Predators* Stay Out!

Readers — Sometimes I feel compelled to document a fear that will either die a natural death from its unwieldiness, or become so pervasive no one will remember a time before we all believed it. zyikztffry
In this case,
from England, the fear is that any adult who chooses to be in proximity to children, no matter what the circumstances, is too dangerous to permit:

A bird enthusiast made a 25-mile trip to see a falconry display at a family leisure park only to be told that single adults are banned – for fear of paedophiles.

Married man Matthew Richards, 54, a father of three grown-up children, was staggered by the rule at award-winning Puxton Park, a family-orientated leisure attraction near Weston-super-Mare.

Mr Richards, who also has three grandchildren, had previously visited the park with his family to admire the birds of prey.

But when he returned on Thursday hoping to watch another falconry display he was told he couldn’t be admitted as a single man, on child protection grounds.

The man goes on to say he felt “almost” discriminated against. Almost?

Here’s the problem: Once we start giving credibility to wildly exaggerated fears, they become “legitimized.” So do our wildly exaggerated responses.  Case in point: Two weeks ago I was coming home from San Diego with an unopened jar of peanut butter. The TSA agent stopped me and said I was carrying a liquid. I turned the jar upside down and said, “If it’s liquid, why isn’t it sloshing?” He laughed but said he had to confiscate it anyway, because “the machine saw it.”

In other words, complete and utter nonsense becomes accepted for “safety’s sake.” That’s why we need to notice and fight the creeping zero tolerance for interactions between adults and children. And maybe even between grandparents and birds.

*All Adults without Children in Tow

Thought I'd grab a child while I was out.

Thought I’d grab me a child while I was out.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

56 Responses to Predators* Stay Out!

  1. BL November 10, 2014 at 8:01 am #

    Well, there’s one class of adult I’d keep away from children. Officious adults. But don’t worry, they’re all had “background checks”.

    This past weekend I saw just how easy it is for human beings to behave decently. I went to a house concert for the first time. I’d heard of house concerts before but was under the impression that attendance was by invitation only – i.e. you had to know the people hosting the concert.

    But I saw notice of one on a mailing list open to all, and so I went.

    There were about two dozen people there and probably 6-8 were first-timers by show of hands. No IDs were checked, everybody was friendly and non-suspicious. In someone’s private home, no less.

    Most of us were adults but there were 3-4 teens and a baby. If there were any child predators there (unlikely) they would have had no chance to do anything untoward anyway. I suppose someone could have brought a weapon and taken the contents of our wallets. No weapons checks, in fact nobody blinked when I pulled out a pocket knife to cut the shrink-wrap off the CD I bought from the musicians.

    So two dozen people, mostly strangers to each other, none of them officious, including a few young ‘uns, can still meet for a night of music without suspicion. There’s still hope.

  2. Wendy Constantinoff November 10, 2014 at 8:13 am #

    it seems Puxton park has issued a statement

  3. Puzzled November 10, 2014 at 8:34 am #

    Their statement is completely unhelpful. They highly value child safety – but present no reason to believe that any danger is posed by adults. They say “the park only has things fun for children” but then say that, actually, there are things adults would like. (They also don’t mention the rash of kidnappings and molestation I suppose must be happening during those special bird days.) Then they talk about schools restricting entrance – first, they shouldn’t, and second, I don’t think all that many people are trying to go to schools to take pictures of birds…just a guess.

    I also enjoyed “armed with cameras.”

    The problem with the peanut butter confiscation, by the way, is not that peanut butter is not a liquid, but that liquids shouldn’t be confiscated.

  4. Suzanne Lucas November 10, 2014 at 8:35 am #

    My sister-in-law, who lives in Turkey, got her peanut butter confiscated by the TSA at JFK. Since you can’t get American style peanut butter in Turkey, (unless you make friends with people who live on the US Military base) she was really, really sad.

    I will say that, once, as we were going through airport security in Switzerland, their security found my 9 year old had packed a large bottle of lotion in her carry on. He looked her right in the eye and said, “Don’t do this again.” And then handed it back to her.

    Because he was smart enough to know that a 9 year old girl with lotion is not likely to be planning to bring the plane down.

    I should have checked her carry on bag, but she never uses lotion. Who knows why she thought it would be good to have on this particular flight.

