Security at Theme Parks and Other Public Places

[rob666]

Good luck to you mate.
When I have had similar but different issues with access at the Beach, the problem was resolved easily and simply with park managers, but...
The sad issue of security staff recruitment and retention means that new staff are not always briefed and trained properly.
I only had issues with new staff in the end..."Please speak to your manager now about this now" usually helped.
If it isn't routine and run of the mill, staff sometimes flounder.

 

[imanautie]

The fact that this is still going on and you're not having issues at any other Merlin Attraction is insane.

Hopefully your meeting today resolves the issue.

It's not just not happening at any other Merlin attraction, but even Blackpool Pleasure Beach have never had issues once they were aware what the device is for.

You'd think that being a regular visitor there would be helpful, but it just feels like they're learning absolutely nothing, and I'm really frustrated for you. As Holland's said above, I sincerely hope you can get it sorted once and for all today.

I had the meeting with the Director Of Operations, he again apologised for the issue and said him and the guest experience manager have been discussing about people with similar needs to my own, so I am really hoping they adjust training for security to handle assistive equipment in general far better, after all it's not just about me.

Good luck to you mate.
When I have had similar but different issues with access at the Beach, the problem was resolved easily and simply with park managers, but...
The sad issue of security staff recruitment and retention means that new staff are not always briefed and trained properly.
I only had issues with new staff in the end..."Please speak to your manager now about this now" usually helped.
If it isn't routine and run of the mill, staff sometimes flounder.

Yesterday bag search were even refusing to radio management when me or my also AAC using freind asked. It took me physically blocking the detector bay for them to radio for someone.


I am really hoping THORPE management are aware I do not make legal threats lightly and they need to be extremely careful if they don't want legal action against themselves.

Team edit to remove names.

 

[Jonathan]

I think you're being quite reasonable in giving Thorpe every chance to sort things out without having to resort to legal action, and I can't blame you for feeling you have no other option at this point.

 

[imanautie]

Forgot to mention a member of management said he read my letter ( merlinaccessibility.com ) so he's aware of my intentions

Team edit to remove names.

 

[delta79]

Maybe they should get a security manager/supervisor from one of the parks that does it right to give them help in getting it right.
Merlin is one big company they should share best practice as much as possible.

Sent from my SM-A217F using Tapatalk

 

[Islander]

Opposing opinion: this is 100%, totally the wrong way to approach the issue and try and get a resolution.

Without commenting on the allegation at all, and how valid it is, how on earth in any way is it a good idea to publicly name and shame both the company as a whole, and specific individuals?? From my viewpoint, it just gives the impression of a whining child who wants their way. Which is a real shame, as if the claims are valid (I'm not commenting either way on that), it really dilutes them, and takes focus away from alleged wrong-doing, and fully towards the nature of the complaint itself.

One thing's for sure: setting up a website which a) contains the company name in the URL, and b) goes to great lengths to name both a number of individuals, and make public internal nomenclature, will certainly 'poke the bear', and get you all the attention but for the wrong reasons, and quite possibly with extremely unfavourable results...

 

[imanautie]

Opposing opinion: this is 100%, totally the wrong way to approach the issue and try and get a resolution.

Without commenting on the allegation at all, and how valid it is, how on earth in any way is it a good idea to publicly name and shame both the company as a whole, and specific individuals?? From my viewpoint, it just gives the impression of a whining child who wants their way. Which is a real shame, as if the claims are valid (I'm not commenting either way on that), it really dilutes them, and takes focus away from alleged wrong-doing, and fully towards the nature of the complaint itself.

One thing's for sure: setting up a website which a) contains the company name in the URL, and b) goes to great lengths to name both a number of individuals, and make public internal nomenclature, will certainly 'poke the bear', and get you all the attention but for the wrong reasons, and quite possibly with extremely unfavourable results...

I tried resolving it privately throughout 2021 with no luck.

 

[RicketyCricket]

Forgot to mention a member of management said he read my letter ( merlinaccessibility.com ) so he's aware of my intentions

Team edit to remove names.

The letter from Thorpe seems fair enough no? Place your device in the box and walk through, any issues show them the letter. Unless I've missed something.

 

[pluk]

Opposing opinion: this is 100%, totally the wrong way to approach the issue and try and get a resolution.

Without commenting on the allegation at all, and how valid it is, how on earth in any way is it a good idea to publicly name and shame both the company as a whole, and specific individuals?? From my viewpoint, it just gives the impression of a whining child who wants their way. Which is a real shame, as if the claims are valid (I'm not commenting either way on that), it really dilutes them, and takes focus away from alleged wrong-doing, and fully towards the nature of the complaint itself.

One thing's for sure: setting up a website which a) contains the company name in the URL, and b) goes to great lengths to name both a number of individuals, and make public internal nomenclature, will certainly 'poke the bear', and get you all the attention but for the wrong reasons, and quite possibly with extremely unfavourable results...

I agree with this wholeheartedly. This is misguided in the extreme.

It's still not clear what you are demanding? Not to take your voice (ie device) from you at all appears to be the crux of it. In the circumstances that appears to be an unreasonable demand. Not searching you and the articles you bring into the park can not be a reasonable adjustment, the point that any legal action would be dependant on.

