Ship of Fools: Single? You're a paedophile

Thread: Single? You're a paedophile Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028049

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

According to this story

Have we reached a point where any single person has to be under suspicion?

[Mad]

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Better than that, it's not "single" it's "lone". The chap in question is married with kids, but happened to be on his own.

There's been a lot of media furore over the "single" aspect with people taking it to mean not in a romantic relationship, as opposed to an adult on their own at that point in time.

However, utter fuckwittery whichever way you look at it.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
According to this story

Have we reached a point where any single person has to be under suspicion?

No. Just if they want to hang alone at a kids fun park.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
According to this story

Have we reached a point where any single person has to be under suspicion?

No. Just if they want to hang alone at a kids fun park.

Did you read the article? He wanted to watch a falconry display. The kind of thing that appeals to lone adults as well as children.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If that sort of rule was applied at railway museums they'd empty the place.

Total nonsense.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I've hesitated to shop for children's books at Barnes and Noble bookstores after reading this article a couple years ago.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
According to this story

Have we reached a point where any single person has to be under suspicion?

No. Just if they want to hang alone at a kids fun park.
Did you read the article? He wanted to watch a falconry display. The kind of thing that appeals to lone adults as well as children.

Have you read the press release on the site's page?

quote:
The main aspect not being reported is that Puxton Park is predominantly an attraction for children aged 0 years to 7 years with 90% of the park dedicated fully to child’s play, which is not suitable for lone adults.

As to falconry:

quote:
“Some adults may be interested in our falconry department and we offer falconry experience days which are open to all.

The only real gripe the dude has reason for is lack of obvious advertising about the entrance policy.

First complaint in seven years tho. Interesting.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I've hesitated to shop for children's books at Barnes and Noble bookstores after reading this article a couple years ago.

Better to use Amazon. At least our browsing habits aren't under scrutiny. Oh wait . . . .

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As to falconry:

quote:
“Some adults may be interested in our falconry department and we offer falconry experience days which are open to all.

Reading the article, he wasn't there for a falconry experience day, otherwise he'd have phones/emailed for more details. He was there for the regular falconry events he'd briefly experienced when visiting with his family. I challenge any parent to say they've never taken their young children to a museum and seen something they'd really want to spend time experiencing only to find the children aren't interested so it's skipped in favour of whatever the children want. Coming back another day, without children, to see what had caught one's attention is normal and reasonable. Thinking you need to read the small print of a brochure first isn't normal and reasonable.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Some good comedy material in there:

quote:
in line with all other parks we don't let single men or women in,

All other parks?

quote:
I think if I did a survey of 100 of our customers they would agree that we are doing the right thing

But you haven't done the survey so you know nothing, and in statistical terms a sample that small is meaningless.

And single means unmarried, not alone.

They're having a laugh. Ridiculous.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Coram Fields in London has a policy of not admitting adults without an accompanying child. It is the only place I know of with such a policy (it is a childrens playground, so reasonable).

This is ridiculous. They are doing events that all ages would enjoy, even if there is a child focus, so they shouldn't be so picky. And many paedophiles would be in touch with a child who they could take, so it doesn't even work.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Now I'm not a parent,

But is it beyond the realms of possibility that a parent might go along to something to see if it is something the children would enjoy before bringing them?

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
in line with all other parks we don't let single men or women in,
All other parks?

By far the most common attitude of parks, playgrounds or other places children may be taken is "This area is unstaffed. Children should be supervised by a parent or guardian at all times. The management take no responsibility". I've taken my children to a lot of different places. If they've had a "no adults without children policy" it's been in the very small print. Certainly I don't know of anywhere with that policy, much less that being well known as the policy of "all other parks".

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Couldn't they train the falcons to look out for the bad guys. "Bloke in a grubby rain-mac at 3 O'Clock! Swoop! Swoop! My Pretties!"

Seriously, I suppose they do know that most abuse takes place in the home?

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

And why do I have this feeling that it's less to do with "protecting children" than to do with a fear of perceived litigation?

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

They say that their main age-group is 0-7-year-olds. Wouldn't they be supervised by an adult (to protect them from the paedophiles round every corner)?

