to be completely saddened by the effects of paedo-hysteria?

[LadyBiscuit]

I have a lovely, lovely friend in his early 60s who was stepfather to two boys and his partner left for another man which left him broken hearted (as much for the children who he was very fond of as the partner).

He is a lovely, lovely kind and witty man who has a disability (MS) which has aged him far faster than he deserves.

He asked me today if he could send my DS some toys and said how much he treasured my trust in him. I was a bit WTF but he said he has had so many incidents of women thinking he's 'interested' in their children if he talks and smiles to them that he doesn't dare to any more. It's so very sad, he's a lovely, lovely man with a disability and he is becoming more and more isolated because he is worried people will mistrust his motives.

It breaks my heart :(

I too find this whole topic very sad and it seems to me just to be a British problem.

However having said that the Asda carpark and to a lesser extent Menorca story were very funny. Anyone else have any such ridiculous things overheard to report?

I agree anne. It's about an appropriate reaction which doesn't demonise someone simply because they are an old man. Allowing your child to chat over the garden wall to an old man (while telling them that they aren't allowed to go into his house without you) is good for both child and old man and runs zero risk of attack for your child.

And yes, most abuse does happen within the family.

prozacfairy - that story is insane :(

YANBU.

The paedo-noics would do well to remember that the perv in the woodshed is more likely to be their own grandfather rather than someone elses.

Totally insane The little girl looked so confused. And don't get me started on the irony of leaving a child alone in a presumably unlocked car, while being incredibly paranoid about child abusers.

I know I've told this one before, but I grabbed a toddler who was just heading off the kerb into the oncoming traffic and got a filthy look from her mum when she caught up. Because clearly a car fender travelling at 60moh is preferable to my potentially paedophile hand.

Personally I do not believe that hysteria makes children safer. All it means is that decent ordinary men dare not speak to a child that is obviously lost and in trouble- so she is left to wander into the road or be found by somebody unscrupulous.

It means that if my 10yo wants to go to the park to kick his football he will be alone as none of his mates are allowed out on their own- so he will hardly be safer.

It means that when secondary school children suddenly have to venture into the world, they have no experience whatsoever, whether of judging people or traffic.

prozacfairy I recognise that story, I think you posted about it before?

anyway, YANBU, it's awful. not only is it ruining the social lives of those like your friend, it is also preventing kids from being kids, it's no wonder we have a child obesity epidemic when they aren't even allowed to the park! :(

anyone read Toxic Childhood by Sue Palmer? it has a fair bit about this issue.

My DH was abused horribly as a child (by his mother I might add, not a random person) and this has made him quite nervous about people reading him wrong. He has 3 kids by his exW and used to find it very hard to really play with them in public. thankfully I have helped him with this, and he is a fantastic, cuddly dad with his 3, and our 2 kids.

however, he once took DD on the bus without a buggy to drop his older DD home, and on the way back, our DD (2 at the time) was really stroppy and kept trying to run off. so he had to keep grabbing her obviously due to traffic risk.

somebody reported him thinking he was trying to kidnap DD?! he ended up getting stopped by police, who checked if he was really her dad. it was fine, but DH was nearly in tears when he got home :(

As a man I see both sides of this issue.

With my own DSs I take sensible precautions. I dont allow them (even now age 8 and 10) to interact with any adult unless I am with them or if I am not with them I only allow interaction if the adult is working for a regulated organisation or if it is a family/friend situation that has some close conection via friends at school, etc. I know it does not guarantee safety but at least minimises risk. I generally will not allow them to be alone with an adult at all under any circumstances.

In my own interactions with other children, I make sure I am never alone with them. If I am going to have any contact with them I make sure I have spoken to their parent first or the parent is physically present or another regulated responsible adult is there. I happen to have a CRB check and an ACRO certificate but to be honest it is meaningless.

Even with all that jumping through hoops I have had mothers give me hard stares for even a mild interaction with their child. It makes me very careful. For example, I was in a shop the other day and a toddler ran across in front of me and I nearly fell over the child. I instinctively put my hand out to physically guide the child away as I toppled forward. The mother was watching and I thought to myself afterwards "I shouldnt have done that". It was a public place and I was with DW and it is a ridiculous thought in context - but even so.

I take very little risk with my dcs and have hopefully covered all basis with a 'comfort and trust' chat.

I don't know why in the UK we are still obsessed by the idea of the 'pervy old man' when you'd think cases like Little Teds nursery showed women can just as easily do these things!

Possibly Algebra it has stuck with me I guess the sheer stupidity is just mental.

I always thought that most child abuse cases happened within the family- parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles/cousins etc.

