Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Disney Trip Planning Forums > Disney Rumors and News
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-16-2013, 04:47 PM   #211
tiggspring
DIS Veteran: When I stop talking you'll know I'm dead!
 
tiggspring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh Pa area
Posts: 1,912

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadddio
Not that I want to resurrect thus train wreck, but you might want to read more of this thread as there was an expert on this issue in the thread who refuted your point.
Looking back on his posts I completely agree on all his points except the repeat rates. Now you have to understand if you get three mental health experts in a room and ask them anything you will get three different answers depending on the research they are aware of, the discipline they come from (psych, social work, med) and there experience. I too have done Hospital, out patient treatment. None of which is important here.

What's important here is keeping kids safe in an environment where parents tend to let their guard down and the corporation is at high risk of lawsuit. This is also a backhanded protection of the client on the offender list. I have told clients I have felt are not offenders but caught in the system. People in situations like the poster above, to avoid at all cost places where you could be accused. No one would believe them if they were accused again. There are people out there that would like to get "justice" and would lie to get it. Is that rare YES. Unheard of no. For their own protection Megan's law clients should never go to a place like WDW. If they are a true offender it like having a drunk tend bar and being surprised they want a drink. If they were wrongly listed it is a place where a new accusation can easily made.

As a Mother I want them out..period. I don't have a predator detector so I can't truly know which offender in the system is ok and who is not. Since MOST get there for a VERY GOOD REASON thumbs up to Disney
__________________
~Bonnie~
MeDHDD 14 DS 12 DD 9Sesi 6 Garfield 5yr Yuki 5yr Yeti 5y


Last edited by tiggspring; 05-16-2013 at 05:09 PM.
tiggspring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 05:28 PM   #212
Tonka's Skipper
DIS Veteran
 
Tonka's Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 4,727

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiggspring View Post
Looking back on his posts I completely agree on all his points except the repeat rates. Now you have to understand if you get three mental health experts in a room and ask them anything you will get three different answers depending on the research they are aware of, the discipline they come from (psych, social work, med) and there experience. I too have done Hospital, out patient treatment. None of which is important here.

What's important here is keeping kids safe in an environment where parents tend to let their guard down and the corporation is at high risk of lawsuit. This is also a backhanded protection of the client on the offender list. I have told clients I have felt are not offenders but caught in the system. People in situations like the poster above, to avoid at all cost places where you could be accused. No one would believe them if they were accused again. There are people out there that would like to get "justice" and would lie to get it. Is that rare YES. Unheard of no. For their own protection Megan's law clients should never go to a place like WDW. If they are a true offender it like having a drunk tend bar and being surprised they want a drink. If they were wrongly listed it is a place where a new accusation can easily made.

As a Mother I want them out..period. I don't have a predator detector so I can't truly know which offender in the system is ok and who is not. Since MOST get there for a VERY GOOD REASON thumbs up to Disney


My opinion and most others since the start......


AKK
Tonka's Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 06-24-2013, 03:39 PM   #213
the who #3
DIS Veteran
 
the who #3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 865

Smile sex offenders

i fully agree with disney on this one.

i know that there are a few people on the list that may be only guilty of a minor crime, but the majority of the list is guilty of a major sexual offense. therefore if feel it necessary to protect our children in any way possible.
the who #3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 02:18 PM   #214
Lewisc

DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,472

Quote:
What's important here is keeping kids safe in an environment where parents tend to let their guard down
Several posters offered a similar opinion. That's the reason why I think this policy is bad. The policy can only be enforced with respect to guests who purchase an annual pass. People on the sex offender list, who pay full price, and who have predatory intent, might want to "get their monies worth". Goggling suggests 9 out 10 people arrested aren't currently on the sex offender list. Disney just fired one employee for downloading child porn and fired a cruise line employee for touching a girl. Any policy which is destined to have almost no benefit but is likely to result in parents thinking WDW is a place where they can let their guard down is bad. The man next to your child could be "Bert the chimney sweep" or "wicked uncle Ernie"

I tried Goggling. I'm not sure how posters in this thread were able to find any facts. I couldn't find any nationwide study from anything close to a credible source. There seems to be absolutely no consistency as to how the states categorize people on the sex offender list. The trend seems to be putting more people on the list, not removing people. We don't put murders, rapists, muggers etc on any list. We should only be concerned with people who might engage in predatory conduct against children. Obviously the information varies between states. I've found articles which suggest less then half of the people on the list fall into that category. One survey suggested 95% of the people on a particular list are on the list for offenses which don't suggest a history of predatory conduct.

