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.
It is sexist and ageist as well. As a single male who has wanted for some time to go to Legoland (not to abuse children but because I played with Lego as a child and am generally very impressed by its use in creating real life structures built to scale), I am extremely offended by this policy. I don't see why I should be confined to a life of solitude and not permitted to visit an entertainment attraction open to the public simply because I have not been fortunate enough to find a life partner and have kids with them.
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.
5-10% is still a vast number, but it's not nearly as vast as 90-95% whatever spin you try to put on it!! ;-)
'He was instead offered a pass for alternative venues run by parent group Merlin Attractions elsewhere in the UK.
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??
So they can arrange for a security guard to meet them at the entrance and follow them wherever they go to ensure that they don't come within 50 metres of a child. Presumably they also have to set up an isolation room somewhere for him to use as well.
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.
I'd already figured out that you weren't in favour of child abuse. I was merely asking you to explain the logic behind you assertion that "Legoland must be a great place for a child molester to hang out with their victim."
Why? A good place for them to abuse a child? Lots of potential victims?
I'd already figured out that you weren't in favour of child abuse. I was merely asking you to explain the logic behind you assertion that "Legoland must be a great place for a child molester to hang out with their victim."
Why? A good place for them to abuse a child? Lots of potential victims?
No, because by Legoland's own logic, it would be somewhere that they could take their victim and abuse them but be completely above suspicion.
I'd already figured out that you weren't in favour of child abuse. I was merely asking you to explain the logic behind you assertion that "Legoland must be a great place for a child molester to hang out with their victim."
Why? A good place for them to abuse a child? Lots of potential victims?
I took it as a tongue in cheek comment on the illogical view that people with children, Ie mostly parents, are 'safe' and would be viewed as such within such a policy, whereas adults on their own are viewed as unsafe. No one would suspect the safe parent because they are by definition, safe.
Not yet, at least not as far as I am aware but I am sure that the same can be said of other theme parks that do not discriminate against singletons.
Okay, so absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would-be child molesters are taking their victims to Legoland in order to abuse them in a public place!
I don't have the figures to hand, but I would imagine that child-molesters tend NOT to take their victims to public places in order to abuse them. I would imagine they abuse the children in private, well away from any witnesses.
I think I might write to my MP about this issue, and question the legality under current equality/discrimination legislation.
Don't know whether I've got a case, but even if not, it will raise some awareness of shite like this. Also, the MP will probably write to the management of legoland asking for an explanation.
I took it as a tongue in cheek comment on the illogical view that people with children, Ie mostly parents, are 'safe' and would be viewed as such within such a policy, whereas adults on their own are viewed as unsafe. No one would suspect the safe parent because they are by definition, safe.
I took it as a tongue in cheek comment on the illogical view that people with children, Ie mostly parents, are 'safe' and would be viewed as such within such a policy, whereas adults on their own are viewed as unsafe. No one would suspect the safe parent because they are by definition, safe.
If it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, the answer "it was a tongue-in-cheek comment" would have done just fine. ;-)
However, the response was simply a repeat of the same assertion, specifically ... "it would be somewhere that they could take their victim and abuse them but be completely above suspicion".
If it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, the answer "it was a tongue-in-cheek comment" would have done just fine. ;-)
However, the response was simply a repeat of the same assertion, specifically ... "it would be somewhere that they could take their victim and abuse them but be completely above suspicion".
Which is simply an explanation of the illogicality of Legoland's position providing the basis for the comment.
Indeed James May would be banned from the place as well.
But that might be good from a health and safety point of view as he would probably be accompanied by a film crew and trying to build a lego structure the height of the Shard which could topple over and injure people at any moment.
Awful i will never have kids so i guess i wont be going ever again:( sick of this crap about childless people being paedophiles,anyone childless or someone with children could be a paedophile
I expect the rule is so that childless adults can't come back onto threads like this and whine about how loads of noisy brats having fun "ruined their experience"
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
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.
WELL DONE.:)
It's an appalling policy anyway, but to include disabled people in the blanket ban is beyond belief.
Also how well do they monitor coach trips?
All attractions get a fair amount of business from tour operators, I doubt they check people in a large group have the appropriate child/adult ratio.
But at the end of the day (horrible phrase I know) it is up to the public to act.
A boycott is the only way to make big companies take notice.
I remember a few years ago going for a walk along the canal towpath one Summer's day and passed a family, something like Mum and Dad, 3 young kids. From laughing and joking, they all descended into unsmiling total silence as the obviously weird single guy on his own passed by, whilst deliberately avoiding eye contact.
