AIBU to question praying and sleeping in the library kids area?

Can you tell us how old Aisha was at marriage and how old at consummation of that marriage?

(clue it was 6 or and 9 respectively).

Also which Islamic run country recently set the legal age of consent to sex at 9?

(Iraq)

and how many children have been saved from being trafficked from the UK to Islamic countries for forced child marriage?

Tell me you know nothing about Islam without telling me you know nothing about Islam

yeah, you just did thanks

Tell me you know nothing about Islam without telling me you know nothing about Islam

Man takes over children’s dedicated space to worship a paedophile/war lord - This is not ok! Unless you are a child, or with a child, choosing a book or reading, you should not be welcomed!

For me it's the activity chosen. I think a female using the children's section of the library (or any section) to get down on the floor and do their praying would be acting inappropriately. I think it would be very entitled. I hope that if it happens more than once, that the librarians would ask them to leave.

You are being totally disingenuous. You know the risk isn't the man praying.

Quite why you are so angry about people looking out for your child is beyond me.

So if a “lone man” went into the children’s area to get a book for a child who wasn’t with them, would that still be suspicious?

What I’m trying to establish is if the fact he’s male is even relevant, or if it was the activity chosen.

It’s not your job to safeguard my child, because I don’t allow him to fall into swimming pools. Your help isn’t required thank you.

I’m also definitely sure I wouldn’t like you to “safeguard” him from the “risk” of someone praying.

Safeguarding my child isn’t everyone’s responsibility, it’s mine and the people who care for him. There’s absolutely no need for you, or any other member of the public, to safeguard my child - that’s not your job.

Was this you?

You were quite unequivocal there. Which contradicts your most recent post.

Identifying and calling out suspicious behaviour is surely a part of safeguarding. Everyone is responsible for doing that. I’m confused why you are trying to warn people off safeguarding with accusations of ‘commandeering’ it just because you don’t like it being pointed out that a man acting oddly in a space with children in should raise at least a bit of suspicion.

You appear to have taken the ‘he was praying’ information and translated that into ‘he is totally safe and definitely not a risk to children, not behaving oddly around them at all and warrants no further scrutiny’. Why?

Because he wasn’t presenting a risk to children simply by being there. He (from what OP says) made no threat, didn’t do anything directly to a child, didn’t approach a child - didn’t do anything except pray, and then leave. That’s not risk.

The answer to your examples is that the things you’re describing are actual risks. Parents should be making sure their children don’t drown, and I’d hope that’s fairly obvious. In the event they’re useless and haven’t - yes, I’d obviously support preventing a child from drowning.

But the point you’re widely missing, is that drowning is a risk. Being in a space you shouldn’t be, or praying, isn’t. Not in and of themselves.

I would prevent my child from jumping off a cliff. I would not protect him from… seeing a praying man.

I’m not sure you’re even paying attention to what you are writing. You have pointed out that he shouldn’t have been in there because it’s not the appropriate place for prayer but then go on to say that it is not linked to the activity he was doing. How does that make any sense?

He shouldn’t have been there because it’s not the appropriate place for prayer.
*Which has no link to:

• His sex
• The specific religion he follows
• The activity he was doing (because it wasn’t reading with a child, eg.)
• Assault

You are the only one making a big point of his religion.

Did you know that being male is the biggest determinant of criminality?
Given news topics of the last 40 years his risk factor may well be bumped up by his being a religious man.
Given news topics of the last 10-15 years his religion may also be a contributing (I am NOT saying determining factor - please note) factor which bumps him up the risk stats a bit further.
Given his odd and inappropriate boundary encroaching behaviour, statistically a bit more risk.

I agree that no woman should be practising yoga in that space but I do not agree that the risk she presents to children is remotely similar. Given that in this scenario, the yoga practitioner would also have been allowed to continue and be in that space unsupervised until she decided to leave, the risk presented to children is higher with the man. Therefore his sex is highly relevant.

He shouldn’t have been there because it’s not the appropriate place for prayer.

Which has no link to:

• His sex
• The specific religion he follows
• The activity he was doing (because it wasn’t reading with a child, eg.)
• Assault

Had it been a woman doing yoga in the children’s area, she would equally have been in the wrong place.

He should have been told to move because it’s the wrong place, not because of risk. There wasn’t a risk, he was just obviously not in a mosque.

You appear to have taken the ‘he was praying’ information and translated that into ‘he is totally safe and definitely not a risk to children, not behaving oddly around them at all and warrants no further scrutiny’. Why?

