Single adults banned from falconry displays in case they're paedophiles...

shapeshifter said:
I have just emailed them asking why they have such a rule. It keep the pressure on. Email is info@puxton.co.uk
Click to expand...
It looks as though they have put an email filtering system in place as the email has been bounced back.It could be that they have been getting a lot of inquiries about this subject so have set up a filter to reject any emails containing the words "single men or women" . They are blocking any emails with the words "single men and women" I have just emailed asking if everyone at the park is OK and it went through no problem. They clearly have not got the courage of their own convictions and will probably cave in if the pressure gets too much.LOL
 
shapeshifter said:
It looks as though they have put an email filtering system in place as the email has been bounced back.It could be that they have been getting a lot of inquiries about this subject so have set up a filter to reject any emails containing the words "single men or women" . They are blocking any emails with the words "single men and women" I have just emailed asking if everyone at the park is OK and it went through no problem. They clearly have not got the courage of their own convictions and will probably cave in if the pressure gets too much.LOL
Click to expand...
Take a screenshot of the original text, send that in the body of the email (together with a line or two of genuine text e.g. are you open tomorrow) and it'll get past the keyword filter ;)
 
shapeshifter said:
It looks as though they have put an email filtering system in place as the email has been bounced back.It could be that they have been getting a lot of inquiries about this subject so have set up a filter to reject any emails containing the words "single men or women" . They are blocking any emails with the words "single men and women" I have just emailed asking if everyone at the park is OK and it went through no problem. They clearly have not got the courage of their own convictions and will probably cave in if the pressure gets too much.LOL
Click to expand...

I have sent snail mail as I felt it would have more likelihood of 'landing', even in the waste basket
 
Reading the Trip Advisor reviews, there seems to be enough already wrong with the park that a minded group of individuals could disrupt their activities with suitable reports to the relevant authorities...
 
Llamaman said:
Reading the Trip Advisor reviews, there seems to be enough already wrong with the park that a minded group of individuals could disrupt their activities with suitable reports to the relevant authorities...
Click to expand...

Haven't read the trip advisor stuff, but that sounds horribly like 'putting them out of business', which based on this issue alone I certainly wouldn't want to see. [there may be other issues that are more serious that would warrant such a move, but purely in the context of this issue] I firmly believe this is about education, not 'revolution'. Yes, I am paraphrasing slightly and maybe Puxton need some evolution too, but whilst they may have totally buggered this one up, it remains to be seen if they learn from it. I hope they do and I hope they establish more reasonable policies on entry that are more acceptable and less draconian and paranoid.
 
I have no qualms in seeing bigots come acropper. They've cynically played to the (mob) gallery to boost their 'family friendly' credentials so they're not above playing dirty.

And since the issues relate to alleged breaches of Health & Safety, Food Standards, Animal Welfare and even an alleged assault on a child, they're probably due a thorough inspection or two.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
I have no qualms in seeing bigots come acropper. They've cynically played to the (mob) gallery to boost their 'family friendly' credentials so they're not above playing dirty.

And since the issues relate to alleged breaches of Health & Safety, Food Standards, Animal Welfare and even an alleged assault on a child, they're probably due a thorough inspection or two.
Click to expand...

They are a business, pandering to the majority is often the best way to get money through the tills. That doesn't mean it's right or I condone it, but it is just simple business, but if they play this right, they could actually turn a change of policy to their advantage and increase gate money. Mind you, if the statements from their PR guy so far are anything to go by, I have my doubts they would be able to get it right tbh. :rolleyes:

As for the other stuff, agreed, IF true, such things need to be looked at more closely.
 
Also, I wonder if McDonalds are aware of "McPuxtons"? {Evil grin}
 
Had some fun on Google - searched for "Puxton Farm Bigots" and the top link is... their own price page :D

They really are cowards too - the press statement they released about the policy has already been purged from the website (I sense the hand of legal counsel here), and the actual policy they give is;

"We are sorry but we are unable to let single MEN OR WOMEN without children into the park."

Er, you're not sorry. You're proud. You boast about the policy.
And you're not "unable" to give entry, you choose not to.

Weasel words from the weasel brained.