In any case, I'm inclined to think that falconry would be of a lot less interest to that age-group than to adults, lone or otherwise. My late father-in-law was given an afternoon's falconry as a birthday present (when he was in his 80s) and although he didn't go alone (just as well!) I'd have thought it more likely to be enjoyed by adults than children.

Perhaps the park should rearrange itself a bit so that access to the falconry is separate from, say, the swings and roundabouts.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There seems to be a problem of perception here. Puxton Park isn't a municipal park, with flower beds and a duck pond and a play area. It's a private, entry-fee attraction, aimed at children and the adults who accompany them.

So that should put events in a slightly different perspective. It probably won't, but let's not put facts in the way of a good story.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Doc Tor:

Yes, it's a private park, so the men aren't being subject to discrimination at the hands of the state.

But let's be honest here. If a privately owned flight school, for example, were banning Muslims from taking classes on the grounds that they might be terrorists, I don't think reports of that policy would be greeted with "Oh well, they're private, they can do what they want."

At the very least, even people who thought the school had the LEGAL right to ban Muslims(which I don't think it would anyway) would still want to criticize the policy as bigoted and irrational.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Oh for Pete's sake! It's a *chidrens* playground. What did Pink Floyd sing in the for off days of our youth (well, for some of us): "Hey, teacher, leave us kids alone'.

Kids need time away from their parents and adults in general, especially when there's something interesting going on. Parents and well-meaning adults inhibit children no end so, unless there is very good reason to be there, clear out.

I'm in my thirty-second year of parenthood, it never stops and it probably took me fifteen to figure out what I described.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Doc Tor:

quote:
Puxton Park isn't a municipal park, with flower beds and a duck pond and a play area. It's a private, entry-fee attraction, aimed at children and the adults who accompany them.

I don't think anyone failed to notice that (except perhaps Evensong), but there are any number of entry-fee attractions that adults and children both enjoy. Zoos. Aquariums. Legoland. And as Alan already said, if you banned unaccompanied adults from railway museums they'd be half empty.

BTW children do like falconry - one of Little J's friends had a falconry experience birthday party a couple of years ago and a good time was had by all.

[ 10. November 2014, 15:36: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The single male has been suspect for a long time. I recall reading a few years ago about a single male airline passenger who was asked to change seats so that an unaccompanied child could sit between two women.

The flip side of this is making spaces with single men in it child free, which can be annoying to parents as Free Range Kids discusses.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

At this point I'm impressed that he wasn't arrested.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Anyone truly dedicated to preventing pedophilia would go at this endeavor from a different angle: Don't admit children. Problem solved.

As for children-only at an entry-fee private park, how many 0-7 y.o. kids would have the price of admission? I'm not a parent, but I personally wouldn't let a non-sleeping 3-y.o. out of my sight in my own home for more than 3 consecutive minutes.

Besides that, think of all the spy movies and thrillers which will be ruined when the double agent and the spymaster can no longer meet up near the merry-go-round, or in the Fun House.

Phantom Flan Finger has the right of it: this is about liability and lawsuits -- park protection, not child protection.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's a case of simple laziness in feeling they need to do something to prevent a very low probability event, even though what they end up doing is likely to have no impact (and, indeed, may have negative unintended consequences - including, in this case, at least one entrance fee not paid). There is very strong evidence that the biggest risk to children come from other members of their family, and abuse happens at home not in public places. There is very little evidence to suggest that of the remaining very small risk from strangers that exclusively attributing that to men on their own is justified. The park is admitting potential paedophiles everyday, the parents, step parents and other adults with the children are as likely, if not more likely, to abuse children than a man wanting to come in to watch a falconry exhibition. And, those other potential paedophiles are far more likely to spend their time watching children play than a man who's there for the birds.

Of course, this park isn't unique in setting strange and ineffective rules. Many years ago a friend and I were in the Highlands climbing mountains, and in the evening pulled into a campsite only to be told they had a policy of not admitting all male groups on the basis of such groups getting drunk and being loud and obnoxious at night. Of course, the strict enforcement of the rules were such that they couldn't recognise that two men fresh off the hills looking for a good night sleep before setting off up more hills the next day were not going to drink too much and be running around in the wee small hours making a lot of noise. It also ignored the fact that, IME, a mixed group of young men and women are far more likely to be making a lot of noise and drinking too much, but would be allowed to camp there.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

If you're in the business of being a children's playground, don't put on displays that would be of interest to adults as well. Falconry is hardly an activity specifically suitable for the kiddies.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
And why do I have this feeling that it's less to do with "protecting children" than to do with a fear of perceived litigation?

