Once again, a thoroughly reasonable and measured approach to inclusion for those with both physical and mental/learning disabilities is twisted by the torygraph to enable literal hatespeech from it’s readers.
And it’s a little worrying that so many people, even here, haven’t actually read the article or other press about this before getting their pitchforks out.
Telegraph commenters are truly the most revolting, ignorant people of all time.
TW: ableism
That’s assuming it’s actually people and not bots driving “engagement”.
Is there really enough people signed up to a Telegraph account to provide 172 comments on a minor story within a day of publishing?
I don’t know, maybe, but I’m dubious.
The telegraph’s main demographic is lonely, angry, retired gammons
I can 100% believe there are a shitload of them spending their final years vomiting bile into internet comment sections, completely earnestly
God I hope you’re right, but idk, I can imagine that Telegraph readers self-select for bot aspirancy.
The biggest hint is the names. People who are assholes online LOVE to hide behind anonymity. It is very surprising that 3 people in a row said heinous things using their real names like that.
I used to think the same, but I’m not so sure anymore. My mum works in the council and she constantly tells me first hand stories of people simply abusing the system. Not one offs, but significant numbers.
Her bitterness about it stems from the fact that many of the families doing it aren’t that integrated into society.
On the one hand, life is fucking tough right now and people should be using whatever advantage they have to get by. On the otherhand, in a fairer world, people wouldn’t be exploiting the system at all.
I never really understand where Tories lie on the spectrum of equity/fairness/corruption given their horrific track record, but I can understand the frustration of seeing others doing better than you should be…
Her bitterness about it stems from the fact that many of the families doing it aren’t that integrated into society.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
She’s seeing people who have paid taxes here not reaping the benefits of the social welfare they have paid into, whilst dealing with the disconnect of seeing others who seem to be dodging taxes altogether reaping more benefits.
It’s a hard pill for her to swallow, as someone who always did things by the books.
I’ve told her native billionaries operate under the same modus operandi at a far larger scale, but that does little to assay her bitterness. The rich was always gonna rich. The working poor used to be a bit more level I suppose is what she’s thinking
I’m picking up a vibe that their ethnicity might be something she mentions, am I right? Not being accusatory or anything here, just trying to have an honest conversation.
She mentions their level of english, not their ethnicity. I think for her its more the contrast of how savvy they are navigating the system despite their seeming inability to converse with it
Does she spot problematic patterns more among people who have poor English than those who have fluent English? I’m sure your mum is lovely, really I do not mean any disrespect, but I really suspect that subconscious bias may be playing a major role, here - it’s easy for out-groups to stand out and to see a pattern which isn’t really there - it’s just how our brains function.
In the full interests of fairness, I also do know that some people who speak ESL do sometimes weaponize their issues with English if they think it could benefit them, e.g. pretending not to understand something they actually do. In their defense I would probably do the same thing if I could get away with it tbh
She definitely spots more problems in migrant families than native ones because the native ones have better support networks (family/grandparents, etc) to fall back on in hard times. These factors readily confound hand-in-hand.
In terms of her own prejudice, she herself came to the UK as a migrant in the 80s from a third world country and more than understands their plight as well as their mindset.
The truth is in the middle. I know someone who works in the hospital, a lot of the rough sleepers they come across aren’t really helping themselves nor extremely interested in actually getting help. Some people do just take advantage of the system as in our culture we tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. This is why people come over in small boats from France, because they see our empathy as something to be taken advantage of. And it works for them.
There isn’t a single homeless person successfully taking advantage of society. If you’re “successfully” scamming society, why are you destitute??
Lots of homeless are assholes, belligerent, alcoholic, drug addicts, disregard laws, rules, and procedures. But they’re not “taking advantage”. If they were UNFAIRLY benefiting then they would by definition have more than the bare minimum required to live a decent life, not LESS. It’s the system that’s depriving all of us of the necessities of a dignified life, putting them behind a paywall.
This is why people come over in small boats from France, because they see our empathy as something to be taken advantage of.
Oh, actually, this isn’t true, usually it’s because they speak English. The UK is quite a nasty place for immigrants.