One person took years to get off the list. His "crime". Adultery (with an adult). He was on the list for years after adultery was no longer a crime in his state.

Posters in this thread who have experience in this field, but modestly don't consider themselves "experts" have opinions based on facts/experience which very few posters (including myself) in this thread have.
Lewisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 04:35 PM   #215
jimsanfilippo
Mouseketeer
 
jimsanfilippo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 275

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonka's Skipper View Post
Most don't belong?........where did that detail come from. Please give me the link? Even the experts who have been posting on the pages have stated most belong on the list and the number of sex offenders had very minor offenses and should not be on the lists, is a very small number.

I regret your more concerned about the predators and sex offenders and their rights then protecting our kids. Sorry but if your a sex offender, Disneyland or anything Disney or any other family parks or venues is not your land , you lost the right.

The Bottom line here is that the safety of my kids and the worlds kids come first.
I couldn't have said it better myself. We're really supposed to want to allow registered sex offenders into the areas or society with the highest concentration of children because a small fraction (and that's what I believe it is) might be on that list through some misunderstanding or because of a bad plea they made?

Are we really expected to put children at unnecessary risk because someone on that list might not deserve to be on it? I'm sorry, but that is their legal problem not the problem of the parents and children in a Disney park. Children in the parks should be protected to the fullest extent that they can be and a policy like this seems like a no-brainer to that end.

And lastly, the argument that some of these offenses might have occurred many years ago and, therefore, we should forgive and give people a second chance is laughable. Every study shows that sexual crime recidivism rates INCREASE as more time passes and you are farther away from the original crime. No one is knowingly getting their "second chance" with my children near them.
__________________
2014 Animal Kingdom Villas, 2013 Pop Century Resort, 2012 Orbit One Villas/Comfort Suites Maingate East, 2012 (Disneyland) HoJo Plaza Hotel Anaheim, 2012 Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa, 2012 Bay Lake Towers, 2011 (Disneyland) Grand Californian Villas, 2011 Windsor Hills Resort, 2010 (Disneyland) Peacock Suites, 2010 The Palms Hotels & Villas, 2009 Animal Kingdom Villas, 2009 Liki Tiki Village, 2008 Magical Memories Villas, 2006 Coronado Springs/Comfort Suites Maingate East, 2006 Comfort Suites Maingate East, 2005 Wilderness Lodge, 2004 Universal Studios Area Hotel, 2003 Wilderness Lodge, 1997 Wilderness Lodge/Niki Bird, 1991 Small cheap motel, 1990 Small cheap motel, 1981 Orlando Area Campground

Last edited by jimsanfilippo; 06-29-2013 at 05:12 PM.
jimsanfilippo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 04:49 PM   #216
jimsanfilippo
Mouseketeer
 
jimsanfilippo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 275

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewisc View Post
Several posters offered a similar opinion. That's the reason why I think this policy is bad. The policy can only be enforced with respect to guests who purchase an annual pass. People on the sex offender list, who pay full price, and who have predatory intent, might want to "get their monies worth". Goggling suggests 9 out 10 people arrested aren't currently on the sex offender list. Disney just fired one employee for downloading child porn and fired a cruise line employee for touching a girl. Any policy which is destined to have almost no benefit but is likely to result in parents thinking WDW is a place where they can let their guard down is bad. The man next to your child could be "Bert the chimney sweep" or "wicked uncle Ernie"

I tried Goggling. I'm not sure how posters in this thread were able to find any facts. I couldn't find any nationwide study from anything close to a credible source. There seems to be absolutely no consistency as to how the states categorize people on the sex offender list. The trend seems to be putting more people on the list, not removing people. We don't put murders, rapists, muggers etc on any list. We should only be concerned with people who might engage in predatory conduct against children. Obviously the information varies between states. I've found articles which suggest less then half of the people on the list fall into that category. One survey suggested 95% of the people on a particular list are on the list for offenses which don't suggest a history of predatory conduct.