Oh, and I find the "single" men or women bit darkly hilarious. Thank goodness paedophiles don't operate in groups, eh?
 
Jonathan Shl said:
Oh, and here's some dirt on the boss - it's all out in the public domain ;) http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/business_director_in_court_1_3058711

Edit: Here's the sentence http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/rugby_club_parking_manoeuvre_leads_to_driving_ban_1_3288580
Click to expand...

What a lovely man. I particularly enjoyed how he tried to refuse any responsibility for his wrongdoing. Wouldn't it be regrettable if this ended up on their Facebook page or Trip Advisor?

I'm quite tempted to email them to ask what their policy is about drink driving around the carpark. Snigger.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
What a lovely man. I particularly enjoyed how he tried to refuse any responsibility for his wrongdoing. Wouldn't it be regrettable if this ended up on their Facebook page or Trip Advisor?

I'm quite tempted to email them to ask what their policy is about drink driving around the carpark. Snigger.
Click to expand...

Yep a real pillock of the community....
 
It's the same registered address as "Puxton Limited" - I guess it's the park's address?
 
Jonathan Shl said:
Well, it's up on trip advisor - http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUs...r_Mare_Somerset_England.html#CHECK_RATES_CONT

Scroll down to Was this review helpful? and vote yes - now that's going to get their attention.

Oh, and find and contact http://www.puxton.co.uk/Find-and-Contact has a fax number ;)
Click to expand...



And followed by this.....

"I visited here back in the summer and had a lovely day with my god-daughter. Reading the leaflet before our visit with her mum we both said how good it was that Puxton Park were making the effort to make it a safe place for both parents and kids"

What does that mean? What effort to make it safe? Are they saying that "Wow.. finally!... a safe place for kids, because you know what, I was getting a little bit fed up with having to defend my little darlings from packs of pedophiles (sic). Thank God someone's seen the light and made it impossible for those filthy single men and women to come in here and try to have sex with my children" Because basically... that IS what this "mum" is saying. Yes, I use "Mum" here as a derogatory term, because there's a certain type of "Mum" who just utterly lose the plot once they have kids. It's as if, for some people, having kids results in your intellect being expunged along with the placenta.


This is where we are at with the vast majority of "Mums" I'm afraid:

The vast majority of child abuse, whether sexual or not, happens either in the home, or near the home, by someone at least in some way, known to the family concerned. Those are facts. However, despite facts, the majority of people seem to believe that paedophiles are solitary, skulking, lonely figures who actually visit parks and schools to "attack" children (not helped by Jimmy Savile... but what they fail to realise that Jimmy Savile was anything but skulking and solitary... he was hidden in plain sight). By letting in adults who are accompanied by children only as a policy, the reality is that they are most likely doing precisely nothing to make the children safer in Puxton park whatsoever. However.... it will convince the brain dead "Mums" that it's a green light to child safety, and therefore a brilliant idea. You can't really blame the Director of the park... not really. He's cashing in on people's stupidity. It doesn't get him off the hook, but he's just being a good little capitalist, and we love that too here our green and pleasant land.

As usual with people (who I always assume are gibbering idiots until proven otherwise... it saves time), they have a distorted view of reality. Most people will agree with policies like this because it's supposed to protect their kids, so HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE BAD.... that's what they'll say. Then the same people, BECAUSE the world is such a dangerous place (absolutely littered with predatory paedophiles), they drive their kids everywhere.... drive.. one of the most dangerous forms of transport you could subject your kids to. Most I see every morning, do this while checking their make-up in the mirror, carrying cups of coffee or using the phone. Their kids are MUCH more likely to die in a road traffic incident than at the hands of a paedophile, yet there they are, every morning... the "mums" in their 4x4s.. that metal envelope of invulnerability (it has a NCAP 5 star rating you know..) utterly blasé to the dangers: Arguing with kids, turning round to talk/shout/berate/punish them for something, phone in hand, drinking coffee... basically... driving like people who clearly have no idea what danger their in ALL the time while on the road.


So ladies and gentlemen: Give up. You can't do anything with people when they've abandoned logic. Once a person abandons logic, they are no longer reasonable, and if history has taught us anything, it's that it's those that have abandoned logic are the ones that we need to be VERY distrustful of... but the ones you are most powerless do do anything about, because they're usually the majority.
 
