No equality for this man

[milquetoast1]

In common usage, if he was "banned", he would not be allowed back.

 

In fact, if he makes a prior arrangement to see the falconry display (as required), he will be admitted.

 

Not "banned".

 

[PEDANT]There are two tenses in English – past and present. To talk about the past he was banned. To refer to the present or future we might say he is banned.

 

RootBooster was quite correct to to state that he was banned. You are correct to point out that he is not banned, but not when you claimed that he was not banned.[/PEDANT]

Edited November 10, 2014 by milquetoast1

[RootsBooster]

In common usage, if he was "banned", he would not be allowed back.

 

In fact, if he makes a prior arrangement to see the falconry display (as required), he will be admitted.

 

Not "banned".

 

In common usage, "of" has come to mean "have" and "innit" means "Isn't it".

That doesn't make the common use correct though.

 

You'll have to excuse me if I go with the Oxford Dictionary over your interpretation of the word.

Answer me this though, if a "ban" means you can't come back, then what's the point in a "permanent ban"?

Surely, if all bans are permanent (as you claim) then adding the "permanent" is completely redundant.

 

Then there's the "temporary ban", surely that's a mean trick to play, give someone a temporary ban only for them to find out that bans are all permanent!

[andil]

When you made this ambiguous statement...

 

Did you mean that he was with twenty kids or did you mean that he was on his own?

 

Its says that he has 20 kids and that he is on is own, therefor he has 20 kids but they are not with him because he is on is own.

[cgksheff]

Go to your doctors.

Sorry. You can't see your GP today about your athlete's foot because you have not made the necessary appointment in advance.

Please make an appointment and come back at the appropriate time.

 

 

Now. Was that someone being banned from seeing their doctor?

 

 

..... Er .... No.

[Cyclone]

Some poor reporting going on again.

Similar policies exist at many other child-based attractions. Gulliver's Kingdom, for example.

 

This customer was not banned. He fell foul of Puxton's failure to adequately publicise the prior notice required when a single adult wishes to visit the Falconry Displays.

 

Their are also many valid reasons for restricting unaccompanied adults into such theme parks, other than any spurious 'paedo risk', but the park manager would appear to either be a bit dim or have been misquoted.

 

Sloppy park management and sloppy reporting, but at least we get the obligatory 'sad photo':

http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Single-adults-banned-park-case-paedophile/story-24477493-detail/story.html

 

What valid reasons, for example?

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 19:48 ----------

 

Yes. Thank you.

 

Can't you?

 

One would be that, as a commercial enterprise, they can increase their attendance of their target market by having a restriction on non-family groups.

 

You're claiming that extra people will go, specifically because single adults can't?

 

Seems very unlikely to me. Particularly given that the rule is so poorly publicised.

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 19:49 ----------

 

True. I doubt a falconry display is top of their list of places to groom children anyway lol.

 

Online is where the big risks are in my opinion.

 

9/10 cases of abuse are family members.

 

Stranger danger is massively over-hyped by the media, and this sort of idiotic rule is the result.

[RootsBooster]

Its says that he has 20 kids and that he is on is own, therefor he has 20 kids but they are not with him because he is on is own.

 

No, it quite clearly says "with twenty kids", I even highlighted for you.

[Cyclone]

Are you certain about that?

 

That's how the rule works.

 

This man has children (adult ones) and grandchildren (who he's taken to the park before). He couldn't enter because he was an adult on his own, no other reason.

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 19:51 ----------

 

Why couldn't kids enjoy luxury resorts in far-away and highly-exotic places?

 

It's a business decision concerning a private location ...no different to other decisions e.g. banning certain garments, restricting forms of payment, disallowing own drinks and food <etc.>

 

How are they allowed to get away with age discrimination like this?

 

If they banned pensioners they'd be sued.

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 19:51 ----------

 

It is, but I started the thread because it is anti-male, I dont mind people making sensible discissions based on facts; but they would be more likely to make their park safer with good CCTV. Record everyone that enters and take their ID.

 

It's anti adult isn't it? Women on there own are also not allowed in.

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 19:52 ----------

 

It is not. No gender, religious, sexual or other type of illegal discrimination here, no ambulance ECHR case to chase, move along.

 

EDIT - snap milquetoast1

 

Age... (post must be longer).

[RootsBooster]

Go to your doctors.

Sorry. You can't see your GP today about your athlete's foot because you have not made the necessary appointment in advance.

Please make an appointment and come back at the appropriate time.

 

 

Now. Was that someone being banned from seeing their doctor?

 

 

..... Er .... No.

 

Of course not, seeing as it doesn't fit the given definitions.

[Cyclone]

No, it quite clearly says "with twenty kids", I even highlighted for you.

 

A man with twenty children.

 

Does that mean they are with him, or that he has twenty children? The latter is more correct, but if he's on his own, then "a man with" is colloquial for "a man having".

You were just being facetious and pedantic.

[Harleyman]

Another sign of the emerging Nanny Fascist State