Is it much worse than the rest of Europe? Basically every european country seems to have a populist right wing anti immigration movement
It’s not though. All the major cities have cultural hubs and communities where migrants can find their place amongst their brethren. It used to be one of our strengths.
Compare that to Germany where even the Turks and Italians who have lived there for generations are still seen as oddities to be frowned on.
The UK pretty consistently scores low compared to other emigration destination countries, and Germany consistently scores higher, actually.
This is one of the mainstream media’s favourite pieces of propaganda. “we’re a soft touch, that’s why migrants come here!” it’s just completely transparently wrong, the reason migrants come here over other countries is because there used to be a British Empire that colonized half the world and as a result lots of people speak far better English than they do German or Swedish. Most of the countries people migrate from we had some hand in destabilizing too.
I don’t know what to say other than the anecdote I gave above after living in Germany for a decade
Do you remember after 9/11 and 7/7 how Indian and Pakistani (and frankly, any non-white) people living in Britain were treated? That attitude went away for a while, but came back with a vengeance. In many places around the UK, people of colour face really severe discrimination. I don’t live in Germany, so I can’t say which is worse, but I imagine both are pretty bad tbh
a lot of the rough sleepers they come across aren’t really helping themselves nor extremely interested in actually getting help
Unhoused people more often than not have quite a series of issues which are at odds with them helping themselves or proactively seeking help. I think this is the issue with most cases like this where people think others are “exploiting” the system, simply because they don’t know what it’s like to live that person’s life, you know what I mean?
Either way, no matter how many people really do abuse benefits, it doesn’t come anywhere close to the exploitation that the ruling class subject us to.
A lot of people probably could be rehabilitated through either rehab programmes or adequate mental health support. Possibly the majority if not all.
it doesn’t come anywhere close to the exploitation that the ruling class subject us to.
Facts.
Oh yeah, for sure, no doubt - if there was any funding available for such programmes. All the research on this points pretty conclusively towards prioritising getting unhoused people into stable accomodation first and foremost, it’s impossible to recover from PTSD living on the streets for example, and we would also need a robust public health focused approach to drugs, e.g. decriminalizing drugs and treating them as a health issue rather than a criminal one. That, plus funding the NHS appropriately, esp. mental health, would work miracles and change so many people’s lives.
But instead the bastards running the show would rather loot the public purse for all it’s worth to line their pockets before getting a cushy 6 figure job as a lobbyist.
This is why people come over in small boats from France, because they see our empathy as something to be taken advantage of. And it works for them.
I don’t know how you can see abysmal living conditions, hate crime and being subjected to attempted pogroms as ‘works for them’. I’ve linked you stuff in the past telling about how bad conditions are for asylum seekers, I’m honestly getting sick of pushing back on your vibes based, callous anti-asylum seeker rhetoric for it to constantly fall on deaf ears.
I’m not anti asylum seeker. I’m anti people taking advantage of the system for legitimate asylum seekers. There are people coming over from France. France isn’t that bad. Also in addition, there’s been attempted pogroms here.
I can’t remember the statistic, but the majority of asylum seekers don’t even come over in small boats. They’re typically legal immigrants who cannot return home or extend their visa. I’m talking about the widely condemned human trafficking industry that takes advantage of our system to make a business of bringing people across the channel.
I’m not anti asylum seeker. I’m anti people taking advantage of the system for legitimate asylum seekers.
Unless you’re from Ukraine or Hong Kong, there’s no way to claim asylum in the UK that doesn’t first involve entering the country illegally.
I can’t remember the statistic, but the majority of asylum seekers don’t even come over in small boats.
About half of asylum applicants come across in boats.
I’m talking about the widely condemned human trafficking industry that takes advantage of our system to make a business of bringing people across the channel.
I also want to stop the boats and the exploitative gangs doing this, but any approach that isn’t opening up safe and legal routes for applications to be made is just advocating for everyone else to bear the burden of global instability the UK played a disproportionate role in creating.
Also in addition, there’s been attempted pogroms here.
I assume you mean there hasn’t. I think it’s a pretty apt way to describe a mob descending on a hotel to try and burn it down because asylum seekers are inside.
There is. I’ve known a few people personally in fact who were from places like Iran who had entered the UK legally, and then their personal situation changed and they couldn’t return home, thus they applied for asylum. And got accepted as well.