One person took years to get off the list. His "crime". Adultery (with an adult). He was on the list for years after adultery was no longer a crime in his state.

Posters in this thread who have experience in this field, but modestly don't consider themselves "experts" have opinions based on facts/experience which very few posters (including myself) in this thread have.
Any policy which is destined to have almost no benefit is bad? Tell that to the parents whose child is molested in a park by someone who would have been thrown out had the policy been in place.

"One survey suggested 95% of the people on a particular list are on the list for offenses which don't suggest a history of predatory conduct." Seriously, does anyone in the real world believe that? You are obviously cherry-picking your "facts".

And as for the person on the list for adultery: 1) You're really going to make your arguments against the policy using the most extreme examples you can find? 2) As I said before, that is that person's legal problem, not the problem of the parents and children in Disney parks who deserve to be protected from all those legitimately on that list.

If you have a problem with who is on these lists and why then fight our system to make that list better. Don't use it as an excuse to allow sexual predators near children in Disney World.
__________________
2014 Animal Kingdom Villas, 2013 Pop Century Resort, 2012 Orbit One Villas/Comfort Suites Maingate East, 2012 (Disneyland) HoJo Plaza Hotel Anaheim, 2012 Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa, 2012 Bay Lake Towers, 2011 (Disneyland) Grand Californian Villas, 2011 Windsor Hills Resort, 2010 (Disneyland) Peacock Suites, 2010 The Palms Hotels & Villas, 2009 Animal Kingdom Villas, 2009 Liki Tiki Village, 2008 Magical Memories Villas, 2006 Coronado Springs/Comfort Suites Maingate East, 2006 Comfort Suites Maingate East, 2005 Wilderness Lodge, 2004 Universal Studios Area Hotel, 2003 Wilderness Lodge, 1997 Wilderness Lodge/Niki Bird, 1991 Small cheap motel, 1990 Small cheap motel, 1981 Orlando Area Campground

Last edited by jimsanfilippo; 06-30-2013 at 07:32 PM.
jimsanfilippo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 05:09 PM   #217
jimsanfilippo
Mouseketeer
 
jimsanfilippo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 275

Quote:
Originally Posted by shiny1278 View Post
I have been following this thread for a while now; ever since I read the article about sex offenders being turned away.
I have never knowingly been around sex offenders. I have only seen their photos on the database. In fact, only until recently did I even pay attention to the sex offender registry and the laws surrounding it. Mostly because two years ago I was placed on the registry myself.
I was 32 years old, in an AOL chat room for 30 year olds. The chat room is called "Thirties Friends". I was always socializing in chat rooms since 1999 when I first discovered AOL and I was definitely a computer nerd.
While in the chat room a girl advertised herself as wanting to engage in a sexual conversation. So being the computer nerd and horny I messaged her instantaneously. She was very aggressive and requests for photos were made but none were fulfilled. I wasn't about to send out a picture of myself for the world to see, and she wouldn't do it either. We ended up shifting the sexual conversation to something more normal. That is when I found out she was 14 and looking for an older guy. I spoke to her a few more times online, and eventually after two days I never spoke to her again.

A month later I was contacted by a detective in her home state asking me if I spoke to her. I said I did. I answered a few personal questions and that was that.
What had happened was her parents kept a log of everything she does on the computer, and they saved the transcript of our sexual conversation and delivered it to the local police even though the sexual conversation had not happened again since learning her age.

