Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

I'm very disappointed by Merlin. Read this article.

iancam33iancam33 Member Posts: 407
edited July 2013 in Everything else LEGO
This is such an utter disappointment. TLG just went down a notch.
http://www.freerangekids.com/legoland-scared-of-63-yr-old-man/
«134

Comments

  • TXLegoguyTXLegoguy USMember Posts: 125
    This happened to me also. We had an new Legoland discovery open a couple of years ago; my girlfriend and I wanted to check it out. We waited a little over a hour in line for it to open. We did not see any signs anywhere about this, we were turned away because of no kids. All we got was a sorry and that's it. I think later on they started the adults only night once in a while but did not let me know.
  • graphitegraphite USMember Posts: 3,246
    Aren't Legoland parks and Discovery centers operated by a independent company? I was able to go to the Carlsbad,CA Legoland alone without any problem.
    andhe
  • samiam391samiam391 A Log Cabin in KY, United StatesMember Posts: 4,283
    Hm, that is a shame. Don't let it ruin your love of the entire company though as this is just a small piece in the entire puzzle (even if orders were passed down through a few levels).

    Although I must say, I'm even more disappointed to see the article call the UCS Millennium Falcon 10179, a "Lego contraption"...
    andheGothamConstructionCojasor
  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002
    ^Saw that as well. I got a little chuckle out of it. Apparently the Falcon isn't as iconic as we all think it is.

    If only it were chrome...
  • zaxter2001zaxter2001 Member Posts: 35
    Yeah, I had plans on our vacation to go to the one in Kansas City, but found out beforehand that our group of mid 20 year olds wouldn't be able to get in since none of us have children.

    I do want to iterate the fact though that this rule applies to the "Discovery Centers" not Legolands in general since I believe the Discovery Centers are run by an outside company
  • iancam33iancam33 Member Posts: 407
    I had to laugh at the "contraption" too.
  • margotmargot Member Posts: 2,310


    I do want to iterate the fact though that this rule applies to the "Discovery Centers" not Legolands in general since I believe the Discovery Centers are run by an outside company

    Merlin Entertainments operates Legoland and Lego Discovery Centers.

    Legoland parks and Discovery Centres
    LEGOLAND - A brand Lego-themed theme parks that operate across the globe.
    Denmark: Billund
    Germany: Deutschland
    Japan: Legoland Japan Nagoya Due to open 2015
    South Korea: Legoland Korea Chuncheon Due to open 2015
    Dubai: Legoland Dubai, On hold
    Malaysia: Malaysia
    United Kingdom: Windsor
    United States of America: California (and LEGOLAND Waterpark), Florida (and LEGOLAND Waterpark)
    LEGOLAND Discovery Centre - Indoor Legoland parks.
    Canada: Toronto (opened 2013)
    Germany: Berlin, Oberhausen Opened 14th March 2013
    Japan: Tokyo (opened June 2012)
    United Kingdom: Manchester (opened 2010)
    United States of America: Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Kansas City, Westchester, New York Opening 2013

  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,401
    @iancam33, do you have children? I have 2 very young daughters. If you don't have kids then you don't understand. I suspect everone. I know it is not fair, but thats life. The moment you let your guard down that's when something happens. I was molested when I was 5. Not something I like to talk about, but I felt I had to say it to back up how I feel. Normal adults feel it is strange that a 41 year old man like myself collects Lego. A 65 year old man by himself at a Discovery Center sets off alarms even if they shouldn't be warranted.
    Thanos75skeet318GothamConstructionComargottedwardjasoraimlesspursuitsLegobutterfly
  • iancam33iancam33 Member Posts: 407
    ^FYI Germany = Deutschland.
  • canon03canon03 USAMember Posts: 325
    I thought about visiting the Kansas City discovery center too and never thought adults would be turned away if they didn't have kids. However, it's there in the fine print:

