Who the hell are they to decide lone adults are a risk to children and to decide a disabled person accompanied by a carer is a risk is bloody ridiculous. I am not saying it is not possible for a disabled person to be a threat but surely they can use common sense and it seems they have decided not to. One might ask why they sold him the pass if this is their policy and why do they sell passes for individuals.
I am of a mind to remove Legoland brochures from our racks in the hotels I don't really feel comfortable with giving a venue with such a policy any publicity.
if more ppl did things like this or boycotted them I'm sure they would change their minds sharpish.
it would be interesting to know how many parents are for or against legolands policy
That's the thing, it's a part of many adults childhood.
I know, as I'm reading this I'm thinking my brother who's in his early 30s would like to go there...guess we will have to "borrow" a kid >.>
Next headline "kidnapping rates up 80% due to legoLand policy" lol
I have the same problem at the grotto when I want to go on my own to sit on Santa's knee to tell him what a good boy I've been this year. Not seen much boycotting going on either. It's a national disgrace.
I have just checked their site and they still allow you to buy a ticket for Legoland Discovery or an annual Merlin pass for an adult with no mention of the fact you would be refused entry
if more ppl did things like this or boycotted them I'm sure they would change their minds sharpish.
it would be interesting to know how many parents are for or against legolands policy
I have just emailed all our receptions and asked them to remove Legoland brochures , not to chuck them but remove them and when they come next week to refill the stands I have told staff to inform them why we removed them and to refuse top ups at this time. My office is based in one of the hotels and I spoke to the receptionists there and they agree with me so I don't feel I am overreacting , one of them has a grandchild who is now 18 who has cerebral palsy as she said this rule would mean she would not be able to take him.
Most child abuse is carried out by relatives or people close to the child so by banning everyone from the park except those who are statistically most likely to abuse children this policy is actually increasing the risk of child abuse rather than decreasing it.
Most child abuse is carried out by relatives or people close to the child so by banning everyone from the park except those who are statistically most likely to abuse children this policy is actually increasing the risk of child abuse rather than decreasing it.
Exactly, the media are much to blame for convincing everyone there is a paedophile lurking on every street corner or that every lone adult especially single males are perverts when the truth is usually closer to home.
Most child abuse is carried out by relatives or people close to the child so by banning everyone from the park except those who are statistically most likely to abuse children this policy is actually increasing the risk of child abuse rather than decreasing it.
I think Legoland's stance on this is spectacularly blinkered, but I'm not sure I follow your logic.
Only letting accompanied children into a place primarily aimed at children is going to increase the risk of child abuse? Do you think they're likely to abuse their children at Legoland, but will think twice if they see some adult wandering around on his/her own?
This is a pretty common policy. I know the Gullivers Theme Parks deny access to unaccompanied adults.
What they should do is have a meeting place at the gate where hassled parents can match their kids up with childless people who want to go in, so mum and dad can go and have a coffee somewhere and some peace and quiet instead. I'd be all for it. Here take mine.
I have just emailed all our receptions and asked them to remove Legoland brochures , not to chuck them but remove them and when they come next week to refill the stands
That will be good news for some people as it means less of a queue for the rides.
Who the hell are they to decide lone adults are a risk to children and to decide a disabled person accompanied by a carer is a risk is bloody ridiculous. I am not saying it is not possible for a disabled person to be a threat but surely they can use common sense and it seems they have decided not to. One might ask why they sold him the pass if this is their policy and why do they sell passes for individuals.
I am of a mind to remove Legoland brochures from our racks in the hotels I don't really feel comfortable with giving a venue with such a policy any publicity.
It is on their website but it is well hidden if you do not click the more information button , which again begs the question why sell single adult tickets.
Please note that children 17 and under must be accompanied by an adult supervisor 18 years of age or older. Adults (18+) will not be admitted without a child, with the exception of Adult Only Nights.
If this is their policy then they shouldn't try to hide it. It should be shouted out loud and clear so that anyone can find out very easily in advance that they are not wanted in their venue.
I was rather amused by the scantily clad cheerleading lego figure on their website. She is a bit more of a threat to the kids I think....but maybe she just comes out for Adult Only Nights.
What a ridiculous, poorly thought out policy! Legoland should no better than to see every lone adult as a potential threat - this just panders to the over the top media sensationalising of how big the risk for children even is. Maybe we should ban lone adults from toy shops or McDonald's too.
