Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

& kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #26
    & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

    Jah Womble wrote: Quite. But as I suggested earlier, there's nothing in that piece to state that she intended to buy booze. She might've wanted a Coke.
    The article says "refused service at the bar". I'd have taken it at face value that it meant alcohol. But you could, of course, be right.

    Comment


      #27
      & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

      Jah Womble wrote: Quite. But as I suggested earlier, there's nothing in that piece to state that she intended to buy booze. She might've wanted a Coke.

      Originally posted by Guy Potger
      Originally posted by Flynnie
      Might have helped had the card been professionally produced, instead of something made at home.

      In other stories, the mum claims it's from Headway (the brain injury charity), which I don't believe. It's got no professional design at all, along with several grammatical errors.

      compare:



      Why would someone who'd suffered a serious brain injury carry an official "I have autism" card?

      They're entirely different things.
      I think his point was about the difference in professionalism/presentation - which might in some cases make a difference.
      And if this individual didn't have access to said professional services to create such a card?

      No. I'm genuinely interested to know what you think she should have done in this circumstance if no formal support existed to provide her with such.

      Your move.

      (Oh. By the way. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy & Prosperous New Year)

      Comment


        #28
        & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

        I don't think that's his point, though. He's saying that, from the bartender's point of view, one card is compelling and convincing and the other is not. He's not saying she was a fool for not carrying an official card.

        Comment


          #29
          & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

          The post clearly compares it to a professional card beause it's responding to the mum saying that Headway produced the card.

          Comment


            #30
            & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

            Guy Potger wrote:
            Originally posted by Flynnie
            Might have helped had the card been professionally produced, instead of something made at home.

            In other stories, the mum claims it's from Headway (the brain injury charity), which I don't believe. It's got no professional design at all, along with several grammatical errors.

            compare:



            Why would someone who'd suffered a serious brain injury carry an official "I have autism" card?

            They're entirely different things.
            To take your words, the point is one is an official "I have X" card, the other is a distinctly amateur production. The second card (which is the actual card she presented to the bartender) looks bogus.

            An official card pulled out at the start of this conversation might change things. At the very least it's a lot easier to pin this on bigotry or ignorance versus standard operating procedure for a pub, which is almost always not to serve people who they perceive to be drunk and lairy.

            Comment


              #31
              & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

              Flynnie wrote: At the very least it's a lot easier to pin this on bigotry or ignorance versus standard operating procedure for a pub, which is almost always not to serve people who they perceive to be drunk and lairy.
              My experience of Wetherspoons pubs has often been that half the people in them are drunk and lairy, especially if it's a Friday or Saturday night. I do suspect it was easier for them to refuse to serve this woman than it would be to refuse other drunk and lairy types, such as young men in large groups. After all, she seems to have been with a maximum of two other people - her mum and the friend she'd gone to meet.

              Comment


                #32
                & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                Serving a drunk, sweary man because you're afraid he'll jump over the bar and glass you isn't really a justification for this situation, though.

                Guy Potger wrote:
                And if this individual didn't have access to said professional services to create such a card?

                No. I'm genuinely interested to know what you think she should have done in this circumstance if no formal support existed to provide her with such.

                Your move.

                (Oh. By the way. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy & Prosperous New Year)
                Except the formal support exists, to the point the mum is claiming this is the formal support. Google Headway, they're a fairly large charity who produce alert cards for people with brain injuries.

                Autism is a pretty good comparison to a brain injury for this purpose, because they're both hidden disabilities that present in a way people don't understand.

                So it's important to have something LOUD, official (notice the police logo - the NAS does this in cooperation with various police agencies), and well-presented.

                The card itself is quite big, it unfolds into several panels and gives a pretty detailed description of autism and also why this is relevant in criminal justice situations (anxiety, behaviour, speech, etc.)

                The card offered doesn't even come close to that. It looks fake. It looks precisely like the kind of card somebody would use as a con.

                Comment


                  #33
                  & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                  Flynnie wrote: Serving a drunk, sweary man because you're afraid he'll jump over the bar and glass you isn't really a justification for this situation, though.

                  Originally posted by Guy Potger
                  And if this individual didn't have access to said professional services to create such a card?

                  No. I'm genuinely interested to know what you think she should have done in this circumstance if no formal support existed to provide her with such.

                  Your move.

