A councillor in Surrey has claimed that a planned bike park near Dorking could attract child molesters.
Mole Valley District Council’s scrutiny meeting discussed last week the council’s plans to outsource management of the BMX track at Ranmore Common, also a popular venue for mountain bikers with extensive trails, to an outside company.
It says that volunteers have helped cut back overgrown scrubland at the site in the past but are no longer able to do so, and the council does not have the budget to carry the work out itself.
The council says a group that runs mountain biking sessions at a local school has approached it with a view to taking on the management of the BMX track and investing in the facility – which will be branded Surrey Bike Park.
Users will pay for access to the facilities, with annual memberships available (Adult £125.00, Public Services (NHS/Forces) £100.00, Youth (Under 18) £90.00, Full Time Student £90.00 and Family 2 Adults 2 Children £305.00).
There will also be day passes for non-members (All day access –standard rate £10.00, After School – standard rate £5.00, All day access (concessionary) £7.50, After school access (concessionary) £3.75).
But Get Surrey reports that Professor Patricia Wiltshire, an independent councillor for Ashtead Common, raised concerns over the welfare of children using the track.
“If you’ve got adults there, and there will be a lot of adult males, and you have children, we know the problem of checking people,” she said. “They have to be checked because of dangers to children.
“All that sort of thing has to be considered because it could be really quite serious, and you never know it could end up children being molested, goodness knows what,” she continued. “I’m not saying it would but it’s that sort of possibility.
“I don’t think it’s for all ages and genders, I think it will be mostly male and probably quite aggressive males at that,” she added.
The councillor has been accused of making a “sweeping generalisation” by local resident Sarah Meijer, who said: “Saying there is most likely to be aggressive males is a sweeping generalisation,” she said.
“The idea that it would be full of aggressive males on the prowl and the possibility of child molestation was completely unfounded.
“I have always found the cycling community to be extremely friendly, welcoming and supportive.
“I and others were disgusted and offended by the remarks. It is this sort of subtle discrimination that often goes unchecked but needs to be stamped out,” she added.
Some locals, reportedly including members of Mole Valley Cycling Forum, have protested about the BMX track being turned into a paid facility.
But the council’s cabinet member for leisure, Councillor David Draper, said: “People want an adult presence there, they want the ability to repair bikes, they want first aid and they want training, all of which are positive additions.”
Councillor Wiltshire insisted after the meeting that she was reflecting the views of one local resident who had got in touch with her.
“It is unfortunate that my words have been interpreted negatively but I was genuinely trying to save the bike park for existing users to use freely,” she told Get Surrey.
The scrutiny committee voted against the plans, although the ultimate decision rests with the council’s cabinet.























50 thoughts on “Councillor claims planned Surrey Bike Park could attract child molesters”
Jesus wept
Jesus wept
(No subject)
Imagine if some gammony old
Imagine if some gammony old bloke had raised concerns over Mum’s dropping their kids off after school and the danger caused by “women’s lack of ability to control a car whilst attempting to park”.
Mungecrundle wrote:
you’re missing the obious risk of adults and children being in the same place at the same time. Could be molestation or anything.
Maybe all males over the age
Maybe all males over the age of 11 should be licenced before being allowed out in public, should wear a hi viz tabbard so they cannot hide in undergrowth and carry a clearly identifiable ID number so that any member of the public can report them if they do anything suspicious.
I mean, if it prevents one child being abused, how can anyone object?
This is the from the same
This is the from the same mindset of requiring adult males to wear budgie smugglers in public swimming pools rather than board shorts. And as such, only a matter of time before it becomes law.
Mungecrundle wrote:
And a helmet of course.
The whole point is that no
The whole point is that no-one gets to see their helmet.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Make that an invisible hi-viz helmet then.
[qwuote]
Well, someone else to add to my list of “people never to take seriously ever again”.
