think your use of fiscal was wrong. The fiscal impact on companies spending on additional facilities for disabled would be to reduce the amount of tax paid by offsetting against income (either as a revenue item or by capital allowances) . On a national level this will matter little as the cost to one taxpayer will be income to another.

 

Offensive? Possibly but not as a deliberate intent. In addition I really do try to address issues rather than people but hey! That’s just me.

 

As to the --- ‘seriously damaged’ --- individuals.

 

Not round 'em up and dispose of them in some super-efficient way, though I do think that there are now more than a few who are nurtured who in the not-so-distant past would have been quietly put into a bucket and left to cool, or just given water and nature let to run its course, and all the better for it as well.

 

Such things were far more frequently done than is generally realised up to as recently as 25 years ago and I suspect are not so unheard of even now when common sense prevails and two headed monsters and the like are quietly disposed of.

 

But that aside, my concerns really comes down to two issues. The definition of ‘disabled’ and what would be and what would not be done depending on where the line was drawn – and that the line would be under constant pressure to move to include yet more disabled groups.

 

Secondly that there are probably far more people in society who if they really thought about what THEY felt in their heart of hearts, and not what they have been TOLD, they should feel, would much prefer not to have everything made ‘cripply-friendly’ or to have the obviously and especially the severely disabled inflicted on them and especially their recreational pursuits.

 

Provide access for the reasonably disabled by all means where this won’t affect what presently exists and it can be done at a low cost, but otherwise be prepared to effectively say Sorry, you can’t do this / get there because you simply are not able to.

[silky]

Rog, your attitude truly shocks me, as I am sure many other people.

 

I suspect however this is your intention which makes you an extremely sad individual of very little substance.

 

Let's hope you or anyone you care about never have to face any physical disabilities.

[Amadeus]

Rog: Going by some of your comments, I guess you haven't worked with or cared for disabled people in your life, otherwise you wouldn't use this kind of language - it's deeply offensive...

 

Many times, no major changes are required to allow disabled access to certain sites or places anyway - it's not as if a wheelchair requires a four-lane motorway to get anywhere...

 

And where ever changes to the environment aren't possible or desired, the use of outdoor mobility aids could be looked into further - just a thought

[Doric]

This thread is almost getting like the Princes Di histeria where people just flew off on one without considering what people have said and their reasons for saying. If you actually read the posts you might see some considered reason. Which is better than just going by what you off the cuff think is nice or not nice.

[silky]

On top of that there are those of us, and I’m one, who don’t want to see some wheelchair bound twisted individual drooling and jabbering when we go on a visit to a place of beauty.

 

Considered reason? I think not.

[Doric]

Isaid actually:

 

". . . might see some considered reason" (and indeed there is much)

 

but you're illustrating my point by being rather selective.

 

To draw a parallel with the Princess Di thing,when people said "Oh I don't want to take a day off work for her funeral" or whatever, people perceived this to be people saying they were glad she had died or something dreadful like that.

 

Its a histeria thing and obviously to be the slightest bit unpleasant to people who are disabled is naughty so you are always going to be treading on eggshells . Same as with votes for 16 year olds and voting against anything with the word homosexual, or black, or immigrant in it. There is a big huge PC monster that is a tightly coiled spring ready to pounce down youre throat.

 

But to play on the safe side and to ensure possibly most people will like me I will vote "Yes" for improvements to teh glens for the disabled.

[hboy]

On top of that there are those of us, and I’m one, who don’t want to see some wheelchair bound twisted individual drooling and jabbering when we go on a visit to a place of beauty. Sorry if it offends but there it is.

 

You clearly think that anyone with a physical disability is self evidently a "spastic". I don't think that being immobile causes you to drool and jabber too much, it just causes you to have to sit on your arse because your legs don't work.

 

(I should add that I was attempting to be critical, but the last sentence got cut off the post.

 

It is certainly a retrograde perspective to have. The assumption that anyone in a wheelchair has to be a spastic is deplorable. Physical disability is just disability; it is not a mental handicap.

[Charles Flynn]

The remarks made by some on this topic cannot be right. I have worked in the health service all my working life and if I adopted some of the attitudes displayed in this thread I would have simply been in the wrong profession and no doubt would have been turfed out.

 

I am only glad that there are more right thinking people in the world who are doing their best to combat the attitudes of those who spout evil and think it is clever and the mark of education.

[Gladys]

Offensive? Possibly but not as a deliberate intent. In addition I really do try to address issues rather than people but hey! That’s just me.

 

As to the --- ‘seriously damaged’ --- individuals.

 

Not round 'em up and dispose of them in some super-efficient way, though I do think that there are now more than a few who are nurtured who in the not-so-distant past would have been quietly put into a bucket and left to cool, or just given water and nature let to run its course, and all the better for it as well.

 

Such things were far more frequently done than is generally realised up to as recently as 25 years ago and I suspect are not so unheard of even now when common sense prevails and two headed monsters and the like are quietly disposed of.

 

But that aside, my concerns really comes down to two issues. The definition of ‘disabled’ and what would be and what would not be done depending on where the line was drawn – and that the line would be under constant pressure to move to include yet more disabled groups.

