No equality for this man

[GLASGOWOODS]

There's an exemption in the Equality Act 2010 for holiday and leisure providers to cater for certain age groups.

 

"age discrimination will still be permitted if the provider can objectively justify its actions (i.e. where there is good and sufficient reason for

doing so)."

 

Talk about wishy washy, but still good enough to allow companies specifically catering for kids to be able to discriminate against single adults, but not single children. There might be other laws preventing single children of course. It would also allow companies specifically catering for adults to be able to discriminate against children, but children do not get protection from the Act anyway.

 

Of course if the wording is "must be accompanied by a child", then that achieves what is required without any wishy washy skating around what is allowed.

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 20:53 ----------

 

 

Single people are not a protected demographic in law, neither are people wearing hats or football fans.

 

Sexuality, religion, race, disability, sex, and (usually) age are protected demographics.

 

Thanks for clearing this up Cheeseontoast.

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 21:26 ----------

 

how can it be discrimination, in this fair green land in which the Gvt bans nothing and people are free to do what they want?

 

including the freedom to impose a blanket presumption of paedophilia guilt on single adults for conditioning entry into a private property?

 

Good luck to that guy finding a solicitor willing to take this on a CFA

 

@ GLASGOWOODS. The answer is elementary, my good man: homosexuals are worthy of special protection under the law, single grandfathers with an interest in falconry are not, and white right-of-thinking Christians are to be vilified on sight. Such is our fair green land after years of enforced affirmative action, political correctness and, generally, elevating hand-wringing into a service industry.

 

 

Well thank you kind sir!

[iansheff]

Perhaps they also ought to ban couples without children, have they never heard of Brady and Hindley. Or maybe they could have a child free day so that anyone over the age of 18 can go in without feeling as though they shouldn't be there.

[Harleyman]

How about single woman with a mannish look, butch haircut. suit jacket and trousers. Maybe there for a gay encounter or not?

[RootsBooster]

How about single woman with a mannish look, butch haircut. suit jacket and trousers. Maybe there for a gay encounter or not?

 

According to the OP, no, not allowed either.

[GLASGOWOODS]

According to the OP, no, not allowed either.

 

What about Siamese twins, but one is a convicted paedophile.

[Cyclone]

What about Siamese twins, but one is a convicted paedophile.

 

Entire group outings of paedophiles are allowed (convicted or otherwise). Just so long as they are in a group and not alone.

[Bonzo77]

Entire group outings of paedophiles are allowed (convicted or otherwise). Just so long as they are in a group and not alone.

 

So now we've got to look out for packs of them?! Would that make them easier to spot, or would they blend in better as a group? Not forgetting that they come in both sexes!

 

I saw a documentary once, there was a paedophile in Sheffield disguised as a school! They'll try anything to get there hands on our kids!

[RutlandFlyer]

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.

 

That's only true if they're at capacity, which they are very unlikely to be

 

Do you think that Runaround or Monkey Business should be required to admit any adult wanting to go there with any connection to any child present?

 

You're not comparing apples with apples here. Runaround and Monkey Business are children's soft play centres. Unless you've hired one for a private party (which you can do, by the way. It's ace), you'd have no reason to be there as an adult unless you were accompanying children. That really isn't the case for an attraction that includes, falconry, farm shops and attractive grounds.

 

At the end of the day, it's all just so much pointless, hysterical figleafery. The public perception of child abusers might be that they're lone, peculiar men but in reality children are far more likely to be abused by family or family friends. The most prolific paedophiles don't act alone and are often assisted by women - just look at Ian Watkins, Vanessa George or Hindley & Brady, for crying out loud. Foolish restrictions like this only serve to create a false sense of security and make it easier for the majority of abusers to carry on abusing.

[RootsBooster]

So now we've got to look out for packs of them?! Would that make them easier to spot, or would they blend in better as a group? Not forgetting that they come in both sexes!

 

I think Cyclone was just making the same point as me, that it's a useless and stupid rule.

[JFKvsNixon]

I think Cyclone was just making the same point as me, that it's a useless and stupid rule.

 

Very true. It looks like a rule to make people feel safer, as opposed to actually make them any safer.