Indeed sir. You might think that anyone bright enough to become a professor would know that a child is much more likely to be molested in the home than anywhere else.
Have you seen the professor’s
Have you seen the professor’s professional background? That appears to be a subject she actually does know about.
muhasib wrote:
Not sure about that – she was an expert witness in the Soham case sure, but her expertise related to specialism in pollen and plant matter, not the mechanics of the crime itself.
She clearly is a highly intelligent, skilled and intelligent individual, (notwithstanding my previous comment) but I’d expect her as a scientist to refrain from making wild and unsupported assertions.
“What do we want?”
“A scientific evidence-based approach!”
“When do we want it?”
“After publication and peer review!”
No she doesn’t, she is a
No she doesn’t, she is a forensic ecologist and botanist who has used her expertise on ecology and botany to help the police. She has no professional expertise on child abuse. I’ve help the police by appearing in line up’s, by your assertion that make me a criminologist?
In the same way that the
In the same way that the internet attracts paedophiles, therefore we must dismantle the internet?
According to Lady Colin Campbell ephebophiles are OK?
Wait til she hears about all
Wait til she hears about all the adults at sports centres and schools
A professor of what ffs?
A professor of what ffs? Logic???
She’s the councillor for the
She’s the councillor for the same area where the locals tried to block the alteration of a property SSAFA bought to house families of soldiers undergoing treatment at Headley Court.
The nimbyism and insanity is alive and well….
Captain Badger wrote:
Professor of thinking up pathetic anti-cycling excuses.
As far as I can see in the
As far as I can see in the article, she is against the park moving to private hands and keeping it free with volunteers helping. There are other councillors totally against it though as the local allotment might hate the “noise” it generates.
The track is actually pretty
The track is actually pretty local to me – hardly anyone knew it was there until there was a question of putting it in private hands. I’m sure if the proposal was to build tennis courts on the site we wouldn’t beeing NIMBY BS like this.
It’s not maintained, is pretty rough (used to have loads of broken glass mashed into the surface) and is not far short of out & out dangerous. But yeah sure, won’t somebody please think of the children!
Pedro Nogo wrote:
Me too! Whereabouts on Ranmore is this?
https://goo.gl/maps
https://goo.gl/maps/wAK8zFusvmAJgyLj7
Council staff have to be
Council staff have to be trained in safeguarding and protecting vulnerable people in their care and facilities. This council property is now being discussed to be transferred to private property so I suspect the discussion was on making sure they know their responsbilities in that area. (Although as they already work in schools, they should be upto par as schools wouldn’t associate with them otherwise).
However her ‘agressive men on bikes’ totally overshadows the valid point she had made.
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/ex-horley-councillor-david-jackson-15416966
Not as though the council don’t have form in the area.
Better not build any more
Better not build any more play parks in the country in that case. We should close down legoland and stop wilkos selling their pick n mixes while we’re at it. No more playing fields for football.
Unless you lock kids up inside whenever they’re not at school then nonces will find a way to prey on them. Focus on protecting when they’re out having fun rather than limiting them.
Who is going to protect these
Who is going to protect these children from uncle Derek ?
If only there were stats on the over whelming group of people who do abuse children.
Reminds of a letter. “I am no longer able to give my neighbour’s son a lift to hockey due to new rules. However, after our respective matches have finished, I look forward to standing stark bollock naked next to him in the shower.”
If I was the SCC safeguarding
If I was the SCC safeguarding lead, I would have a word here as this sort of intervention is unhelpful and only distracts from where the real issue and work is.
Why on Earth is she playing this card here – it’s desperate stuff.
And her ‘defence’ is that one
And her ‘defence’ is that one person raised it as a concern.
Does that mean that no filtering is required? I mean mob rule has occured due to people failing to understand the difference between paediatrician and paedophile.