    Adults must be accompanied by a child to visit the LEGOLAND Discovery Center.
  • iancam33iancam33 Member Posts: 407
    @pitfall69. No, I don't have kids but I have a 9yo niece. Yes, I do worry about her at times and am protective of her when she is in my care but just the same I am protective of my 31yo wife. There is no difference just because of age. No offense to you but it is not warranted just because he is 65 or 25 or 105. I understand the apprehension but just because a person(and I stress person) does not have children doesn't qualify them as a predator otherwise everyone is a predator just for being an adult. I would be willing to offer up everything that I own that a higher number of predators are those who have children than those who don't. Just a side note he was not alone when he went to the discovery center. By any means don't take this as a personal attack what-so-ever. You have your view and I respect it. Also, how easy would it be for a true predator to arrive at one of those places with a child, say of a friend, and be allowed to enter. Don't judge a book by it's cover.
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Member Posts: 4,401
    edited July 2013
    So, what is the kid/adult acceptable ratio? Can both parents enter with only one kid? What if you have one sub 18 kid and one over 18 kid?

    By the way, did anyone catch the comment below? Too funny.

    CrazyCatLady, on July 9th, 2013 at 9:49 pm Said:
    This guy has probably spent more on Legos than most parents ever would for their kids. That Millenium Falcon set costs $134.00 on Amazon. I would NEVER get something like that for my young kids, because the parts would be lost before it was completed. (This is not something that gets put together in a day.) Now, maybe for an 18 year old, I might, but then he/she would be too old to get in. (Can kids get in by themselves? Or must they have an adult?)
    MatthewLostInTranslation
  • trickydicky0880trickydicky0880 Member Posts: 134
    I'm an adult and me and my adult bro got in just fine a couple months ago.
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,401
    ^Tell them your Brickset username next time ;)
    thenostrickydicky0880
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,401
    I'm not going to debate. This is just how I feel.
    cheshirecat
  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002

    So, what is the kid/adult acceptable ratio? Can both parents enter with only one kid? What if you have one sub 18 kid and one over 18 kid?

    By the way, did anyone catch the comment below? Too funny.

    CrazyCatLady, on July 9th, 2013 at 9:49 pm Said:
    This guy has probably spent more on Legos than most parents ever would for their kids. That Millenium Falcon set costs $134.00 on Amazon. I would NEVER get something like that for my young kids, because the parts would be lost before it was completed. (This is not something that gets put together in a day.) Now, maybe for an 18 year old, I might, but then he/she would be too old to get in. (Can kids get in by themselves? Or must they have an adult?)

    She's going to be pretty disappointed when her kids get that thing put together.

    Although, she'll probably just say they lost all the parts...
    binaryeye
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,097
    I think it's to eliminate the problem of roaming packs of teenagers. Besides 95% of it won't be interesting to an adult. It's a family oriented park and I understand their reasoning.
  • hoyatableshoyatables Northern Virginia, USAMember Posts: 866
    I completely understand and agree with Pitfall. Predators are real and they are very very hard to predict. A college and grad school roommate of mine (from two elite mid-Atlantic universities) turned out to be one. Devastating and scary, particularly as all of our peers are now in the child-raising portion of our lives. He's locked up -- for now.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    I can totally understand the rule. We have exactly the same rule at the local playground. If your an adult without kids you're not welcome, to be frank theres no reason to be there. It makes sense that LDCs are the same. It's not necessarily about reducing risk either but the perception. It also gives the manager a nice way to eject an odd looking man on his own. As it happens we had to get someone like that to leave the playground last week. Perhaps he was just sitting enjoying the sunshine, not taking that risk.
  • richoricho Member Posts: 3,827
    edited July 2013
    I personally don't like the rule at all. I have a daughter who naturally I am very protective over, but I wouldn't want men banned from theme parks, what next, local parks?, shopping centres?, sporting events? It's not 1984. And let's not forget there are unpleasant women out there, so the rule should be equal. If done in Europe it would almost certainly be open to a legal challenge on the basis of sexism.
  • oldtodd33oldtodd33 Denver 4800 miles to BillundMember Posts: 2,452
    I understand the rule and agree with it. By the way, I did a little checking around and according to one site, only 1/3 of children who are molested are by their own parents. Also in the news, a man in Colorado Springs was convicted the other day of having 4000 child porn images on his computer. His sentence? He got 93 months in jail. If we would really punish these people, there wouldn't be any left to harm our children.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409

    I can totally understand the rule. We have exactly the same rule at the local playground. If your an adult without kids you're not welcome, to be frank theres no reason to be there. It makes sense that LDCs are the same. It's not necessarily about reducing risk either but the perception. It also gives the manager a nice way to eject an odd looking man on his own. As it happens we had to get someone like that to leave the playground last week. Perhaps he was just sitting enjoying the sunshine, not taking that risk.