  5. Archibald Baal November 10, 2014 at 8:36 am #

    Just read that. I think the fact that there are people whose position can be described with a straight face as “Child Protection Expert” speaks volumes.

  6. bill roes November 10, 2014 at 8:59 am #

    The real reason such places have that kind of policy is not for child safety as such, but fear of litigation. The real fear is not paedophiles but a non-custodial divorced parent walking out with their own child. Then the news cameras come.

  7. Heather November 10, 2014 at 9:12 am #

    Bill roes: But their policy won’t stop that eventuality. Arrive with child, leave with child, all perfectly acceptable.

    Unless you mean that parent A takes child to show, and parent B goes to same show and takes the child home.

    It might be the most common type of abduction, but honestly, there is no policy on earth that can stop that if someone is determined.


  8. MichaelF November 10, 2014 at 9:17 am #

    “child safety” is on the same level of fear as “security theater”.

    Both ambiguous enough to cover many things, but specific enough to really mean nothing.

    I agree with Bill Roes though, this is just another example of CYOA when dealing with litigation. Probably told to do this by their own lawyers.

  9. delurking November 10, 2014 at 9:32 am #

    Excellent, a TSA thread.

    I once travelled with my only toiletry item being a 2 oz travel-sized can of shaving cream. They confiscated it because it was not in a clear plastic bag.

  10. marie November 10, 2014 at 10:12 am #

    Children are told that if they are victims of abuse, they should “tell a grownup.” A teacher, a family friend, a pastor, the school counselor, anyone. Because most abuse happens within the family circle, we should hope that kids would tell someone outside the family and yet rules like these no-single-adults-allowed limit the chance that children will meet someone who could possibly help them.

    As for the TSA…we could safely eliminate that agency. Airlines and airports have more incentive to stop mischief aboard planes than TSA agents do.

  11. caiti November 10, 2014 at 10:14 am #

    Armed with camera, lol. They must be worried more about photographers stealing the childrens’ souls than pedophilia.

    As a photographer who is constantly looking for new locations and subjects to improve my craft, I totally empathize with this man. Birds are an especially interesting and difficult subject. I wonder how much money the park loses by not allowing photographers and unaccompanied adults entry. Photogs may be fewer in number than kids but tend to have plenty of expendable income. If this place really is as great as the reviews say, photographers are a demographic the park should be wooing, not banning!

    I am going to write to them to educate them on how ridiculous their policy from a free range standpoint, as well as from a business perspective. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

  12. Elin November 10, 2014 at 10:22 am #

    If you want airport personnel to look at you with a blank stare you can ask them if tomatoes are liquid and if so if cherry tomatoes are small enough to be brought in a plastic bag or if I should eat them then and there before I moved past security. The confused man answered that he did not believe they were a liquid if they did not come from a can so he said I could keep them as they were in a plastic box. He then asked my why I would bring tomatoes on a flight and I answered “To eat them”. At this point he just waved me through.

  13. bob magee November 10, 2014 at 10:39 am #

    Seems that laundry detergent, in shape of pods, presents a danger to children.

    I am setting up a surveillance camera at my local grocery store so I can “capture” any parents unconcerned enough about their child’s safety that they would make that deadly and uncaring purchase.

    Plus, I am contacting my Congressman to DEMAND better regulation of washing machines and dish washers.

    We must have proof these deadly “weapons” are properly locked up and off limits to children.

  14. Jennifer November 10, 2014 at 10:52 am #

    Oh, Bob Magee…. PLEASE don’t do that! It’s hard enough to get my son to do his laundry as it is! 😉

  15. Jill November 10, 2014 at 10:56 am #

    I wonder if they’re barring women without kids from entering their park, or just men?
    As for the TSA, I was allowed to bring a jar of Zingerman’s jam home in my carry-on luggage after a trip to Ann Arbor. It was a glass jar, too. The TSA guy said glass was usually prohibited, but since I’d said I almost never get to go to Zingerman’s and was so looking forward to enjoying the delicious jam, it was okay this one time. (I acted very pathetic, while leaning heavily on my cane. Even the TSA couldn’t deny a cripple her jam.)

  16. Montreal Dad November 10, 2014 at 10:59 am #

    How’s this even legal?!

  17. J.T. Wenting November 10, 2014 at 11:03 am #

    “I once travelled with my only toiletry item being a 2 oz travel-sized can of shaving cream. They confiscated it because it was not in a clear plastic bag.”