Other things that should be
Other things that should be closed because they attract a high concentration of children, and thus may attract child molesters like lions to a waterhole:
Don’t forget maternity
Don’t forget maternity hospitals
When I was a kid the
When I was a kid the ‘stranger danger’ we were warned about always came from dirty old men in cars, so I propose that no more car parks are built in case it leads to a rise in paedophilia.
Considering that the site has
Considering that the site has been neglected and has had idiots on quad bikes and dirt bikes ripping up the trails, I think the offer by the MTB crew to take over the facility is a really good one. I’d heard of these trails but never ridden them. I wouldn’t mind doing so though.
The councillor has a screw loose.
“I don’t think it’s for all
“I don’t think it’s for all ages and genders, I think it will be mostly male and probably quite aggressive males at that,” she added.”
Professor Patricia Wiltshire, you are an idiot sexist, and should immediately resign.
Quote:
Someone who associates cyclists with being agreesive is likely a bad driver. I’ve never experienced any agression from any cyclist ever, whetehr I’ve been walking, cycling or driving. But a certain type of driver has a perception that all cyclists are foaming at the mouth.
wycombewheeler wrote:
It’s probably because they’re the ones that risk peoples life and knock them off, then are surprised tehy get sworn at….
“ooooh, those cyclists are all over the road, I had to swerve several times before I hit ‘im”
“I first noticed the angry faced lycra-clad tour de France wannabe as he bounced off the bonnet of my car”
“They’re sooooooo angry all the time”
But a certain type of driver
But a certain type of driver has a perception that all cyclists are foaming at the mouth
It’s not just cyclists! I went to a Magistrates’ Court for the first time last Monday. The security staff, severely overmanned, insisted on confiscating my cycling helmet. It couldn’t just stay in the bag like my bike tools and suspect waterproof jacket- it had to stay down in reception! Presumably, a self-incriminating member of the above-noted FATM faction, might leap at the bench and attack them with the terrifying expanded polystyrene weapon. Reminds me of the Fosdyke Saga (anecdote for the elderly only) where they’re discussing Hara-Kiri with a ‘kitchen imprement’ and a Fosdyke says ‘it’s going to be a long, messy job with an egg-whisk, mother’
So … here we have a
So … here we have a neglected facility that the council wants to let someone else take over and run because they don’t have the resources to do so, but others don’t want that to happen because the proposed new managers want to generate the resources to look after it properly by asking users to pay to use it.
Do current users of the site want to pay to use it or lose it forever? That seems to be the choice.
And, yes, I did choose to ignore the facile, sexist nonsense about child molesters. Thank you for asking.
Using this idiotic logic
Using this idiotic logic shouldn’t we just ban kids from leaving the house? Can’t have everyone’s rights being infringed because something might happen otherwise.
Jenova20 wrote:
Seconded!
If it saves one child™…
I am an active member of a
I am an active member of a BMX club. The track is owned by the council, but is maintained and operated by the club. We pay a membership fee, and a fee for coaching, gates practice and racing. It adds up, but all the coaches are volunteers, as are the marshalls etc on race day. However, the track is open and free to use when not in use by the club. We can go anytime we like to ride. It’s an amazing facility that everyone can use. We are lucky that we have so many volunteers, that can maintain it to the standard its at. Our club was featured in last weeks BC news email for the work we do to promote the sport to women. Unfortunately a lot of tracks have had to be fenced off and closed to the general public due to vandalism. I think possibly the club structure might be better for the inclusivity of it all, but whatever works. I’m ignoring her bigotory
Me too and my club also uses
Me too and my club also uses an open track. If your track is the one I saw mentioned in the BC newsletter, then I’ve ridden/raced at yours too and I’ve got some good mates at your club.
There were two lads on electric scooters the other day riding our track. I asked them if they could please stop, explaining the low decks of their scooters tear the tops off the jumps. One did and the other turned full on entitlement, telling me he had every right to be there. I get fed up with people like him and I had to bite my tongue. Luckily his mate took him away.