Last edited:
I agree, Pookey, which is why I think suggestions if 'education', whilst well-intentioned, are doomed to fail.

I find it hilarious that an unrepentant drink driver is lecturing the world about keeping children safe.
 
Jonathan Shl said:
Not quite - it's the other side of the M5.
Click to expand...
That's strange - because as well as having that as the registered address, it's also Puxton Ltd's official trading address.
I guess it may be a holding company - would need to do some more digging about the corporate structure.
 
@Pookeyhead that's exactly why the reaction on mumsnet Lindsay posted is such a [pleasant] surprise, usually the first bastion of paranoia and self righteous indignation about anything, the place for whom 'think of the children' is a tag line. The media love a good old mumsnet 'comment' on anything related to stuff like this because they can almost always guarantee something extreme and overly protective, lacking in any kind of logic or common sense. OK, yes, that is cherry picking and I am sure there are plenty of sensible, level headed types on there too, but when even the majority of comments there are saying this is the most ridiculous rule ever, then it is probably a good marker on where this strange logic of Puxtons lies.

Now I am off to read the dirt on the boss posted above ;)
 
YV, the dirt is disappointingly predictable. 2 1/2 times over the limit, took to the wheel, claimed he was just re-parking it. Yawn.

You see this often - sprawling family empires, politically connected locally, pillar of the community, blah blah. 2nd and 3rd generation often lose the plot.
 
Not really dirt... he was done for drink driving.

If you apply logic to this argument you'll see how utterly stupid it is.

The definition of a paedophile, or at least the bottom line of such, is someone who is sexually attracted to children. Ok... let's just stop there. Someone who is sexually attracted to children.

The definition of a heterosexual is, or the bottom line of such, is someone who is sexually attracted to women.

So... why assume that if anyone WAS taking images of children, they are a paedophile? While this may seem unpleasant to read, the perverted logic of "Mums" goes thus: That man took a photo of my child, so he's now going to go home and masturbate to it. That's essentially what they are objecting to, or perhaps that if the image gets online, other paedophiles will masturbate to it.

Now... here's where logic breaks down, because as a heterosexual, I don't usually just whip my kecks down, and start whacking off to every picture of a woman I see. There are certain criteria that picture would have to fulfil in order to provoke me into doing that. So if I took a picture of a woman in a park, or the street, no one would instantly assume it's for my sexual gratification. So why assume anyone photographing a child would be doing that if the images are not sexual in nature? You have to remember, being sexually attracted to children doesn't mean you're sexually attracted to every child, all the time, just as being heterosexual doesn't mean you are attracted to every women, all of the time.

It's the same twisted logic that makes certain brain dead blokes say things like "Watch out lads!.... backs against the wall!" if there was a known homosexual man in the room. A) Being Homosexual doesn't mean you are attracted to every single man, and B) Even if you were, it doesn't mean you're behaviour towards them would be any different than if they were heterosexual. What makes some big, fat hairy ugly bloke think that any gay man would want to have sex with him? Even if I was gay AND liked big fat hairy men, why would my behaviour towards that man in public be any different from anyone else's?

There's just zero logic to that argument.

While ANY sexual crime, whether against children, or adults is abhorrent, we need to be looking in the right places, and putting measures in the right places to stop it. Reactionary, "Mum"-like responses are going to do NOTHING to stop the spread of paedophile oriented imagery, because taking a beautiful photograph of a child in a pubic place that's not even remotely sexual in nature is not something a paedophile will get off on... no more than a lovely shot of a woman that is not sexually motivated in any way will illicit the same response from heterosexual men.

The extent of child abuse in Rotherham was not as a result of people photographing kids. It was a cold, calculated operation by people who don't even fit the perceived profile of what "Mums" think they are.


There is actually a DANGER in behaving the way "Mums" do, as it diverts media, and hence pubic attention away from where the real dangers lie sometimes, and THAT'S why so many get away with it.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
And followed by this.....