I suppose the ones where a random stranger takes your chil gets more headlines because newspapers etc can not report details of incidents that happen within families unless the victim (like poor Baby P) have sadly died due to protecting the victim's identity. And it's a more sensational headline.

Algebra...I think we fear everyone, but more so men becuase they are more likely to abuse children.

that's a good point fairy. as I mentioned above, in DH's case it was his mother and nobody official ever found out. I was sexually abused by my (young) uncle as a child, again nobody knew.

another ironic side effect of this paranoia is that children are more often stuck indoors on the computer. and therefore on the internet, unsupervised.

IMO this is much more risky.

That's so sad BeenBeta. My friend's husband is Italian and there everyone smiles at and talks to children. His wife has had to tell him to stop doing it now they live in the UK because of the hostile reaction they get.

Pan - am interested in that statement that men with disabilities are over-represented among offenders. I've never heard that before and would be interested to know how you've come to that conclusion

Algebra, I would say the 'pervy old man' idea has stuck in peoples minds because that used to be the message of who to watch out for.

The women abusers in the nurseries just back up the idea that you should question everyone who comes into contact with your children.

Not a nice way to live, nor is the way that every man has to pay for the crimes committed by paedophiles by having the finger of suspicion constantly pointing at them, but how can you ignore the 'advice' given about the subject?

Some posters on here are saying they don't want to take precautions and see others who do as going OTT, but I bet they have to just like the rest of us, warning their children about 'not nice secrets', questioning adults who have contact with them, and not encouragaing interaction with people they don't know.

It would be irresponsible not to.

i'm sick of it too

I feel batter now: I went to bed last night depressed that I seemed to be amongst the few who wanted a bit of persepctive of the risk.

At least I now know that I am not the only one. :)

Oops - I feel better now.

So do any of the posters who think this is all hysteria never talk to their children about it at all?

I don't think that's what they are saying at all. I'm not anyway!

of course all children should be aware of the risks, but they also need freedom.

e.g. my DH's kids, who live with their mum, have been playing out since quite young. when they were about 8 they were with a friend, and got approached by a man who was attempting to make advances. DSDs went straight home and told their mum who phoned the police.

If you read the posts properly, you will see I, for example, say "make sure that they are aware of any adult who makes them feel unconfortable and who tells them to keep secrets from other adults/their parents - and instead tell their parents/other adults."

That is a sensible judgement of risk - and still allows children to meet with people of other generations.

It's done in a low key way and not in a way that makes them distrust all other adults.

My DS is only three but I like the fact that he talks to people all the time. He isn't ever alone so it's not really an issue at the moment.

I know a lot of the older people around here really like having a chat with him and I will of course talk to him about never going anywhere with another adult when he gets older.

It's the default position that all men who you're not related to are paedos (kiddy fiddlers - urgh - I hate that term) that I object to.

So it's perhaps that every parent is forced into taking some kind of action to try and prevent this type of abuse, but some parents on here are judging other parents interpretation of the risk and the action they take as being hysterical?

BeenBeeta, would the local corner shop count as a regulated organisation? Am thinking of sending ds (10) down for a pint of milk.

After all, he will be making his own way to secondary next year, and I do hope he will be able to say a few polite words to the bus driver or the lady who has to get up to let him pass.

Oh no, ds's friend has just turned up to collect him. Until recently, the friend's dad was a widower: I suppose I ought to have banned playdates then as ds was clearly in the presence of an unsupervised man.

Heigh ho.

LadyBiscuit - the situation you describe with your Italian friend is a common dilemma and I can totally see where his wife is coming from. Of course, it is not nice for a child to be faced by a man who literally refuses to speak to them. I dont randomly walk up to children and start talking to them but if I do I have a trick which is to talk to their parent first. In effect seeking unspoken permission to interact with their child. I know this sounds utterly ridiculous but the comments on the thread (which I dont feel are wrong) back up how I feel. Incidentally, also DW shields me from having to interact with children in certain contexts (eg taking frends children to the loo) like your Italian friend's wife.

I dont feel a great loss or annoyance at any of this but it is just one of those things. I dont know that we can do anything about it.

Agent - we have told our children never to go with anyone unless they come and tell us first or unless it is their teacher or unless their teacher tels them to go with that person.

TBH, I think needlessly frightening children with constant 'stranger danger' messages is wrong. I know they have had that talk at school but our mechanism of protection is to do an unobtrusive check and management of the situations in which they interact with adults. We also take great care over their internet interactions and I really do drum it in to them that there are great dangers on the internet and to never ever give out any details or email address etc.