    That is insane... We have a local playground in our neighbourhood... many times adults will come down and sit at the tables next to the playground and just hang out. Perfectly normal and reasonable, we say hi and they say hi back.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    oldtodd33 said:

    I understand the rule and agree with it. By the way, I did a little checking around and according to one site, only 1/3 of children who are molested are by their own parents. Also in the news, a man in Colorado Springs was convicted the other day of having 4000 child porn images on his computer. His sentence? He got 93 months in jail. If we would really punish these people, there wouldn't be any left to harm our children.

    But what is lost in that information is that such an event is very rare. We all hear about them because of our 24/7 news media, but the truth is, out of the tens of millions of children in this country, very few are kidnapped/harmed/etc.

    When I was growing up, I could go outside without an adult, ride my bike anywhere, go to the park for hours, all without a parent. Today, if I even dream of letting my child go out in the front yard for 5 seconds by himself, some people freak and call me a bad parent.

    It is nuts I tell you...
    FurrysaurusCrownieYellowcastle
  • oldtodd33oldtodd33 Denver 4800 miles to BillundMember Posts: 2,452
    While I will agree with you that it's all nuts. I would never let my kids out front when they were all younger. It's also nuts that these people get away with what they do without proper punishment.
  • richoricho Member Posts: 3,827

    As it happens we had to get someone like that to leave the playground last week. Perhaps he was just sitting enjoying the sunshine, not taking that risk.

    On what legal basis did you get the ejection done? If it's a public place, then you almost certainly broke the law.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    @richo council park, their sign that very clearly states it's only for adults if they are accompanied by children. To say we ejected him would be over the top, we pointed out the rule (because he looked very odd and none of us knew him in a fairly tight nit village) much like you would about no dogs, no smoking etc. He humpfed but then left. It's a kids playground in a rural area with plenty of other green spaces with benches to sit.

    Whilst everyone is right that the likelihood of stranger danger being a problem is exceedingly low, the impact of it if it did happen is so severe that it must be considered a priority. The soft play barns have exactly the same rules should they not? If they should what makes LDCs different?

    Whilst most abuse is carried out by non-strangers they wouldn't go to a theme park to do it, so from the managements point of view, this is the risk. From a business perspective it makes sense. Imagine the brand damage if something happened and was splashed all over the media, not to mention the litigation that may follow.

    My best friend at uni was abused by her father, ive seen the enormous damage that is done and lasts for decades.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited July 2013
    @SirKevbags I agree but this isn't about smiling at a child in a checkout, I would have no problem with that and indeed encourage the kids to answer if someone speaks to them in that situation. It's perfectly normal for adults to be at tesco. Im afraid its not normal for a lone adult to want to be in a play barn or LDC.

    Whilst rare it does happen. Recent case in Manchester where a child was taken from Debenhams and abused in the toilets for example.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    if parents are properly supervising their children, then short of an armed kidnapping assault or a snatch and grab, the risk is almost nonexistent. As usual, it all comes down to personal responsibility.

    Heavy handed and ridiculous rules such as this are an affront to liberty and do not belong in a free society. yes, it's private property and they have the right to make the rules. But it doesn't make it a good rule.

    And yes, I have two girls and a boy.

    richoSteve_J_OMLegoFanTexasjadeireneSchwallexLegoKipCrownieYellowcastleLostInTranslation
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409

    Im afraid its not normal for a lone adult to want to be in a play barn or LDC.

    Why? When did adults get all stuffy?

    Many people also think Disney Etc. is meant for kids, but you know what? They run commercials on TV showing adults going to Disney World without kids, and that is acceptable and normal.

    Just because you grow up doesn't mean you have to grow old.

    I still have the stuff Tigger that went with me to Disney World when I was 10 years old, he still has a spot on my bed to this day. Too many people think, "oh, that is childish". Nonsense, I am respecting the part of me that once treasured that Tigger and reminding myself that I can be a kid at heart while still being a responsible adult.

