You've obviously not seen the relevant thread - http://www.zoochat.com/22/snowleopards-2014-road-trip-373143/ - which is an excellent read if you have a spare hour or so. On the subject of the thread: a fantastic example of ignorant and short-sighted people totally missing the point of very simple, sensible legislation, and looking very foolish as a consequence.
That's insane! How would it be possible to see everything? You'd have to run around looking at stuff!
Check out the (excellent) thread. They were mostly tiny zoos; SL certainly appeared to see a very great deal!
Recalls McCartyist USA, where everybody was automatically suspicious and Taliban Afghanistan, where single women are not allowed to go to some public places. I wonder if women in Somerset are allowed to drive cars, or they might easily kidnap an innocent child? Or can men wear short trousers, which, some might say, are showing themselves indecent to minors?
Parrotsandrew and Bongorob. There is no law. You can take any photos of anyone in a public space. It is reasonable to say that a theme park or zoo is a private space and in that situation the owners can take any photo and use it how they wish. Visitors can take any photo but not publish it (there might be some issues about what publish might mean). There is no right for any other visitor to see images taken by another unless they consider a crime has been committed, in which case the Police would be entitled to view the image. This would relate to 'inappropriate images eg. Taken through an open toilet window etc. actually this is a very tricky area and when it comes to it we have untrained staff, maybe on minimum wage, expected to make immediate decisions on issues that could be debated for hours by lawyers.
Well,there is a very famous precedent, not much more than half an hour away from London Zoo:Coram's Fields | a haven for play
Of course, that place is not advertising adult memberships and events on the one hand and barring single adults on the other
the whole thing is ridiculous and if a zoo i went to tried to do something like this i would start calling lawyers until i found one to take the descrimination case. and that's exactly what it is. i am single. i don't intend to marry anytime soon. i am also childless, both by choice and because of medical issues that have resulted in being incapable of having them. to tell me i can't visit a zoo due to things i cant control just doesnt sit well with me and i wont just sit by and let it happen.
If you read through the first page of the thread you will see that I include all driving times (rather considerable amounts!) and that I actually planned to visit 60 zoos in 20 days but due to having extra time on my hands I ticked off 65 in 20 days. I have been on many road trips over the years and in the past I was with my family and we'd do one major zoo each day. Alone, with no wife and kids to accompany me, I managed to easily tour numerous very small zoos that in some cases could be seen in 45 minutes or less. I took a photo of every single sign in every establishment, multiple photos of every single exhibit and I wrote up extensive reviews of all 65 places and only felt rushed twice ever on the entire trip. It can all be done with the help of detailed plans; feel free to check out any of my road trip threads for more information.
The sad thing is that most child abuse takes place with members of the family or close friends. Next most common is with people in authority, priests, teachers, scout leaders etc. Most child molesters try to place themselves in a position of trust with children. I would think the most likely scenario would be Uncle Fred taking little Joey to this establishment for a treat, then getting up to something in the toilet or behind a bush. But of course Uncle Fred is welcomed with open arms so long as he brings his own child! This all seems to be a case of the moral panic which seems to grip so much of our lives these days.
Unless the law as changed in the last 5 years then if you are challenged by the owner of the land or the person representing the owner to show your photographs (images) to them you are entitled to refuse even if they accuse you of unlawful acts then they can ask you to wait for the police to attend if you refuse they can still call the police to attend and they then can use CCTV evidence to try and prove a case against you but if you wait until the police attend you can still refuse to show the police your photographs (images) at this point the police could detain you until they can get a warrant but this can only be obtained if the land owner or person representing the land owner can prove any unlawful act.
In the management's press release, it stated single adults were welcome to sign up for their falconry encounters. Are these people escorted to the venue for these & then seen off the premises immediately afterwards by security guards? I doubt it, so it seems they are prepared to take a risk with those who are paying more & forget about their discrimination policy when it suits them!
What nonsense! It's not as though they'd have access to the kids anyway, or are little kids allowed in unaccompanied!
A clear case of harrassment I think. I would certainly make a formal complaint to the park management if I was treated like that for having a camera. Recently in my local paper there was a huge fuss over a man seen outside a school with a camera. The police confirmed that he was doing nothing illegal but that they would like to speak to him. Why? By their own admission no laws had been broken. Maybe if they put more effort into actually doing their jobs, there would be less criminals around. There are lots of reasons why this man may have had a camera, just passing by, testing new equipment, someone interested in architecture, it was an old school. But the press found him guilty of 'child abuse' without any evidence.
The problem isn't the police it's the judges not giving the full term for a crime and the goverment's for not making the sentences a lot longer so people would have a deterrent
(Sorry to go off topic, but I promise to stop in a sec) See that's what baffles me a bit, 'cos I spend hours and hours even at the smallest of zoos. I guess I would want to watch the animal behaviour though, rather than just dashing round taking enclosure pics. I don't get the enjoyment of just ticking them off a list, but horses for courses eh?
I emailed the park and they have not replied, I now intend sending a letter asking why they will refuse access if I turn up alone, and exactly what are they accusing me of. It is a very strange policy that they have. Anyone has the right to refuse entry to their property, but it is not the way to attract visitors if you tell them they can't come in as soon as they arrive, for no other reason thay they are alone. So a single man/woman is a threat to children, but two men/women are not? Where is their evidence.
They don't have the right to refuse entry if their reason is discriminatory (obviously they could lie about the reason...)
I'd like to see what reason they come up with that wouldn't be descriminatory. Unless the zoo is packed with wall-to-wall people, even citing over-crowded and fire department regulations, the ones that dictate how many people are allowed within an establishment, but that usually only applies to building interiors like restaurants, wouldn't even work.
A few years ago I was going round the UK visiting as many animal collections as I could for a book I was writing on the zoos of Britain (which was never quite finished, sadly, although I do hope to return to it one day). When I turned up at Pettitts Animal Adventure Park in Norfolk, which has a small animal collection, I was told by the woman at the gate that I couldn't go in as the place was popular with small children and I was a single male. I protested, and demanded to see the manager. I was indignant that I was being turned away simply because of my sex and the fact that I was there on my own. I explained to the manager who I was, that I was there to look round the animal collection, that I had no unnatural proclivities towards children, my reason for being there was purely zoological, and I presented proof of identity (including my ABWAK membership card which proved my bona fides), and only then was I allowed to go in. But it really is disgusting when single people are discriminated against for no other reason than they are without a partner or a family.
