boycott butlins

[AuntiePickleBottom]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-14063859

you would of thought with SN they would accept the booking

I beg your pardon?

Like I said bubbles my comments were a general response to the lack of awareness here, not specific to this issue. (I am not arguing one way or the other about the Butlins case, I am pointing out an error made by many of the posters in this thread) Relevant because "treat the same as everyone else" seems to have been spouted a lot.

There really is no discrimination to be found here.

Exactly. One is meant to discriminate, in order to ensure equality.

I shall start boycotting Butlins immediately, I don't think they will notice though, given I am on the other side of the world. On the upside it will be very easy for me to do so.

Hiya TheMagnificentBathykolpian

It's a good question and the answer is that most people are reasonable and don't try to work around rules that are there for a reason. It's just straightforward experience and feedback from our guests that tells us the resort feels more family friendly if there aren't large all-adult groups on family breaks. It's rare that they want to book anyway (and often if they do it's because they've heard of groups of adults going to Butlins but when we ask for more info it turns out that was on a Big Weekend when there are no kids on resort).

Lots of families book when they know their friends/relations will be on resort too so the children can play together and parents meet up for coffee, which is great, but not the same thing as a big group of adults together.

Hope that helps a bit. Jx

Ive just booked to go again. Whoopsie! On the plus side this means I get to drink copius amounts of cider during the day whilst neglecting the childers!

keys, I think you know what I meant. Butlins are in no way, shape or form in the wrong.

I know what you meant Tidy, there just isn't any logic behind it.

They are a large group of adults
Large groups of adults are not allowed
They are therefore being treated "equally"
Therefore this is "right"

The above is p**s poor logic, but I just want to reiterate that I have not personally come to any conclusion either way (apart from the conclusion that not many people have a basic grasp of what equal opportunities means).

It's not piss poor logic, it's completely correct. The disability status of the group should have no effect on the situation. And it rightly hasn't. As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, this group could easily have split into two and gone on the holiday anyway. Not a problem. But no, they chose to run to the media screaming discrimination and a boycott thread quickly pops up on MN. How droll. I might've respected them more if they'd shot off to the media screaming discrimination of large groups of adults, but they ignored this and went for the option that would get them the most publicity. Now, I can't say this was their absolute intention anymore than anyone else can say that it wasn't, but I can say I would've respected them more if they told their story without embellishments or assumptions.

I know exactly what equal opportunities mean, and I know that the concept has not been violated in this case. What troubles me is how it can easily slip into expecting more in some people's minds. It makes an absolute fucking mockery of what equal opportunities was designed to do.

The bottom line (loathe that phrase, but oh well) is that they were rejected for being a large group of adults and were given the chance to go if they split the group. They chose not to, and didn't even approach Butlins to find a solution.

Butlins should not be expected to change their policy, since the current one does not prevent the members of the group from attending the site. THAT is why there is no EO violation.

You clearly don't have a grasp of logic, the final point doesn't follow from the first three. (Although neither would "therefore this is wrong") Not logically.

Patiently repeating my earlier post: equal opportunities is treating people differently so that the opportunities are the same.

I am making no remark about whether in the Butlins example there was a breach of this or not, I am merely correcting other posters on their incorrect use of the term.

I have a quite appropriate grasp of logic, but thank you for your concern.

You can keep repeating all you want, but EO does not mean that people with disabilities should be treated differently to the detriment of other people, which Butlins appear to believe would've been the case. I happen to think that Butlins could have made the exception since it would seem unlikely that the group would cause trouble, but they chose not to. Disappointing for the group, but not something that isn't understandable.

Anyway, I can't be bothered to argue this point anymore.

The fact is, the point of this thread was whether Butlins were BU to not accept the booking. They weren't.

Btw, just to keep to the point of the thread, I would like to point out (before it gets jumped on) that what I meant by 'to the detriment' (etc) is that a large group would be present, not a large group of people with disabilities specifically.

Keysinthefridge - I still don't get it. Can you explain, really really slowly, how positive discrimination is beinging an equal opportunity in this case?

How can it possibly be an equal opportunity in this case if the group is able to do something that non disabled people can't do?

Isn't there enough positive discrimination in the fact that they would be allowed to go in two groups of 18 when other groups wouldn't be able to do that?

It would be better if the management applied discretion in saying they could all go together, but they had to be split in to 2 groups during the day, if they felt the number thing in this case was absolutely necessary, which it probably isn't. It's not like all 36 of them are going to get up in the morning and go "you know what, sod it, I suggest we all go and get pissed up and harass everyone else for the afternoon". These adults are going to be supervised. I have to add though, the article said that no one had actually approached them to discuss any of the issues and Butlins were just responding with no real understanding of any of the issues. Chances are if the group had contacted them they could have come to an understanding without any of this? (unless I have missed a huge section of the middle of this thread).

I think that the group really need to open some discussions with Butlins tbh.