Because he wasn’t presenting a risk to children simply by being there. He (from what OP says) made no threat, didn’t do anything directly to a child, didn’t approach a child - didn’t do anything except pray, and then leave. That’s not risk.

The answer to your examples is that the things you’re describing are actual risks. Parents should be making sure their children don’t drown, and I’d hope that’s fairly obvious. In the event they’re useless and haven’t - yes, I’d obviously support preventing a child from drowning.

But the point you’re widely missing, is that drowning is a risk. Being in a space you shouldn’t be, or praying, isn’t. Not in and of themselves.

I would prevent my child from jumping off a cliff. I would not protect him from… seeing a praying man.

The suspicious part is that he didn’t need to be there. The mosque is less than 8 minutes walk - 2 minutes in the car.

Safeguarding is a real thing, with a definition and practices. You can’t just commandeer it because you don’t like something someone is doing.
So keeping an eye on and possibly reporting a man behaving strangely around children in a public place is not safeguarding? Mm hmm.

You appear to have taken the ‘he was praying’ information and translated that into ‘he is totally safe and definitely not a risk to children, not behaving oddly around them at all and warrants no further scrutiny’. Why?

It appears that some ‘safeguarding’ training has gone badly awry.

We see it all the time on MN, parents reporting safeguarding issues to schools that aren’t safeguarding, they’re just things they don’t like.
Except that’s not what we are talking about. There’s a difference between people misusing the concept and genuine misunderstandings.

Still no answer to my questions?

As an aside, can you possibly try responding to me in one go, rather than in multiple stages?

Nope, I think he was praying. Because he prayed, and then left. So what other assumption is there to make.

Safeguarding is a real thing, with a definition and practices. You can’t just commandeer it because you don’t like something someone is doing.

We see it all the time on MN, parents reporting safeguarding issues to schools that aren’t safeguarding, they’re just things they don’t like.

”Normal people” would have acknowledged it was an odd and inappropriate use of the space, and not leapt to the conclusion it was also unsafe or a cover up for something else.

You said earlier you didn’t think he should have been there. Why do you think that?

What’s your reasoning for why he shouldn’t have been there?

People with a background in actual safeguarding would know that you carry the burden of truth, and evidence. You have no evidence this man presents risk, you can’t assume that because he’s praying he has other motives, it’s not a legitimate safeguarding concern.

The evidence is that he is a lone man behaving oddly around children in a children’s space.
The supplementary evidence is that religion is often used as a cover for abuse using plausible deniability.
Further supplementary evidence is that OP was made to feel uncomfortable by his behaviour.

Many of the worst cases of harm to children have occurred because people around either didn’t notice or didn’t question what was happening. Lots of people saw Jamie Bulger being led away by his murderers. The people present either ignored what they saw or didn’t question what was happening.

It is quite horrifying that unless we have a background in actual safeguarding we are being told to keep our noses out.

He was praying. Not assaulting anyone.

OP was in a library, with I’m assuming staff.

There was no need to respond to a threat of assault, because there wasn’t one.

I find your constant misrepresentation of what’s been said quite dishonest.

There is no evidence that prayer presents risk, or that children and or vulnerable adults require protecting from it.

It is not the prayer, it is the person supposedly doing the praying that is the problem. You have acknowledged that men are a far greater risk than women. (As an aside we also know that has been used as a cover for child sex abuse since forever but yes let’s ignore that factor as well).

I find it fascinating that you see absolutely no issue with a man behaving oddly in a space with children. I feel like I need to explain how he is behaving oddly seeing as your understanding of the world is so vastly different to mine.

The space is designated for children to read or do child related activities. He is using it for something quite different therefore he is behaving oddly. Normal people would look at a situation where a man is behaving oddly around children, have some suspicions raised and either keep a close eye, report it or leave.

People with a background in actual safeguarding

This illustrates the problem we seem to have here. You have no idea of my background or safeguarding training. It seems like you have a weirdly silo’ed view of ‘Safeguarding’ ™️, like it’s only something professionals can do and us non professionals should just butt out and stop even using the word and certainly not presume to gave any role to play in helping keep children safe where we encounter them.

What is your response to the examples I provided? Should I have let the lost kid just wander round on his own until his parents (or a predator) found him? Or ignored the kid I saw drowning in a swimming pool because her parents weren’t paying attention? I will remember her face forever.

and finally: Teachers aren’t institutionalised

I didn’t say that either.

That's because women assaulting children is very rare while men assaulting children is very common as you know full well but then you're just trolling like a lot of men on MN.