There is a nail that got hit square on the head.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

A few years ago we were at a local garden centre.
Now, my husband is the father of four daughters and also grandfather to two little girls.
I wandered off to look at something and returned to find him mortified.
He had got into conversation with a little girl, within the sight of the parents and they had rushed over, scooped her up and bustled off, complete with dirty looks for the lone man....my arrival was just at that point which I think reassured them a little but nothing was said.
I do understand the fear of strangers but I also find this very sad.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

I, too, find it very sad. Someone once pointed out to me that without such normal interactions with adults, kids can't learn what normal is and based on that learn what isn't normal and react appropriately. The part I find the saddest is that such kids are learning irrational fear of the world at large, which can cause problems for them for the rest of their lives.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

Our kids are growing up in a country where adults do interact with children they don't know and it is a normal part of the culture. Our kids are used to it and also have a bunch of adults in their lives, our friends and colleagues who they are used to talking with and being around. In a way they act as our extended family as we are far from our blood relations.

I have noticed when we are in the UK our kids will happily talk to adults they don't know in appropriate situations (they are not accosting strangers in the street!). However sometimes the adults look a bit surprised or even uncomfortable to have a child they don't know speaking to them! I think this is really rather sad. I understand why it has come about but the cost is high in terms of social relationships across age groups.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I enjoy talking to children, but I am definitely more careful than I used to be as there is a woman about my age and with grey hair (although she's recently dyed it purple) who is a known danger to children in Christchurch. Police have named her and given out photos to all schools and she has been trespassed from malls, shops and buses.

But I would hate the thought of never going into the children's section of bookshop or library - picture books are one of my favourite kinds of reading.

Huia

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

The park have issued a statement. I take it from the comment about "unaccompanied adults ... armed with cameras" that it is about fear of possible litigation. One is also tempted to ask whether the child-accompanying adults have their cameras confiscated. I suspect not.

Also:

quote:
CCTV cameras are in operation and all images are recorded.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

Even the language there is inflammatory.

"Armed with cameras" - why the need to say "armed" - that implies that they must be up to no good.

Do they confiscate phones with cameras too?

They seem to be digging themselves into a deeper hole.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Many years ago a friend and I were in the Highlands climbing mountains, and in the evening pulled into a campsite only to be told they had a policy of not admitting all male groups on the basis of such groups getting drunk and being loud and obnoxious at night. Of course, the strict enforcement of the rules were such that they couldn't recognise that two men fresh off the hills looking for a good night sleep before setting off up more hills the next day were not going to drink too much and be running around in the wee small hours making a lot of noise. It also ignored the fact that, IME, a mixed group of young men and women are far more likely to be making a lot of noise and drinking too much, but would be allowed to camp there.

I believe Centerparcs has such a rule against single-sex groups - or it certainly did a few years back when Mrs Shrew and I went there as a couple and had to check ahead of time that they were okay with us both being female. I think Centerparcs has an absolute terror of becoming an affordable venue for stag/hen weekends which could cause havoc and drive away the nice middle class families. That's also probably why there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do after 10pm.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Falconry for five-year-olds sounds like a recipe for nightmares to me.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Many years ago a friend and I were in the Highlands climbing mountains, and in the evening pulled into a campsite only to be told they had a policy of not admitting all male groups on the basis of such groups getting drunk and being loud and obnoxious at night. Of course, the strict enforcement of the rules were such that they couldn't recognise that two men fresh off the hills looking for a good night sleep before setting off up more hills the next day were not going to drink too much and be running around in the wee small hours making a lot of noise. It also ignored the fact that, IME, a mixed group of young men and women are far more likely to be making a lot of noise and drinking too much, but would be allowed to camp there.
I believe Centerparcs has such a rule against single-sex groups - or it certainly did a few years back when Mrs Shrew and I went there as a couple and had to check ahead of time that they were okay with us both being female. I think Centerparcs has an absolute terror of becoming an affordable venue for stag/hen weekends which could cause havoc and drive away the nice middle class families. That's also probably why there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do after 10pm.

