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

ChasG said:
This reminds me of a biker who visited a nice little restaurant for a drink and meal but was turned away as "We don't serve bikers here" A week or two later he caalled the restaurant and booked a meal for 10 on a Saturday night.

The group turned up suitably attired and proceeded to their table after giving their order for wine and food. As the starters were placed on the table and the wine poured he said "Damn I forgot! you don't serve bikers like us" got up and the party left.

As an aside Amazon Local are offering a deal at Rutland Falconry and Owl Centre where there is no mention singletons are not refused entry. Acyually I think it might be a good deal personally (not advertising it) and might take the camera down.
Click to expand...

Strange for a spelling Nazi Chas Actually is not spelled Acyually and called is not spelled caalled - I think you owe a certain 18 year old an apology

Mike
 
Stalker!
 
Their Facebook page is getting loads of messages. I honestly cannot believe this is true... Even the Sunday sport thought this story was too make believe for their readers.
 
"British government closes borders to Asia and middle east due to perceived threat that visitors may be terrorists"


"Single male drivers restricted to 30mph because there is a risk they will drive at excessive speeds"
 
Last edited:
OK so we've all had a bit of a rant about the absurd rules of entry - rules that are buried deep in the website.
However, it is their park and providing they aren't breaking any anti-discrimination laws they make the rules.
The rule is clearly based on fear and ignorance.
I've emailed them asking why they don't have the courage to display this on their home page and have not yet received a reply.

Anybody else taken the time to do something constructive to educate them?

Thought not - carry on ranting guys.

cheers, cw

PS obviously this is a mini-rant all of its own;)
 
Chris Wilson said:
OK so we've all had a bit of a rant about the absurd rules of entry - rules that are buried deep in the website.
However, it is their park and providing they aren't breaking any anti-discrimination laws they make the rules.
The rule is clearly based on fear and ignorance.
I've emailed them asking why they don't have the courage to display this on their home page and have not yet received a reply.

Anybody else taken the time to do something constructive to educate them?

Thought not - carry on ranting guys.

cheers, cw

PS obviously this is a mini-rant all of its own;)
Click to expand...

You underestimate us some are just ranting but a lot have been proactive and sent emails to them etc. :)
 
ChasG said:
As an aside Amazon Local are offering a deal at Rutland Falconry and Owl Centre where there is no mention singletons are not refused entry. Acyually I think it might be a good deal personally (not advertising it) and might take the camera down.
Click to expand...
I've not been, but it's not a good place for photography from what i've read ... the £18 deal is for the handling experience and no consideration is given to taking good photos.
 
Chris Wilson said:
OK so we've all had a bit of a rant about the absurd rules of entry - rules that are buried deep in the website.
However, it is their park and providing they aren't breaking any anti-discrimination laws they make the rules.
The rule is clearly based on fear and ignorance.
I've emailed them asking why they don't have the courage to display this on their home page and have not yet received a reply.

Anybody else taken the time to do something constructive to educate them?

Thought not - carry on ranting guys.

cheers, cw

PS obviously this is a mini-rant all of its own;)
Click to expand...

Yes, EMailed as you did, no response.:eek:
 
Chris Wilson said:
However, it is their park and providing they aren't breaking any anti-discrimination laws they make the rules.
Click to expand...

It is part of my religion that i'm able to visit attractions without taking childen with me - deal with that :LOL:

more seriously if its illegal to discriminate against anyone for having a child , a case could also be made that its illegal to discriminate against anyone for not doing so

also if we wanted to deliberately misconstrue their statement (as people often do when filing discimination suits) by saying that single adults arent allowed they are discriminating on the grounds of marital status ;) (but hey thats good for me - i shall pop along and when they say sorry sir single adults arent allowed i shall tell them 'i'm not single, i'm married)
 
Last edited:
Posting a negative review on tripadvisor about this place having not visited is quite hypocritical....and I have done exactly that.
however, I do look at trip advisor to check places out and for me, this is helpful information and if I'd read it as a prospective punter, it would save time and embarrassment.
 
Steve Smith said:
I don't think that is illegal.


Steve.
Click to expand...

1. Types of discrimination
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:
  • age
  • being or becoming a transsexual person
  • being married or in a civil partnership
  • being pregnant or having a child
  • disability
  • race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
  • religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
  • sex
  • sexual orientation
These are called ‘protected characteristics’.
Click to expand...

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination
 
RichardtheSane said:
Were the reviews by any chance a sudden increase in negative opinions shortly after the news story broke?

Do you believe the reviews which were removed were all 100% genuine?

Reviews by people who have never visited, planned or attempted to visit the park are simply not valid.
Click to expand...

Richard, I have no idea if all of the reviews which were removed included people who have entered (or more precisely, attempted to enter) the park or not - and neither would trip advisor. Some of them looked quite genuine to me - I would be surprised to think the gentleman in question will have been the only single visitor to have been turned away. That is my point really. This can just as easily be the case with any trip advisor review of any similar park. And as I said, if I were planning on going to such a place I would be grateful for that kind of information, since it wasn't immediately obvious on the Puxton website and was in fact buried further down. After all, what was being reported is true and accurate information, and certainly very useful to people considering a visit. Not only that, it wouldn't even occur to me to believe that such terms exist, and like others if I lived in the locality and heard about a falconry display it's quite likely I would have made an effort to go, only to be turned away.
 
