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

I read about this last week, and emailed the park. They haven't replied..........
 
Probably too busy with Facebook...
 
Lindsay D said:
That's right, unfortunately. I imagine the rules will appeal to most of the visitors and for that reason the matter will probably have little impact upon visitor numbers or popularity. But the story has at least highlighted the lunacy of the whole thing and brought it to public attention, and it does appear that an overwhelming majority thinks it's a load of b*llox. So perhaps there is hope after all, perhaps this will encourage other parks to think twice before imposing regulations which are essentially groundless.
Click to expand...

I really disagree - I have a 6yo and 4yo and if a local place did this I would never go back again. In fact, we don't go to the local play centre as I hate the fact there are warning signs up literally everywhere... from no photos, to not taking your own food for H&S reasons (I have no problem with places banning food as they want to sell their food, but to hide behind H&S??). Many people I know said they would not go to a similar place.
 
Meanwhile, in a mumsnet free world, another park in the South West welcomed a single man and an adult couple (no kids between the 3 of them but 2 cameras) and another middle aged couple (again, no kids but a perffeshniul camera (well, one with a big white lens attached so doing its best to be one!) with nary a raised eyebrow. Of course, one of the numpties in the first childless couple had left the camera he'd extracted from its bag so as to travel light on the chair - luckily he had a decent compact so managed a few shots of the obliging little redheads there.
During the summer, the park runs falconry displays and last time we went, one adult was allowed to lie just in front of one of the landing blocks and he got a few great shots of a barn owl flaring on approach. If you're in the area and are looking for a day out, try Escot instead of the one in Somerset!
 
cambsno said:
I really disagree - I have a 6yo and 4yo and if a local place did this I would never go back again. In fact, we don't go to the local play centre as I hate the fact there are warning signs up literally everywhere... from no photos, to not taking your own food for H&S reasons (I have no problem with places banning food as they want to sell their food, but to hide behind H&S??). Many people I know said they would not go to a similar place.
Click to expand...

I said 'most' Simon. I think you may be in a minority unfortunately, otherwise these ridiculous exclusions probably wouldn't exist. I have been vilified by people with kids (both on chatrooms and via email) simply for writing about the law as it relates to photography in public - unfortunately not all parents are like you. I hope there are enough parents who share your views and who will make those views known to this Park and other localities where exclusions apply, but I don't hold my breath. I think the vocal contingent, even if it is a minority, do seem to dominate and get their own way. We only have to cast our minds back to the many discussions about being out in public with a camera, and the problems some of us have encountered from parents, to know that this is a genuine issue.
 
Nod said:
If you're in the area and are looking for a day out, try Escot instead of the one in Somerset!
Click to expand...
I remember a dodgy looking single bloke going there last year ... he looked clueless with his recently acquired big lens when the bird ladies flew an owl directly at him, so he must be dodgy.

I dele ... I mean, he deleted his owl pics before anyone could see them :D
 
Lindsay D said:
So if a single visitor went to this Park and was refused admittance, and asked why, and was told "because you could be a paedophile and we operate a stringent child protection policy" - that would not be cause enough for a legal complaint? So it looks like somebody is presumed to be a criminal of the worst kind even when there is no evidence at all to suggest they would pose any danger whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in sentiment but in a legal sense sadly not if they use the word could or might - because then it literally true anyone could be a paedophile or might be a paedophile, even if they actually aren't. You'd only have a case for defamation if they stated "we arent letting you in because we think you are a paedophile"
 
big soft moose said:
I agree with you in sentiment but in a legal sense sadly not if they use the word could or might - because then it literally true anyone could be a paedophile or might be a paedophile, even if they actually aren't. You'd only have a case for defamation if they stated "we arent letting you in because we think you are a paedophile"
Click to expand...

Ah, a bit like saying that the managers and policy makers of some theme parks may be ranting reactionary right on message Daily Mail types with low IQ's and poor comprehension skills who's feeble brain processing power has been possibly even further reduced by snorting too much coke or maybe by drinking too much strong lager.