A few weeks later, I did the same walk with my then girlfriend, and met the same family (distinctly remember the guy with his ultra blonde hair, chubby face and glasses), and it was all smiles, "Hi, how are you, lovely day isn't it". I don't think they remembered me. Obviously I couldn't have been the same as some suspicious weirdo on his own.
I just shook my head in amazement. The suspicion of single people, especially men, is absolutely manifest and obvious.
I think people would less likely to judge if you are from a different race, if you are black or Indian.
Given that Lego is a product that has grown in popularity amongst adults in recent years-and I didn't notice Lego having any problem with accepting the extra business that came from this-how can they then refuse access to unaccompanied adults? Total hypocricy.
Quite apart from the moral rights and wrongs, is their refusal to allow "unaccompanied adults" in, legal ?
it's their land, so they can decide who enters it, so long as they don't practise unlawful discrimination.
If they treat all unaccompanied adults the same, then I don't see how anyone is being unlawfully discriminated against. Except possibly adults generally, so there might be a case for age discrimination : presumably they allow unaccompanied children to enter.
Comments
It is sexist and ageist as well. As a single male who has wanted for some time to go to Legoland (not to abuse children but because I played with Lego as a child and am generally very impressed by its use in creating real life structures built to scale), I am extremely offended by this policy. I don't see why I should be confined to a life of solitude and not permitted to visit an entertainment attraction open to the public simply because I have not been fortunate enough to find a life partner and have kids with them.
5-10% is still a vast number, but it's not nearly as vast as 90-95% whatever spin you try to put on it!! ;-)
So they can arrange for a security guard to meet them at the entrance and follow them wherever they go to ensure that they don't come within 50 metres of a child. Presumably they also have to set up an isolation room somewhere for him to use as well.
I'd already figured out that you weren't in favour of child abuse. I was merely asking you to explain the logic behind you assertion that "Legoland must be a great place for a child molester to hang out with their victim."
Why? A good place for them to abuse a child? Lots of potential victims?
Do you generally support discrimination against groups representing 5 - 10% of the population or is it only OK when it is against single adults?
No, because by Legoland's own logic, it would be somewhere that they could take their victim and abuse them but be completely above suspicion.
What are you talking about?
Who's supporting discrimination?
Any evidence of children being abused at Legoland?
Not yet, at least not as far as I am aware but I am sure that the same can be said of other theme parks that do not discriminate against singletons.
I took it as a tongue in cheek comment on the illogical view that people with children, Ie mostly parents, are 'safe' and would be viewed as such within such a policy, whereas adults on their own are viewed as unsafe. No one would suspect the safe parent because they are by definition, safe.
Okay, so absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would-be child molesters are taking their victims to Legoland in order to abuse them in a public place!
I don't have the figures to hand, but I would imagine that child-molesters tend NOT to take their victims to public places in order to abuse them. I would imagine they abuse the children in private, well away from any witnesses.
Don't know whether I've got a case, but even if not, it will raise some awareness of shite like this. Also, the MP will probably write to the management of legoland asking for an explanation.
That sums it up rather well, thank you
If it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, the answer "it was a tongue-in-cheek comment" would have done just fine. ;-)
However, the response was simply a repeat of the same assertion, specifically ... "it would be somewhere that they could take their victim and abuse them but be completely above suspicion".
Indeed James May would be banned from the place as well.
Which is simply an explanation of the illogicality of Legoland's position providing the basis for the comment.
But that might be good from a health and safety point of view as he would probably be accompanied by a film crew and trying to build a lego structure the height of the Shard which could topple over and injure people at any moment.
Maybe but it will hopefully mean less income too , they need to rethink this as it is completely over the top crap and insulting.
WELL DONE.:)
It's an appalling policy anyway, but to include disabled people in the blanket ban is beyond belief.
Also how well do they monitor coach trips?
All attractions get a fair amount of business from tour operators, I doubt they check people in a large group have the appropriate child/adult ratio.
But at the end of the day (horrible phrase I know
A boycott is the only way to make big companies take notice.
I think people would less likely to judge if you are from a different race, if you are black or Indian.
it's their land, so they can decide who enters it, so long as they don't practise unlawful discrimination.
If they treat all unaccompanied adults the same, then I don't see how anyone is being unlawfully discriminated against. Except possibly adults generally, so there might be a case for age discrimination : presumably they allow unaccompanied children to enter.