The disabled tend to get lumped together. A lot of people don't see the bigger picture when it comes to hiring disabled, which is why they have to bring in laws to encourage them. I'm not surprised this has happened, but I'm not highly shocked either. My uncle's schizophrenic, and the thing that has aided him most in his recovery is going to college the last two years. He's been schizophrenic for the last 17 years. He attempted to get employment a while back, about twelve years ago, but was rejected once the mental health check came through, despite being the only applicant that passed the test. (It was a post office job). He can't take on too much, he's out of the habit really, but continuous work mean he's not sitting at home, feeling worthless, because he's being useless, and it forces him to get outside his head, which does wonders. But no, he's "a nutter" to most people. It's not so bad now, but it's sad to see that some things still haven't changed.
In the U.S., at least, there are exceptions written into labor laws for people with severe disabilities. It's a way of making it economically feasible for businesses to hire a person who requires constant supervision and can potentially create work for the employer rather than reducing it. It's also only slavery if it's forced. Plenty of people work for free; it's called volunteering. (Or possibly an internship.) Nonetheless, it seems pretty ridiculous to expect him to pay to work there. I'm guessing this will be reversed before long.
As an aside, what the hell kind of name is Weston-super-Mare? Is there an office somewhere in the British government that's responsible for coming up with ridiculous-sounding names for things? "I say, Nigel, what shall we call this new neighborhood on the outskirts of Stoke-upon-Largebottom?" "Blimey, Alistaire, I don't know ... how about Popple popple Whack-a-cock on Nanny Nanny Sillypants?"