I also want to stop the boats and the exploitative gangs doing this, but any approach that isn’t opening up safe and legal routes for applications to be made is just advocating for everyone else to bear the burden of global instability the UK played a disproportionate role in creating.
Sounds like we’re more in agreement than disagreement then?
I assume you mean there hasn’t. I think it’s a pretty apt way to describe a mob descending on a hotel to try and burn it down because asylum seekers are inside.
No? There has. People in the UK have attacked migrant hotels and even a few got attacked in Larne a while ago during the summer.
I also want to stop the boats and the exploitative gangs doing this, but any approach that isn’t opening up safe and legal routes for applications to be made is just advocating for everyone else to bear the burden of global instability the UK played a disproportionate role in creating.
Safe, legal routes are key, but are also a way to do the opposite of having “everyone else […] bear the burden”, because in a world where refugees are not seen as a global problem to be handled multilaterally to ensure the burden is shared, making it easier to claim asylum means you’ll receive a higher share.
This can end up with people talking at cross-purposes because in any disagreement there can be a reluctance to address the numbers: what level of immigration is the right one? We need to balance
- bringing young people into the country to offset our ageing native born population
- our obligations to refugees
- the societal problems that come from rapid change in the balance of cultures. To be explicit, I’m not talking about “white replacement” here, I’m talking about what happens to a society - let’s take a coastal Spanish town for a reverse example - and dump a bunch of immigrants - English retirees there - at a high rate. The local population is liable, reasonably in my view, to be annoyed if a load of people arrive and don’t integrate well.
So what rate will balance those three things? I dunno, but looking at how migration has changed over the last few decades, it’s not surprising that we are seeing a lot more annoyance under the third item.
the UK played a disproportionate role in creating.
I don’t think this kind of thinking is very productive though. Maybe the UK as a country does bear some responsibility, but whether it is disproportionate is hard-to-impossible to quantify. Most small boat arrivals over the past few years are from Iran. Should UK citizens now be considered responsible for the actions of our government over 70 years ago? For a counter-coup that could never have been foreseen? Or should radical repressive Islamists bear more of that responsibility?
The next largest contingent is Afghanistan - but the UK went into Afghanistan with as part of a large multi-national coalition, so just what proportion of the responsibility is ours?
The next largest is Iraq - where we certainly bear a higher portion of the blame.
Then comes Albania - I don’t know anything we’ve done to fuck them up. (Arrivals from Albania are now very low)
Next comes Syria - again I don’t believe Britain has any responsibility for the situation there.
But if we are to incorporate this thinking into policy, it can’t come as some kind of thought-terminator, “we did bad things in the world, so we have to be punished, so we must take whatever.” We need to have at least a rough idea of which countries we have adversely affected, how significantly, and therefore roughly how many people that means we ought to take as some kind of reparation.
Otherwise, it’s a non-starter; it wouldn’t provide any practical guidance, so it would be little more than virtue signalling.
The Torygraph reporting on something adjacent to mental health issues?
I bet that’s going to not make me hate humanity by reading it…!
So Merlin Entertainment basically thinks it knows better than doctors, some disabilities aren’t real and it’s fine to make people with severe anxiety stand in line until they suffer an attack. Lovely(!) Somewhere mistreating people with mental health issues is not a place I’ll go for fun.
Genuine question? Where would you go?
The thing with Alton is the sheer amount of people, it’s loud, it’s hyper. I know they have the gardens, but they are still buried in the middle.
So where can you visit? that gives you fun but without an over exaggerated atmosphere that comes with it.
I personally like aquariums and gardens.
Merlin run lots of stuff, including Sealife and Warwick Castle. I’ll avoid the lot.
Gulliver’s Land in Milton Keynes is a slightly more chill theme park
As ever, don’t read the comments in the article. Wow pure toxic
I’m not seeing any comments on the article, but I can imagine what they’re like.
They’re behind a “click here to read the comments” link underneath the main text.
Yes they are truly inhumane 😔.
Anyways, this sounds pretty good to me. It genuinely sounds like they’re taking accessibility seriously, and their approach sounds pretty well considered to the needs of everyone.