Not that any of them would drive home after drinking all that booze though. Perish the thought.
 
Someone asked a bout that statistics on sexual offences against children.

The best guesswork (because thats what it seems to be) is this from the NSPCC.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalasset...ports/how-safe-children-2014-indicator-04.pdf

Which includes all sexual offences against people under the age of 16. Now, these need to be treated with caution, as they will include those 16 year olds who were caught banging their 15 year old girlfriends, or indeed any other sexual activity with their slightly younger current favorite.

So, if you were to take those out of the equation, and then (and I can't find anything reliable on the relationship of offender to victim) take out those offences where the offender is known/related to the victim, you wouldn't be left with a huge number from the stating point of around 23,000.

Yes, the number of overall reported offences has risen in the last 12 years, but that may be because offences are being reported which previously were not, although it could equally be a rise in offences. As I said, thats the numbers, but treat them carefully, they don't necessarily prove anything one way or another.
 
Yes, these days there are mechanisms in place whereby minors can seek help and report offences against them (which was a horrendous process a few decades back, which no doubt deterred victims from coming forward). So that alone may well have added to the statistics. Plus these days we have a paranoid public who may be quite quick to report anything perceived as dubious.

One of my acquaintances is a retired social worker and she has commented before that cases of sexual abuse are almost always committed by family members or somebody known to the child.

Obviously that is aside from Internet paedophilia where I'm guessing the pervert would be collecting and downloading indecent images.

The fact is that in this case it concerns children who are out and about as normal with their parents, engaging in normal activities whilst fully clothed. Just as they might in any other locality, normal life. This is why the whole "child protection" argument being offered by the Park seems so crazy. And to be precise, the person in the OP was wanting to see the birds of prey, which makes the story even more ridiculous. As Alan has said, there seems to be no real comprehension of the issues at hand. If a lone adult wanted photos of clothed children I imagine there would be far easier sources.
 
Lindsay D said:
As Alan has said, there seems to be no real comprehension of the issues at hand. If a lone adult wanted photos of clothed children I imagine there would be far easier sources.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It seems that almost everybody who owns a child splatters their images over FaceBook and similar sites with no security in place whatsover. But I bet the same people would go apoplectic at the sight of a single male armed with a large lens.
 
I haven't read through the whole of this thread so forgive me if similar sentiments have been raised.

Where will this stop? Are single adults lso to be barred from parks, National Trust properties, country fairs, air displays, antique fairs, supermarkets, street markets, the street itself? Yes, let's put all single adults under a curfew where they are allowed out of their homes only when accompanied by a CRB checked adult. Make them brick up their windows and doors too as they could spy on children on their way to school. In fact would it not be easier and cheaper to police if we merely exterminated all single adults?
 
Lindsay D said:
One of my acquaintances is a retired social worker and she has commented before that cases of sexual abuse are almost always committed by family members or somebody known to the child.
Click to expand...

We learned that a few years ago when my wife became a child minder. An even more surprising statistic we were told was that more children are killed by a parent per year than die from meningitis.


Steve.
 
Lindsay D said:
Yes, these days there are mechanisms in place whereby minors can seek help and report offences against them (which was a horrendous process a few decades back, which no doubt deterred victims from coming forward). So that alone may well have added to the statistics. Plus these days we have a paranoid public who may be quite quick to report anything perceived as dubious.

One of my acquaintances is a retired social worker and she has commented before that cases of sexual abuse are almost always committed by family members or somebody known to the child.

Obviously that is aside from Internet paedophilia where I'm guessing the pervert would be collecting and downloading indecent images.

The fact is that in this case it concerns children who are out and about as normal with their parents, engaging in normal activities whilst fully clothed. Just as they might in any other locality, normal life. This is why the whole "child protection" argument being offered by the Park seems so crazy. And to be precise, the person in the OP was wanting to see the birds of prey, which makes the story even more ridiculous. As Alan has said, there seems to be no real comprehension of the issues at hand. If a lone adult wanted photos of clothed children I imagine there would be far easier sources.
Click to expand...