    Few months ago I traveled and had some nose spray in my bag I’d forgotten was there.
    Security gal took it out, put it in a plastic bag (yes…) and put it back in my bag.

    Given up wondering why it’d not be safe outside a clear plastic bag, but inside a clear plastic bag it’s ok 🙂

  18. Jill November 10, 2014 at 11:04 am #

    Bob beat me to it.His comment made me laugh so hard it hurt a little.
    Laundry pods are the threat du jour to our innocent children, our PRECIOUS innocent children. The article I read referred to unsupervised children breaking into the laundry room, like the laundry room is Fort Knox or something.
    Whatever is in those pods must be powerful stuff, as one taste will either knock you out or nearly kill you. I expect teenagers will be biting into laundry pods now, to see if they’ll get high.

  19. J.T. Wenting November 10, 2014 at 11:05 am #

    “How’s this even legal?!”

    Because it no doubt only affects men, and only Caucasian men too.
    The staff are smart enough to not enforce it on women or “people of colour” (as the term goes in the UK) because they know they’ll get clobbered by lawsuits if they do.
    But a white male trying to start a discrimination lawsuit will get nowhere. No court will ever hear the case, let alone have him win.

  20. Stacy November 10, 2014 at 11:14 am #

    The scariest part is all the people who support the policy because of “the world we live in today.” According to the website, single adults can only attend a much more expensive “falconry experience.” They don’t lose money because they encourage photographers to attend more expensive programs.

    On a brighter note, this weekend I dropped off my girls at church to practice for a Christmas dance recital. At the same time, our church was hosting a coat bank. It was wonderful seeing all the families — and single men! — picking out coats and other warm winter gear while the girls danced to Christmas music. The only change in routine was that the girls were instructed not to leave their coats out in the coat bank area. I don’t think any parents stayed and hovered.

  21. Warren November 10, 2014 at 11:36 am #

    This is only going to get worse. People have got to start fighting back. This is pure discrimination, and as such needs to be addressed by the courts.

    If this park wouldn’t let in a black person based on some crap about blacks being more likely to commit a crime, they would be sued ten ways from friday. This is no different.

  22. anonymous mom November 10, 2014 at 11:42 am #

    Basically, the rationale here seems to be, the media has a lot of headlines about pedophiles, so we think this is necessary. The problem isn’t that there’s been any actual harm done to children at these sorts of places by unaccompanied adults, but that the media is talking about pedophiles, so they better take action. And now, of course, there’s another headline about pedophiles, thanks to this decision. It is a crazy self-perpetuating system. Fear of pedophiles at this point is about on par with fear of vampires and witches and werewolves.

  23. Stacy November 10, 2014 at 11:54 am #

    Shortly after the liquid rules started, we watched a family with two young children have all their toothpaste and children’s shampoo thrown away, because they were such a danger to passengers. Unless they are in separate small containers in the magic plastic bag, of course. But the rules about gel-like foods are the best. Peanut butter must be spread thin in a sandwich form. Whether cheese without bread is okay depends on the consistency. Cranberry sauce is prohibited but pies are okay. It’s funny to think that twenty years ago I flew with someone who brought a spear in carry-on luggage into the United States, but now a gel-filled baby teething ring is prohibited.

  24. Andrea November 10, 2014 at 12:09 pm #

    I sent my 5 year old son into a men’s locker/changing room at our local sports complex to use the bathroom. If I can do that, I’m pretty sure England can handle a few single dudes looking at birds.

  25. Jill November 10, 2014 at 12:16 pm #

    I went back and read the original story, and it says ALL single adults are banned, both men and women. Because of pedophiles being so much in the news lately.
    Their stupidity boggles the mind.

  26. Andrea November 10, 2014 at 12:18 pm #

    “But a white male trying to start a discrimination lawsuit will get nowhere. No court will ever hear the case, let alone have him win.”

    That’s actually not true. The trick, however, is collecting the evidence to show that white men are being singled out (actual evidence, not feelings). Once that evidence is collected and presented, the case would be heard.

    The problem is that it’s unlikely an issue of race so much as gender. I would expect that single black, Asian, and Hispanic men would be treated them same, on the “single man” theory, so I doubt the race-based claim would fly, for a white guy or a black guy. (As an aside, black people can’t and don’t just sue any time something not nice happens to them, despite what people seem to think).