Legoland must be a great place for a child molester to hang out with their victim. An adult with a child and completely beyond suspicion.
If someone's going to abuse a child, they're going to take them Legoland?
Why?
Why is going to Legoland with a child any less suspicious that going to McDonalds with a child, or walking down the high street with a child, or going to the park with a child?
I think Legoland's stance on this is spectacularly blinkered, but I'm not sure I follow your logic.
Only letting accompanied children into a place primarily aimed at children is going to increase the risk of child abuse? Do you think they're likely to abuse their children at Legoland, but will think twice if they see some adult wandering around on his/her own?
I take issue with the idea that something like Legoland is 'primarily aimed at children'. Surely it is aimed at people who like and appreciate Lego.
I'd say there's certainly at least an element of indirect gender discrimination involved in them.
It's primarily disability discrimination though, because many adults with a learning disability have the mental age of a child, love attractions intended for children and in their minds, ARE children.
As a carer of one such adult, this story has made my blood boil. How bloody DARE they indulge in such overt and direct disability discrimation, if I lived a bit nearer I'd pay them a visit and tackle them head-on about it.
If someone's going to abuse a child, they're going to take them Legoland?
Why?
Why is going to Legoland with a child any less suspicious that going to McDonalds with a child, or walking down the high street with a child, or going to the park with a child?
Because McDonalds don't operate in an environment that tells all their patrons that kids with adults are safe but adults on their own are not. Legoland does. Therefore a kid with an adult at Legoland is safe simply because they are a kid with an adult....they haven't given any thought as to who the adult is.
I take issue with the idea that something like Legoland is 'primarily aimed at children'. Surely it is aimed at people who like and appreciate Lego.
Lego estimates that somewhere between 5 and 10% of all LEGO bought in the US is bought by adults for adults. I'd guess the percentage in the UK is going to be similar, so I'd say it was primarily aimed at children.
Most child abuse is carried out by relatives or people close to the child so by banning everyone from the park except those who are statistically most likely to abuse children this policy is actually increasing the risk of child abuse rather than decreasing it.
This isn't solely about child abuse, but kidnapping perhaps for abuse. General statistics on abusers are irrelevant in this case.
Mental age is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that there have been abuse cases where the perpetrator has a low mental age.
Often when you have a rules like this, then you have to apply it in a "black or white" manner. Otherwise you get bogged down with having to make judgements and being sued when it doesn't go somebody's way.
Because McDonalds don't operate in an environment that tells all their patrons that kids with adults are safe but adults on their own are not. Legoland does. Therefore a kid with an adult at Legoland is safe simply because they are a kid with an adult....they haven't given any thought as to who the adult is.
Are you suggesting that child abusers take their intended victims to Legoland to abuse them there, or that would-be abusers take a kid to Legoland in order to find a different victim ... despite the fact that the intended victim will be with an adult?
Lego estimates that somewhere between 5 and 10% of all LEGO bought in the US is bought by adults for adults. I'd guess the percentage in the UK is going to be similar, so I'd say it was primarily aimed at children.
5 - 10% of the adult population is still a vast number and many adults with children will buy things for their children because they like them so a parent who likes (or liked when they were a child) lego is more likely to buy it for their kids. In taking their kids to Legoland, therefore, they are doing it for themselves just as much as they are for their kids.
This isn't solely about child abuse, but kidnapping perhaps for abuse. General statistics on abusers are irrelevant in this case.
Mental age is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that there have been abuse cases where the perpetrator has a low mental age.
Often when you have a rules like this, then you have to apply it in a "black or white" manner. Otherwise you get bogged down with having to make judgements and being sued when it doesn't go somebody's way.
This case was someone with a learning disability who was being supervised by his adult carer. Not the same thing at all. It's no different from barring a 10 to 17 year old who is with an adult carer... and don't even try to tell me that kids in the range 10 to 17 are incapable of abducting small children for abuse!
The policy is illogical, ill thought out, discriminatory and just plain bonkers. It is a pathetic pointless box-ticking policy more about keeping uninformed bosses' noses clean than having any practical value.
Are you suggesting that child abusers take their intended victims to Legoland to abuse them there, or that would-be abusers take a kid to Legoland in order to find a different victim ... despite the fact that the intended victim will be with an adult?
I would not want to suggest that child abusers take their intended victims anywhere....I would prefer to suggest that they leave the child alone.