Spot on!

btw, it's actually the internet that is indirectly one of the greatest dangers/risk to kids. (+ modern mobile phones) which seems ironic to me, when many of these Mums post pics of their little darlings for the whole world to see.
Education & information are the only things we as parents/carers can provide to hopefully keep the kids safe, but people like the stupid park owner also need educating!
 
Yep, there's absolutely no harm in (nor any laws against) anybody posting normal photographs of children on the Internet, which is precisely why so many parents (and tourists) rightly do just that. But as you say, problems arise when other people take photographs in which their children may appear somewhere. Of course we all know there is nothing wrong with that either. But try arguing that point with some parents ....

Going back to the fact that the photographs we are talking about here are perfectly normal innocent ones of clothed families, a possibility which could arise from this might be kidnap followed by molestation. I appreciate I'm sounding forensic, but I'm trying to find a way to justify some of the reactions we have all seen. So presuming a lone adult decides to go to this Park, it must therefore be for the purpose of earmarking a child without the parents noticing, stalking said minor presumably by somehow gaining personal data, or following the family home, hiding around in the bushes and gaining an opportunity to abduct the child. That can of course happen absolutely anywhere where children or humans exist. In fact this theory applies to all of us, young or old. Try as I can, I cannot find justification for the rules imposed by this Park.
 
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.

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!!!
Click to expand...
Radio 5 Live had a telephone interview with the MD whivh was a mess. The guy sounded as if he had just woken up to the mess his business was in.

One thing he did say was that if a "single person" contacted the park instead of just turning up they would be allowed in but he stood by his defence of their no single adults getting admission.

As a Somerset resident, an area very dependent on tourism, I find Puxton's singjlar adherence to a ridiculous "rule" short sighted and hopefully the publicity will push a review into this.

I have taken my grandchildren there and its an interesing place. About 3 weekends ago there was a really good BofP display in the courtyard of the Bishops Palace at Wells Cathedral. There is a charge to visit the Palace but not the courtyard inside the Moat are. Was a cracking didplay and children and single adults mixed freely amd easily. No kidnapping or assaults on children. Might have had something to do with parents actually taking responsibility for their kids and the rest of us ensuring we did not trample them.

What's the old saying.. 'It takes a village to groe a child'. Checked the news tonight.... apparently no pied piper activity in cities, towns and villages today.... again.

Thankfully no divorcing or estranged parents killed their children and or each other before killing themselves today either.... phew
 
Last edited:
Hugh Jarse said:
One thing he did say was that if a "single person" contacted the park instead of just turning up they would be allowed in but he stood by his defence of their no single adults getting admission.
Click to expand...

I guess by going through the humiliation of contacting the park in advance they will then have the opportunity to take what they consider to be necessary personal data, rather Gestapo-like. What an awful routine for a 'single person' to have to go through - I find that quite horrid.
 
Slightly off topic but I understand that many inappropriate
pictures of children are sent by the teens themselves
 
Lindsay D said:
I guess by going through the humiliation of contacting the park in advance they will then have the opportunity to take what they consider to be necessary personal data, rather Gestapo-like. What an awful routine for a 'single person' to have to go through - I find that quite horrid.
Click to expand...

The whole issue is a mess

I posted a letter to the MD with picures of our kids and us the grandparents, all smiles and have stated that we will not return to the park, will not recommend to others to visit till they change their repugnant rule. We are all resonsible for Child Protection but until this automatic self feeding "Stranger Danger" mantra is dealt with it will stunt childrens' exposure to real life and will be even worse in years to come when today's children become parents.

