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

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.

Yes, thanks for the explainer but I know what safeguarding is.

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

The CQC, or any other body, wouldn’t suggest that a space is unsafe simply because it has a man in it.

Teachers aren’t institutionalised, they’re trained to complete dynamic risk assessments that assess safety and risk - a man praying wouldn’t hit that threshold.

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.

Apologies, my understanding of safeguarding is the actual legal and procedural measures that we have in place to protect children. Not the made up individualised type.

This is a worry I have. A number of adults (the ones I have spoken to are teachers) seem to have been through some kind of weird institutional ‘safeguarding’ training and have taken the message that only only safeguarding that exists is the policy and paperwork side of things and have totally missed the practical side that we should all be doing to keep an eye out for children in public spaces. The safeguarding for adults training

For example, the creepy guy who followed a girl into the toilets, the small child separated from his parents on the beach, the unsupervised child about to do run across the road in traffic. As a normal adult, if we see any of those things happening we should step in to help. I have looked after more than one lost child and helped several who have hurt themselves and needed a bit of help.

It makes me feel quite horrified that as an adult you are telling me to stand by and watch if I see your child about to come to harm, and presumably you would do the same to mine.

However praying does not equate to being at risk from a sex offender. Prayer isn’t an offence.
and Trying to equate prayer in the wrong place with sex offences is an absolute overreaction.

Yet again you are making up things that haven’t been said. It is quite tedious.

In OPs case there’s no protecting from risk, unless you class waiting as a risk, because the man wasn’t presenting risk just by being there.

I take it you don’t understand the concept of plausible deniability. You have no idea what his intentions were.

From the CQC:

Safeguarding is the proactive, legal, and practical process of protecting an individual's health, wellbeing, and human rights, ensuring they live free from harm, abuse, and neglect. It involves creating safe environments, implementing policies to prevent abuse, and taking action to support children and vulnerable adults.

Are you aware that the concept of safeguarding children is the responsibility of all of us?

That was certainly the message of the safeguarding training I had to complete at work last year. I'm in the public sector but don't work with children or vulnerable adults.

Apologies, my understanding of safeguarding is the actual legal and procedural measures that we have in place to protect children. Not the made up individualised type.

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.

Sure, I protect my child from risk - including from predators. However praying does not equate to being at risk from a sex offender. Prayer isn’t an offence.

In OPs case there’s no protecting from risk, unless you class waiting as a risk, because the man wasn’t presenting risk just by being there.

Trying to equate prayer in the wrong place with sex offences is an absolute overreaction.

Keeping an eye on lone men hanging around children is a “ridiculous use of safeguarding”? Are you serious?

You may do it individually, but there’s no legal mandate to watch the every move of men who aren’t threatening anyone, in spaces they’re either allowed to be or aren’t excluded from on the basis of sex.
There is no government approved safeguarding policy (like KCSIE) which would state “keep an eye on men around the children.”

It would help the conversation so much more if you stopped making up things no one has said to argue against. No one said that there was a legal mandate to watch the every move of men.

Are you aware that the concept of safeguarding children is the responsibility of all of us? This isn’t just a government initiative - normal people have always done it.

I honestly can’t work out what you are arguing here. You acknowledge that men are the perpetrators of almost all sex offences but then you say it’s sexist to be careful with men, especially those hanging around children.

Are you saying we mustn’t be wary of strange men behaving oddly around children?

That’s a ridiculous use of safeguarding, and if you had any real experience of it you’d know that.

We do not monitor specifically men in all areas that vulnerable people access, and nor should we. You may do it individually, but there’s no legal mandate to watch the every move of men who aren’t threatening anyone, in spaces they’re either allowed to be or aren’t excluded from on the basis of sex.

There is no government approved safeguarding policy (like KCSIE) which would state “keep an eye on men around the children.”

We cannot go through life assuming everyone is out to get us, that’s a completely unhealthy way to live.

As librarian PPs have pointed out - yes -we should have a healthy suspicion of any man spending time in an area where children are. He may be entirely innocent or he may be introducing plausible deniability by looking at books. We don’t know which, so rather than waiting until a child is harmed to be sure either way, we keep an eye on him.

It’s called safeguarding and your apparent lack of understanding is worrying.

Is there a reason why you are arguing against exercising reasonable caution with men, given you accept that men commit almost all sexual assaults?

But we cannot use that information to unilaterally state that they should never be in any space, that isn’t already single sex. That is quite clearly an over the top response. We can’t ban men from everywhere.

No one has suggested that. 🤷‍♀️

For example, men do represent greater risk to women and children - there’s no arguing with the stats.
Making it about anything more than “grown up praying in wrong place” is my issue. It’s nothing to do with it being a man, or specifically a Muslim, it’s just not a place of worship and he’s not a child.

So you accept that he is a man and you accept that men are a higher risk to children but you don’t like OP or us pointing out that as a lone man behaving oddly in a children’s space he is a problem.

You also accept he was carrying out a religious practice in the wrong place and we know that the only common religion with this specifically physical sort of practice is Islam but you don’t like us mentioning that he is Muslim (even though this has repeatedly NOT been the central part of the objection) and despite the earlier rather desperate reach trying to equate a public rally with this situation, no other religious groups are doing this with that stated intent.

As to his intentions, agreed, I can’t know what his intentions were but as the main Mosque is a mere 8 minutes walk away, he knowingly and deliberately displaced children who turned up to use the space and this encroachment on public space is a growing phenomenon, I think you’ll find that on balance of probabilities, I am right.

Feeling good now then?

I sort of hate to say it, but if you wouldn’t have the same response to a woman being in there, that is sexism.

I’m coming from the perspective that we cannot take our child into a library, and I’d think nothing of going on his behalf and going into the children’s area - and I doubt I’d be outright asked to leave.

If a man can’t do the same thing without suspicion being raised, with no reasonable evidence for that specific person, and it’s not a space segregated by sex - that’s discrimination.

I already said upthread that it's both. Last week I asked a lone man who was sitting in the children's area using his phone to move to the adult area.

Very few, adults come into the Library to pick a book for a child, without the child being there. A few months ago a Lady wanted a particular children's book, but she came to the desk, rather than go into the children's library.

No it’s not since he was in the children’s area praying, it’s not the space for it. People go into libraries.

shouldnt be in the kids area. Libraries have spaces for adults. When I was a child you would get people sleeping in the adult reading room . They would perfect it to an art form making it look like they were looking at a book.

my son was equally annoyed about ubereats drivers using the gym changing rooms as a nap room.

He’d be done even quicker if parents ignored his performance and sent there kids in to play. It’s their space after all.

At the end of the day this is the UK. In the UK we don’t have men taking over public areas to “pray”. If they want to do that shit they should live in a country where that behaviour is the norm. It is NOT the norm here and it never will be. It’s this kind of bullshit that is driving the popularity of Reform and Restore.

You’re correct.

prayers are over and done with very quickly.

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.

Welcome to use it as a library- yes.
Not an impromptu prayer session which stops the kids using their designated space.

He is not banned. He can come into the children's library with his children ( if he has any).

Really?

Lots of comments about lone man in library, and how suspicious that is?

Comments about men invading spaces?

It’s “VERY relevant” that it’s a man. Is it? Men are allowed in libraries. What’s relevant about that?

When really all the story is, is “man in library.”

For example, men do represent greater risk to women and children - there’s no arguing with the stats.
But we cannot use that information to unilaterally state that they should never be in any space, that isn’t already single sex. That is quite clearly an over the top response. We can’t ban men from everywhere.

And you know that's isn't what anyone is saying.