Theme park in UK bans unaccompanied adults on 'child protection grounds'

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gottta lovethe way tabloids overreact in order to drum up a whole society of pedohysteria and then complains when an organisation overreacts in turn....

darkpagandeath

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Gottta lovethe way tabloids overreact in order to drum up a whole society of pedohysteria and then complains when an organisation overreacts in turn....

Aye children are more lightly to be abused in a family home or relatives than in a public area.

hatrickpatrick

Next thing you'll have is a minor Mongolia vs China war taking place along the newly erected Great Wall of Somerset*

*If you don't know what this is referencing, your childhood sucked balls.

Egginacup

SkyBlueClouds wrote: »

I'm all for reasonable precautions but this just seems absurd....

Can you ever be too careful? Or was this a measure too far?

This isn't a reasonable precaution. It's a load of bollocks.
It's as unacceptable as preventing someone walking along a street because they might be a shoplifter.

FCUK that. Call your lawyer buddy.

AudreyHepburn

Why is it so hard to accept that a child is more likely to abused by some-one known to them than this mythical stranger on the prowl?

I'm all for child safety but we've gone too far nowadays. Still at least this ban does not apply to men only, so I suppose that's a step forward.

FTA69

jank wrote: »

Has anyone actually been abused in this park by a single peado on the prowl?
People defending this decision needs their heads and attitude examined.

I don't know has it been said before; but any paedophiles I've known who have been exposed have been married, "family" types; not solitary weirdos hanging out at the theme park.

cerastes

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't know has it been said before; but any paedophiles I've known who have been exposed have been married, "family" types; not solitary weirdos hanging out at the theme park.

you know some? :eek:

we better burn you too just in case you caught it,

Burn the witch! burn her/him

FTA69

cerastes wrote: »

you know some? :eek:

we better burn you too just in case you caught it,

Burn the witch! burn her/him

Unfortunately yeah. I've known of a few arseholes who were caught with images and one auld fella who was done for molesting his grand-daughter.

Tzardine

I wanted to go to Alton towers on my own. Do I have to be chemically castrated now ? Will they ask for a certificate.

Tar.Aldarion

I hope none of you are posting alone? paedos.

Antar Bolaeisk

geegeebeebee wrote: »

yes it would !! although i think the issue with the parks with playgrounds has been forgotten as over the summer just past i seen plenty childless adults relaxing in the park and no gardai in sight !

if this madness is allow to continue , eventually any one who is childless will have to wear blinkers in pubic. even though im pretty sure that pedos often have children of their own ! which makes the banning of childless adults fairly pointless !

We can be just like Saudi Arabia, single sections for all!

Mint Aero

Mint Aero wrote: »

and there was me planning to go to Legoland by myself never realized before that such a thing would be a problem.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/john-st-onge-legoland-senior-age-limit_n_3573608.html

end of the road

this is nothing to do with "child protection" or "paedeophiles" thats just an excuse. i suspect the whole thing is actually about single men, but women are included to give the rule legitimacy. its all to shut up the men hating terrorists and the types who think everyone and everything is a paedeophile. its also to do with society allowing this nonsense because much of it is either to afraid or gullible to say enough is enough because they will be accused of being or condoning a paedeophile and being against children and child protection. frankly i'm sick to my backside of it and hope people rise up against this form of terrorism, otherwise men won't be able to, or will be afraid to do anything or go anywhere.

end of the road

masculinist wrote: »

No business turns down money easily without a good reason.

of course they do

masculinist

end of the road wrote: »

of course they do

Maybe due to stupidity.... but there has to be a belief they are doing what they think is best for their business. If they cant afford security guards and proper cctv and also dont want to risk their reputation as 'family friendly' or something? Maybe they already had a few incidents. Anyway its nuts whatever the reason

crazygeryy

The cinema will be next. What will i do with my trench coat then?

KilOit

This show was so ahead of it's time
kinda NSFW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

masculinist wrote: »

Maybe due to stupidity.... but there has to be a belief they are doing what they think is best for their business. If they cant afford security guards and proper cctv and also dont want to risk their reputation as 'family friendly' or something? Maybe they already had a few incidents. Anyway its nuts whatever the reason

I would consider this stupidity. And ignorant - not sure I want to take my family to such a place to be honest.

In any case, how many people blamed Warrington Shopping Centre when Jamie Bulger went missing? How many people stopped shopping there? Has said shopping centre now got an accompanied-adult-only policy?

Come to think of it - kids go to shoppind centres don't they? A lot of them have creches? How come these establsihements don't ban people?

You can call reductio adsurdum if you like, but it's a valid question.

Son Of A Vidic

crazygeryy wrote: »

The cinema will be next. What will i do with my trench coat then?

Wash it.

BeerWolf

Absolutely absurd rule...