Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Banned Because You Are A Single Adult.
75 Answers
http://
It is illegal to refuse entry to public places if you are black or homosexual etc, but it seems it is quite in order to refuse entry to single adults.
Where is the danger, surely the children in this park are with adults to look after them so how could they be at risks from paedophiles?
It is illegal to refuse entry to public places if you are black or homosexual etc, but it seems it is quite in order to refuse entry to single adults.
Where is the danger, surely the children in this park are with adults to look after them so how could they be at risks from paedophiles?
Answers
"Ask the McCannes..." Without getting too bogged down, sqad, the comparison hardly bears examination. The McCannes left their daughter alone in a holiday apartment to go out to dinner and whilst that does not justify her being taken it is not quite the same as walking your child around a theme park. "...why would you as a 'single adult' want to go to any of these...
16:07 Mon 10th Nov 2014
Talbot-
/// I'm sure that single blacks and single gays are prohibited too AOG. ///
At least they would have a case to fight, "they refused me entry because I was black", "they refused me entry because I was homosexual" etc.
Perhaps the guest house couple should have used the same excuse, single adults are not allowed because we have child guests?
/// I'm sure that single blacks and single gays are prohibited too AOG. ///
At least they would have a case to fight, "they refused me entry because I was black", "they refused me entry because I was homosexual" etc.
Perhaps the guest house couple should have used the same excuse, single adults are not allowed because we have child guests?
The Park has a right to refuse admission - I don't have a problem with that, although whether I would think it was a sensible rule or not would depend on information about their establishment I don't have.
Refusing someone admission on grounds of their race, sex(ual orientation)etc WOULD be unacceptable. I don't think unaccompanied adults need the protection of the law in the same way. So I guess that is my answer to aog's question.
However, there is a question as to whether it is sensible of the park always to exercise their own rules no matter what. They say they've only ever had one complaint, which would suggest they are not exactly inundated with unaccompanied adults with cameras. And that therefore an exception could have been made in this case if they have falcons or whatever.
They also mention schools in their statement, but school policy generally is not to allow unauthorised photography of other people's children without permission. Generally speaking this would seem a more sensible approach, but then I don't know what other rules they may have. I hope they don't think that this particular rule is going to solve all their problems.
Refusing someone admission on grounds of their race, sex(ual orientation)etc WOULD be unacceptable. I don't think unaccompanied adults need the protection of the law in the same way. So I guess that is my answer to aog's question.
However, there is a question as to whether it is sensible of the park always to exercise their own rules no matter what. They say they've only ever had one complaint, which would suggest they are not exactly inundated with unaccompanied adults with cameras. And that therefore an exception could have been made in this case if they have falcons or whatever.
They also mention schools in their statement, but school policy generally is not to allow unauthorised photography of other people's children without permission. Generally speaking this would seem a more sensible approach, but then I don't know what other rules they may have. I hope they don't think that this particular rule is going to solve all their problems.
Most public parks in the UK have child only facilities, some even have paddling pools, and sometimes children go to their local park alone.
Should all these areas be screened off from public view in case some innocent lone adult happens to take their camera to the park, or should lone adults be banned from public parks altogether?
Should all these areas be screened off from public view in case some innocent lone adult happens to take their camera to the park, or should lone adults be banned from public parks altogether?
/Perhaps the guest house couple should have used the same excuse, single adults are not allowed because we have child guests?/
The so-called 'Christian' Guest House have not stated they want to discriminate against single customers who are gay
it was the fact it was a gay couple and therefore potentially engaging in sexual activity in the room that was their issue
The so-called 'Christian' Guest House have not stated they want to discriminate against single customers who are gay
it was the fact it was a gay couple and therefore potentially engaging in sexual activity in the room that was their issue
he didn't want to go to the theme park, he wanted to see the falconry display
which are really worth seeing & can understand them wanting to restrict single adults into a theme park designated for very young children - there is no need for them to be there.
They could of let him see the falconry display though
which are really worth seeing & can understand them wanting to restrict single adults into a theme park designated for very young children - there is no need for them to be there.
They could of let him see the falconry display though
/innocent lone adult happens to take their camera to the park, or should lone adults be banned from public parks altogether? /
why would an 'innocent lone adult' want to go to the park?
because it is a public park
But why would they want to pay to go into a specific display designed for a predominantly 0-7 year old audience?
What next?
Male OAP complains to swimming pool about discrimination after being refused entry to Mother & Baby Swim session?
why would an 'innocent lone adult' want to go to the park?
because it is a public park
But why would they want to pay to go into a specific display designed for a predominantly 0-7 year old audience?
What next?