I traveled to the girls home state to turn myself in once I learned that an arrest warrant was issued for me. I was told that these crimes are punished hard, and since I have no proof of my conversations (I don't keep logs) it would be my word against actual proof that I engaged in a sexual conversation with a 14 year old even though it was before I knew her age.
I was left with two options: take it to trial and risk having added charges and at least 1 year in jail, or admit guilt and receive no jail time and just 2 years probation; but have to be placed on the registry.

The reason why one of my options included no jail time was because the detective handling the case against me recommended to the prosecutor that the case be dropped. When the prosecutor refused, he recommended no jail time; to which they agreed. I had also voluntarily been tested by two independent forensic psychologists to ensure that I was "normal" and not someone who is sexually deviant.

When I returned back to Florida; I was told that I was no longer allowed to live in my condo. A condo that I owned outright and had been living there since 2007. Since a law passed in 2005 preventing sex offenders from living within 2500 feet of a school, I was forced to sell my condo and find another place to live. My condo was 2100 feet from a school.
I could not move in with my parents because they lived a block away from a school, my sister lived within 1000 feet of a school, and most of my friends live near a school or a park.
I was told to get a tent and live under the Julia Tuttle Bridge. Luckily, I didn't have to do that as I was able to find suitable housing.

The reason why I am posting this is to illustrate how easy it was to be placed on the registry. I had no criminal history and I lock my car doors in bad areas just like everyone else. I don't rape babies and hide in bushes to molest people. I have never traveled to meet a minor for sex, and I have never attempted to abduct a child, or touch them inappropriately.

I finished my 2 year probation without any problems; not even a traffic ticket.
In terms of recidivism; it annoys me when people say all sex offenders re-offend when I am sitting here as proof that they all don't.

I love Disneyworld, I love the rides, and I love the atmosphere. Disneyworld is not just a place for kids. In fact, they made a commercial probably a decade ago specifically stating it isn't just for kids.
It is troublesome that I could potentially be turned away just because I am on a list. Yet, the drug dealer who sells pot to kids is allowed inside.

*sigh*
"That is when I found out she was 14 and looking for an older guy. I spoke to her a few more times online, and eventually after two days I never spoke to her again." What were you thinking to continue chatting with a 14 year old AFTER you found out she was 14, especially since it started out sexual?

If you indeed were falsely accused or were the victim of an over-reaction that's too bad. But as I stated in other posts, that is your legal problem, not the problem of parents trying to protect their children in theme parks. And for every person on the list like yourself how many are on the list because they have compulsive urges that they sometimes need to act on?
__________________
2014 Animal Kingdom Villas, 2013 Pop Century Resort, 2012 Orbit One Villas/Comfort Suites Maingate East, 2012 (Disneyland) HoJo Plaza Hotel Anaheim, 2012 Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa, 2012 Bay Lake Towers, 2011 (Disneyland) Grand Californian Villas, 2011 Windsor Hills Resort, 2010 (Disneyland) Peacock Suites, 2010 The Palms Hotels & Villas, 2009 Animal Kingdom Villas, 2009 Liki Tiki Village, 2008 Magical Memories Villas, 2006 Coronado Springs/Comfort Suites Maingate East, 2006 Comfort Suites Maingate East, 2005 Wilderness Lodge, 2004 Universal Studios Area Hotel, 2003 Wilderness Lodge, 1997 Wilderness Lodge/Niki Bird, 1991 Small cheap motel, 1990 Small cheap motel, 1981 Orlando Area Campground
jimsanfilippo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 07:17 PM   #218
Tonka's Skipper
DIS Veteran
 
Tonka's Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 4,727

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewisc View Post
Several posters offered a similar opinion. That's the reason why I think this policy is bad. The policy can only be enforced with respect to guests who purchase an annual pass. People on the sex offender list, who pay full price, and who have predatory intent, might want to "get their monies worth". Goggling suggests 9 out 10 people arrested aren't currently on the sex offender list. Disney just fired one employee for downloading child porn and fired a cruise line employee for touching a girl. Any policy which is destined to have almost no benefit but is likely to result in parents thinking WDW is a place where they can let their guard down is bad. The man next to your child could be "Bert the chimney sweep" or "wicked uncle Ernie"