 

Secondly that there are probably far more people in society who if they really thought about what THEY felt in their heart of hearts, and not what they have been TOLD, they should feel, would much prefer not to have everything made ‘cripply-friendly’ or to have the obviously and especially the severely disabled inflicted on them and especially their recreational pursuits.

 

Provide access for the reasonably disabled by all means where this won’t affect what presently exists and it can be done at a low cost, but otherwise be prepared to effectively say Sorry, you can’t do this / get there because you simply are not able to.

I don't think anyone is asking for modifications that are hugely expensive or detracting from the particular facility, just a bit of forethought on making accessibility (not necessarily use) a little easier for those that have the capacity to still enjoy life. Apart from the person who is disabled, it also helps those that accompany them.

 

Your examples of two headed monsters, etc., to make a point I understand, is just missing the whole issue. There are many people born or due to accident, illness or plain age have mobility restrictions, they may even have mental restrictions, but still have the desire to enjoy a little bit of what the rest of us take for granted. Is it really too difficult to give a bit of thought for them?

 

My mother has not asked (nor have I asked on her behalf) to go snowboarding, go-karting or even uphill tobogganing, (really, I just mean a walk through a glen or a visit to the beach), but we would ask that when her grandchildren do that, she can be in some way involved rather than left at home because there isn't a bench, say, in a sunny spot that she can sit on while we go off and do our doings. Anything objectionable in that?

[LoneWolf]

The remarks made by some on this topic cannot be right. I have worked in the health service all my working life and if I adopted some of the attitudes displayed in this thread I would have simply been in the wrong profession and no doubt would have been turfed out.

 

I am only glad that there are more right thinking people in the world who are doing their best to combat the attitudes of those who spout evil and think it is clever and the mark of education.

 

Well said Charles.

It is my understanding, anyhow, that access rights have been enshrined in law and the Government has a duty to at least undertake an audit of areas it holds responsibility for to see if disabled access could be improved.

This should be an ongoing project and I cant see any reason the National Glens cant be incuded in an access audit.

It wont always be possible to build in access for everyone and Im certain the majority of people would accept the judgement of those charged with evaluating the situation.

Some of the extreme comments made on this thread would have us suppose you are proposing to drive a motorway through Glen Helen ! However, they have been made by the usual suspects and I think you can rest assured that those comments cannot, as you say, be right.

[clivegsd]

OK first post so I don't know the people here and you don't know me and I appologise for the strong views I have.

 

Right as well as the crippled let's keep out the niggers and poofters eh? Oh, no that wouldn't be right as they would be more able to fight back wouldn't they? Sorry for the offensive terminology but it was to make a point.

Normally disabled people/cripples don't react to this sort of drivel (I am pretty much involved in a Carers web site so therefore disabled people, though I myself am disabled so I have a pretty good knowledge of this sort of attempt to gain a reaction form people who 'use' disabled people then claim to be themselves affected in some way themselves)

 

Why not just lock them all up in an asylum or workhouse? That would save people the terrible inconvenience of having to help them have anything approaching a 'normal' life and enjoying things other people take for granted or, god forbid actually having to meet them.

 

I hear that this attitude is rife over there, I'm in Cumbria but was told of this thread. I really hope anyone who tries using 'shock-jock' type posts actually becomes disabled or has a family member become disabled so you can experience the realities of crippled life. Then again disabled people are all dole scroungers conning the system aren't they?

 

The original 'cripple' remark was crass, stupid and ignorant, the other "drooling and jabbering in a wheelchair" even worse.

 

Sorry for this one off posting but the attitude displayed needs changing as the attitudes to other minorities has been. Unbelievable!!!

[LoneWolf]

I hear that this attitude is rife over there, I'm in Cumbria but was told of this thread. I really hope anyone who tries using 'shock-jock' type posts actually becomes disabled or has a family member become disabled so you can experience the realities of crippled life. Then again disabled people are all dole scroungers conning the system aren't they?

The original 'cripple' remark was crass, stupid and ignorant, the other "drooling and jabbering in a wheelchair" even worse.

 

Im glad to be able to tell you that the attitudes revealed during this thread are not representative of the attitudes of the Manx.

You are absolutely spot on your appraisal of the ignorant remarks.

The Island has legislation which, to some extent, mirrors that in the UK. We have possibly been a little slow off the mark in making practical progress but hopefully that is a situation which will improve.

Give us a little time and Im sure we will see some progress

[Charles Flynn]

I agree.

 

Unfortunately all the good work that is done on the Island by carers, family members, friends is drowned out by those who are self centred and incapable of understanding the needs of others. They make so much noise that people from across are led to believe they are representative of the Manx nation. They are not and never will be.

 

The Manx are kind and good natured and we welcome anyone who shares our values. Those who don't should take time out and reflect on how they can change to make a positive contribution in their new homeland.

[Gladys]

Rog, apparently, is resident in Norwich having left the island many years ago. So his views are not representative of Manx attitudes, just those of any self-important, bombastic, narrow-minded and arrogant old duffer anywhere in the world.