We live about 20 miles from Weston Super Mare and it is our nearest 'seaside' town, so it gets used all year round. Puxton will not get a penny from me again. There is loads to do, see and photograph in Somerset and into Devon, so as the song says "Walk on By"

Steve
 
Last edited:
I think Puxton have now taken the 'no single adults' statement off their website - I didn't spot it when I checked just now. If that's the case then a single adult should now gain admittance (because it doesn't say otherwise?).
 
If using a camera to record your time with us, please respect the privacy of other members of the public.
Click to expand...

Don't think that was there previously ... maybe their idea of a compromise.
 
Lindsay D said:
I think Puxton have now taken the 'no single adults' statement off their website - I didn't spot it when I checked just now. If that's the case then a single adult should now gain admittance (because it doesn't say otherwise?).
Click to expand...
Nah, it's still there. Buried towards the bottom of the pricing page.

http://www.puxton.co.uk/Home-Page/Prices
 
gramps said:
Don't think that was there previously ... maybe their idea of a compromise.
Click to expand...

And just below that they declare that they operate CCTV coverage which is recorded and kept. I have no issue with that in principle, but their declaration about respecting others' privacy seemed a bit funny. There's no way you can avoid getting shots with other people/kids in them at a busy play park.
 
gramps said:
Don't think that was there previously ... maybe their idea of a compromise.
Click to expand...

It's the blindingly obvious by the owners. How could it be policed? Could be they are beginning to realise the potential damage to their business.

Parents complain and photographer (neè paedophile) thrown out. Later said parents post pictures of their brood on social media........ our day out at Puxton.
 
Lindsay D said:
Ah - indeed, 'buried' is the word! I expected to see it under the rules of admission! Not sure how many people will spot it under the prices.
Click to expand...

And a single adult sets off on a 3 hour drive for a falconry session only to be turned away...... just what we need in Somerset..... more money not being spent by tourists.....
 
Turning away single adults is accusing them of being child sex offenders by insinuation. I think that if Puxtons were taken to court by someone they would find themselves having to pay a lot in compensation.
I have noticed that the local MP is keeping their head down over this issue. This is something an MP should be dealing with on behalf of his constituants.
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Turning away single adults is accusing them of being child sex offenders by insinuation. I think that if Puxtons were taken to court by someone they would find themselves having to pay a lot in compensation.
Click to expand...

The facilitt is privately owned and the single adult rule is part of their Ts & Cs.

I doubt that any discrimination case could be proved unless it was detailed as a breach of the Equality Act on, say, Disability, Gender, Race, Creed.... grounds.

Disability "might" be a hard job to prove (private business not public), the rest covered by the non gender related ban (single adults).

The pre booking by singles mean they have covered a no implication sexual deviance.

So doubt anything would get to court and be successful.

Steve
 
realspeed said:
Turning away single adults is accusing them of being child sex offenders by insinuation. I think that if Puxtons were taken to court by someone they would find themselves having to pay a lot in compensation.
Click to expand...
We've covered this and I think the consensus view is that (unfortunately) you're wrong about this. They aren't saying that any specific person *is* a paedophile. They're saying that unaccompanied adults who want to visit the park *might* include *some* paedophiles amongst their number. That's not specific enough to be actionable.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
We've covered this and I think the consensus view is that (unfortunately) you're wrong about this. They aren't saying that any specific person *is* a paedophile. They're saying that unaccompanied adults who want to visit the park *might* include *some* paedophiles amongst their number. That's not specific enough to be actionable.
Click to expand...

IF, however, more and more entertainment venues were to apply similar 'exceptions' then we could see a class action to deal with what could be a discriminary process. If Legoland or Alton Towers etc applied a no single adult rule there would be a wider outcry.

On the centenary of the Great War it might be beholde t on Puxton's owners to remember how many single adults (and of course married adults) died in that conflict and far too many since. How about their turning away an ex services amputee turning up on his/her own, (A friends brother is one such person and lost a leg and hand in Iraq but drives himself everywhere).

So many things wrong with Puxton's policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top