I tried Goggling. I'm not sure how posters in this thread were able to find any facts. I couldn't find any nationwide study from anything close to a credible source. There seems to be absolutely no consistency as to how the states categorize people on the sex offender list. The trend seems to be putting more people on the list, not removing people. We don't put murders, rapists, muggers etc on any list. We should only be concerned with people who might engage in predatory conduct against children. Obviously the information varies between states. I've found articles which suggest less then half of the people on the list fall into that category. One survey suggested 95% of the people on a particular list are on the list for offenses which don't suggest a history of predatory conduct.

One person took years to get off the list. His "crime". Adultery (with an adult). He was on the list for years after adultery was no longer a crime in his state.

Posters in this thread who have experience in this field, but modestly don't consider themselves "experts" have opinions based on facts/experience which very few posters (including myself) in this thread have.
Hi Lewisc,

Most states name their lists *sexual offenders list* and include crimes that are covered as the name suggests, sexual assault, rapist, child molesters, etc. Just because they may not be predators, doesn't mean they would not go after a child given the right circumstances/location. part of this becomes a semantics game as well.

The problem that has become the issue, you can sometimes end up on the list for nothing more the hiring a prostitute or being 17 and having sex with your girl friend of 16.

This is the reform that I was speaking of, the reports I have seen indicate that some states are waking up to the fact the lists sometimes go to far and they are in committees or whatever to change the offenses that go on the list and make it more fair.

This I totally agree with, but the safety of the children come first and foremost. While the Disney policy to keep out sex offenders/predators, would not in any way make any reasonable people or parent think any theme park or public venue is 100% safe, parents do need to under stand wherever they are, they have to watch and protect their kids.

As this Disney policy has shown, it has keep some predators, not just offenders out of the parks, even in limited numbers, I strongly hope it continues!

AKK

Last edited by Tonka's Skipper; 06-29-2013 at 07:32 PM.
Tonka's Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 07:22 PM   #219
Tonka's Skipper
DIS Veteran
 
Tonka's Skipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut in the Good Ole USA
Posts: 4,727

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimsanfilippo View Post
"That is when I found out she was 14 and looking for an older guy. I spoke to her a few more times online, and eventually after two days I never spoke to her again." What were you thinking to continue chatting with a 14 year old AFTER you found out she was 14, especially since it started out sexual?

If you indeed were falsely accused or were the victim of an over-reaction that's too bad. But as I stated in other posts, that is your legal problem, not the problem of parents trying to protect their children in theme parks. And for every person on the list like yourself how many are on the list because they have compulsive urges that they sometimes need to act on?


I totally agree, the stories that have been posted in this thread always seem to be missing facts or as you pointed out..*just what was that guy thinking to keep talking with a 14 year old after a chat that was sexual!.. It just doesn't make sense.

Now that said, I do believe there was some people that are on the list that really sure not be there, and as I also pointed out the is changes happened in various states.

AKK
Tonka's Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 12:40 AM   #220
arthropodtodd
Mouseketeer
 
arthropodtodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: kansas
Posts: 209

Good grief how is this thread still going? Are we trying to beat a dead horse (or maybe just an offender).

Before I make my few comments, i am happy to say I am going back to work assessing sexual offenders risk next week. I took some much needed time off from my last position, which had me working with parole officers which was quickly becoming filled with some friction. Why? Because everyone thinks they know what is best in regards to offenders. Sound familiar? lol

I want to keep things short and simple instead of trying to quote folks. Here are a few updated thoughts on the matter.

1- Not sure where whoever got the 98% re-offend, but it is wrong, very wrong. I would be interested in knowing what statistical proof or what assessment instrument you are using to come to that number and would be curious who was included and not included in that 98%. I am assuming this comes from the Canadian study from 2004, which has been widely shot down for many, many reasons by the likes of Karl Hanson who is "the man" and master in this field. Myself and the company i contract with use, the following assessments, Static-99R, Stable-2007 and Acute-2007. You can Google if you want to learn more. This stuff has been used in courts and have been shown to be reliable time and time again.