Male OAP complains to swimming pool about discrimination after being refused entry to Mother & Baby Swim session?
The fault for this crazy situation lies squarely with the British media, or more specifically with certain newspapers who seemed to have spent the entire 90s screaming about the paedophilia menace left right and centre.
We have now become a country where men are conscious of how 'it would look' if they approached what looks like an abandoned child on the street.
I honestly believe that the media is responsible for this situation. They were the ones to install fear, and this is the result.
We have now become a country where men are conscious of how 'it would look' if they approached what looks like an abandoned child on the street.
I honestly believe that the media is responsible for this situation. They were the ones to install fear, and this is the result.
"Ask the McCannes..."
Without getting too bogged down, sqad, the comparison hardly bears examination. The McCannes left their daughter alone in a holiday apartment to go out to dinner and whilst that does not justify her being taken it is not quite the same as walking your child around a theme park.
"...why would you as a 'single adult' want to go to any of these places? "
Well, they have a falconry section (which is what this particular single man was interested in). Falconry is not exclusively a child-friendly attraction. In fact it has a number of aspects which are arguably not suitable for children (the birds being fed live or very recently killed whole animals, for example). It also has a fully licensed restaurant and a farm shop, neither of which are specifically attractive to children but may interest single adults.
Sqad's figures on child abduction also make interesting reading. More than 50% of the children taken were abducted by either a parent, a relative or someone known to them (i.e. the sort of people who might take them for a day out at a theme park). On that basis it is more likely they will be abducted by someone known to them than by a stranger, so perhaps the theme park should only allow children to be accompanied by someone they do not know (just to be “on the safe side“).
Finally, Alistair Mead Managing Director of Puxton Park, said this at the end of his statement:
In light of: this coverage we will look at what other parks are doing with their admissions policy, speak to our customers and review."
I'm not so sure about theme parks in the vicinity of Puxton, but if Mr Mead looks a little further afield he may find that Puxton’s stance is unusual. I've looked at a few at random (Blackgang Chine and Robin Hill on the IOW, Crealy Adventure Parks in Exeter and Wadebridge, Oakwood Theme Park in North Wales). All of these are very child-centric establishments. Whilst they all have policies on unaccompanied children (minimum ages, mainly) none has a policy on unaccompanied adults. Methinks that Puxton is trying to justify its policy on the basis that "everybody does it" and from my random examination everybody most certainly does not.
The theme park's rules are ridiculous and demonstrates a somewhat hysterical attitude far out of proportion to the risks involved. This is becoming increasingly prevalent in the country ("must err on the safe side" regardless of how ridiculous the safe side appears).
Without getting too bogged down, sqad, the comparison hardly bears examination. The McCannes left their daughter alone in a holiday apartment to go out to dinner and whilst that does not justify her being taken it is not quite the same as walking your child around a theme park.
"...why would you as a 'single adult' want to go to any of these places? "
Well, they have a falconry section (which is what this particular single man was interested in). Falconry is not exclusively a child-friendly attraction. In fact it has a number of aspects which are arguably not suitable for children (the birds being fed live or very recently killed whole animals, for example). It also has a fully licensed restaurant and a farm shop, neither of which are specifically attractive to children but may interest single adults.
Sqad's figures on child abduction also make interesting reading. More than 50% of the children taken were abducted by either a parent, a relative or someone known to them (i.e. the sort of people who might take them for a day out at a theme park). On that basis it is more likely they will be abducted by someone known to them than by a stranger, so perhaps the theme park should only allow children to be accompanied by someone they do not know (just to be “on the safe side“).
Finally, Alistair Mead Managing Director of Puxton Park, said this at the end of his statement:
In light of: this coverage we will look at what other parks are doing with their admissions policy, speak to our customers and review."
I'm not so sure about theme parks in the vicinity of Puxton, but if Mr Mead looks a little further afield he may find that Puxton’s stance is unusual. I've looked at a few at random (Blackgang Chine and Robin Hill on the IOW, Crealy Adventure Parks in Exeter and Wadebridge, Oakwood Theme Park in North Wales). All of these are very child-centric establishments. Whilst they all have policies on unaccompanied children (minimum ages, mainly) none has a policy on unaccompanied adults. Methinks that Puxton is trying to justify its policy on the basis that "everybody does it" and from my random examination everybody most certainly does not.
The theme park's rules are ridiculous and demonstrates a somewhat hysterical attitude far out of proportion to the risks involved. This is becoming increasingly prevalent in the country ("must err on the safe side" regardless of how ridiculous the safe side appears).
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
News8 mins ago
Food & Drink9 mins ago
News9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.