    Whilst rare it does happen. Recent case in Manchester where a child was taken from Debenhams and abused in the toilets for example.

    Yes, and 30 years ago you wouldn't have heard about it.

    Now you hear about every one of them, and it makes it seem like it happens all the time.

    Look at the recent 777 crash... The way the media is talking about it non-stop, you'd think these things come out of the sky all the time. It happened two thousand miles away from me, no one I know, no one that I know that knows anyone else, was anywhere near the thing. However I know all about it, thanks to the media.

    While this is fine, it shouldn't have any effect on my getting onto an airplane, yet I know more than one person who is terrified to fly. It is, in fact, by far the safest way to travel anywhere, by a long shot. Yet many people feel far safer going by car, which isn't nearly as safe.

    Emotions are funny things. Double that when it comes to the children.
    ColoradoBricksTXLegoguyCrownie
  • LostInTranslationLostInTranslation UKMember Posts: 5,540
    @cheshirecat: I guess I'm abnormal then.

    I went to Tokyo LDC by myself and they let me in without problem. Of course I had little interest in most stuff, but I don't think it's abnormal for an adult to want to see the epic miniland models.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,374
    edited July 2013
    Pitfall69 said:

    @iancam33, do you have children? I have 2 very young daughters. If you don't have kids then you don't understand.

    I have a child, and I still think this rule is utterly ridiculous, for more reasons than I have time to list....
    Furrysaurus
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    @LFT nope I dont think it's odd that you keep tigger and yes I see Disney and LDCs differently. I see Legoland and LDCs differently.

    I can only speak from my experience or Manchester LDC, the feel of that was very much more like a play barn. It was clearly designed to feel safe, and whilst I wouldn't leave my kids alone (on a family trip i'ld rather be with them than sat drinking coffee on my own) many parents clearly did feel safe enough to let their kids wander around. However, the LDC clearly intended it to have that safe feeling. Legoland, and more so Disney are not the same. You'd be absolutely nuts to let your young kids wonder off.

    I assume they have play barns in the US, but if not, its a massive soft play adventure climbing frame with everything wrapped in thick foam. The kids go off to play, the parents sit at tables for coffee, food, work. Theres only one way in and one way out, you can't get out without getting buzzed out by a member of staff. I've yet to be to one where unaccompanied adults are allowed in. That makes complete sense to me given the nature of the business and how it operates (It would be impossible to keep an eye on your children all the time). If the rule is OK for them, I see no reason why its not ok for LDCs.

    Also, we all know its a rare event, but risk management 101 is the risk of it happening x the impact if it happens. So it doesn't even matter that much if its a rare event. Stopping adults from going to LDCs is a perfectly reasonable response to reduce that risk. Having fairly recently spoken to a child protection officer, the idea that these issues were as common before as they are today is becoming less true - the ease of access due to the internet etc is unquestionably changing that, according to them.

    @LostInTranslation we're all a little abnormal as we're adults obsessed with a kids toy. I might like to see the miniland models on my own but I'd equally understand if they said, afraid not we want to promote/encourage a safe environment for our core audience/market.

  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332

    I have a child, and I still think this rule is utterly ridiculous, for more reasons than I have time to list....

    Would you go in to a soft play barn for a coffee on your own? Do you think it utterly ridiculous for them to stop you if they did?
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    I don't mean to just keep posting, but now that I'm not on my mobile I've just read the article - its just a crap piece of writing. Comparing it to teachers in school is just crazy. Not least because of the large number of cases of teachers abusing children in the past and the reason why teachers now face a variety of checks before they can work with children to combat that. Also add in the anonymity of a visitor to LDC and the exact opposite of a teacher in a school.

    “It is a child attraction so we do have this in place to protect the families and children that visit.”

    Seems utterly reasonable to me.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,374

    I have a child, and I still think this rule is utterly ridiculous, for more reasons than I have time to list....

    Would you go in to a soft play barn for a coffee on your own?
    Probably not, but equating an attraction like an LDC with a "soft play barn" is highly dubious IMHO, so the question is academic.