2- To the the AOL guy. I have no sympathy for your case. I have heard the story what seems like a million times. It is one thing when someone lies about their age, but when you know their age? You kind of got what was coming to you. I do wish you wish well and I hope you have learned to understand your risks and have developed good interventions. As a former internet junkie (pre-marriage) I too "met" under age girls who were very sexualized and would try to get sexual with me online. I told them the same thing. Call me when you are 18 and out of High School. 16, while legal, is still too young. The human brain doesn't fully mature until around 25. Also, as you know whether right or wrong there will be continued consequences for your behavior beyond jail/probation/parole/registry. This will affect relationships, employments, etc, for a long time. If missing out on Disney is your biggest bummer due to your offense, count yourself lucky. Also, I know you are not one of my past clients, but they know better than to try to minimize their offense or current situation. They know it if their fault and their behavior that got there where they are.

3 - There was a statement about different states doing things differently as far as the registry. This can be frustrating for guys in my field, but I would rather let Iowa or Washington figure what is best for them, rather than the DOJ figure it out for everyone. There are states that have been looking to remove people from the registries, one wanted to remove internet offenders and one state was exploring folks like me to evaluate their risk and recommend their removal. I have not heard any traction on either of these recently.

4- My thoughts on the registries is always mixed. While I am sure they provide Mr. and Mrs Smith with some comfort of knowing who is living down the street, they do nothing to reduce the number of the re-offenses. (Total new offenses is on the decrease except for the area of child pornography.) People like to dispute this and pull out studies and discuss how valuable the registries are or how residency restrictions keep everyone safe, but most of these studies are small in scope and do look at offenders as a whole, just very small subsets like just incentors. I will still contend that many, even many with offenses involving minors, should not be on these lists. This comes from working with these guys and seeing them "get it" in treatment and finally be able to connect some dots in their lives. These lists cry wolf and in many ways prevent us from focusing on the worst as there are so many on the lists. There are real dangers out there and most of them are not even on the lists as they have not been caught. In fact I think the lists sometimes lull lazy parents into a state of comfort thinking they can let their guard down at home (when in fact in my experience, their guard is always down.)

5- In regards to Disney, this is and will forever be a PR move. They need to be able to show they are doing their best to keep your kids and my kid protected at the parks and resorts. They do not want negative headlines and they do not want lawsuits. This is not an in your face PR move, but the kind that once out to the public reassures their customers. However as pointed out, this move is flawed, as it does not catch all, and doesn't factor in the thousands of un-convicted offenders in the park and on staff. I would be curious what Disney does in this regards besides the many cameras and plain clothes security. I do worry about parents who will let their guard down as a result of this policy thinking their kids are safe there. I do worry about the rare anti-social offender who just wants to get in and create problems because they can. But hey it is their company and they can do as they like.

Finally, as a parent and as a professional in the field (still not an expert lol) I would say be less worried about offenders at Disney and be more concerned about those around you. A child is more likely to be offended by someone they know (family, neighbor, family friend) than a stranger. Strangers and predators grab the headlines, but they are not the real risk and do not commit most of these offenses. This from Ohio "A 2006 report for the Ohio Sentencing Commission said 93 percent of molestation victims were well known to their perpetrators, over half the offenders victimized close relatives, and 93 percent of molesters had never been arrested for a previous sex crime." Be less worried about Disney.

Now can we finally put this thread to rest? lol
__________________
Todd

WL 2004 - Wedding and Honeymoon there; WL - 2006; WL - 2009; CR - 2011; WL - 2012; WL Club Level - 2013; WL - 2014 -Summer; POP & AKL 2014

In the pipe:
2015 - fall Location TBA
2016 - fall Location TBA
arthropodtodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2014, 11:53 PM   #221
ATIS1972
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 15

I have enjoyed all of Todd's posts as they have always made sense and have helped me, at least, get a clearer understanding of what the controversy behind the sex offender and predator registries represent and what it means to folks on both sides of the issue.

