Banned for being single

I keep wondering if there is more to this story that will come out eventually[I havent read all the news articles about it].
Maybe the police tipped them off that their park was frequented by ps.
Or maybe a member of their staff had previously worked with the ps in the town, and tipped off the park that ps were frequenting it, hence the general singles ban.
Or even that the owners themselves or their friends or relatives have suffered harm from a paedophile.

I see Santa is opening his grotto at Puxton Park soon. I wonder if he has to be accompanied by a young elf.

Presumably a single man (or woman) could always borrow a child as camouflage. Or will they be required to provide proof of their relationship and intentions?

I know that, but no matter if they are the most streetwise 12 year old on the planet, that is not necessarily going to protect them at all.

You can't wait until they're 12 before you start teaching a child about stranger danger. You don't have to go into the gory details but you can start teaching them. They need to be aware long before they're 12.

But a child of 0 - 12?, actually I dont know what upper age to put, cannot be streetwise enough against a paedophile.

It sounds to me like that particular park has problems with known paedophiles.
<shudder>

Parties of singles are banned for a different reason. They are not banned because they may be deemed to be a group outing of paedophiles.

What else should single people be banned from because it's designed for children? What about when I go into the children's library to find books for the weekend? Should I cut through the play area? Can't I visit the little zoo in the local park? What about taking my camera to the beach? What about standing on the prom looking at the sea when children are on the beach....could I be accused of watching the children? OMG what about when I comment on the children jumping in the waves or digging sandcastles.....am I allowed to even acknowledge I've seen children in a public place?

The whole thing is purely paranoia. Paedophiles have and always will exist. The only way to protect our children is allow them to become streetwise. To know what an adult can and can't do. To know that their body belongs to them and no one has the right to touch it if they don't want to be touched. To know that it's OK to scream and shout and draw attention to themselves if they feel uncomfortable.

The BBC report only suggests that it's a recent policy, rosequartz. Mr Mead's actual words may not have been accurately reported.

The policy is certainly in the Park's brochures, which I doubt would have been hastily re-printed since the Mayor's conviction.

I was thinking the same about the Butlins 'no parties of single men or women' too, soontobe. And that policy has certainly been in force for many years.

A single person can presumably take a child in.

To me, this situation is a bit like groups not being allowed at Butlins.
Or 18-30 being presumably for 18-30's only[not sure if they are still going]

I think a falconry display is arguably of more interest to adults than to children. I went to various attractions aimed at children with my adult daughter before I was a grandmother. I think it's a sad world if that makes me an object of suspicion.

Anyway I still think that's beside the point. I'm more concerned about the paranoia we are instilling in our grandchildren and I think any organisation that takes such a simplistic and frankly ridiculous approach to child protection is not worth visiting.

The banned person states:

"Is it going to get to the situation as a single person you're not allowed to go for a walk in the park, you're not allowed to go to the swimming baths?"

That is ridiculous, as parks and swimming baths are suitable for all, whereas Puxton Park is geared to children.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-29985181

It says it is a recently introduced ban.

The park is primarily for children; I can understand why a single person may want to go to a falconry display but I can think of no reason why a single person would want to visit otherwise.

I still haven't read anything about the policy not having been in place for the 7 years the Park's been open.

Not that it's really relevant to the OP anyway.

Oh, here we are!

www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/puxton-park-refuses-single-people-entry-over-paedophile-fears/story-e6frfq80-1227118640733

Reported in Australia. I was going to take my Aussie GS there earlier this year, but we ran out of time.

A coastal town west of London - well in Australian terms it's just down the road!

vampirequeen this story has not just been reported in the DM, it has been on the BBC news and on our local news.

It was also reported in the Telegraph, South Wales Evening Post, Mirror, Daily Express, the Independent, Western Daily Press etc etc etc.
It has been reported to the IPCC - presumably there will now be an enquiry and the policeman responsible for tasering and allegedly for the death of the suspect will be suspended. Waste of public money imo.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the OP surely.

DM and other internet sites.

The centre has appeared to contradict itself in justifying the rule - first claiming it has been in place for seven years - before then blaming it on last year's visit from jailed paedophile Phillip Judd - the former mayor of Weston-super-Mare.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828413/Theme-park-bans-single-adults-paedophile-fears-bird-enthusiast-grandfather-told-t-watch-falconry-display.html#ixzz3IhHNbYpW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I haven't read anything in the media to suggest that the policy was only put in place recently, nor that other parks don't have similar policies.