    LostInTranslation
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited July 2013
    ^ I disagree, comparing a play barn with Legoland would be ridiculous, but from my experience of Manchester the LDC is much much closer to a play barn. In fact it even has one inside, complete with tables around for parents to sit but its not seperate from the rest of the LDC, there are no gates etc. There's no way as a parent you can keep your eyes on your children if they play inside, thats by design of LDC.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,207
    I thought it was fairly clear on the website that adults couldn't go in. I know I was going to visit one last year in Atlanta, and spotted it quite quick. Then realised you could enter the attached shop without going to the LDC, so all was good anyway.
    cheshirecat
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited July 2013
    @CCC - indeed, i just checked the Manchester LDC website, it says very clearly if you try to buy a ticket - "We are a family attraction. Adults must be accompanied by a child."
    Paperballpark
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,207
    I just checked the Atlanta site again - they now do adults only evening tickets.

    Bit of a wait, but at least they are letting in adults that want this kind of thing .... Next Event: 15th August, 7pm - 9pm.
  • SirKevbagsSirKevbags Fairy Land Member Posts: 4,030
    I wasn't thinking in particular about the attraction but rather a wider view. The checkout example may sound extreme but it has happened time and time again. Never a problem if I'm with a woman or if I have my nephew in attendance. Maybe if I shaved more I would be ok? ;-)

    In relation to the LDC. I can see why many of us would want to attend given our interests. However in wider society it is likely to be considered a little strange so therefore they make the decision to blanket ban. This in my opinion is a sad commentary on society.

    My opinion that things are no worse today than our childhood is very much a man in the street view. If they are worse from a statistical sense then are more incidents taking place or quite rightly are more being reported?

    LostInTranslation
  • PaperballparkPaperballpark UK / KLMember Posts: 3,529
    I agree with CheshireCat and CCC - LDCs are clearly labeled as child attractions, and adults can only go if a kid goes with them.

    The article is ridiculous - 'By that logic, should we allow teachers into school if they don’t bring their offspring with them?' This is a stupid point as teachers clearly work there and will have had their background checked before starting. A fairer point would be to say 'should we allow parents into school if they don’t bring their offspring with them?' and you'd have to say, why would parents go into the school on their own, if their kids weren't there or with them?

    andhe
  • beegeedeebeegeedee Galway, IrelandMember Posts: 380
    It's pretty harsh but at the same time I also see their point. Imagine if they did let someone in that went on to do something?? Really they're going to extremes to protect themselves from legal issues and for a fan it's a disappointment but the rest of society is the same because they feel it has become necessary.

    However, denying a single adult on their own I could understand but if there are are 2 people together like husband/wife or father and older daughter as in this case it's a bit different and is harsh.
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    At the end of the day it's a private business so if it wants to turn away money then that's it's problem.

    I do however take issue with the general attitude in public spaces though and in fact, the attitude in general. Of course, I'm in the UK so maybe things are different elsewhere.

    When I was a kid I used to cycle and walk for miles by myself through woods, along cycle paths and so forth, my friends did too, everyone in my school did but no one got abused or kidnapped. If the Jimmy Savile scandal has taught us anything it's certainly not that things were safer then, they were just kept quieter than they are now but they still happened, arguably even on a greater scale. Reporting on such issues seems to have bred paranoia on the issue such that as it's in the news more because detection rates and understanding of the problem are higher and more culprits are being caught there's an assumption that things are less safe when frankly the opposite is true. Recent crime stats show that last year was the lowest crime year in the UK including violent crime for a number of decades and that's even with increased levels of reporting of things like abuse:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/25/uk-crime-falls-official-figures

    1995 was quoted as the peak of crime in the UK in the last 30 years and that's when I was 13 and out and about the most by myself.

    I'm 31 but I'm not going to lie that I don't still enjoy a sit on the swings in the sun - I don't push kids out the way but if there's a row of swings free then why not? I pay for them with my taxes after all and I'm already subsidising your kids schooling in doing so so why can't I at least enjoy some of the benefits provided by the things I help pay for? To assume I'm a paedophile and treat me with the suspicion as such as quite sick. Given that most children are abused by family members (1/3 by parents alone) then statistically there's more chance of me being right in reporting the parents at the park to child services "just in case" than there is them reporting me to the police or kicking me out the park.

