Banned for being single

indeed Pogs. Took grandchildren to swimming lessons last 2 weeks, and there were singles of both sexes swimming in the same pool- and I thought about this thread.

Well put POGS

I don't see any sense to banning an individual from attending any park, swimming pool, cinema etc.

I fully understand the 'fear' factor for parents with children and also venues who are only trying to safeguard children. However where does this stop.

It is assuming 'guilty intention' by anybody who uses the facility and that can't be right, surely.

I also think it is quite stupid to believe that a peadophile necessarily works alone, or indeed with a person of the same sex. It is true it is mostly male but think again if you don't accept women are pieces of work too. If somebody was determined to go to this, or any other park, with bad intention they would find somebody like minded to try and 'normalise' their reason for being there in accordance of the parks perceived view of human nature.. It would not deter a paedophile and I wonder if the feeling of 'perverse danger' in trying to carry out their depravity would/could encourage them.

Is there not a further danger that parents could subliminaly feel more protected and forget to keep the necessary eye on their children every second. Lot's of parents I see are quite stupid in their attention of their children and they are very noticeable.

Pompa made reference to being male and feeling uncomfortable. I agree. My husband feels the same.

When he takes our DG to the park he actually feels uncomfortable. When we were on holiday he noticed a little girl, about 4 years old, on her own and decidedly looking lost. He couldn't approach her! He was a police officer how bad is that! He found me whilst keeping an eye on her and we went together but we both felt uncomfortable for doing the right thing. .

It's a very difficult problem but I think it is a slippery slope to normalising single people from being able to live their life. If being single is deemed as possibly having paediophilic tendencies then Lord help us.

I spent the afternoon at a local coastal park on my own. I was at the boating lake which is right next to the childrens playground. I noticed just how many single people were wandering around, mostly, but not all men. None of them appeared to be doing anything other than being out for a walk in the park chatting to friends and watching the boats etc. (that includes me)
It's a shame that I should even consider they might be there for any nasty reason - prior to this thread, I wouldn't have noticed.
If they banned singles (I can't imagine they would), I wouldn't be able to run my boat for a start.

I think Diana would have been dismayed.

Only just found this thread, a bit late. A few weeks ago DH and I were in London for one night, staying near Kensington Gardens, and I thought I would love to see the Diana memorial water feature/children's playground. I live 200 miles from London so chances to do a bit of sightseeing are few and far between.

We are both in our 70s and had carefully removed all straw from our hair and clothing and scrubbed up a bit, but the Diana memorial is surrounded by a big fence, Rosa Klebb guards the gate and we were not allowed in as we were not accompanied by a child.

I felt very unwelcome and also very grumpy. Thought about kidnapping a passing infant but managed to resist the urge. Still feel grumpy, actually.

The whole thing is thought out in an unusual way, anyway. The first step for a public place like this would be to install CCTV and ensure the public are aware of the cameras being placed at the entrance and around the park. Predatory paedophiles would suss out where there is surveillance and dismiss the park immediately, whether single or accompanied.

It sounds like a story has been talked up around a situation that caused some concern and now the public could do with a genuine explanation.

Thank goodness for mumsnet and a more male friendly view of the world. Interesting point made by one poster that on fivelive the manager stated that one or more adults without children would be allowed in. So paedophiles only operate singly then

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2231685-That-Puxton-Park-dont-allow-single-adults-in-case-they-are-pedophiles

I think the analogy does stand up. The impact on the surrounding community of a child being harmed in a public place is immense, especially if the authorities have missed an opportunity to safeguard children and it was exploited. Public distress about sex offenders being active in their community is understandably emotive and reactions can become unsafe and difficult to manage when groups of parents get worried. This story could easily be outrage about the park not doing their bit to keep children safe.

I'm sceptical about what is reported in the article being the sole reason, nightowl. Read it a couple of days ago and I imagine there's a background to this, not just the conviction of unrelated offences.

Having been involved in public protection meetings that make decisions which can affect the public, the legal advice about impact on the public has to be considered. If this man who was turned away made himself known to the management of the park, arrangements could have been made to enable him to view the falconry display he had gone to see and an offer to explain the policy made to him. Instead he chose to chat to the papers.