How do you know the Park lied, Vampirequeen?

And on a personal note I would happily see every convicted paedophile locked up for life...this includes those who 'only' have pictures on their computers. Some child somewhere has suffered appalling abuse in order for those pictures to be taken.

The media like a 'good cause' i.e. one that will sell lots of newspapers. There's nothing they like better than a murder, rape or child abduction/abuse story unless it's multiples of stories. They pick up on the smallest of details and turn it into a salacious headline.

Take a look at this...yes it's the DM but nearly all of the media is as bad.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2823314/Man-kills-woman-hotel-attack-dies-police-custody-Tasered.html

This is a horrific story. A young girl murdered by a man in a bed and breakfast homeless hostel. The man killed by the police when tasered.

N.B. There is no statement from the police other than the young woman had facial injuries.

This didn't stop the DM reporting allegations and subjective comments mainly from people who hadn't been anywhere near the hostel let alone inside. I lost count of the times 'Hannibal Lector' was mentioned. If you notice the reporter uses the word 'alleged' when reporting the cannibalistic elements because no one has officially comfirmed this. The reporter obviously takes Mark Twain at his word and believes you should 'never let the truth interfere with a good story, unless you can't think of anything better.'

I'm not denying this was a horrifying murder but the DM and other papers have turned it into a form of voyeuristic entertainment by linking it to movies and horror stories. They use a range of literary strategies to hook us and reel us into the story then leave us with a cliff hanger so that we look for the next report and buy the next issue to see what happens next.

IMO there are two main reasons why murders, rapes and child abuse appears to be on the rise. Society has changed and victims feel more able to report crimes esp those against children. This is a good change. The easier it is for victims to talk the better. Unfortunately because the media has found that it sells papers and makes people tune into the TV they report it more and more ...far out of proportion to how often it happens in relation to other newsworthy items.

Sorry off topic but I really do believe the media simply scare people in many cases and call it 'reporting in the public interest'.

BTW the single man was a grandfather who'd recently taken his grandchildren to Puxton Park and wanted to see the falconry display again. The Park also lied when it said that this rule had been in place for several years and was in force at other Parks.

Oh....and many have electronic tags which alert security services if they stray into a banned area like a park. They are given maps to show where they are not allowed to go, which are attached to their prison licences or bail sheets.

Networking paedophiles are separated in different bail hostels or placed under constant staff supervision so they can be observed. They are not allowed to associate with other hostel residents without staff present. CCTV covers all area of the hostels, inside and in the grounds. They are not allowed to accompany other residents outside the hostels - if they do, they could be breached and returned to prison if that hostel requirement of them is flouted. No other resident is allowed in their rooms, which are searched frequently. They are subject to strict curfews and have to evidence where they are going so it can be checked, or stay indoors and do college or offending behaviour work with staff. Some only go out accompanied by staff. Registered sex offenders also have to report to police and receive their visits.

However, most sex offenders who abuse children don't want anyone else to know of their offences, are fearful of being identified, and scared of what will happen to them if their crimes are discovered. The last thing most want is another sex offender palling up with them.

At the risk of repeating myself (as I so often do, according to DH), I wonder if this ban has come about because this particular park has had a problem, particularly in view of the fact that there is local concern over the number of bail hostels for paedophiles situated a few miles away.

Which also begs the question - is it a good idea to put together people with similar inclinations in bail hostels? There is a prison not far away which was for young offenders but which is, as far as I am aware, now houses mainly paedophiles. Why? Is it for the protection of the prisoners who may otherwise suffer discrimination - or worse - by other prisoners? Do we house burglars together in one prison where they may be able to swap tips?

Over 65's can't play in ball pools because they are possibly single and therefore potetial peodophiles. But it is OK if they are two men as they would not be single.

Children in bars is an outdated law that is gradually changing, not something that has recently been introduced.

Based on previous arguments, gentlemen's clubs should be banned as dens of crime.

Over and out.

Well, people don't suddenly become paedophiles. You can't be one 'accidentally', whereas we can all make errors of judgement if we drink alcohol.

Mollie, the article I gave a link to was not from the DM, it was from the Western Gazette.

Assumptions again!