AIBU to be miffed about Chester Zoo?

Yep.

I would never pay full price for things like Chester zoo mainly because I can't afford it but also because as a wheelchair user, my son doesn't have full access to the playgrounds, bats (using Chester zoo as an example, there is usually something) etc as a child who isn't a wheelchair user.

Yeah absolutely, last time we took my son to Chester Zoo, he played in the car park and entrance, had a look at the elephants and then asked to go to the beach (?!).

Absolute waste of ticket money.

But I can also see that people would begrudge buying us tickets that we can buy ourselves, regardless of how long we stayed. People begrudge us the DLA, nevermind any discounts.

As an adult who can't quite often everything at an attraction,I refuse to pay the full price. Why should I when I won't have the same experience as my friends?

I can see your point about the DLA/PIP thing. It does not mean someone has little money, but it is a recognition of disability and how difficult life can be. Like a few PP said, a cheap ticket means that if their autistic child get overwhelmed and they have to cut the visit short, then it is not such a huge financial hit than if they paid full price for tickets.

A hackspace local to me has half price membership for people on DLA/PIP (also UC and pension), as they want to attract a wide variety of members and make the space feel more inclusive.

I absolutely can acknowledge that but unfortunately the benefits system is that black and white, so I’m not sure how much acknowledgment helps someone afford a day out. It won’t put money in their bank.

We could widen the benefits “net” but then the feel I get from MN at the moment is that actually the consensus is to pay less out, not more.

I actually think where a scheme could go wrong is acknowledging DLA/PIP as a stand alone benefit “worthy” of discounted tickets etc. We get DLA, both work and have a reasonably high household income. We don’t use those discounts because we don’t need to, others won’t be so honest.

I think they’d be better off only considering DLA/PIP when in receipt of a means tested benefit, because many of us who claim disability benefit don’t qualify for anything mean tested and therefore in my view, shouldn’t get the discounts.

Except they could be if you were both single parents but the one earning less and claiming benefits also receives child maintenance and the one earning more is getting no maintenance. Also in the short term absolutely could be if one family rents and the other owns because we are only happy to pay mortgages for landlords but it would be morally wrong to pay them for owners.

I think all some of the posters are looking for is an acknowledgment that it’s not as black and white as benefits = struggling and in need of help vs no benefits = can only have issues due to budgeting failures and should cut their cloth.

It surely can be true that it’s fantastic these schemes exist, that they can’t possibly account for every variable going to be perfectly fair and that it’s really hard for people to see they can’t benefit from them when they are also really struggling. It isn’t something with a fix really but I’m surprised so few people are willing to just acknowledge “yes that sucks a bit for people who fall just outside the benefits net”.

On a separate note there are lots of things available to do for free that anyone can take advantage of. We are off to London next week and going to the Natural history museum, Science Museum, V&A, London Museum at the Docklands, sky gardens, mithraeum, conservatory at the Barbican and the Tate modern which are all free/donation based. Railway museum in York, Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh and Discovery Museum in Newcastle are all worth a visit and all free. I’m sure other people have loads of suggestions close to them anyone could use for a free/super cheap day out.

From a personal perspective, I am delighted that those with disabilities or disabled relatives get help and think they should get more. I am comparing those with no disabilities and low income jobs, who are in receipt of benefit top ups, to those with low income jobs who don’t qualify for benefits.

From what I can see on this thread, there are many people who take plenty (as they are entitled to take) but are caught in a bubble where they don’t appreciate what they are receiving or understand (or care) that there are many people who aren’t getting any help due to outdated government criteria which hasn’t taken into account the rises in the cost of living and lack of income growth. The joy in which many people have come on this thread to say how delighted they are with their nearly free tickets shows a callousness that if shown the other way would have been met by squeals of outrage. Whilst some posters did this with real happiness, some did it with a maliciousness of which they should feel ashamed.

Anyway, at the end of all this (I need to get on with Christmas), I haven’t changed my mind that these things are handed out to a too narrow group of people, many of whom take it for granted, and that there are a growing number of people who are struggling. Thank you for the robust debate though. Like you, I wish that an income earned through work was enough to give a decent standard of living.

No, I think that anyone who doesn’t qualify for means tested benefits, doesn’t qualify for them for a reason, and should be grateful for that.

I’m not suggesting you don’t have any financial issues. I’m saying they literally cannot be as significant as anyone who qualified for a means tested benefit, or you’d qualify too.

