Have you been turned away ! Not nice (1 Viewer)

[Briarose]

No, certainly not, but less chance IMO.

You are mis informed then Sir. But each to their own.

 

[Sandancers]

Briarose, how about you go back to the campsite in your motor home, with the couple who was with you, also in their motor home. Roll up to reception and the male of the the other couple says "hi, I'm Donny, I'm a Mormon and I'm booking in with both of my wives, one of which is staying in a different motor home". Cue confusion from the staff!

 

[scotjimland]

One had a high profiles on the motorhome forums and was thought to be a pillar of society.

indeed.. we met him and his family at a 'meet' .. ..and you would never have guessed..

http://theukdatabase.com/2014/03/25/shane-snell-caistorgrimsby/

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Zigisla]

Briarose, how about you go back to the campsite in your motor home, with the couple who was with you, also in their motor home. Roll up to reception and the male of the the other couple says "hi, I'm Donny, I'm a Mormon and I'm booking in with both of my wives, one of which is staying in a different motor home". Cue confusion from the staff!

Now that would be worth a TV programme.

 

[busby]

Very true Jim.....it's a bit like saying a Friend of a Friend said.....or Chinese whispers. I believe if someone has something to say...then have the decency to back up your claim.

A friend of a friend was Gassed,,,BUSBY.

 

[Briarose]

indeed.. we met him and his family at a 'meet' .. ..and you would never have guessed..

http://theukdatabase.com/2014/03/25/shane-snell-caistorgrimsby/

No and neither would we Jim....we met at a meet also and later had work done. To say we were shocked would be an understatement.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[bartiny]

I am alone I am a threat to society.

Potential threat, that is the problem, they do not know so err on the side of caution.

 

[buttons]

Due to being a shift worker I get a lot of days off during the week while Lorraine is at work and quite often head away in the van myself for some hill walking or just to get away, never once did I think I'd be classed as a risk or looked on as a paedophile. I maybe look dodgy but I look the same when I'm with lorraine as I do without her.
I also take disadvantaged kids away for days out and befriend kids who are going through tough times I'm now going to have to reconsider these activities now I know how I'm looked upon.

This paedophile word seems to find it's way into most discussions these days, how it got into this particular thread I have no idea. You sound like you are doing a grand job don't let them put you off doing it. I must say it can put you off being totally at ease with kids which is a real shame.

 

[bartiny]

Yes I have although in my opinion these checks aren't worth the paper they're written on as they only show people who have been caught, in my experience most paedophiles are very clever and don't get caught until years later when their abussed find the courage. Also you won't get many convicted applying for these positions, just my opinion though.

Oh well, lets not bother at all then eh?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Minxy]

This 'thread' seems to be getting blown a bit out of proportion IMV ... the site has a rule, not a nice rule for some, but a rule nonetheless ... it could be any rule which if it applied to you, you would not be happy with but it is up to them to set it - it isn't breaking any laws and they are allowed to set it.

If you are not happy with the rule (even if it doesn't affect you) just don't go to the site.

For those who have suggested getting the media etc involved ... stop and think ... if it were you who had been turned away would you really want your life being 'invaded' and plastered all over the tabloids for all to see/read about ... that, IMV, would be a hell of a lot worse!

 

[bartiny]

You are mis informed then Sir. But each to their own.

What that there is less chance if you are married? jeeze

 

[busby]

We are going round in circles here, can you not see it from the "child protection argument" or "duty of care" or "potential risk".

Its dangerous going out of your house but more accidents happen in the house!!!! what is a person to do,,,how did i manage to live until now (70) with all these murderers about and child mollesters. I must just be lucky...BUSBY.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[bartiny]

how it got into this particular thread I have no idea

Just maybe that, that is the reason for the rule, did you give that a thought?

 

[buttons]

Thanks; we'll wait for your list of others. Clearly if there were plenty you and Google would have found them. Maybe all those you stayed at went out of business.

I think it is time this devils advocate went shopping. It is ok for you you only have the temperature of the sea to worry about.

 

[bartiny]

Its dangerous going out of your house but more accidents happen in the house!!!! what is a person to do,,,how did i manage to live until now (70) with all these murderers about and child mollesters. I must just be lucky...BUSBY.

As a site owner/operator/custodian of children you have to take reasonable measures, and to be quite honest if you can not see that then i give up.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[big map]

What we need is a black, gay, single male to be turned away and then take Searles down the discrimination route.

 

[meanders]

Regretfully we too have come across at least 7 cases of child sexual abuse. ALL of the abusers were trusted members of the child's family. ALL the abusers were married or in long term relationships. Two of the abusers were 'ugly' but I can't say any looked 'dodgy', whatever that means. Certainly none were dirty old men in raincoats.

So we totally agree with Hollyberry's research.

What these offenders do to these children is dreadful and does affect the victim for life...... yes life. Convicted offenders within the family deserve to be locked up and the key thrown away. However, that in itself may not help the victim recover.

Most of this fear of the random attack by stranger paedophiles is misplaced. How is a child meant to become streetwise if they are never allowed out of their parents sight?

 

[Minxy]

What we need is a black, gay, single male to be turned away and then take Searles down the discrimination route.

Why on earth would you want to try to in effect 'destroy' a company which provides facilities for thousands of people so they can have a lovely holiday, not to mention putting staff out of work ...

This thread is getting plain silly now.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sdc77]

I have to agree with @MinxyGirl and others. It does seem a silly rule but it's not that unusual. Its not discrimination and there are plenty of sites that you could go to instead. I'd have just moved on (or checked in advance). I'd be livid about the cheque though.
Also I'm sure they never said a single person was a threat. .. in any way. Just that they're not allowed.

 

[bartiny]

Most of this fear of the random attack by stranger paedophiles is misplaced

No problem then.