                  (Oh. By the way. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy & Prosperous New Year)
                  Except the formal support exists, to the point the mum is claiming this is the formal support. Google Headway, they're a fairly large charity who produce alert cards for people with brain injuries.

                  Autism is a pretty good comparison to a brain injury for this purpose, because they're both hidden disabilities that present in a way people don't understand.

                  So it's important to have something LOUD, official (notice the police logo - the NAS does this in cooperation with various police agencies), and well-presented.

                  The card itself is quite big, it unfolds into several panels and gives a pretty detailed description of autism and also why this is relevant in criminal justice situations (anxiety, behaviour, speech, etc.)

                  The card offered doesn't even come close to that. It looks fake. It looks precisely like the kind of card somebody would use as a con.
                  But that's the point.

                  We know there's a card provided for people on the autism spectrum.

                  Is there one for people with severe head trauma?

                  Please.

                  Rather than asking the rest of us to do your legwork, please provide the evidence.

                  (and yes. It does look like a piece of shit a scam artist would use. But I repeat, did she have anything better available?)

                  Comment


                    #34
                    & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                    Flynnie wrote: Serving a drunk, sweary man because you're afraid he'll jump over the bar and glass you isn't really a justification for this situation, though.
                    No, but to offer up 'official policy' as the explanation for one incident, when everyone knows that same policy isn't followed when it's more convenient/expedient not to do so feels like double standards. If Wetherspoons pubs were always havens of civilised, responsible drinking, with no drunks in sight, I'd be more able to agree that this woman was dealt with fairly.

                    Comment


                      #35
                      & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                      Headway seem to do one with membership (which is BS, but there you go

                      But their West Sussex branch will send you one for free?

                      This isn't brilliant, but it's better than what she had with her

                      Comment


                        #36
                        & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                        Well. If you're going to obfuscate the debate with facts…

                        (Seriously. Thanks for that. This appears to be a resource to which she should have had access.

                        So.

                        The sidebar. Why should "victims" (& I use the term with some trepidation) have to fork out 60 sovs of their own to join?)

                        Comment


                          #37
                          & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                          jameswba wrote:
                          Originally posted by Flynnie
                          Serving a drunk, sweary man because you're afraid he'll jump over the bar and glass you isn't really a justification for this situation, though.
                          No, but to offer up 'official policy' as the explanation for one incident, when everyone knows that same policy isn't followed when it's more convenient/expedient not to do so feels like double standards. If Wetherspoons pubs were always havens of civilised, responsible drinking, with no drunks in sight, I'd be more able to agree that this woman was dealt with fairly.
                          James, you're muddying the waters by offering conjecture and anecdote. We have absolutely no evidence to support the idea that she was turned down because she was 'easy' to turn down, while the rest of the place was full of drunk lairy buggers. None.

                          Comment


                            #38
                            & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                            Guy Potger wrote: Well. If you're going to obfuscate the debate with facts…

                            (Seriously. Thanks for that. This appears to be a resource to which she should have had access.

                            So.

                            The sidebar. Why should "victims" (& I use the term with some trepidation) have to fork out 60 sovs of their own to join?)
                            Because that's how these organizations fund themselves? Because membership involves cost? Because it increases the credibility of the participant to both the organization and those to whom the credentials are shown? Paid-up membership is of exponentially higher value than 'anyone can be a member...free'.

                            Comment


                              #39
                              & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                              WOM wrote:
                              Originally posted by Guy Potger
                              Well. If you're going to obfuscate the debate with facts…

                              (Seriously. Thanks for that. This appears to be a resource to which she should have had access.

                              So.

                              The sidebar. Why should "victims" (& I use the term with some trepidation) have to fork out 60 sovs of their own to join?)
                              Because that's how these organizations fund themselves? Because membership involves cost? Because it increases the credibility of the participant to both the organization and those to whom the credentials are shown? Paid-up membership is of exponentially higher value than 'anyone can be a member...free'.
                              Don't be ridiculous.

                              These organisations and charities fund themselves through donations and income on investments.

                              They don't charge the people they're endowed to support.

                              Comment


                                #40
                                & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                While evidently they do.

                                Comment


                                  #41
                                  & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                  Guy Potger wrote:
                                  Originally posted by WOM
                                  Originally posted by Guy Potger
                                  Well. If you're going to obfuscate the debate with facts…

                                  (Seriously. Thanks for that. This appears to be a resource to which she should have had access.