Although the article says he's banned, I understand he was turned away and a basic explanation given at the time. He won't be banned from going there again. If he feels so strongly about it, he can return with his family, as he did the first time.

There's a principle about equality and rights being discussed here, but if there's a risk to children (which the oark's management decided there was at some point) that overrides the principle.

We will have to agree to disagre on this one. The analogy does not stand imho- as a peadophile can't stand in a crowd and press on a button and spread peadophilia all round. And having to take shoes, jacket and belt off, and accept to be frisked, is hardly a real inconvenience- but stopping you from flying would. Should be stop single people flying?

What truly concerns me is a/ the disproportionality of the response - children are accompanied by parents or other adult in loco parentis, and are not reall at risk in a public place and b/ because if THIS park can do it, it may soon spread to other amusement parks, city parks, gardens, swimming pools, etc, etc, etc - and become 'the norm' in the UK. Which I believe would be tragic. We certainly do have to be aware and vigilant, but we can't stop all singles leading a normal life, just in case, surely.

It is discriminatory in the extreme, and should not be allowed.

It looks as though this might have been the reason for the policy

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

We will all have our own opinions about whether it is a proportionate response or not. Nothing more to say really.

Well put, Jane10. The terrorism analogy is helpful. I wonder what the comments would be if a serious incident had actually taken place in this park and citizens were justifiably complaining that child protection needs to be strengthened. All that has happened is that a local policy, not actually affecting many people to our knowledge, has been highlighted and exaggerated. Yes, it could need adjusting now it has been brought to the attention of the public, but I repeat - we don't know what's happened to cause this policy to be brought in. It may be the policy doesn't need to be in place today, but if there have been any worrying incidents discussed in a public protection meeting and part of the action plan was to step up security for entering the park, then it may have been a reasonable decision at the time. Perhaps a serious incident was prevented and this caused the authorities to put the policy in place?

Dangerous sex offenders who get released from prison have multiple restrictions on their liberty for as long as their licence lasts, and some are subject to prevention orders which restrict where they go, but if the authorities decide a belt and braces job is needed, it has to be balanced with civil liberties and occasionally, rarely, these decisions encroach on the freedom of the public.

granjura as I said before this sort of reaction is a second level of harm caused by these people and their propensity for children: perfectly decent people have to think twice before talking to children they don't know. I suppose its similar to the level of concern and reaction against potential terrorist activity that means we have to have our shoes examined at airport check ins and we cant carry liquids onto planes. The fear and inconvenience caused by certain groups of people of evil intent affects us all. Its a wonderful world aint it!

I see lots of single people walking their dogs in the park. X

Can you then imagine if anyone of them, interested in birds and falconary, would feel in this situation, assumed to be peadophile just for being born males? I am surprised- perhaps ask them how they feel about this.

My OH is genuinely upset and concerned - and so is my sil and every male I've asked since I saw this thread- and I really can't say I blame them. And every female too- both for males being assumed to be 'bad' and for females to be given 'equality' in this ridiculous and totally disproportionate knee-jerk 'solution'- of several nationalities (including British of course).

I wonder what the policy is if two men turn up together and want to watch the falconry display. Just a thought.

A husband, a son in law, a fil, a nephew, male cousins etc.
Have many relatives, half are male.
Male friends, colleagues etc.
Probably quite a lot more men in my life one way and another, than women.
[But also have daughters, female cousins, sil. You get the idea]

Sons yes. Not grandsons.

Soontobe I wonder if you have sons or grandsons?

Think I would mollie65.
If it helps save some children, I would.
I think that we may have to agree to differ on this.

soontobe but that very small number of singles being disrupted should not have to put up with it.
maybe when you have to live a life of a single (You admit you have never been alone anywhere the restriction might apply) you would not be so dismissive.

LOL, same as anywhere on ringroads you don't know ;) here, there or anywhere.

We don't live in Leicester, we are visiting our daughter. I wish leicester drivers were as tolerant, get in the wrong lane and all hell lets loose.

Had no idea you lived in Leicester area Pompa- yes, it's a great and tolerant place- loved my 35 years there ;)

Hi Pompa, I was in JL cafe around 3pm today as well!