PLEASE NOTE: In order to avoid unwanted searches picking up this article I have deliberately altered the main word in the post.
I read a rather good post by Yorkshire Pudding entitled Snapshots. What caught my mind though was the first few paragraphs of the post in red.
It reminded me that watching a news programme a few days I heard that someone visiting a theme park to see the falconry display was refused admission because he was not accompanied and the policy was that adults must be accompanied for fear of p*philia. Being me I assumed that there was some other more rational reason for the refusal. However something else yesterday made me wonder so I looked it up. The Western Gazette has an article which sets out the story very clearly. It seems that it really is true (even allowing for a healthy scepticism of the press).
As I am unlikely to visit a theme park on my own it is something I could probably have ignored but for its lack of logic and unfair assumptions. My brother and I have visited falconry displays partly because we like the birds and partly because it's a good photo opportunity to catch the birds in flight. I'm not a p*phile (but then I would say that anyway) and I'm darn sure CJ isn't either. So far as I can see all that rule achieves is that p*philes have to travel with someone else who may or may not be an 'accomplice'. More importantly to me, however, is that I strongly resent the assumption now being made that every single male is a p*phile and the burden of proof is on him to show that he is not.
I read a rather good post by Yorkshire Pudding entitled Snapshots. What caught my mind though was the first few paragraphs of the post in red.
It reminded me that watching a news programme a few days I heard that someone visiting a theme park to see the falconry display was refused admission because he was not accompanied and the policy was that adults must be accompanied for fear of p*philia. Being me I assumed that there was some other more rational reason for the refusal. However something else yesterday made me wonder so I looked it up. The Western Gazette has an article which sets out the story very clearly. It seems that it really is true (even allowing for a healthy scepticism of the press).
As I am unlikely to visit a theme park on my own it is something I could probably have ignored but for its lack of logic and unfair assumptions. My brother and I have visited falconry displays partly because we like the birds and partly because it's a good photo opportunity to catch the birds in flight. I'm not a p*phile (but then I would say that anyway) and I'm darn sure CJ isn't either. So far as I can see all that rule achieves is that p*philes have to travel with someone else who may or may not be an 'accomplice'. More importantly to me, however, is that I strongly resent the assumption now being made that every single male is a p*phile and the burden of proof is on him to show that he is not.