                                  So.

                                  The sidebar. Why should "victims" (& I use the term with some trepidation) have to fork out 60 sovs of their own to join?)
                                  Because that's how these organizations fund themselves? Because membership involves cost? Because it increases the credibility of the participant to both the organization and those to whom the credentials are shown? Paid-up membership is of exponentially higher value than 'anyone can be a member...free'.
                                  Don't be ridiculous.

                                  These organisations and charities fund themselves through donations and income on investments.

                                  They don't charge the people they're endowed to support.
                                  Donations for unsexy charities serving people with autism or brain injuries are pretty low, as is investment income (because they have no assets).

                                  The money in charities like that is in providing services for users. Which is tight due to councils being stripped to the bone.

                                  Comment


                                    #42
                                    & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                    Here's the funding statement from their 2014 Annual Report.

                                    Comment


                                      #43
                                      & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                      WOM wrote:
                                      James, you're muddying the waters by offering conjecture and anecdote. We have absolutely no evidence to support the idea that she was turned down because she was 'easy' to turn down, while the rest of the place was full of drunk lairy buggers. None.
                                      That's a slight misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm not assuming anything about who else was in the pub at the time, though I think it can be inferred that a max of two companions of this woman were.

                                      I suppose I can agree that she was probably dealt with fairly, if we take her case in isolation, that is according to policy, and I wouldn't want to criticise the staff involved.

                                      But I'd maintain that it's a bit more than conjecture or anecdote to suggest that loud, drunk people very often do receive service in pubs, in Wetherspoons pubs as much as most. That's why I say there's a bit of a double-standard at play.

                                      Comment


                                        #44
                                        & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                        I don't disagree with you. I disagreed with the implication that this woman was refused while others were getting soused. We hadn't even a hint of that in the article.

                                        Comment


                                          #45
                                          & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                          WOM wrote: I disagreed with the implication that this woman was refused while others were getting soused.
                                          OK. As I said, I wasn't trying to make that implication. If that's accepted, we probably aren't left with much more than a slight difference of emphasis.

                                          Comment


                                            #46
                                            & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                            I accept the acceptance and retract any perceived recriminations.

                                            Comment


                                              #47
                                              & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                              WOM wrote: Here's the funding statement from their 2014 Annual Report.

                                              May I suggest they are nominated as the official otf charity of 2016?

                                              Those of us in the UK in employ can fund them for a tenner a month, surely?

                                              Comment


                                                #48
                                                & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                                Flynnie wrote:
                                                Originally posted by Guy Potger
                                                Originally posted by WOM
                                                Originally posted by Guy Potger
                                                Well. If you're going to obfuscate the debate with facts…

                                                (Seriously. Thanks for that. This appears to be a resource to which she should have had access.

                                                So.

                                                The sidebar. Why should "victims" (& I use the term with some trepidation) have to fork out 60 sovs of their own to join?)
                                                Because that's how these organizations fund themselves? Because membership involves cost? Because it increases the credibility of the participant to both the organization and those to whom the credentials are shown? Paid-up membership is of exponentially higher value than 'anyone can be a member...free'.
                                                Don't be ridiculous.

                                                These organisations and charities fund themselves through donations and income on investments.

                                                They don't charge the people they're endowed to support.
                                                Donations for unsexy charities serving people with autism or brain injuries are pretty low, as is investment income (because they have no assets).

                                                The money in charities like that is in providing services for users. Which is tight due to councils being stripped to the bone.
                                                This.

                                                Comment


                                                  #49
                                                  & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                                  There is something wrong with society that someone can't take the word of companions of someone with a brain injury that they have this condition because they think that they are all pulling a fast one. Perhaps this says more about Weatherspoons, its clientele and staff than society though.

                                                  I suppose you could say there is something positive and progressive now about our attitudes to mental health that people are seen as more likely to effect a brain injury than appear pissed.

                                                  Having said all this, the amaturishness of the card doesn't help her case at all but I am surprised at the thought that someone would make such a card just in case they were too pissed to be served.

                                                  It's all a rum do, in other words.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #50
                                                    & kick a cripple for me too, Mr Wetherspoon!

                                                    Quite why anyone would choose to drink in a Wetherspoons* is beyond me.

                                                    (*outside London, at least, where it's the only place to get a pint under £3)

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X