grawlix

I have no idea why you are shouting, and inferring that I’d shout back. But I find it astonishing your failure to see the fundamental wrongs in this policy, and how unfair it has been to so many disabled people. The [official] rules the company applied, in relation to her disability, clearly ruined her day, and resulted in the basic fact that she couldn’t meet the people she’d paid her entrance fee for. I have nothing to gain except fairness. I find some of your attitudes to disabled people fairly unsavoury. I hope that some day you don’t find yourselves in the same position. There needs to be a dramatic change of policy.

I refuse to accept also that there is any correlation between the abuse of disabled parking, and disabled virtual ticket abuse. But I’d also make it clear, I don’t believe that system should be scrapped because of the very few who are abusing the system. Disabled people just want to be treated fairly; this person didn’t want to ‘jump’ the queue they didn’t want to bend the rules. They just wanted to participate. I would guess - if they had been politely directed to a ‘pit boss’, in order to authorise the request, or understand the ‘unofficial rules regarding disabled people and their helpers’ – they would have been more than happy to do so. As it was they had their disability rudely questioned, they were basically accused of lying, and it spoilt their day.

I believe you when you say there is a whole range of reasons why people deem it necessary to have more tickets – and believe some of them are quite complex, and comical. But I stand by my view that they do not regularly say my friend is disabled. [i’m not arguing for people on crutches, broken arms, legs etc] This isn’t about queue jumping, or joining the queue early [both I would agree with you would be unfair]; this is about allowing a disabled person, with help of their carer, to follow the same procedures as a non-disabled person. Once again on this forum this debate has degenerated into nonsense. Tell me, is Showmasters the only company where you can’t complain about anything AFTER the event. Shouldn’t this be in writing somewhere in the terms and conditions?. So now were in agreement that lack of planning / no policy for disabled people ruined this persons day - isn’t she entitled to some form of compensation as a gesture of goodwill?. Her words:

I have to say there is one bit of your response I also fundamentally don’t agree with. I accept that people would have all manner of excuses of why they need more than one ticket – friends & family coming later, people in toilets, people in other queues, I've got a train to catch, I have to be somewhere at this time.... etc. I’ll even accept that our society is in a dour state. BUT I refuse to accept that people coming up to you saying “please may I have a ticket for my DISABLED friend’ and lying about it, is common occurrence. I therefore suggest that these tricks do not exist anywhere, apart from in your imagination. This person obviously had a pretty awful day, because of the incorrect procedures in place. Now you have the nerve to say ‘you should have seen us at the event’, and a pathetic argument here defending the indefensible. We both recognise that there were serious failings – so can this poor woman now expect an official apology, and some form of compensation?.

I’m sorry but that response is terrible, and as a company you should be ashamed to even print it. I honestly can’t believe in 2007, I’m reading such nonsense. Can somebody at Showmasters actually start thinking of a plan / policy for disabled visitors, and compensate this person, because currently this is a joke.

I find this paragraph, is just completely bizarre. It basically says that unless you prove you have a disabled friend with you at the time, you’re not having a ticket? Given the nature of some people’s disabilities [and the chaos], that isn’t always possible. Does this mean if you couldn’t see her friend, you would have considered that she was lying? Tell me, how many people have you ever met whilst at a show, who have lied about having a disabled person with them!?!? As Chris said, the rules need updating – so more crew members don’t make more errors like this. His suggestion was perfect. Your solution: Go against all the rules, and what you’d previously told her. As I said before, I wouldn’t have done that, would you?.

This thread is turning into a ramble, and losing its point. The main point is that the photographs are consistently ‘technically’ poor, and include fundamental errors – professional photographers should be able to recognise and correct these. A ‘proportion’ [not all] of people have consistently voiced various concerns. Now all the pro-showmasters gang have got involved, and it’s now descended into nonsense as many debates here do. Nothing will change. End of discussion.

I think your right Kirsty , for some that could be difficult, and organising the batches further would result in further headaches. Photoshopping isn’t an option either. But there has to be some sort of middle ground / improvement possible. If Mike is a professional photographer, he’d admit himself that some of those pictures are awful, and not worth the money paid. He doesn’t need any of us to tell him directly.

But you do hold a lot of responsibility, because you’ve basically told us that you wouldn’t allow any exceptions, and that you’d ignore anybody who tried it on. Chances are therefore that on this occasion you purposely ignored her [your words] despite it being a valid reason [how many others were there?!?!]. I’m sorry your ears should p**** up, when you hear the word ‘disabled’ you should have made exceptions, and tried to help. But I did love your solution, she should have come along with her friend, and then you’d have let her in. Why would she do the complete opposite to what you told her originally, and go against the ticket system? – I wouldn’t have, would you? But saying that, I do respect that you’ve come forward, and apologised – maybe Showmasters can offer some kind of compensation for the clear error?.

Mr C. Boyband... I need more clues!

Please I wasn’t being personal. I was merely inferring that some here seem to be putting them on special pedestals because they are ‘celebrities’. Why do the rules suddenly change if they’ve been in a film?. I’m sure you would find most of the British public would happily sit and have their picture taken for two days in exchange for tens of thousands of pounds. If we can do it, why can’t they?, aren’t we the same after all?.

This isn’t about digitally altering images. It’s more about applying fundamentals. None of which have been used in any of these ‘professional’ images. // A poll on here wouldn’t work because you’d never get an unbiased result. // That blue doesn't flatter anybody!

If they gave me tens of thousands of pounds for doing it - I’d do it with a smile, and probably dance to the bank on Monday. *sigh* The things these people have to do for all this money!. Having their picture taken is now too much to ask. Some people work for the minimum wage, in worse conditions for longer hours – but I’d imagine you wouldn’t care about those.

Come on! ‘real’ photographers can combat these issues. Else every photograph you’d see would have a blue background. Ever been to a wedding and seen a photographer there?, does he use the same awful background? for those reasons you’ve stated? It’s a fact that anybody could take those pictures, including a machine at your local railway station.

Why not go back to Wembley? Even the arenas have now had a face lift haven’t they? Much easier to park, etc…

Given the circumstances [the production line] I’ll give him some leniency. But some of the pictures he’s produced aren’t worth the price charged. I also hate the blue background. At the moment it looks like a passport photo with a celebrity!. Is there anyway you can at least have a movie poster or something displayed in the background?. The backgrounds created for interviews such as dare I say GMTV or C4 would be much more pleasing. The budget must allow for this, unless its all about making money?.

Lets get a little real here, say they’re taking only 10 pounds an autograph. They’re still making tens of thousands of pounds for a few hours work. Now we’re feeling sorry for them because they have a couple of people wanting their photograph taken?. How about concerts, sporting events, paparazzi photographers – everybody is getting photographed everywhere. I don’t see you supporting these people so vigorously?. If their ill, I completely agree – if this is just to force people to buy official photographs, I’m unimpressed.

Can we just start again…

That looked much more fun. …and it was free!