Banned for being single

I am talking about uk society in general janeainsworth.

I agree that it has been around forever Iam64.

I think that women are generally not prepared to put up with some behaviour that they were prepared to put up with previously. Partly I suspect because they are more likely to earn their own money now.
So there are more men who are seeking thrills elsewhere.

For goodness sake, surely the children who are at these places are with a parent, carer, responsible adult. It is their job to keep an eye on the child to see that it doesn't come to any harm.

I often sit on a bench at the park when the weather is good and it is just by the play area. I am just resting before the homeward journey. Hope I'm not going to be banned from doing that.

The links between children's homes/celebrity and the issue under discussion here seem to include the vulnerability of children, the fact that most people now accept that the level of csa now being is higher than the general public previously believed, alongside the risk of litigation. The BBC and various hospitals face the prospect of litigation from victims of JS and that's just one example.

Soontobe - child sexual abuse didn't begin a few decades ago, it's been around as long as people have.

It's interesting to observe how communities who clamour for certain restrictions out of fear have their demands met in such ways. Stranger danger is actually very low down on the chances of risk to children, yet safe road crossings, traffic lights and lollipop people to help children across following accidents are nigh impossible to get!

Are you referring to celebrity sexual abuse of young girls and/or abuse if children in local authority homes, soontobe?
I'm not sure what either of those have to do with the real or perceived risk to children from strangers in Leisure Parks.

I have come to think that the general public has vastly underestimated the sort of murky stuff that has been going on in the last few decades.

I was a teenager in the 70's, which from my perspective was rosy.
But a lot of stuff that has come to light recently, is about what was going on in that decade in particular.

So I think that men in particular have been getting away with stuff they should not have.

And vulnerable people in particular have born the brunt of this.

I can't see that such a ban makes children any safer. I'm sure that paedophiles would find a way to get around such a rule and there is a risk that single men and women end up being demonised as jane says. My local park, with a well used playground, is a short cut to the shops - am I to now go the long way round in case I am seen as a threat? Our park keepers are now a thing of the past, but if resurrected, would they have to patrol in pairs?

This seems to me a panic measure designed to make people feel safer, but without any supporting evidence that it would work.

Puxton Park actually requires that all 'children under the age of 17' be accompanied at all times by an adult. I've been looking at their website!

This question seems to come into Eloethan's Can You See Both Sides of an Argument? thread.

Yes I can see the need for Child Protection.
But what is concerning me is that all single people are being demonised.
And if these known paedophiles are actually a risk to children, what are they doing being allowed to walk the streets anyway?

Measures have to be proportionate to risk. I think a more appropriate risk management strategy would be to stipulate that all children under the age of say 10, are accompanied by an adult, or to have leisure park staff patrolling the place so that anyone with ulterior motives would be deterred.

Who'd be man!? - it must be so hard to be guilty until proven innocent - what a world we live in. It makes me very sad. All these millions of perfectly normal single men who have a suspicion hanging over them. What a shame.

This does not mean that I do not understand the importance of child protection.

Just thinking...would the park allow a couple of men in? Surely if the policy is known locally, teaming up with another like-minded person would be the obvious thing to do. Or it could be a couple of women, or one of each sex.

I can see the point of the ban, but it does seem to be just paying lip-service to those who are concerned about paedophiles in the area, as there are ways round it for a determined offender.

I'm not a fan banning people or of the local community being told where known paedophiles live because this gives a false sense of security. Parents are much more likely to tell a child to avoid a particular person or people and then assume they're safe.

Children need to know that dangerous people can be anywhere. Not in a way that simply scares them but in a way that makes them aware that 'nice' people are not always trustworthy people and teaches them what to do if they feel uncomfortable with someone. I taught my girls the golden rules....don't wander off with anyone, I will never send a stranger to collect you no matter what he/she says and if you're worried shout as loudly as possible, "He's not my dad/She's not my mum!" as causing a commotion and attracting attention is often all that's needed in that situation. The final thing I taught them was where to hit a man if all else failed. Hit hard and run to the nearest shop, place where there were more people etc. As parents in the area we also arranged 'safe houses' where, if they were scared or worried about anything when out, they could just walk in without knocking.

Life would be easier if a paedophile looked like a sleazy guy in a dirty raincoat but it's not like that. They can be a parent, favourite aunt or uncle, a grandparent, in fact any family member, a family friend, a doctor, a teacher, a coalminer, a nursery assistant.....you name it. A paedophile looks just like anyone else.