    Think how you'd feel if someone did that, if child services came round to check on you and invasively probed how you treat your kids and how you look after them with the implication that you're a bad parent and a danger to them and consider that that's exactly how the millions of innocent adults you insult feel when this sort of thing happens. Your child is more likely to be abused if you leave them with a family member whilst you go out shopping than by some random Joe in the park. Consider that context and think about whether you'd treat those family members that are statistically more likely to abuse the kids the same way you would these random lone adults just enjoying the sunshine.

    This is why it's so silly - because certainly in the UK at least there's genuinely less reason to be afraid now than there ever has been and if you are going to insist on being afraid then you're targeting the least likely groups with your protection measures whilst likely turning a blind eye to those most likely to be guilty.
    SchwallexYellowcastle
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149

    A fairer point would be to say 'should we allow parents into school if they don’t bring their offspring with them?' and you'd have to say, why would parents go into the school on their own, if their kids weren't there or with them?

    12 years back when I was just starting out work I worked in IT support in schools, as a lone single male this meant entering schools to do my job. There were no CRB checks then though they were just coming in as I left that role having done it for 4 years.

    If you don't want your kids to have working equipment to learn then that's fine. Should janitors, plumbers, electricians, IT technicians, photocopy repair men, painters, OFSTED inspectors, couriers, teaching advisors, trainers, health and safety inspectors, fire inspectors, PAT testers, to name just a selection of the sorts of people who go into schools, all only be selected from the pool of parents of pupils at the school? Because I assure you, even now with wider ranging CRB checks not all of these are vetted yet they still enter and spend time in schools. It's essential they do, else I'm afraid that your kids don't get an education.

    There are many reasons for people to enter schools without kids and without background checks. Reasons that are essential to ensuring the kids attending the school actually get to have their education.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited July 2013
    ^^ I didn't want to get into this in a LEGO forum, but can't let some of this lie. From my knowledge of talking to people that know, that statement isn't true. Violent crime and abuse are two very different things that have very different triggers/motivators (the reduction of lead in petrol is possibly a key factor in the reduction of violent crime). The only reason that any child is safer now (from strangers, people in positions of responsibility or family members) is because suspicion and understanding of the problem is higher - leading to criminal record checks, better supervision both of children and employees, training to look for specific issues, strict rules put into place. Routes that abusers used to use have been cut off or at least made much harder. However , the number of potential abusers hasn't decreased, indeed speaking to those that know, if anything they have increased quite significantly due largely to the internet. Do I suspect there will be a rush of abusers to LDCs or play barns, no of course not. And as stated the risk is minimal. However, even with a tiny risk, having the experience of seeing the damage that is done to children every day, if a way to reduce that risk is to stop adults from going to a LDC or even from sitting on the swings in a child's playground, then so be it.

    And whilst you are correct that the risk is much higher regarding both direct family members and extended family and friends than 'stranger danger', that's not the risk faced in LDCs, playgrounds etc. If LDCs see these restrictions as being worthwhile, either to reduce the risk, reduce their liability or, as is probably the case, just to reassure their core market and promote the environment as a safe place for parents and children to relax and have fun, then I'm fine with that. I genuinely find it odd that an adult wouldn't be. Sure, i agree society shouldn't automatically see the worst in people but equally we shouldn't not allow sensible rules just because if we expand those sensible rules to breaking point they make no sense.

    As for your last point about reporting parents, that's also crazy. Whilst they may be more statistically likely to abuse than the rest of the adult population, they may not be more statistically likely than childless adults that hang out in playgrounds or childrens activity centres, or adults that go on kids internet forums, or adults that run sports clubs, or priests.
  • princedravenprincedraven Essex, UKMember Posts: 3,768
    This is a really tricky subject and one that will always have people on both sides of the fence.

    I understand the LDC having the rule, so that if they suspect an Adult (male or female) is up to no good they can bar them, lets be honest any business like this has to protect its image. But I can only assume the rule is meant to be used in extreme cases, which clearly doesnt appear to be the case here.

