Man’s nightmare day at Thorpe Park
- Thread starter Ollie
- Start date
Yes, the incident still happened, but it's all based on the word of a man who has made himself incredible ( 
) by playing the race card.
So if you can't trust his word due to the fact he's calling the incident a "racist attack", then can you also trust his word that the teen wasn't stealing, or that the teen hadn't said anything or acted in an aggressive manner towards security and that the incident wasn't justified by security?
Don't get me wrong, I think that security are in no way an innocent party here, but I don't think the "victims" are squeaky clean as they want to make out either.
) by playing the race card.So if you can't trust his word due to the fact he's calling the incident a "racist attack", then can you also trust his word that the teen wasn't stealing, or that the teen hadn't said anything or acted in an aggressive manner towards security and that the incident wasn't justified by security?
Don't get me wrong, I think that security are in no way an innocent party here, but I don't think the "victims" are squeaky clean as they want to make out either.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Nothing is going to work on Thorpe clientele other than heavy handedness, lets be honest. That's my main issue here. If heavy handedness was employed, when usually security are all too pathetic, then this must have been fairly serious. If the individuals involved were innocent, then it wouldn't have happened. Behave, or expect consequences, it's really that simple. It's private property.
And the race card thing is just, yeah... If the guy had no argument without the race card being pulled then that just shows what a piece of **** he is, frankly.
And the race card thing is just, yeah... If the guy had no argument without the race card being pulled then that just shows what a piece of **** he is, frankly.
Mark
Strata Poster
Shows what a piece of **** he is...!!!???
Just to clarify, the article says the guy intervened. It did not say, as you put it Joey, start fighting the security. The guy is a flipping care worker dealing with troubled kids etc for heavens sake. It's not like he isnt aware what little gits teens can be and you are talking like he was a random hobo. Christ I didn't realise you could be so spitefully judgemental. I have a lot of time for you but sometimes I'm shocked at the things you come out with. You keep on about the race thing but that is not his fundamental basis of complaint. The way in which the security behaved is.
Phil, point very well made. I see where you are coming from.
Just to clarify, the article says the guy intervened. It did not say, as you put it Joey, start fighting the security. The guy is a flipping care worker dealing with troubled kids etc for heavens sake. It's not like he isnt aware what little gits teens can be and you are talking like he was a random hobo. Christ I didn't realise you could be so spitefully judgemental. I have a lot of time for you but sometimes I'm shocked at the things you come out with. You keep on about the race thing but that is not his fundamental basis of complaint. The way in which the security behaved is.
Phil, point very well made. I see where you are coming from.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
If you have an issue with the way staff behave, you go to the company to complain. If it's really serious, you contact police. You do not let news know about it.
This guy knows full well he did something wrong and got excited in the moment and challenged security, he ended up being taken away by the police and he was angry.
Being a care worker has **** all to do with it. That means nothing. And the fact that he DIDN'T make the race thing the fundamental crux of the argument shows he's being a jerk. If he believed it to be race motivated, that would be his main complaint. Nothing else would matter.
I'm not being judgemental, I am just backing securities decision to take all matters like that seriously and using common sense to through this situation like it were glass.
What exactly did security do wrong? Not tolerate some ****? He refused to comply. His fault, entirely. If he had an issue with security, go make a sodding complaint about it, don't get involved like a Neanderthal.
This guy knows full well he did something wrong and got excited in the moment and challenged security, he ended up being taken away by the police and he was angry.
Being a care worker has **** all to do with it. That means nothing. And the fact that he DIDN'T make the race thing the fundamental crux of the argument shows he's being a jerk. If he believed it to be race motivated, that would be his main complaint. Nothing else would matter.
I'm not being judgemental, I am just backing securities decision to take all matters like that seriously and using common sense to through this situation like it were glass.
What exactly did security do wrong? Not tolerate some ****? He refused to comply. His fault, entirely. If he had an issue with security, go make a sodding complaint about it, don't get involved like a Neanderthal.
Mark
Strata Poster
But that is what I am getting at Joey. You have no reason nor evidence to proove that he was getting 'involved like a neanderthal'. It says nowhere in that article that he got violent - if he had have been I wouldn't be having this conversation. It says interevened. That does not automatically mean he rolled up his sleeves and got stuck in with fisticuffs. For all you know he may very well have been trying to talk calmly to them. I've seen it happen with security staff before. In those instances, the security went steaming in without stopping and listening and if anyone did try to talk to them, even calmly, they would go for them the same way they would a person who had done something wrong. Ah the joys of working in a pub for 3 years...