Not read all the replies so it may have been mentioned before. Is the place actually saying the children that go there are not with an adult anyway to supervise them??
Sounds to me like the park allows children to go there by themselves which is why they intruduced the ban
 
Last edited:
Thing is, if a disabled, adult singleton (or someone with a carer) using a walking-stick or other aid (disguised as a mono-pod maybe? :D ) turned up, would they be able to refuse entry?
 
realspeed said:
Not read all the replies so it may have been mentioned before. Is the place actually saying the children that go there are not with an adult anyway to supervise them??
Sounds to me like the park allows children to go there by themselves which is why they intruduced the ban
Click to expand...
No, not at all. Here's what it (very sensibly) says in the park's rules of admission:

Children must be accompanied at all times and must be supervised by a responsible adult.
Parents and guardians know their child's capabilities and behaviour best and
should ensure an appropriate level of supervision to reflect this.
 
Chris Wilson said:
OK so we've all had a bit of a rant about the absurd rules of entry - rules that are buried deep in the website.
However, it is their park and providing they aren't breaking any anti-discrimination laws they make the rules.
The rule is clearly based on fear and ignorance.
I've emailed them asking why they don't have the courage to display this on their home page and have not yet received a reply.

Anybody else taken the time to do something constructive to educate them?

Thought not - carry on ranting guys.

cheers, cw

PS obviously this is a mini-rant all of its own;)
Click to expand...

So why is it ok to discriminate about not having a child yet not for being gay or disabled?

You should only be able to 'discriminate' when there is a factual or legal reason (buying booze under 18, not going on certain rides if under or over height or weight etc)

Maybe we should ban the sale of kitchen knives as they could be used to kill someone!
 
Not sure if anyone has said this already but what about public (and some private such as gym etc) swimming pools, can a single adult not go swimming in case there are children there? What about if you want to take out a children's book at the library for your kids, will you not be allowed in the children's section without a child? Will toy shops ban single adults?
 
gman said:
Not sure if anyone has said this already but what about public (and some private such as gym etc) swimming pools, can a single adult not go swimming in case there are children there? What about if you want to take out a children's book at the library for your kids, will you not be allowed in the children's section without a child? Will toy shops ban single adults?
Click to expand...
No, because those facilities are (mostly) not run by complete idiots.
 
To take a different view, for just one minute

If we were to give the MD etc., a little benefit of the doubt, or suggest a solution to the problem, maybe he should have said that the Children's Amusement Park is only suitable for children when accompanied by an adults(s). None of the rides etc., should be used by adults as this could be potentially dangerous.

In order for us to protect the safety of all we feel that it would be inappropriate to allow adults without children into the Park as none of the "rides" are suitable for them and we are sorry that in such cases we reserve the right to refuse admission.

etc., etc., etc.

If the Park are genuine in the above concerns …… which many parents would support, (e.g. they do not want hooligan yobs on the same rides as their kids) ….. then their concerns could be considered valid.

If there intention is to "police" potential pedophiles they need to take expert advice on what they may do, in anything, to help this.

With all the press surrounding this situation it can sometimes be difficult to know "what's what" and the statements made by the company have not helped.

Maybe they should employ Max Clifford to handle the PR!!!
 
Last edited:
Hold on to your hats....

The Daily Mail has picked up on the story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...randfather-told-t-watch-falconry-display.html

The comments from readers are OVERWHELMINGLY against the park's policy. Of course there are a few which support it, but they're all being voted down. It's easy to sneer at Daily Mail readers for their supposedly blinkered and illiberal attitudes, but in this instance they're overwhelmingly on the right side.

Now I'm going to look on mumsnet ...
 
BillN_33 said:
To take a different view, for just one minute

If we were to give the MD etc., a little benefit of the doubt, or suggest a solution to the problem, maybe he should have said that the Children's Amusement Park is only suitable for children when accompanied by an adults(s). None of the rides etc., should be used by adults as this could be potentially dangerous.
Click to expand...

Trouble is, they couldn't make that claim:

View attachment 24904
 
Just a thought. By the Park instituting this policy could it be argued by an individual male that they are making a completely unfounded allegation against him that he is a Paedophile, and thereby begin civil proceedings against the Park for damages.
 
BillN_33 said:
To take a different view, for just one minute

If we were to give the MD etc., a little benefit of the doubt, or suggest a solution to the problem, maybe he should have said that the Children's Amusement Park is only suitable for children when accompanied by an adults(s). None of the rides etc., should be used by adults as this could be potentially dangerous.

In order for us to protect the safety of all we feel that it would be inappropriate to allow adults without children into the Park as none of the "rides" are suitable for them and we are sorry that in such cases we reserve the right to refuse admission.
!
Click to expand...

Note that the park is also promoting "adults only" sessions, where adults can go and enjoy the playground facilities - I posted one of these adverts a page or two back. Therefore we can conclude that the play facilities are abundantly safe for all. Edit: just noticed Stewart has posted another similar advert - How wonderful that they have a daring "death slide".

Frankly, there are absolutely no excuses to this whole debacle. It's discrimination of the most unsavoury kind.
 
Last edited:
Earley Man said:
Just a thought. By the Park instituting this policy could it be argued by an individual male that they are making a completely unfounded allegation against him that he is a Paedophile, and thereby begin civil proceedings against the Park for damages.
Click to expand...

For what loss?


Steve.
 
Earley Man said:
Just a thought. By the Park instituting this policy could it be argued by an individual male that they are making a completely unfounded allegation against him that he is a Paedophile, and thereby begin civil proceedings against the Park for damages.
Click to expand...

only if they publicise said allegation - they didnt , he did, so it would be difficult to sue for libel

the chap who was caring for the cousin with Downs could however sue for violation of the DDA
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top