I never thought I'd see "Centreparcs" in the same sentence as "affordable".

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

It is if you have a large group of adults who are each able to pay. Less so for a family.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
It is if you have a large group of adults who are each able to pay. Less so for a family.

Just checked. High season price for eight adults, for one week for top-end accomodation. £4,500 per week.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

My point isn't that somewhere like Centreparcs finds stag/hen nights a problem (I don't doubt that they do), but that a blanket ban on single-sex groups is a very blunt instrument to deal with the problem. A rule against drunkenness and noise after 9pm would be generally acceptable to all. Evicting people from the site who break the rules (without a refund) would address the main problem without discriminating against people who have no intention of doing anything to disturb other people there.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
It is if you have a large group of adults who are each able to pay. Less so for a family.
Just checked. High season price for eight adults, for one week for top-end accomodation. £4,500 per week.

[Yorkshireman]'Ow much?!?
[Eek!]

[/Yorkshireman]

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Huh. I just recently went as part of a group of four and it worked out as around £100 each in a step up from standard accomodation. Depends when you go, I guess.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

On the otherhand, go out of season and take lower standard accommodation and it'll be less than £1000 for 8 people for a week. That's not bad, even for a Yorkshireman or a Scot.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Also nobody is going for a full week for a stag/hen do.

[ 11. November 2014, 11:40: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My point isn't that somewhere like Centreparcs finds stag/hen nights a problem (I don't doubt that they do), but that a blanket ban on single-sex groups is a very blunt instrument to deal with the problem. A rule against drunkenness and noise after 9pm would be generally acceptable to all. Evicting people from the site who break the rules (without a refund) would address the main problem without discriminating against people who have no intention of doing anything to disturb other people there.

I suppose it's much easier to refuse entry to a certain group rather than try to evict them in the middle of the night when they're drunk and unpacked.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

...and by which time the damage is done. Stag/hen parties aren't going to return every year for ten years, but that middle class family who were so horrified by the public drunkeness? They might have done, had their little angels not been forced to look upon such depravity. As is, they're just going to write an irate letter about it to the Telegraph instead.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yes, but frankly the odds of a party of adults getting drunk and disorderly are thousands of times higher than the odds of a given adult being a pedophile.

It's known as risk assessment. Which is somewhat different to blind reactionary hysteria.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

It starts in high school, when anyone who doesn't have a "steady" is socially judged "must be something wrong with her (or him)."

That judgement "something must be wrong with them" continues through adulthood, so we get the assumptions of what is wrong - must be gay, or pedophile, or hints of probably mentally unstable. After all, any normal healthy person is in a hetero relationship.

I guess half the ship fall into the "something must be wrong with them" category of uncoupled adult or gay. [Smile]

But yes, talking to a child is viewed with alarm: man or woman, you might be a kidnapper.

[ 11. November 2014, 19:59: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

Presumably every member of staff at Puxton Park has to attend work with a child that is (a) their own, or (b) borrowed for legal purposes.

Or maybe not...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I am interested in music and theatre for children. I am a musician and I have done theatre myself. To do these things for children takes special skills, and I'm interested in that. There is a park near where I live where they often do performances for children during the weekend. I sometimes go there alone on a Sunday, I drink a cold coconut in the park, and I watch the performance.

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

I think Lucia hit the nail on the head. When I take our boys to the park, I nearly always say hello,and talk to other children there, and am quite happy for other adults to do the same with mine. I don't want my children growing up in a world where they are 'told' by the media or by other sources that single adults, especially single male adults are a danger.

I heard this story on the radio yesterday and was shocked by it, especially by the people who agreed with the stance of the park. Although it did remind me of an occasion when we were meeting friends, who were childless at the time, at a soft play area and we were running late. They said that they were quite relieved to see us as they were beginning to feel a little uncomfortable...

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The single male has been suspect for a long time.

Which probably why it took long to bust sutcliffe, the wests, dr. shipman etc.
Also why it was easier to lock up lone male barry george for a murder he didn't commit as opposed to stitching up a 'respectable' family man.

We live in an age where psychology, (more importantly criminal psychology), has advanced beyond anything we knew before, yet those old and phobias prejudices still persist.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0