Comments
if more ppl did things like this or boycotted them I'm sure they would change their minds sharpish.
it would be interesting to know how many parents are for or against legolands policy
That's the thing, it's a part of many adults childhood.
Next headline "kidnapping rates up 80% due to legoLand policy" lol
I have just emailed all our receptions and asked them to remove Legoland brochures , not to chuck them but remove them and when they come next week to refill the stands I have told staff to inform them why we removed them and to refuse top ups at this time. My office is based in one of the hotels and I spoke to the receptionists there and they agree with me so I don't feel I am overreacting , one of them has a grandchild who is now 18 who has cerebral palsy as she said this rule would mean she would not be able to take him.
Exactly, the media are much to blame for convincing everyone there is a paedophile lurking on every street corner or that every lone adult especially single males are perverts when the truth is usually closer to home.
I think Legoland's stance on this is spectacularly blinkered, but I'm not sure I follow your logic.
Only letting accompanied children into a place primarily aimed at children is going to increase the risk of child abuse? Do you think they're likely to abuse their children at Legoland, but will think twice if they see some adult wandering around on his/her own?
Legoland must be a great place for a child molester to hang out with their victim. An adult with a child and completely beyond suspicion.
What they should do is have a meeting place at the gate where hassled parents can match their kids up with childless people who want to go in, so mum and dad can go and have a coffee somewhere and some peace and quiet instead. I'd be all for it. Here take mine.
That will be good news for some people as it means less of a queue for the rides.
If this is their policy then they shouldn't try to hide it. It should be shouted out loud and clear so that anyone can find out very easily in advance that they are not wanted in their venue.
I was rather amused by the scantily clad cheerleading lego figure on their website. She is a bit more of a threat to the kids I think....but maybe she just comes out for Adult Only Nights.
If someone's going to abuse a child, they're going to take them Legoland?
Why?
Why is going to Legoland with a child any less suspicious that going to McDonalds with a child, or walking down the high street with a child, or going to the park with a child?
I take issue with the idea that something like Legoland is 'primarily aimed at children'. Surely it is aimed at people who like and appreciate Lego.
It's primarily disability discrimination though, because many adults with a learning disability have the mental age of a child, love attractions intended for children and in their minds, ARE children.
As a carer of one such adult, this story has made my blood boil. How bloody DARE they indulge in such overt and direct disability discrimation, if I lived a bit nearer I'd pay them a visit and tackle them head-on about it.
Because McDonalds don't operate in an environment that tells all their patrons that kids with adults are safe but adults on their own are not. Legoland does. Therefore a kid with an adult at Legoland is safe simply because they are a kid with an adult....they haven't given any thought as to who the adult is.
Lego estimates that somewhere between 5 and 10% of all LEGO bought in the US is bought by adults for adults. I'd guess the percentage in the UK is going to be similar, so I'd say it was primarily aimed at children.
Mental age is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that there have been abuse cases where the perpetrator has a low mental age.
Often when you have a rules like this, then you have to apply it in a "black or white" manner. Otherwise you get bogged down with having to make judgements and being sued when it doesn't go somebody's way.
Are you suggesting that child abusers take their intended victims to Legoland to abuse them there, or that would-be abusers take a kid to Legoland in order to find a different victim ... despite the fact that the intended victim will be with an adult?
5 - 10% of the adult population is still a vast number and many adults with children will buy things for their children because they like them so a parent who likes (or liked when they were a child) lego is more likely to buy it for their kids. In taking their kids to Legoland, therefore, they are doing it for themselves just as much as they are for their kids.
This case was someone with a learning disability who was being supervised by his adult carer. Not the same thing at all. It's no different from barring a 10 to 17 year old who is with an adult carer... and don't even try to tell me that kids in the range 10 to 17 are incapable of abducting small children for abuse!
The policy is illogical, ill thought out, discriminatory and just plain bonkers. It is a pathetic pointless box-ticking policy more about keeping uninformed bosses' noses clean than having any practical value.
I would not want to suggest that child abusers take their intended victims anywhere....I would prefer to suggest that they leave the child alone.
When Miss Thomason argued this was unfair, management said they would honour the last five months on the pass but it would not be renewed.
The family also now have to email in advance before he can visit'.
Wtf for??
Disappointed in Lego. I imagine a lot of fans are actually adults. The movie was pretty much loved by adults.