  27. fred schueler November 10, 2014 at 12:22 pm #

    Mr Richards was denied the presumption of innocence – is England no longer a Common Law country?

  28. Maggie in VA November 10, 2014 at 12:35 pm #

    I agree with Bill Roes that fear of liability is driving these restrictions, although I doubt how much it’s specifically fear of non-custodial parent abductions that’s at their heart. I suspect it’s almost a generic anxiety about potential lawsuits that is causing this and is the basis for a huge amount of the nonsense we read about here.

  29. EricS November 10, 2014 at 12:56 pm #

    “Once we start giving credibility to wildly exaggerated fears, they become “legitimized.””

    “That’s why we need to notice and fight the creeping zero tolerance for interactions between adults and children.”

    TRUTH and TRUTH!

    People only shoot themselves in the foot when they give into fear and social pressures. Don’t fight for your children’s “safety”. They will be just fine.

    Fight for their future. Because at this rate, they’ll have a very poor one growing up in a world with this fearful and non-sensical mentality.

  30. Beth November 10, 2014 at 12:57 pm #

    I’m really, really tired of the non-custodial parent being an excuse for everything. I understand it’s an issue. What I don’t understand is why it’s EVERYONE’s issue. It should be handled within the family; but everywhere else, out in the world where adults can go as they please? No. We should not be preventing adults to attend events or go places because a family that might or might no attend that event or go to that place has challenges.

    Yeahyeahyeah I know, it takes a village. But geez. When my kid can’t leave school without a laborious sign-out and pickup process, I feel like resigning from the village.

  31. EricS November 10, 2014 at 1:00 pm #

    @Maggie: I believe it’s both. Fear of litigation causes people to implement these dumb rules, using “danger to kids” as an excuse. Then people start believing that is the real reason, and it spreads to the point that that is the real reason, and is generally accepted as truth.

    People have to remember, these days, fewer and fewer people think for themselves anymore. They rely on media and “experts” to tell them what they should believe.

  32. hineata November 10, 2014 at 1:02 pm #

    The rules of admission to the park talk about children needing to be supervised at all times. No mention is made of adults without children, and on the membership page adults can pay for a membership. So their money is welcome, but not their actual physical presence. Insanity…

    As an adult who has yet to grow up in many ways – I loved having girls as it gave me an excuse to buy a Sylvanian doll house 🙂 – I hate that soon I might have to borrow other people’s kids to enjoy places like this park. And when visiting the UK next year I won’t have access to any kids, unless I resort to kidnapping, which would rather defeat the’child safety’ policies of this type of establishment.

  33. Sara November 10, 2014 at 1:19 pm #

    Maybe someone should start a business renting kids out to single people. Seams like a win-win, kids get a fun day at the park and the bird enthusiast gets to see the birds.

  34. JJ November 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm #

    Is there a reason why children would be more vulnerable to pedophiles at a falconry than a grocery store, movie theater, stadium, or the local Target? If this crazy policy is meant to protect children from a legitimate threat (that is, the threat of mixing with “single persons”) then shouldn’t it follow that solo adults are banned from those other places as well?

  35. Jenna K. November 10, 2014 at 1:54 pm #

    Don’t even get me started on the hogwash that is the TSA and their claim to protecting our safety. And how people let them do it because they feel “safer”. I really don’t feel safer when I’m being frisked because I had a Carmex in my pocket.

    And I really can’t stand this mentality that any male adult by himself poses a threat to children. My husband is an adult male who is really great with kids and a good role model for boys on how a man should be but by himself he’d be singled out as a predator just for being male and adult. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  36. SOA November 10, 2014 at 2:07 pm #

    I think this needs to be tried in Supreme Court and decided once and for all can adults be barred from public tax funded parks as long as they are not breaking any laws.

    It does not seem fair or right that we are required to pay for parks with our taxes and yet cannot enter them????

    That is my big issue with taxes. I don’t want to pay any taxes for something that does not benefit me in some way. So I happily pay for parks because I like parks and can use them. Prohibit me from using them then why the hell should I have to pay for them?