"I visited here back in the summer and had a lovely day with my god-daughter. Reading the leaflet before our visit with her mum we both said how good it was that Puxton Park were making the effort to make it a safe place for both parents and kids"

What does that mean? What effort to make it safe? Are they saying that "Wow.. finally!... a safe place for kids, because you know what, I was getting a little bit fed up with having to defend my little darlings from packs of pedophiles (sic). Thank God someone's seen the light and made it impossible for those filthy single men and women to come in here and try to have sex with my children" Because basically... that IS what this "mum" is saying. Yes, I use "Mum" here as a derogatory term, because there's a certain type of "Mum" who just utterly lose the plot once they have kids. It's as if, for some people, having kids results in your intellect being expunged along with the placenta.


This is where we are at with the vast majority of "Mums" I'm afraid:

The vast majority of child abuse, whether sexual or not, happens either in the home, or near the home, by someone at least in some way, known to the family concerned. Those are facts. However, despite facts, the majority of people seem to believe that paedophiles are solitary, skulking, lonely figures who actually visit parks and schools to "attack" children (not helped by Jimmy Savile... but what they fail to realise that Jimmy Savile was anything but skulking and solitary... he was hidden in plain sight). By letting in adults who are accompanied by children only as a policy, the reality is that they are most likely doing precisely nothing to make the children safer in Puxton park whatsoever. However.... it will convince the brain dead "Mums" that it's a green light to child safety, and therefore a brilliant idea. You can't really blame the Director of the park... not really. He's cashing in on people's stupidity. It doesn't get him off the hook, but he's just being a good little capitalist, and we love that too here our green and pleasant land.

As usual with people (who I always assume are gibbering idiots until proven otherwise... it saves time), they have a distorted view of reality. Most people will agree with policies like this because it's supposed to protect their kids, so HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE BAD.... that's what they'll say. Then the same people, BECAUSE the world is such a dangerous place (absolutely littered with predatory paedophiles), they drive their kids everywhere.... drive.. one of the most dangerous forms of transport you could subject your kids to. Most I see every morning, do this while checking their make-up in the mirror, carrying cups of coffee or using the phone. Their kids are MUCH more likely to die in a road traffic incident than at the hands of a paedophile, yet there they are, every morning... the "mums" in their 4x4s.. that metal envelope of invulnerability (it has a NCAP 5 star rating you know..) utterly blasé to the dangers: Arguing with kids, turning round to talk/shout/berate/punish them for something, phone in hand, drinking coffee... basically... driving like people who clearly have no idea what danger their in ALL the time while on the road.


So ladies and gentlemen: Give up. You can't do anything with people when they've abandoned logic. Once a person abandons logic, they are no longer reasonable, and if history has taught us anything, it's that it's those that have abandoned logic are the ones that we need to be VERY distrustful of... but the ones you are most powerless do do anything about, because they're usually the majority.
Click to expand...

Also Jimmy didn't work solitary at all of the news is anything to go by he was known to be up to it within bbc and had colleagues also involved.
 
Tintin124 said:
Also Jimmy didn't work solitary at all of the news is anything to go by he was known to be up to it within bbc and had colleagues also involved.
Click to expand...


Exactly. My point however was that he was known by so many. He was in a position of trust, not some furtive, sneaky man in a park with a long lens. He was right there, and the evidence was plain to see, and indeed WAS seen by many, for YEARS. However... because we have a stereotype of what a paedophile is, we all just go, "Nah.... not Jimmy. He may have an eye for the young girls, but he's essentially a decent bloke... I mean, look how much he raises for charity for kids". That's what paedophiles do: They attain a position of trust that gives them access to their victims. They don't hide in bushes in parks.
 
PH, you're assuming of course that that is a real entry and not the park putting in a positive entry to counter the other.
 
Maybe the park owners and all the guests are a huge paedophile ring and they want to stop any witnesses entering?

Daft idea, but no dafter than their policy.
 
I'm leaving that in :)
 
It is a well known "fact" that all male photographers are perverts and terrorists. Old ones with white hair and beards should be locked up or put out of their misery automatically.
 
Yv said:
...and what about the women? :exit: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...


Nah... they're fine. I mean.. who wouldn't trust this lady?

myraDM1507_468x655.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top