Banned for being single

You appear to have totally misunderstood my post "Spot on Nightowl. Predatory, that is the word I was looking for."

I was agreeing with Nightowl, that the vast majority of offenders in the UK are NOT predatory and do not present a risk to our children.

How do we know that - from personal opinion.

Very little of what has been stated in this thread can be proven or comes from reliable sources - I don't consider Internet or Newspaper reliable sources.

When the police state that they cannot cope, it is with peodophiles in the privacy of their homes as the manpower is better spent try to catch the front line offenders that provide the material. As with drugs, it is the pushers primarily they wish to find, not the users. This information was from a recent TV interview on the subject.

I think this thread has run it's course, some contributors will not consider any or believe other opinion regardless of the evidence given.

I look forward to the day when I can smile at or speak to a child without being labeled a criminal, with some of the opinions express, I fear I will be in my box before it happens

good post whenim64

True, we are all affected by the health and safety rules.
By and large, I am grateful for the work that is done in this area.

I refuse to compare 1 risk to another.
To my mind, that is pointless.
In fact, it could be dangerous, if we perceive the slighter risks too low, merely because they may be lower.

I do all risks on an individual basis.

I agree though that there are also some risks, such as you say parental traffic around schools, may need to be assessed and dealt with higher.

The reason the responses in the UK appear disproportionate to the rest of Europe is that, like the USA and some Scandinavian countries, we have learned the hard way that a centralised system of intelligence and communication of recorded criminal data is vital to enable the safeguarding of children. Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) ensure an overview across the UK and professionals who manage the risk presented by sex offenders and violent criminals travel across counties to attend public protection meetings whenever a very high risk offender moves address, in order to keep communities safe. This happens as routine now in the UK but not in most European countries - yet. Look at the chaos of the Maddie McCann case - known sex offenders in the area would have been rounded up in hours here in the UK, but Portugal used old-fashioned policing methods.

Notorious child abuse and murder cases have highlighted the flaws in police and social services exchange of information and now this has largely been remedied. The knowledgeable people who have helped to improve things for the UK have taken their knowledge further afield and Europe is gradually catching up.

However, it's correct to say that the media sensationalising and exaggerating about sex offenders being out in the community is not helpful and can lead children to think strangers may harm them - as others say, more harm is done in the home by family members. Predatory paedophiles are still out there, but criminal profiling and knowledge about their whereabouts enables police to set additional restrictions around them, and some are under surveillance.

Please don't assume the UK over-reacts at the level of the authorities. Tabloid papers often do, some broadsheets do. People who have firsthand experience of abuse are often on high alert, and no wonder. Europe will catch up in due course.

But you see, that is the problem- the risk assessment is not done by individuals for individuals- it is made by 'systems', be it the Government, the education or social services depts, individual schools, and in this case a business- and we are all affected by those decisions.

And it is true too that the current 'obsession' in the UK re peadophilia- and the distortion of actual risk due to predatory peadophiles, as say, compared to the risks of parental traffic around schools- is real and has consequences.

The risks are not greater in the UK than in, say, France or Germany- and yet the response is totally different.

Up to others what they do.

It comes down to how individuals assess risk.

Exactly. The risks are high.

Higher than we even know about.
The general public wont be told everything, and cant be expected to be.

Spot on Nightowl. Predatory, that is the word I was looking for.

Nightowl, thank you.

Our responses are to be proportional, or they will cause more harm than good. Somebody like Nightowl has worked in the field all her life- and i will trust her judgement on that.

Why is it that the response/s in the UK is so vastly different to that of other European countries where the risks are just as high?

The OP wasn't about teaching children to be afraid of adults. It was about taking simple precautions. Children don't have to know that this is being done. Teaching them directly about what sex abuse is and how to know when you are a victim and what to do about it is a completely different matter

But very few of them are predatory paedophiles soontobe

I dont see how you can know that really.

Children are at far greater risk from abusers who are known to them.

I know that. But I never get that argument, as I think I said above.
To me, I want to try and keep them safe from a through to h. Not forget about h becuase the risk is smaller.
I always think that these types of arguments are non arguments.

I used some good stranger danger booklets when the kids were small.
I presume that sort of material is still being produced.
Kidscape I think was one of them?

But very few of them are predatory paedophiles soontobe. Children are at far greater risk from abusers who are known to them. The risk of a child being snatched or abused in a theme park, where they are with their parents, is infinitesimally small. That is why I think we are giving children entirely the wrong message in teaching them to be afraid of all unknown adults.

It is the sheer volume of paedophiles, as mentioned in my link, that bothers me.

Jane I'm not sure whether you think I'm being dismissive but I assure you I'm not. An almost 40 year career in child protection makes me anything but dismissive, but I hope I'm a realist. I believe the risks from predatory paedophiles are small. The risks of instilling generalised fear in our children are IMO much greater.