  37. Nadine November 10, 2014 at 2:13 pm #

    Yes Hineata, I saw that too. But it is mentioned at the price page if you scroll down far enough. The rules that go all over the place (wear long sleeves, being under supervision of an adult untill 17, recomed wellies, got to wear socks) on different pages on the site it sounds like a barrel of fun with the lid glued shut..

  38. SOA November 10, 2014 at 2:15 pm #

    sorry did not realize this is more like an amusement park. But either way they do try to bar adults from public parks too.

  39. J.T. Wenting November 10, 2014 at 2:33 pm #

    “That’s actually not true. The trick, however, is collecting the evidence to show that white men are being singled out (actual evidence, not feelings). Once that evidence is collected and presented, the case would be heard.”

    that’s the legal theory, the legal practice is quite different.
    White men can NOT be discriminated against in practice, or rather they’re never going to be believed no matter how much evidence they come up with, no matter how pressing it is.

    It’s no different from rape cases, if a woman complains she’s been raped she’s taken at face value, her statement taken as all the evidence needed to convict.
    If a man complains he’s been raped, he’s laughed out of court (or rather the police station where he tried to make his report), no matter how solid the case he brings.

  40. JJ November 10, 2014 at 4:11 pm #

    ” if a woman complains she’s been raped she’s taken at face value, her statement taken as all the evidence needed to convict.”

    Are you serious?

  41. Donna November 10, 2014 at 4:15 pm #

    Nowhere in the rules for admission does it even say that adults won’t be admitted without children.

    Falconry seems like a really odd thing to have at a park supposedly targeted solely to kids 0-7. Sure, little kids would think the birds are pretty for about 5 minutes, but it would be the unusual 0-7 year old who had any great interest in or understanding of falconry.

  42. CLamb November 11, 2014 at 12:20 am #

    Looking at Puxton Park’s Rules of Admission webpage I had to laugh at two seemingly incompatible policies.

    “If using a camera to record your time with us, please respect the privacy of other members of the public.”

    “CCTV cameras are in operation and all images are recorded.”

  43. Jenny Islander November 11, 2014 at 1:41 am #

    @J.T. Wenting: No.

    Women who “complain” (what?!) about having been raped are by and large treated like breathing meat by the police system, then described repeatedly in terms that imply that they deserved it in court, and if the court is not closed the entire Internet gets in on the “fun.”

    Hence the high percentage of sexual assaults against women that never go reported at all. It takes incredible courage to volunteer to go through Hell twice.

    So go study, please, before you talk about rape again.

  44. Jenny Islander November 11, 2014 at 2:01 am #

    Re detergent pods: Well, of course; they’re brightly colored, they smell nice, they fit neatly into a child’s hand, and they are interestingly squishy. They are going to get into little mouths and eyes.

    So my question is, where’s Mr. Yuk? You know, the little smiley making the world’s most exaggerated “Blech!” expression?

    Mr. Yuk used to be everywhere. You could see him on bottles of Windex and on permanent markers, on paint cans and boxes of detergent powder–anything not for human consumption that might attract a child. We were taught in Kindergarten that Mr. Yuk was there to warn us not to touch things that would make us horribly sick. So where did he go?

  45. Dave B November 11, 2014 at 3:03 am #

    Re detergent

    Don’t they commonly use a bittering agent to prevent kids from swallowing/tasting detergent and cleaning supplies?
    Something like bitrex or similar?

    I can’t imagine a child that would like bitter stuff, even if it’s colorfull and squishy.

  46. Beth November 11, 2014 at 8:45 am #

    Why can’t we just put the detergent pods into a high or locked cupboard?

  47. Emily November 11, 2014 at 9:06 am #

    @Jenny Islander–My childhood was a few years after “Mr. Yuck,” but I think it’s a good idea nonetheless. I mean, the official “poison” symbol with the skull and crossbones is all well and good, but Mr. Yuck bridges a gap between things that are officially poisonous, like antifreeze, and things that aren’t fatal, but will still make a person ill, like Tide Pods. I have a feeling that Mr. Yuck has been replaced with “Put everything remotely harmful up high/in a locked cabinet, so it can only be accessed by tall, background-checked adults.” Maybe some adult somewhere was worried about kids taking “Mr. Yuck” as a personal challenge, and trying to see what happened if they drank something with his face on it, sort of like the “challenge” of Warheads candy. Either way, I don’t agree with it–eliminating Mr. Yuck in favour of hyper-childproofing doesn’t teach children to avoid harmful things on their own. I mean, sure, they’ll learn on their own when they’re older (hopefully), but it means that parents of under-fives have to scramble to find high shelves or lockable cabinets for everything, and that must make life pretty inconvenient.