That said, I would never go to Butlins, so duly boycotted

Equal opportunities is not about treating everyone the same, it is about treating everyone in a way that allows them the potential to have the same outcome as everyone else. So if you have someone who does not need support and you give them the keys to a flar, then they have a flat. If you have someone who needs support and you give them the keys to a flat, then although you have treated them the same, you have not ensured equality of opportunity. To do that, you may have to help them with furnishing, perhaps with bill paying, etc. Because in that case, the 'opportunity' is to live in a flat.

In this case, the 'opportunity' is to go to Butlins. fine. Someone who supports them makes the booking. They would be supported in terms of transport, good. They make have support to pack, etc. The opportunity is to go to Butlins. The equality is to be supported to ensure that they can go to butlins.

However, what they wanted was to be allowed to go in a larger group than anyone else is allowed to go in. That is not creating equality of opportunity. Because that is not having support or making changes to the way things are done in order to do whatever is needed to allow someone with additional needs to have the same outcome as anyone else. They wanted a different outcome. They wanted a large group, far larger than anyone else allows. In short, they wanted the rules bent, the rules changed, they wanted to be treated differently due to their special needs.

I don't think that is right. My children have disabilities. I don't want them or people supporting them to demand that people change rules because they're disabled, if it's not about ensuring that they have access to the same outcome as anyone else, but about ensuring that they are removed from the mainstream and giving a whole different set of rules. I think that is a horrible way to treat people with disabilities, personally. Oh, you poor little disabled person, of course you can have things just the way you like . I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I wouldn't want that sort of patronising attitude for my children.

Actually, that's a very good point. I hadn't considered that! The group is actually the number of service users. To ensure equality of opportunity you have to discount the support workers. They aren't part of the group, they are the means by which the group is accessing the 'opportunity'

I can't believe I missed that!

I stand 100% by what I said in my other post, in terms of general 'equal opps' rules, but in this case, I change my mind, because I totally forgot the role of the support worker

The group should be allowed to attend if the number of service users is no greater than the number normally allowed in large groups. If they don't allow that, then that is actually discrimination.

In my defence, it is only 730 in the morning

But they don't say large groups of children are intimidating. They say that they have reports that many people feel intimidated by large groups of adults. I am very uncomfortable with saying it's ok for kids so it should be ok for adults with ld, because I wouldn't want to seem as though I was suggesting that adults with ld are the same as children.

I don't know the particular needs or difficulties of the people in this group, but for all we know, they get pissed down the pub on holiday and come home at 2am singing sea shanties at the top of their voices!

ok reading it bit more than maybe the TA sould ave said about size but if they had been doing each year then they must ahev thought it be ok again

But as someone has pointed out thatif they book as 4 seperate bookings they will still meet up .We have doen that when we been away family enmasse each family booked themselves and we just met up

Bubbles like I said (twice now!) I was making my comments in response to people who have clearly said on here that "people with disabiliities want to be treated the same" and are thus ignorant about what equal ops means, I wasn't making any comments at all about these particular circumstances. You make a good point, as do

TheMagnificentBathykolpian and PonceyMcPonce by discussing the Butlins example in true terms of equal ops - although they don't agree - they are making more informed comments on each side.

Points worth thinking about:
they wanted a different outcome^

if each had a practical assistant that makes the group 36

This is the difference between an intelligent debate and an illogical one. Finally.

Butlions Bognor Regis were very good with our lads, who are both on the autistic spectrum. Just small things, that made a difference, like getting us a stairgate when we'd forgotten to pack ours, changing Ds2's nappy when we booked him and his brother into the evening nursery for a couple of hours, letting me go on the trampoline with Ds2 to stop him racing onto the other trampolines.
The group in question apparently need to book as a block because of the funding issue. I don't see how a large group is automatically intimidating. A party of four drunken men shouting about the place can be intimidating. An arguing couple can be seen as intimidating.

I completely agree with Magnificent.

Oh btw, there were 26 adults with LD and 10 carers. Their group policy is no all male or all female adult parties of 4 or more whose members are aged predominantly 16 to 21 or 8 or more whose members are predominantly aged under 30. For Big Weekends they won't have groups of 20 or more. So to be fair to Butlins, they were willing to make compromises already on theuir group policy.

I think there's a distinct lack of common sense here.

Yes, Butlin's have a rule which bans large groups....thankfully as I agree a large stag/hen do is the last thing I'd want to see if I were out with the family.

And this rule doesn't discriminate against special needs so in that respect it's fine.

However, common sense here dictates that the rule is aimed at large stag/hen parties and not a group of special needs people. So in that respect I don't think anyone would object if the rule was waived at the manager's discretion.

However, what is not logical is to run straight to the press without at the very least contacting Butlin's manager's and talking it through with them.

I'd be more inclined to agree that Butlin's were being unreasonable if they'd been approached and they'd said no. However, since no-one's actually spoken to them how do the organiser's know that the management would not have made an exception?

I agree with the ban.

36 people is 36 people using the facilites (dosent matter of some are careers or not). If all 36 people wanted to go swimming together, dancing together, bowling together then this would impose themselfes onto unsuspecting guests. the sher size of the group would be imtimidationg.