And to clarify, you are backing the decision to react to
* a possible theft of a ball (which had been dealt with and a warning given)
* the kid possibly saying something
* for asking why they were being punished
with 6 security staff to pin the 13yr old kid down???? Im sorry but that is overkill - even if they knew full well he had taken it and the kid had said something.
Either way, even from the report it is all a bit circumstancial and the reaction made by the security was way over the top and it isn't just in this case that it has been noted. As I have mentioned previously....
http://www.alangandy.com/thorpe-park-security/ which includes viewpoints from ex-security staff, park staff and police officers. It does make for interesting reading. Heck, if even if Thorpes own staff including this
think the security are overly heavy handed than I am not willing to accept that they are just doing what is necessary.
I am not going to comment any further because we clealy have different opinions on the matter and I see no point going round in circles so I'm going to leave it there and will come back to if or when some more details come to light.
And to clarify, you are backing the decision to react to
* a possible theft of a ball (which had been dealt with and a warning given)
* the kid possibly saying something
* for asking why they were being punished
with 6 security staff to pin the 13yr old kid down???? Im sorry but that is overkill - even if they knew full well he had taken it and the kid had said something.
Either way, even from the report it is all a bit circumstancial and the reaction made by the security was way over the top and it isn't just in this case that it has been noted. As I have mentioned previously....
http://www.alangandy.com/thorpe-park-security/ which includes viewpoints from ex-security staff, park staff and police officers. It does make for interesting reading. Heck, if even if Thorpes own staff including this
nealbie said:
think the security are overly heavy handed than I am not willing to accept that they are just doing what is necessary.
I am not going to comment any further because we clealy have different opinions on the matter and I see no point going round in circles so I'm going to leave it there and will come back to if or when some more details come to light.
Mark said:
6 members of security? I didn't read that part. I read it as being just two security peeps being involved.
I've also never witnessed them do anything at Thorpe, I think the most action I saw was them shouting at someone in the Stealth queueline for queue-jumping which is more than fair. However I don't exactly go to Thorpe very often and if Neal (who works there) says they are heavy handed then I believe it.
However I still agree with Joey to a point, they clearly wouldn't have done anything (and especially wouldn't have got police to take him away) if he was as calm etc as he claims in the article.
^That in itself is dodgy though. It's the guy who's making the complaint who "witnessed" it in the first place, and he's saying "up to 6" security guards? Could've been 1, 2, 3 etc.
I'm not going to get involved in this topic until I've read more. People are using that one report as evidence to back up their points, when the article is only telling the side of the person making the complaint. There's nothing in that article from any other source; therefore, it can't be used as "evidence" that security acted unnecessarily.
I'm not going to get involved in this topic until I've read more. People are using that one report as evidence to back up their points, when the article is only telling the side of the person making the complaint. There's nothing in that article from any other source; therefore, it can't be used as "evidence" that security acted unnecessarily.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
I feel like I'm just repeating myself, but simply put... I recon what happened is this kid refused to cooperate and leave the park/go with security and verbally abused the security after stealing. Why do I think that's what happens? Because that's what always happens. Frankly, that's enough to warrant the behaviour described, and said behaviour was described by a victim, who is more than likely exaggerating.
I feel like, even if security WERE over- heavy handed, we shouldn't undermine the fact that the 13 year old and the man did something wrong. That is fundamentally the far more important fact of the matter. The security have a right to not let people get away with being scum, frankly. And stealing and shouting abuse when you're told off for stealing is scummy.
I feel like, even if security WERE over- heavy handed, we shouldn't undermine the fact that the 13 year old and the man did something wrong. That is fundamentally the far more important fact of the matter. The security have a right to not let people get away with being scum, frankly. And stealing and shouting abuse when you're told off for stealing is scummy.
^It doesn't quite work like that though does it?
If I was at work and tackled a 13 year old to the ground for "being scummy" (I'm allowed to use "reasonable force" if myself or others are in danger, in a similar way to security guards are), I'd be suspended on the spot and my house would be on fire that very evening.