    I also have no idea what an Adult would want to do at a Discovery Center on their own, even as an AFOL I would never go back to LDC Manchester unless with my kids. Can you imagine a 63yr old man jumping up and down with the little kids trying to get the brick machine to melt the plastic with DrBrick?!?!?!

    I'm not sure any of the arguments of ratios of kids abused by parents vs strangers realy works in this scenario, as you are not just talking about strangers in general, but a tiny subset of strangers that want to spend their free time in a kids playarea.

    Having said that, I dont agree with banning Adults just in case, as that paints everyone with a rather nasty brush.

    But I suppose the obvious fact here is, feelings are divided, some parents clearly would not be happy, so what would you expect LDC to do, in their shoes it is clear they have little choice IMO.
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,401
    edited July 2013

    Pitfall69 said:

    @iancam33, do you have children? I have 2 very young daughters. If you don't have kids then you don't understand.

    I have a child, and I still think this rule is utterly ridiculous, for more reasons than I have time to list....
    You are entitled to your opinion. I feel the way I do because of past experiences and I'm sure many people like me feel the same way. It is human nature.

    There are many "rules" and laws that seem ridiculous, but they are there for a reason.

    If this rule was not in place and a child was molested you would be damned sure there would be a bigger outrage than what I have been reading in this thread.

    There are also Bricksetters that think that some of the rules and regulations within this forum are "utterly ridiculous", but you have your reasons for having them ;)

    cheshirecat
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,401
    @cheshirecat, I'm supposed to be the one who is supposed to do all the postings ;) This is obviously a sensitive subject for me and I'm trying not to get all emotional, so I'm keeping my comments to a minimum.
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149

    Routes that abusers used to use have been cut off or at least made much harder.

    Have they? Consensus seems to be that the internet has made grooming easier.

    However , the number of potential abusers hasn't decreased

    But has it increased? If so where is the evidence for that? It seems likely to be that the proportion of potential abusers has been fairly static through time.

    indeed speaking to those that know, if anything they have increased quite significantly due largely to the internet.

    Who are those that know? Have they published any peer reviewed studies or is this just hearsay?

    Your view (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be that something about the internet has turned people into paedophiles? It seems rather more likely that there has always been a fairly static proportion of offenders in society with the difference being whether they are or aren't able to commit the offence.

    However, even with a tiny risk, having the experience of seeing the damage that is done to children every day, if a way to reduce that risk is to stop adults from going to a LDC or even from sitting on the swings in a child's playground, then so be it.

    This seems shortsighted, children are more likely to be harmed by grandparents, or cars, but we don't say "if we have to ban grandparents and cars, then so be it". If I can't sit quietly on the swings appreciating the warm of the sun then do I get a council tax rebate so I no longer fund them? Would you be willing to pay more so that I don't have to subsidise them given that you wish to dictate their use, or do you expect me to both pay and have to live by your rules despite already massively subsidising your children's schooling and your tax credits as well? I agree with you on the discovery centre as it's private and I don't pay for it if I don't get in. I do pay for the public park though, we all do, so why do some deserve more right to use it than others? If you're afraid of childless individuals using it there's always another option too - that you build your own private park in your garden.

    The world is a dangerous place, there's lots of things in your house that could make your children come to harm whether it's accidentally drinking bleach or medicines they shouldn't have. Banning everything just in case is absurd and "so be it" isn't a valid justification.

    As for your last point about reporting parents, that's also crazy.

    Isn't it? And it's equally as crazy to assume random innocent people are paedophiles "just in case" yet you're advocating exactly this.

    Whilst they may be more statistically likely to abuse than the rest of the adult population, they may not be more statistically likely than childless adults that hang out in playgrounds or childrens activity centres, or adults that go on kids internet forums, or adults that run sports clubs, or priests.

    I find this unlikely in most of the cases you list given the vastly higher proportion of incidences of abuse by parents and family.

    You'll have to excuse my insistence on fact rather than hearsay as there have been enough examples in the past of how wrong hearsay can be and even how much damage it can cause to children - the MMR debacle being the obvious example where many children suffered and died for nothing more than a bit of media hysteria and paranoia based off of a fraudulent study that made invalid use of statistics. What was deemed as common knowledge amongst parents who fell into the paranoia trap was wrong and caused kids a massive amount of harm, even death.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.