How is a child meant to become streetwise if they are never allowed out of their parents sight?

Who said that?

 

[lorger]

This paedophile word seems to find it's way into most discussions these days, how it got into this particular thread I have no idea. You sound like you are doing a grand job don't let them put you off doing it. I must say it can put you off being totally at ease with kids which is a real shame.

Thanks Buttons, I think it was brought into the thread with people saying single males are more of a risk to kids on a campsite as a way of justifying the site rules.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[big map]

Why on earth would you want to try to in effect 'destroy' a company which provides facilities for thousands of people so they can have a lovely holiday, not to mention putting staff out of work ...

This thread is getting plain silly now.

I don't want to destroy them I want them to allow single people of either sex to"enjoy" the facilities.

 

[MattR]

That is exactly the point, you (the site owner) do not know who you are letting onto your "child friendly" site, Do you?

Would you take the risk if you were the site owner?

I certainly would not

No you don't know so why should they allow the mum that abuses her student or the dad who keeps inviting kids on his street to come and "see his puppies"? Maybe they look forward to seeing so many kids running around more than the pensioner sitting alone in his / her van waiting for his family to join him....

 

[big map]

@Briarose Look on the bright side this thread should make the newsletter, something @Chris has yet to achieve.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Chris]

@Briarose Look on the bright side this thread should make the newsletter, something @Chris has yet to achieve.

I still have ideas up my sleeve.

Just waiting for a quiet news day

 

[Allanm]

We are going round in circles here, can you not see it from the "child protection argument" or "duty of care" or "potential risk".

Well, I read through most of this thread and am glad I chose never to use campsites in this country again. Parking next to a numbered peg was enough for me to boycott them. Playing the pedo card now is just playing into the hands of the press who propagate the myth that men anywhere near children are to be viewed with suspicion and if you dare to go to an event that your child / grandchild is participating in, with a camera, you are automatically put on the sex offenders register.........

 

[Zigisla]

I think that there would be more families with children supporting this Camp Site than others opposing it. There may well be "Paying" families that choose that particular site because of their no Solo arrangement - Stand Fast letting Solo into Leisure centre and pool side!!. It is the same for adults only. I applauded the stead fast rule of my camp site owner because I paid to be in a child free environment and chose his site because of that. I would be up in arms if he started to allow children because the young lad was very quite and looked clean and tidy!! Would you now expect the Dad to be up in arms and want to bad name this site on the grounds of discrimination of single Dads. Although the site I was on was clear it was for Adults only and this one wasn’t clear on it’s no Solo policy, I still think this may well have run its course. IMVHO

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Eve]

I have to agree with @MinxyGirl and others. It does seem a silly rule but it's not that unusual. Its not discrimination and there are plenty of sites that you could go to instead. I'd have just moved on (or checked in advance). I'd be livid about the cheque though.
Also I'm sure they never said a single person was a threat. .. in any way. Just that they're not allowed.

They did actually say that a single person was a threat!!! This was the part that astounded me!!
I think more children are being harmed,as people are scared to approach a child,that they are concerned about,maybe a lost child,or child crying or the case in Liverpool the little boy taken by older boys,we are becoming a society,that's scared of our own shadow, we think twice about smiling at a child,or saying hello.sad world.

I can also tell you police checks are not worth the paper there written on,from experience! They just mean that the person is not known to them!!

To get back to the original post,no one should be discriminated against because they are solo.
As to having a van to take a child into,I would think a swimming pool is an ideal place to play with a child in any form!

 

[Just smiffy]

It's a dilemma isn't it...! The site in question lets in singles to its leisure facilities off the street which in my opinion is more of a concern, also I believe if your in a rally it's ok too..? So a paedophile ring rally would be OK..? And as for the church now that's another thread..!
I have traveled around France on my own and stayed at many sites and not had any problems but while at one site I did notice a gent on his own and I must admit he looked a bit "dodgy" in his actions.... Which made me think on my own situation and thought is there someone here at the pool thinking the same about me..!! It certainly made me alter my actions as to the fact of not being seemingly too friendly or looking in a certain direction for too long... Which is a shame as watching young family's enjoying themselves brings such happy memories back of my own kids and holiday times....

Unfortunately the times we live in and ease of information at our fingertips it won't change for the better...

 

[Gromett]

This 'thread' seems to be getting blown a bit out of proportion IMV ... the site has a rule, not a nice rule for some, but a rule nonetheless ... it could be any rule which if it applied to you, you would not be happy with but it is up to them to set it - it isn't breaking any laws and they are allowed to set it.

If you are not happy with the rule (even if it doesn't affect you) just don't go to the site.

For those who have suggested getting the media etc involved ... stop and think ... if it were you who had been turned away would you really want your life being 'invaded' and plastered all over the tabloids for all to see/read about ... that, IMV, would be a hell of a lot worse!

I don't have any problems with the rule itself. It is a little strange and seems just a little out of order. However it is their business and they can set the rules. However... They have this rule in the small print of their T&C's and don't make it clear up front. It is possible to miss this and manage to book in and then be turned away after having paid, made plans and travelled there. This is what is wrong.

If they want to have rules that are non standard and unexpected they should publish them clearly on their website.

If I was to set up a campsite called Scotsville. Published a web site saying how great it was etc etc. But clause 5 of my T & C states "all visitors must wear kilts on site at all times". If they allowed me to book in and when I turned up told me I wasn't allowed in because I wasn't wearing a kilt I would rightly be angry that they hadn't made this clear up front, either on their website or when I was phoning to book.

Sorry for the really lousy analogy but it was the best I could do at short notice

One last point. If they are doing this to protect children. Then a simple rule is ALL visitors must have at least one child with them when booking in.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}