Banned for being single

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>

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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

Exactly. The risks are high.

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

Up to others what they do.

It comes down to how individuals assess risk.