to think having a disability shouldn't automatically entitle one to free access?

[wannaBe]

Have just been swimming at my local leisure centre.

When I arrived the woman at the desk said "are you registered disabled?" to which I replied "yes" and she said "oh, well in that case you go in free.

Now. I made my way to this leisure centre entirely independently. on a bus/down the busy high street - not with a dog but a cane as can't take the dog into the pool!

I am a stronger/better swimmer than most people I know, can easily swim 80 lengths in an hour. Entirely capable of using the pool the use of which I was paying for.

Were I going to an exhibition of visual art I could quite see the point of not paying for it since I can't see it.

But I don't see why disability automatically equals free access purely because it's disability. That's hardly equality is it?

Isn't it more about disabled people generally living on a low income?

I have no real opinion either way on the free entry issue but can I just say that the vision of a guide dog joining you in the pool made me - it would be absolute heaven for a lab or a goldie.

You know, if the dog were clean (and I'm sure it would be) it wouldn't bother me at all if it were in the pool. As long as proper lane etiquette was observed, of course

I would think it is entirely in keeping with the general ethos of making adjustments to put people with disabilities on a level footing with the rest of the population where possible.

For many people, disabilities are expensive. They might prevent them working in a decently paid job, or at all. They might require expensive adaptations to their homes, or expensive equipment. People with disabilities are probably statistically less likely to have disposable income available for leisure activities.

There is also the fact that many people with mobility issues can swim where they can't do other, possibly free, forms of exercise, and they might benefit, health-wise from it.

Well good for you to be fully able bodied.

i think they should have a free access for disabled people, but it should be your choice - ie, they ask you if you want to have a disabled access pass (so you can apply for one but they don't assume you need one)

yabu
you might not need it (and could have still paid) but plenty do.

I can see your point, but it's probably easier to give free access to anyone with a registered disability than decide which disabilities entitle free entry to what. Lots of grey areas I'd imagine, with the variety and severity of disabilities to take into account.

I think you should be allowed to take the dog swimming, that would be great fun!

I think that free entry to council facilities should be awarded on an income basis. There is no reason to automatically assume that someone with a disability has less money than anyone else. An exception to that would be if that particular facility was necessary in managing a person's particular condition, in which case it would seem unfair to make them pay for it, because they need it, rather than just want it, iyswim.

I would give free or subsidised entry to people on benefits or on a low income, generally. It's horrible that people can't afford to take their dc swimming, for example.

How would you show that you were on a low income?

So you want people with disabilities to only have free access when the activity is limited by their disability?

My local council give out pass cards to people on certain benefits which Ashlee them to swim for free, and get discounts in some other places. You fill in an application form, show proof of benefit, and get a photo id card which is valid for a year.

Me and my cousin used to take our younger cousin swimming whenwe were teens, it cost all of 50p per time. Small cousin was free as a child, other cousin was free because she has a disability (deaf) and I was 50p as a carer. Not that she needed a carer!

Ashlee? I meant allow!

Our local leisure centre provides free swimming for children under 16, so DS2 (disabled) is free, however, they also allow free entry for essential carers. So when I take DS2 swimming, I don't pay either. When I take DS3 swimming, I do pay. That works well for me. Swimming can be expensive, and DS2 cannot safely be in the pool by himself.

If it is their policy and they are happy to do so, I don't see why you are complaining tbh. Just because you don't need it doesn't mean others don't. There is no way that we could afford otherwise to take DS swimming regularly, and the exercise is good for him.

I've not encountered this.
What I have encountered is that the person with the disability pays and as they need a carer to help them access the activity then the carer goes free.

A good system I think.

As they can't possibly assess whether they deem a person's disability eligible or not at the paypoint of the leisure centre, then it makes sense to include all disabilities.
Many people with disabilities benefit from regular access to these centres. Please don't start questioning whether this should be free or not as many would not be able to afford to go as often as they actually need to and their health will suffer.

I don't think it would be difficult to establish income levels. The state does it all the time (for tax credits, for example).

It probably costs more to means test free stuff than it does to just gve the free stuff. In theory, I agree with you. There are plenty of wealthy disabled people, and I'd rather have all children go free instead. But then you would still have parents who can afford it benefiting from something they don't really need.

If anyone is going to be given free entry, then there is no good reason why disabled people shouldn't be a priority.

Interesting question Wannabe. Do you claim DLA so that is why you are wondering about free entrance?

I used to work at a fundraising event for people with disabilities. People on DLA got a concessionary rate; but people who were disabled but didn't get DLA (and weren't on certain other types of benefit) didn't.

I was a bit iffy about this at first but soon got told (quite forcefully!) that being registered didn't preclude them from having a shit hot career and it was a bit insulting to assume that all disabled people required financial assistance.

This was an expensive event though; as Earnest says, there are a lot grey areas ans for low-cost activites like swimming, I'm sure its by far the easiest to just let all people who are registered disabled in for free. If you are able to pay, it'd then be your choice to pay if you felt you wanted to.

Well, yes. But there is a level of bureaucracy in there which would be prohibitively expensive for local council recreation departments.

Perhaps if it were related to claiming housing benefit? But that would exclude people who paid mortgages...

My dd needs to go swimming daily as part of her physio. It costs me nearly a tenner a day for the pair of us.

And, as I understand it, there is no such thing in my local area as being 'registered disabled' or 'on the disabled register'. That was abolished years ago. The proof you have to show to many organisations - if they request it - is your DLA award letter.