AIBU to not allow my DD in the taxi with this man?

[mickeyvsminnie]

My DD is 13. We live very rurally and the council provide a taxi for her and several other village children due to our distance from the school. I suppose it's the country equivalent of a school bus!

Anyway, she is in year 8 so has been going in the taxi for almost two years now. There is one driver - I shall call him 'Dave,' who does some of the journeys, along with Paul and Marie - the owners of the taxi company [ the council contract out the job ].... Dave does around 50% of the journeys.

My DD has mentioned several times to me in the past that he is a 'bit weird ' and she 'feels uncomfortable ' when in the taxi on her own with him [ this happens sometimes due to other drop off/illness of other kids etc] but I brushed it off until a few weeks ago.

She was off school for a day or two with a stomach bug. She returned to school and was alone in the taxi with Dave on her first day back. He asked her if she was feeling better, she replied ' yes thank you.' He then said ' was it your periods that you were off with? ' and she was obviously mortified. He then went on to talk about my DDs friend , referring to her as the 'under developed ' girl and ' I bet she hasn't started her periods yet .. ' My DD said he often talks about 'girl things' like this.

So, I call the council and tell them that i feel this is highly inappropriate for any man, let alone a taxi driver in his 50s with the job of driving young girls to and from school. They take it seriously, speak to Paul, the owner of the company and Dave is spoken to. 'Yes,' he says, he did indeed speak to DD about her periods but he thought this was entirely normal and he is puzzled as to why it is not appropriate. the council call me to advise they will look into further but they will remove Dave from the runs. I reiterate that I do NOT think he is a padophile - more that he is crass, highly inappropriate and stupid. I then think that this is the end of it.

Anyway, the council call me again today. They wish to reinstate Dave to driving the kids again. He will have 'additional training' and they will ensure that DD is not alone with him [ they cannot ensure this - what happens if a child is ill, for example? ' ]

I am unhappy with this. My DD would not want to be in a taxi with him - far to mortified and uncomfortable.

So- WWYD? AIBU to insist that he is NOT to drive the children to school, that this is a possible warning sign that should be heeded?

TIA!

certainly don't let your daughter in his taxi, ever.

Candleinthewine: "Bottom line is this man has made sexually inappropriate comments to a child, a man who has access to children alone. What do you think grooming is hackmum?
In this day and age I think the police would indeed be interested. What have you got to lose? And what if it had been a younger girl who wasn't able to articulate this man's behaviour who has the misfortune to be in his taxi."

You may be right, but there are a couple of things. First of all, I suspect the police wouldn't be interested, and there probably isn't enough evidence to bring a prosecution, unless the OP is able to find other children who have been on the receiving end of this man's attention.

What has the OP got to lose? Well, she could find herself in a situation where she has seriously antagonised this man. Her DD would have to give a statement to the police, which might be upsetting for her. Either it will proceed to court (which could be time-consuming and distressing for both the OP and her DD) or it won't, in which case the OP has achieved nothing apart from making an enemy of this man.

Candle - after writing that, I thought I'd just check to see how grooming is defined, as it's something that all of us who are parents ought to be concerned about. The relevant legislation is section 10 of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, and here's the explanation:

"Section 10 makes it an offence for a person (A) aged 18 or over, intentionally to cause or incite a child aged under 16 to engage in sexual activity (as defined at section 78). Where the child is aged 13 or over, but under 16, the prosecution must prove that A did not reasonably believe that he was 16 or over. The sexual activity which is caused or incited may be activity with A (for example, where A causes or incites the child to have sexual intercourse with him), on the child himself (for example, where A causes or incites the child to strip for A?s sexual gratification) or with a third person (for example, where A causes or incites the child to have sexual intercourse with A?s friend). The incitement constitutes an offence whether or not the activity incited actually takes place. Whether or not the child consented to the activity caused or incited, or to the incitement, is irrelevant."

That seems to set the bar quite high - wd be very difficult to show that the taxi driver was inciting the OP's DD to have sex with him.

long response did not post, so in short points:
Grooming does not start at this high bar, yes this is where it ends up but starts with was it/ wasn't it inappropriate conversation, comments, touching etc to confuse and manipulate and lower person's guard.

To say the police wouldn't be interested is naive, yes you're right re unlikely to get conviction but at this point the police will make a recording of the incident and keep it on file ( sometimes for several years, another AIBU topic!) so that a picture can be built if other people come forward in the future. The police often say that abusers rely on people not trusting their own instincts, feeling that what happened is trivial, and this is what hinders evidence gathering as people do not report concerns.

It is worth noting that many abuse survivors say that what was most traumatising in childhood was parents/ others not informing the police, not making a fuss etc, which was a betrayal of their own experience and led to further grief in their own adulthood.

Trust me candle, my daughter hasn't been abused and there is no betrayal of her experience etc etc. I've done everything that I personally feel is right for her and I'm happy with the action I've taken so far and the action i intend to still take. I'd never minimise abuse anyway- i look at the facts , consider them and act as I then see fit.

There was no talk of sex. It's a blurry line really but I will take no risks here. I want him removed from driving children around. Unfortunately I can't follow him ad infinitum and ensure he never speaks to a teenager again.

I spoke to the school today so they are aware- the woman I spoke to is going to liaise with their own transport officer and come back to me. I spoke with SS and he is going to liaise with the manager and call me tomorrow when they have decided what the risk is and what they noted to do about it. My MP was useless and has not emailed me back.

So still up in the air and he is still not ale to resume the driving. Which I'll ensure he won't anyway

I still don't see why you don't report it to the police? You are making a wild assumption that it will be of no interest to them, especially given that one of the posts on here advising you to speak to them comes from an MN who is a serving officer.

Bored at least you are keeping communication open with some services.
I know your daughter hasn't been abused- I was meaning in general terms. But just be v careful with ss, as a previous poster said sometimes they can be blinded by their own policies etc and as such fail to do the "right thing" by vulnerable people.
Too often they err on the side of caution and protect potential baddies. Of course they will say they do this due to lack of evidence etc which is why we hear about so many cases of missed opportunities where harm could have been prevented.

BUMP...................Any news OP????