I don't want to downplay the discomfort that you feel during this procedure, but this surely cannot be something that is satisfied at the expense of the safety of everyone else at the park. The staff should not be made to feel rushed in searching, it should be done comprehensively. You can't put an arbitrary time limit on how long they can take.

Can I ask what happens at airports? How do they deal with it and what differs at Thorpe?

 

[imanautie]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. This is misguided in the extreme.

It's still not clear what you are demanding? Not to take your voice (ie device) from you at all appears to be the crux of it. In the circumstances that appears to be an unreasonable demand. Not searching you and the articles you bring into the park can not be a reasonable adjustment, the point that any legal action would be dependant on.

I don't want to downplay the discomfort that you feel during this procedure, but this surely cannot be something that is satisfied at the expense of the safety of everyone else at the park. The staff should not be made to feel rushed in searching, it should be done comprehensively. You can't put an arbitrary time limit on how long they can take.

Can I ask what happens at airports? How do they deal with it and what differs at Thorpe?

I have all of the security management team, senior guest experience and director of operations say bag search shouldn't take it from me as they can clearly see it's a tablet. So they see it as a reasonable ask.

At airports there is a whole process that involves giving advance notice to minimise time without device.

 

[Islander]

I have all of the security management team, senior guest experience and director of operations say bag search shouldn't take it from me as they can clearly see it's a tablet. So they see it as a reasonable ask.

So it sounds like the majority of management are on your side here, and one or a few security team members are not aware of this and have potentially ballsed-up somehow... so you decide to cry out in the extreme, with defamatory and libellous letters and websites, rather than go to the people in management who are aware of your situation, and in the past have been happy to try and help?

Very logical.

 

[imanautie]

Its been happening several times a month since April 19th. Management are at fault if it's recurring

 

[pluk]

At airports there is a whole process that involves giving advance notice to minimise time without device.

This sounds reasonable. Why not suggest this rather than demanding something which isn't?

 

[imanautie]

This sounds reasonable. Why not suggest this rather than demanding something which isn't?

At an airport the device itself is a risk, at THORPE a tablet is not a risk


EDIT

So it sounds like the majority of management are on your side here, and one or a few security team members are not aware of this and have potentially ballsed-up somehow... so you decide to cry out in the extreme, with defamatory and libellous letters and websites, rather than go to the people in management who are aware of your situation, and in the past have been happy to try and help?

Very logical.

Also putting this out here, not libel if it is true.

 

[tayspru]

I can’t help but agree with Islander on all points.

Are you not at all able to place the AAC device in a tray upon arrival at the metal detector and immediately have it returned as soon as you pass through? Voluntarily placing it there briefly (after explaining its purpose) surely would be preferable as it would remove the need for security to physically take it from you

 

[pluk]

At an airport the device itself is a risk, at THORPE a tablet is not a risk

That's just a silly comment. It absolutely can be a huge risk if it is not what it purports to be (how much damage do you think a laptop sized explosive could do), or is used to conceal or carry other prohibited items. You might know that's not the case, they do not until they have checked.

Search is a condition of entry. Your needs do not negate that condition.

They are just people, doing a thankless task for which they may be held criminally account should it go wrong, aside from whatever they might have to live with on their consciousness.

Your needs are clearly not regular or in line with the needs of the majority. Making an arrangement on an individual basis to deal with those needs is sensible. That would be properly inclusive and a reasonable adjustment. Not searching you and your belongings is not reasonable.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be changes, something in place on the accesability guidance to make this clear and have a proper process, but what you're asking and the way you are going about it is just wrong.

 

[Rick]

What baffles me a little bit is that given how long this has been going on, you'd have thought that you would have become so notorious that every security person in Greater London would have heard about your case and how to respond to your needs.

I mean no disrespect with that, all parks have characters of that ilk that management dread communication from. In a world of pre-booking, you'd have thought there would be an alarm that went off in the security office when you were due to visit.

I am not sure I'd go down the route you have chosen, but understand that your levels of frustration are high. I am also not sure if registering a domain name that almost certainly infringes on their trademark and using their own marketing claptrap back to them is going to help your cause or not, but I hope you get what you want / need.

 

[imanautie]

That's just a silly comment. It absolutely can be a huge risk if it is not what it purports to be (how much damage do you think a laptop sized explosive could do), or is used to conceal or carry other prohibited items. You might know that's not the case, they do not until they have checked.

Search is a condition of entry. Your needs do not negate that condition.

They are just people, doing a thankless task for which they may be held criminally account should it go wrong, aside from whatever they might have to live with on their consciousness.

Your needs are clearly not regular or in line with the needs of the majority. Making an arrangement on an individual basis to deal with those needs is sensible. That would be properly inclusive and a reasonable adjustment. Not searching you and your belongings is not reasonable.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be changes, something in place on the accesability guidance to make this clear and have a proper process, but what you're asking and the way you are going about it is just wrong.

Again as has been said several times , they aren't asking to check the tablet!

 

[pluk]

Again as has been said several times , they aren't asking to check the tablet!

What on earth is this all about then? So they don't want to take your speech equipment from you? Or are you being pedantic about what we are calling the equipment?

 

[imanautie]

What on earth is this all about then? So they don't want to take your speech equipment from you? Or are you being pedantic about what we are calling the equipment?

I'm not answering this again. See previous posts.