I also applaud Shiny1278's bravery for coming forth with what's going on in his case and sharing his concerns with us.

Theme park and amusement companies have always maintained some sort of policies designed to ensure the safety of their park guests and to help promote orderly conduct on their parks, and that is a good thing to have anywhere.

I have read through this entire thread so I can get a fair assessment of all sides and I would be one to agree that a policy that screens for potentially dangerous guests who have a criminal background where a victim was involved is a positive step to be taken to help protect their parks and the rest of their guests and to help make the parks and resorts a bit safer, but I'm a believer that merely targeting only one or two classifications of crime and not seeming to be screening for all the other, dangerous or deadly criminals is giving me the impression that Disney is not really trying and they are not following though on what should be the full screening process, that is if they are going to have any screening process in-place at all.

So now I ask why should Disney not have a concern for other, violent and dangerous criminals who make it though the park gates on a daily basis such as rapists, grand theft, drug-related, bank robbery, etc?

And if Disney does have a concern then is there any indication Disney's screening process will be stepped up so as to effectively screen for all dangerous convicts?

I'd say if they were going to implement any kind of screening process that was meant to help ensure the safety of their parks and guests Disney should either go all the way and not stop short at just one or two things.

Your thoughts?
ATIS1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 01:34 AM   #222
Borishack
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 198

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonka's Skipper View Post
Actually that is not totally correct, you have to remember these vessel sail to and from US ports, with mostly US passengers, which gives the US and the USCG/regulations a good deal of control and enforcement.

AKK
The Disney ships are all under Bahamian registry. Any incident that occurs on these ships when they are outside U.S. territorial waters is completely outside the jurisdiction of any U.S. authority. Instead, you are the mercy of Bahamas law and Bahamas law enforcement.

And before anyone tries to debate that, the image below serves as sad proof that what I say is absolutely correct.

Borishack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 09:43 AM   #223
ATIS1972
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 15

That is indeed sad and as Borishack is indicating it can happen to anyone, anywhere on any Disney venue and at anytime.

Borishack, did you have family or perhaps your spouse with you on that cruise? If so I bet their hearts were totally broken at Disney's choice of action and that any entertainment or amusement company whose reputation is known for the making of great memories of good times that last a lifetime would do that, and not be a company that creates nightmares that scar visitors and ruins the vacation plans of them and those who are with them.
ATIS1972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 09:18 PM   #224
Disneylovingdad
Mouseketeer
 
Disneylovingdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 152

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borishack View Post
The Disney ships are all under Bahamian registry. Any incident that occurs on these ships when they are outside U.S. territorial waters is completely outside the jurisdiction of any U.S. authority. Instead, you are the mercy of Bahamas law and Bahamas law enforcement.

And before anyone tries to debate that, the image below serves as sad proof that what I say is absolutely correct.

I'm confused. May I ask what this picture shows? There is no story to it unless it was edited. Just curious. I don't know how that picture backs up what you are saying. I don't doubt you are correct but I don't get the context and connection. I see what appears to be a Bahamian official in the background. Is he a Police Officer, or customs or something?
Disneylovingdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2014, 09:49 PM   #225
Borishack
Mouseketeer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 198

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATIS1972 View Post
That is indeed sad and as Borishack is indicating it can happen to anyone, anywhere on any Disney venue and at anytime.

Borishack, did you have family or perhaps your spouse with you on that cruise? If so I bet their hearts were totally broken at Disney's choice of action and that any entertainment or amusement company whose reputation is known for the making of great memories of good times that last a lifetime would do that, and not be a company that creates nightmares that scar visitors and ruins the vacation plans of them and those who are with them.
Fortunately, we were not on that disastrous voyage.

However, we did sail on the Magic a week later and the it was clear within hours of boarding that even the crew on that ship was feeling the agony you described. Frankly, the situation hung over and heavily colored that voyage; passengers were constantly discussing the missing CM and Disney's response (or to be blunt, what most were characterizing as "non response." ).
Borishack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

You Rated this Thread: