To think this policy is very sad

[ILikeMyChickenFried]

Yesterday my son went to the Legoland discovery centre in Manchester. He went in with his Granddad whilst my husband popped into a shop aiming to join them later (we're annual pass holders)
Anyway, when DH got to Legoland he wasn't allowed in as a lone adult. They've a policy which bans lone adults from attending even of they're meeting up with family inside. No one was free to escort him through to his DF and DS so he had to spend half an hour (FIL isn't great at picking up!) Calling his DF to get them to.come back to the entrance so they could all go in together.
This was obviously a huge nuisance for him but it got me thinking how tragic it is than we can't trust lone adults within a facility aimed at children. Obviously it's for safeguarding and is probably a good thing but it's so sad that it's even needed.

Fairly common accords the board I think, I live no where near lego land and know several attractions that have this same policy.

I understand your point, but they don't have to 'cover' themselves, they choose to and imo one of the byproducts of this contributing to misinformation about the risk of sexual abuse. I think a responsible commercial company has a responsibility to think about the messages they send out, not just cover their own arse. When people believe that the main risk is from strangers, their children are sadly at greater risk.

Cameleon, I like sitting in parks watching kids play too. I would have no prob doing it here in the UK. Maybe because I'm a woman, I don't know.

I hate this policy and I don't quite know why. It feels so unnecessary: As smellyjo says, family members are the most likely abusers and they will obviously be allowed in with their kids; plus parents will be in there with their kids anyway. I think that's the worst thing, knowing that a policy like this is in place might make people over relaxed, 'oh don't worry dear, let x off to get the ice cream by themselves, only decent, family men are allowed in here.'

Wasn't there something about this in the press when it opened? Also there was an incident of an older couple trying to go to a farm park for the day but they weren't allowed in. It's a bit odd.

Gullivers have the same policy.

Smellyjo should these places also not bother with DBS checks for staff because children are more likely to be abused within their family? Nonsense. Commercial organisations simply can't afford to take the risk of anything happening on their premises.

That's different imo, as checks for staff are a private hr issue which do not send out an inaccurate message. That's just responsible practice in work with children. This policy is kneejerk arse covering in an irresponsible fashion due to the message it sends.

Well it was discussed upthread that a couple of 6 year olds were attacked at Legoland in Windsor so obviously it does happen.

My sneaking suspicion is that it’s a money making ploy.

Your DP has family inside and they could come out and meet him and prove he was not alone ( albeit at a huge inconvenience to everyone).

One lone adult isn’t able to buy a ticket for entry - they would need to buy multiple tickets for friends/family!

same thing happened to my dh meeting us at a local theme park.

The reason DBS checks are required for those in contact with children in their work is that paedophiles have been known to go into professions that give them access to children. Does it not follow that someone might also target children in other ways where they can be found in large numbers? The fact that children have been attacked by strangers, however rare it might be, shows there's a risk and most parents appreciate safeguarding efforts.

One lone adult isn’t able to buy a ticket for entry - they would need to buy multiple tickets for friends/family!

But why on earth would a lone adult want to go to a big soft play centre with no kids?

I thought the Legoland policy started in America, and it started because some "geeky" adults were perceived as taking up space/making queues longer for kids etc.? I could be wrong, but that was what I heard.

"You say he wasn't a threat to children but you are then putting the onus of deciding who is and isn't a threat on the staff,"

He was no more of a threat than the other adults who are still allowed in there.

"I am surprised he found enough to enjoy himself week after week."

I suspect you don't have much experience of severe learning disability. My son will enjoy the same things over and over again because the familiarity is comforting and let's face it how many things are there to do that people with a severe learning disability enjoy and are welcome at. You get moaned about by someone pretty much everywhere you go.

Sleepyblue you haven't understood my point. If they let one lone adult (or in this case, accompanied by another adult) in, they have to let others in or could be accused of discrimination and prosecuted as such. Another person could have the same mental age but appear less disabled to staff and could be turned away bases on the policy. They could claim discrimination based upon the fact this man is allowed entry and they weren't. That's why it has to be a blanket ban. It's not about who is and isn't a threat to children. It's about the perceived threat of a lone adult and therefore their policy not to admit any.

My comment about him not finding much to keep himself amused is because, like many play centres, much of what's there is designed for children, by which I mean only child-sized people are permitted to use the play areas. I wasn't being ignorant.

They could have a policy that gives exceptions and the rules surrounding it. Although in this case isn't actually about reasonable adjustment that is how reasonable adjustments work. For example as an adult my son will be allowed to have someone stay with him on hospital wards overnight although as a general rule that isn't allowed.
They are not obliged to make exceptions but they could choose to and they chose not to and as a result I judge them for this.

There are other things there other than the soft play. It could well be a few models that he likes to look at.

Again, back to my previous point where you are then putting the onus on the staff to decide who is suitable based upon whatever evidence they are provided with. They would have to ensure the criteria were absolutely watertight to avoid legal action for discrimination. It's not in their interest to do that.

This type of policy makes the assumption that all adults on their own are potentially dangerous to children. I too find it sad and feel it is part of the current hysteria.

Well other places manage that. One local soft play has a rule of no adults on the frame for safety reasons but they still make exceptions where the child has a disability I am not saying that he should be allowed on the soft play but it does show that other places do make exceptions to general rules. They choose not to. I don't blame individual staff but I do judge the organisation as a whole.

It makes the assumption that lone adults entering an indoor playground 'designed for 3-10 year olds' might be a threat. Honestly, why would a NT lone adult want to go into this place?

I get your point sleepyblue but the play equipment at the Discovery Centre really is designed for small bodies. It's not like the soft play places in a big warehouse space where the frames are large.

It sounds like this place is a soft play, so it’s absolutely right that lone adults, learning difficulties or not, aren’t allowed in.

Whenever I’ve been to a soft play it’s felt like a safe space where children are allowed to run free and adults can sit down and have a coffee, if the man with learning difficulties was allowed in his larger and heavier body could accidentally hurt a child while playing, if he was in the Lego pit or on a slide and the equipment probably isn’t designed to be used by adults.

There could easily be a restriction that he is not allowed in the soft play section. As I said before I don't think people understand severe learning disability.

Using the term "safe space" implies that the excluded are a threat, we should not be creating a aociety where children are brought up to regard others as a potential danger. Yes we need to educate to ensure children are safe but equally anxiety and fear over potential dangers is not desirable. Common sense needs to prevail

What I mean by safe space is I don’t have to hold my child’s hand while we’re there, she can be free to move around the play area alone, however if there is an adult with learning disabilities there they may not be aware of how much bigger and heavier they are and could hurt a child while playing.

If an adult is on the equipment helping a disabled child they will be aware of the other children around them and will be being careful, if an adult is on the equipment playing themselves then they won’t be being so careful and that’s when accidents can happen.

And quite frankly we do need to make children aware that some adults are a potential danger, and 99% of the time those adults are male. If I saw a lone adult male in a soft play I’d complain because what possible reason could they have for wanting to be there?