  48. CrazyCatLady November 11, 2014 at 10:13 am #

    JT Wenting, yes men do make accusations of rape and they are taken seriously. The college where my husband went to grad school had a rash of men doing drunken break ins into dorm rooms. Women AND men were raped or in some cases attempted. The perps were caught and charged.

    I also seem to recall a case local to where I am now that had a woman rape a man. And he was taken seriously. And….the only convicted pedophile that I personally know…is a woman.

  49. lollipoplover November 11, 2014 at 10:16 am #

    @Jenny Islander-Mr. Yuk!!!
    My kids learned about Mr. Yuk in preschool and we got the poison control magnet (well done training- never had to use it!) but that was years ago when educating children about poisons and chemicals not to eat (like pods!) was in fashion. Now it’s snow plow parenting and requiring constant supervision and keeping everything out of their path. Children are naturally curious so the recent rash of pod poisonings doesn’t surprise me.

    The only thing questionable I ever had to call the pediatrician for was when my son ate a real robin’s egg that he found on the ground because he thought it was a pastel peanut M&M. He had the embryo coming out of his mouth as he said “bad candy” and I was so worried he would have salmonella or e. coli but he was fine. Gross, but not dangerous.

  50. Emily Guy Birken November 11, 2014 at 12:14 pm #


    I, too, remember Mr. Yuk. There were Mr. Yuk stickers on all of the items under our kitchen sink.

    I read recently that the campaign actually backfired. I can’t find the article where I read that, but the wiki page about Mr. Yuk says the same thing. Apparently some kids were attracted to the bright green stickers, which could be understandable for the littlest kids who are most likely to put anything and everything in their mouths. (By the time there were Mr. Yuk stickers in my childhood, I was old enough not to be tasting detergents.)

  51. Jenny Islander November 11, 2014 at 1:08 pm #

    @lollipoplover: BRB, ewwwwing forever.

  52. Amazed November 11, 2014 at 2:25 pm #

    This is jaw-dropping. When we were growing up out in the country, our next door neighbor (1/4 mile away) was an old (probably only in his 60’s, but ancient to a 7 year old) bachelor farmer. He loved kids, loved to have them around, loved to hear their laughter, and was quick to patch up a knee or hurt feelings. He kept a box of Hershey bars in the fridge and never gave a cross word if one or two of them came up missing. He fixed our bikes, let us build forts in the hay mow, and taught us to make a tennis ball rocket out of soup cans and lighter fluid. All he asked in return was our help at haying time stacking the hay wagon and loading the barn. And even then, he didn’t have to ask, we did it because he was our neighbor. Other than that, we had the run of the place. Don’t know why he never got married or had kids of his own, but he was a fine old guy. God Bless Heber Hulett. The world could use a few more like him.

    PS: It was the married man who lived a couple more doors down who we knew to stay away from. Who had that “creepy uncle” vibe.

  53. Mark Roulo November 11, 2014 at 3:03 pm #

    Hineata: “…And when visiting the UK next year I won’t have access to any kids.”

    I could lend you one. And I’m not even sure if I’m kidding or not. My son has been to England a number of times and we have (very) extended family in Derby. My wife and I are pretty easy going (he flew from Heathrow to Athens on his own last month) … I might be able to loan you a 14-year-old for a few weeks next year … 🙂

  54. lollipoplover November 11, 2014 at 3:43 pm #

    The Puxton Park Facebook page is blowing up with comments.
    This one is my favorite:
    “Hey, you can’t have this bear as your symbol. He’s a single male. He might be a pedophile.”
    (In reference to the Pedo bear that is the park’s mascot!)

  55. tim_lebsack November 12, 2014 at 1:51 pm #

    Main Street Garden Park in downtown Dallas has a section of kid’s playground equipment with nearby benches. A sign warns that if you do not have a child playing you may not sit on these benches.

  56. Paula November 15, 2014 at 4:54 pm #

    The special days they have cost £90 that is about the cost for 5.6 families to go. We are getting more people living single as I do and yet more and more places are treating singles like dirt.