It's pointless going back and to until there's more information. We've only got that one bloke's story (which I'm as sure as you are is highly misleading) to go on, but you seem to think that security guards are within their rights to use excessive force on petty thieves or people who shout a bit of abuse; and they're not. If they can't handle verbal abuse without, allegedly, going to those extremes then they shouldn't be in the kind of job that lends itself to it.
If I was at work and tackled a 13 year old to the ground for "being scummy" (I'm allowed to use "reasonable force" if myself or others are in danger, in a similar way to security guards are), I'd be suspended on the spot and my house would be on fire that very evening.
It's pointless going back and to until there's more information. We've only got that one bloke's story (which I'm as sure as you are is highly misleading) to go on, but you seem to think that security guards are within their rights to use excessive force on petty thieves or people who shout a bit of abuse; and they're not. If they can't handle verbal abuse without, allegedly, going to those extremes then they shouldn't be in the kind of job that lends itself to it.
Smithy
Strata Poster
But given we've only got this more than likely biased account to go from, we can't sit and assume that this lovely lad merely enquired in perfect English as to why he was being escorted out the park.
He's hardly going to have a story if he came out and said "Yeah the kid who tried to steal but got caught started screaming in Jafaican about how he was gonna buss up dis whitey" before swinging for him and wondering why he was tackled to the ground.
Also. 6 security guards had their hand round his neck? How big is his neck!?
Do I think security over reacted? Probably.
Do I think the lad brought it on himself? Possibly.
He's hardly going to have a story if he came out and said "Yeah the kid who tried to steal but got caught started screaming in Jafaican about how he was gonna buss up dis whitey" before swinging for him and wondering why he was tackled to the ground.
Also. 6 security guards had their hand round his neck? How big is his neck!?
Do I think security over reacted? Probably.
Do I think the lad brought it on himself? Possibly.
In the UK, doormen and security guards are required by law to adhere to the Private Security Industry Act 2001. They must hold a license to practise from the Security Industry Authority.marc said:
All bouncers/guards need to display their badge whilst working. IIRC, the security guards at Thorpe do wear their license in a plastic wallet on their arm.
The Act allows "reasonable force" in order to restrain a trouble maker.
I don't give a toss about this incident tbh.
Darren B
Giga Poster
Hi Guys, I thought i may be able to shed some light on this for you as my profession is Security Management.
Firstly to Ian's post, Thorpe park's security are 'in house' security and are employed by Thorpe park themselves not an outside security company, for this reason they do NOT require an SIA licence and are not subjected to the same rules and regulations as an SIA licenced officer, however that still does not give them any extra authority. 'in house' security is slowly dying however all theme parks still use this method and also some major retailers such as HMV and Debenhams.
As far as the incident itself goes... well, i think much of the story has been elaborated however im not denying that there are officers out there that 'go over the top' and give the rest a bad name and this could well of happened at TP. Reasonable force is also the key word here, Security officers are permitted the same powers as any member of the public, no more, no less. The most likely event that happened in this case is that the officer(s) in question asked the youth to leave the premises and the youth refused thus leaving the officer(s) no choice but to use 'reasonable force' my guess being taking grip of the male under the arm and escorted him in this method and the situation has escalated from there. I just hope these incidents dont happen on a regular basis, we all go to theme parks for personal enjoyement and needless violence from either party just ruins it for everyone else.
Firstly to Ian's post, Thorpe park's security are 'in house' security and are employed by Thorpe park themselves not an outside security company, for this reason they do NOT require an SIA licence and are not subjected to the same rules and regulations as an SIA licenced officer, however that still does not give them any extra authority. 'in house' security is slowly dying however all theme parks still use this method and also some major retailers such as HMV and Debenhams.
As far as the incident itself goes... well, i think much of the story has been elaborated however im not denying that there are officers out there that 'go over the top' and give the rest a bad name and this could well of happened at TP. Reasonable force is also the key word here, Security officers are permitted the same powers as any member of the public, no more, no less. The most likely event that happened in this case is that the officer(s) in question asked the youth to leave the premises and the youth refused thus leaving the officer(s) no choice but to use 'reasonable force' my guess being taking grip of the male under the arm and escorted him in this method and the situation has escalated from there. I just hope these incidents dont happen on a regular basis, we all go to theme parks for personal enjoyement and needless violence from either party just ruins it for everyone else.