Councillor/Professor Patricia
Councillor/Professor Patricia Wiltshire has previous
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/10/04/ian-huntley-patricia-wiltshire-surrey-mole-valley-councillor/
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/internal-investigation-carried-out-mole-17004091
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-councillor-says-gay-people-16570565
I think the main problem here
I think the main problem here is the quality of the information supplied in the post.
“Popular venue with MTBers” – “Extensive trails” ??
Seriously? Has someone looked into it?
The area is roughly 3 acres. I am not sure £125 PA or even £5 conc. would be justified for what would be essentially an outdoor treadmill for two wheels. Even more so if you consder that the “real” popular area with MTBers and roadies is only a couple of miles down the road with the fantastic Leith Hill freely accessible, mixed range of trails…let me repeat for those not familiar with the area: 2 miles down the road there are miles of free trails, in the woods, where people from all over the SE already have tons of fun. Why would they pay to get into a pump track/treadmill with a couple of tracks.
One reason, one could say, is for practising, I guess.
And here is one of the arguments of contention: the developers plan is for what? Has anyone, including the editor and the people commenting seen the plans? Did you look at the costing? What’s it going to be primarily: MTB or BMX? What about the kids with their Halfords 16/20″ that currently take their new present there to learn to ride with mum and dad? How would this type of usage, which now represents the primary use of the area together (with people simply walking) be managed to accomodate all skills levels?
If one cares to investigate you’d find out that there is no such info in the current proposal; that is one of the resons why a lot of residents are opposed to it. As it stands this project is laughable; the costing is preposterous; it discriminates against the younger and poorer. Anyone would be welcome to come up with a proper plan for improving the site from what it is but this project simply isn’t it. Just look it up.
The fact that, on a site like Road CC, only the bigoted, preposterous judgement of one individual that is opposed to the park was hghlighted to initiate a potentially constructive conversation makes me sad and is simply, to quote one of my favourite artists, “a sign of the times”.
Now let me go back on the saddle to sweat out some of my grief.
spokeed wrote:
A site that routinely generates it’s content by finding cycling-related content from elsewhere and copying it more or less wholesale found a cycling-related story on another site and copied it more or less wholesale. How is that a sign of anything?
First and only post, a
First and only post, a verbose pile of anti-cycling prejudice. Did you sign up just to post this crap?
“….that is one of the resons why a lot of residents are opposed to it.” A lot; as in yourself, you and your shadow.
“….it discriminates against the younger and poorer.” Like you care, you just hate the thought of it being used by cyclists who might actually enjoy it.
Look! Over there! A rock with your name on it! Do the honourable thing and stay underneath it.
If you look at the entire
If you look at the entire history of the ‘proposal’ you will see that the proposal on the table is entirely not fit for purpose. The headlise should say ‘councillors vote to save local BMX track from privatisation’.
“a verbose pile of anti
“a verbose pile of anti-cycling prejudice” – So, we have a cyclist (you), virtuous protector of the “cycling fraternity” and a “verbose”, “prejudiced” entity of no defined identity, probably a non-cyclist (me), that you want to stone, basically:
“A rock with your name on it! “
Wow! Impressive reasoning skills. I wonder how you relate to all the other millions of non-cyclists of this world.
“Did you sign up just to post this crap?” – Ad hominem fallacy.
“A lot; as in yourself, you and your shadow.” – Ad hominem fallacy.
In case though you or anybody else is interested in the actual figures they can be consulted here:
https://www.molevalley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/9-bmx-park.pdf
“Like you care, you just hate the thought of it being used by cyclists who might actually enjoy it.” – Ad hominem fallacy.
Bigotry can be evident, as in the case mentioned in the post, or more subtle, as in eburtthebike’s reply to my comment. However, bigotry, luckly, does not stand the test of logical reasoning.
Personally I just hope that the decision making process will be less impulsive.
Socrati? Is that you again?
Socrati? Is that you again?
you hit the nail on the head!
you hit the nail on the head!