Iam that's terrible and I'm so sorry to hear what happened to your colleague's granddaughters. I wasn't being flippant about Santa, merely musing on the stupidity of this policy.

I know full well the extent of sexual abuse that goes on, but I still don't think demonising particular groups (usually men who dare to go out alone and perhaps dare to speak to a child) is a helpful approach or even one that works.

I wonder if the man concerned went to the press. I notice he is smiling into the camera along with the article (which appears in quite a few publications).

When I used to take the GC swimming, often when school swimming lessons were taking place, I sometimes noticed one or two dodgy looking blokes standing around. Something about their body language made me think they were there to watch the children.

I'm rather annoyed that lone women are banned as well as men. I suppose this is to do with equal opportunity laws but it is unrealistic and unnecessary.

I think that the use of the word "single" in the OP is a bit off putting. My suspicion is that it would be adults entering the park "on their own" that would be banned not those who are not currently in a relationship. These amusement parks are commercial. Why would they restrict entry and thus reduce income without good reason? The potential reasons have been mentioned several times so I wont reiterate it.
All this " elf and safety gone mad" stuff must be a great comfort to those that trot it out. However, I don't think that they would be so dismissive of what some of us have been saying if they had seen and heard what some of us have been unfortunate enough to. I wont go into detail as its no wish of mine to sensationalise this issue. Just check the crowds around children's entertainments this festive season. [grim]

I agree that anyone can go too far. Fair enough.
But there is some sort of balance.

When my children were younger, I used to let them ride their bikes. Often together, but sometimes they were desperate to ride off, when their siblings didnt want to go.
We live very very rural.
I thought that they were ok.

One day, a sunday afternoon, I decided for some reason to go and find my teenage child.
I was absolutely astounded to find out just how much traffic there was.
And also I could see that even if somehow I knew there was a problem quite soon, my child would be long gone

Wrapping some children in cotton wool does keep some of them safe.
If something that was going to happen, doesnt happen because of health and safety, that is quite difficult to measure.

It seems a very ott reaction. Someone is very paranoid. No one wants anything to happen to a child but banning single people or wrapping the children in cotton wool is not the way to keep them safe.

In the Mogul Empire there was a period of time when sons were kept in luxurious isolation so that there could be no chance they would try to usurp their father. It may have been a gilded cage but it was still a cage. It succeeded in the prevention of attempted usurpation but totally destroyed the minds of the sons to the extent that the Empire suffered at the hands of several insane Moguls.

Whilst this is an extreme case do we really want to risk damaging our children in the cause of keeping them safe.

Nightowl - sadly, in recent years, my colleague's two young granddaughters were indecently assaulted by the man employed as Santa Claus in a well known department store.

I don't recognise the picture painted of the UK as elf n safety mad, not allowing our children to explore or take risks. In our area local schools still take children on outings, with parents/friends along in support. The church runs various groups for youngsters of all ages, the play ground at our park is used by children of all ages. Being more aware of the fact that paedophiles come in all shapes, doesn't mean we all feel doomed and want to dash off to live abroad.

As for the OP, like others, I wonder if something has already worried the organisers. I expect the policy was in part driven by the organisations fear of litigation if anything happened on its grounds. The news last night included a piece about a former Army officer, who was scout master to the children of serving officers. The armed services may be included in the inquiry into child abuse in the BBC, Health services etc. The man was convicted of historical abuse of a number of boys. One of them told the BBC he thought about this man and the abuse he'd suffered, every day. That happens for many people who experienced abuse as children.

I am aware that the type of abuse these boys experienced isn't likely to happen during a one of visit to an amusement park. Recent high profile cases have led to growing awareness of the levels of child sexual abuse in our midst. Sex offenders look like you and I. They don't have horns, or a tail. I think I'm repeating something vampirequeen said earlier.

May be places will take the law into their own hands.
They may well be frightened of being sued as well if anything happens at their park.
Not to mention bad publicity.
And of course, they will not want something to happen to a child.

Responsible business owners are pro active.

I think that children were in a lot more danger in years gone past, and people are starting to realise that the dangers are quite a lot larger.

Police currently say that they cannot cope
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11174715/Thousands-of-paedophiles-will-escape-justice-crime-chief-admits.html

I think "paranoia" is the correct word. I don't think our children are in any more danger now that they have been for many years, certainly my lifetime. In fact, because of the press coverage, our children are more aware than they previously were.

Whilst we hear of many more peodophiles being prosecuted and punished for possesing illeagal material it is very unlikely that the vast majority are a direct threat to our children, they conduct their offences in the privacy of their own homes.

I accept that their crime causes harm to children at the source of the material be condemned as evil and feel the full weight of the law. I suspect that many of these crimes occur outside the jurisdiction of the UK police.