They’re just the facts, you don’t have to like them.

Yeah no bother.

We claim DLA so qualify for the occasional discount, as we would have for the zoo. We don’t use them, because we have no need to.

If I personally send you our reduced price ticket for the Tower of London, will you stop being envious of poor(er) people?

So you are struggling to get your head around the fact that those who earn less than you and receive no help are finding the cost of living crisis harder than you (who just has slightly less disposable income) and those who earn less (but get benefits to top them up)?

You sound very smug.

I'm not "lucky" to be on a low income

But you wouldn't swap would you

The lack of empathy is eye opening. Everything is fine as the same old groups get given more and more and more. Enjoy it. You’re all right, Jack. ‘Thoughts and prayers’ only for those people too. No one else is allowed to struggle.

No, thanks to the zoo ticket. I can’t bear seeing animals in cages. I’d take a Tower of London one though.

A year or two? I doubt it.

I am in a higher income band, and am more “squeezed” than I was 5-10 years ago. Everyone is, because of the obvious COL crisis that we all know about.

But I would still rather be squeezed, as it means there’s something there to be squeezed.

They get that because they’re entitled to it. As I’ve said before - if you needed it you’d be entitled to it too! Either lower your income and go on benefits too, if you’re so jealous, or find a way to earn more. Stop expecting sympathy from people worse off than you, it’s nonsensical.

Most people on UC would have no income at all if they were removed.
These are people that at are too sick to work, or are caring for a disabled child.
I don't think calling them "lucky" is really appropriate, neither is insisting they think of the squeezed middle when they are having a day out using UC tickets.

Rather than punch down, try and change your own situation. Because other people's UC/discounts etc has no bearing on you whatsoever. Telling them to think of you being skint is just weird. Water your own grass.

But you don’t feel those with low incomes, benefit top ups and special deals need to reassess their budget? Many of them are getting a combined amount which is more than those who you feel can just budget more effectively. You are obviously in a higher income band and are yet to feel the cost of living impact if you think it is that easy. Give it a year or two and you might understand.

@BustopherPonsonbyJones

What is your personal issue with where the line is?

If you’re in this group of people who just don’t qualify- either earn more and increase your income, or earn less so you do get benefits. Up to you, really.

If you’re just that desperate to go to the zoo, we’ll qualify for a £1 ticket that I have no desire to use, you can have mine. Merry Christmas.

And you sympathise with those just on the wrong side of it?

Or you could give up your benefits and see how hard it is to manage without them. You are lucky to receive them.

Lines always have to be drawn.

Surely if everyone was entitled to this deal, the zoo would make no money.

Thoughts and prayers?

If you are struggling, then what are you doing to change it? Many people on UC can not improve their circumstances, especially if there is disability involved.

Exactly.

I used to be in the squeezed middle until life changed overnight and now I receive support from UC and charities.

I'd give anything to go back to my squeezed middle life.

If you were struggling “enough,” you’d be on benefits and receiving support.

It’s not that nobody feels sorry for the “squeezed middle,” it’s that most people can recognise they’d rather be in the squeezed middle than below that, and reserve their sympathy for people who have less than anyone in the “middle.”

I don’t know how much more widely that point can be missed. If you’re a middle earner with less disposable income than someone on benefits, you need to reassess your budget.

I’m neither of those things, and can still see that the people who are most vulnerable should be the ones who receive support.

Interesting point. Some thoughts, more or less random.
Writing as a socialist, and a believer in fair opportunities for all, where exactly is the point where the responsibility for one's own progression passes from the government to the individual?
For example, I beleive in equality of opportunity for all, but what people do with those opportunities, at some point it is up to them. In my class of 10/11 year olds in a fairly decent state primary it's already clear which children have potential to do really well based on the effort they put in, and even the personalities they were born with, and then there are some for whom it's never their fault and everything is 'unfair.' Of course, having taught secondary too I know it's clear that some children can and do turn it around later.
Is someone doing a poorly paid 'squeezed middle' job due to poor life choices (pissing around at school, not applying themselves at work)- in which case sorry but maybe you just can't afford to go to the zoo; or are they the victims of 'unfairness' eg a very challenging childhood or a poor education? In which case, how to allow you a subsidised trip to the zoo without also subsidising those who did have every opportunity but didn't take them? Remember if everybody had a subsidised trip to the zoo....there would be no zoos.

As I've said before if you think it's so great, give up work to go on benefits. You may turn understand why things like this exist