- Messages
- 402
- Name
- Jackie
- Edit My Images
- No
I read about this last week, and emailed the park. They haven't replied..........
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.
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.
That's why I moved out 23 years ago................and now its really $%$#@# upWhat a f***ed up country we live in.
dunno why I ever moved back Neil!That's why I moved out 23 years ago................and now its really $%$#@# up
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.If you're in the area and are looking for a day out, try Escot instead of the one in Somerset!
I thought discrimination on age- race -sex or religion was illegal ?
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.
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"
and unlicenced genitalia.armed with cameras
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.
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.
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.
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.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!!!
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.
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.
If using a camera to record your time with us, please respect the privacy of other members of the public.
Nah, it's still there. Buried towards the bottom of the pricing page.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?).
Don't think that was there previously ... maybe their idea of a compromise.
Nah, it's still there. Buried towards the bottom of the pricing page.
http://www.puxton.co.uk/Home-Page/Prices
Don't think that was there previously ... maybe their idea of a compromise.
I suspect they're a bit embarrassed by it.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.
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.
Nah, it's still there. Buried towards the bottom of the pricing page.
http://www.puxton.co.uk/Home-Page/Prices
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.
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.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.
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.
...and if anything shows Puxton how wrong they got it, that must be it.Initially I was thinking that the Park might not be harmed by the adverse publicity, since their customers would probably fall into the 'paranoid parent' category. Interestingly Mumsnet seem to be taking a similar view to most of us here, and giving this Park the middle finger: http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_be...low-single-adults-in-case-they-are-pedophiles