Just looking online and I see that groups of parents have complained publicly about bail hostels accommodating paedophiles in Weston-super-Mare over the last few years, hence this policy.

They say the ban has been in place for the seven years the park's been open, in line with other leisure facilities, so it's not a new policy.

It seems the restriction is only mentioned in very small print in the prices section of their brochure.

Sorry, didn't mean the geographical location, Ana - I meant how the park relates to provision of accommodation for offenders in that area. They won't want vigilantes carrying placards outside hostels so unlikely to identify why there are concerns, but there is obviously something that has triggered the need to step up safeguarding of children there.

'Puxton Park claimed the rule, which is explained in the small print on its website, was "in line with all other parks".'

www.westerngazette.co.uk/Single-adults-banned-park-case-paedophile/story-24477493-detail/story.html#ixzz3IfBENb3f

We do know where the leisure park is, when. It's Puxton Park near Weston-Super-Mare.

Exactly vampirequeen.

We don't know where this park is situated. If there is a nearby hostel that accommodates sex offenders who are attracted to children, this might be a reasonable risk management arrangement that has been agreed with police and probation. Testing the ban by applying scenarios that undermine it is all very well, but if it is a park that has been targeted by known paedophiles, they should be supported in their decision. The arguments that are being put forward - what if this or that? - are the very arguments that untreated paedophiles challenge the authorities with, instead of accepting that their unwanted behaviour has caused such a rule to be implemented. When I was responsible for supervising such offenders in the community, one of the most common reasons for recalling them back to prison was because they had breached the prison licence condition 'not to enter parks or other localities where children play.'

It's not just children's activities are a magnet for paedophiles. They will go anywhere they can see children. If we're saying this then wouldn't it be better to ban children from leaving the house as a they can be viewed by a paedophile in the street, at the local shops, outside schools, in libraries in fact anywhere they go. So lets lock them up. Hang on though, a lot of paedophiles access children in their own homes. Hmm how to keep them safe? I know....lock them in one room and feed them through a slot in the door. Of course we'll have a generation of warped and damaged young people but they'll be safe from paedophiles.

Wouldn't it be better to teach our children about stranger danger, give them the freedom to develop safety skills and social skills, stop wrapping them in cotton wool and letting them live.

Before anyone tells me the world is a more dangerous place these days. I was abused up to the age of 5 or 6 by a paedophile who was a trusted neighbour/friend/almost part of the family. The world hasn't become anymore dangerous (although I admit they need to be more aware of traffic) the media have simply convinced us it has. Sadly children have always been abused, beaten and murdered. It's better to teach them ways to protect themselves such as stranger danger, telling if something happens that bothers you, kicking and screaming if someone in the street tries to persuade you to go with them....all the ways adults would use to protect themselves.

But this is hysteria Iam - we cannot keep our chidren in isolation to protect them from the tiny risk that a paedophile will what? Target them? Abduct them from a play park when they are with parents or grandparents? It's like telling women not to go out at night for fear they will be raped. The fear we are instilling in our children and grandchildren is doing so much harm and the danger is that they are never allowed to take risks and therefore never learn to look after themselves.

Jane10 is right when she says children's activities are magnets for pedophiles. It's easy to react by criticising this, and I understand people feeling uneasy.

I imagine that the park has reviewed its responsibilities to customers, and is doing what it can to limit the opportunities for paedophiles to gain access to children on its premises.

Apologies for the spelling of pedophiles - my computer insists on the US spelling

I think this is completely crazy. What are we teaching our children and grandchildren? That all adults are to be feared? They are no more at risk from paedophiles now than they ever were, and the risks from a stranger are tiny. It makes me really angry and I wonder what kind of world we are creating for future generations.

I think that I would definitely make a formal complaint-I do not think it is reasonable to have no access to the restaurant. Can one visit today with children and then be banned next week if on one's own? Are the powers that be aware that some married men and I assume women, are paedophiles.

I know this sounds tough but really children`s activities ARE a magnet for paedophiles. I know this through my professional life. Take a look around at most obvious children`s activities. I do and often spot men on their own just watching the children. I tend to give them hard stares so they know they`ve been noted. I know its a generalisation and its very tough on the multitude of perfectly decent people. I reckon its another layer of innocent people suffering from the intentions if not (thankfully) the actions of people who have sexual inclinations towards children. Its a horrible side of life.