To email the school re a man at the bus stop???

[JumpingThroughHoops]

Well I have emailed, so no AIBU about it really

Yesterday (Friday) 20 mins after primary school ended I saw a man at the bus stop outside the school. The bus stop usually has a large amount of teenaged girls waiting from the secondary opposite.

He was by himself indicating a bus had just been; there were no other adults or children around.

BUT. Earlier that morning the same man was at the primary sports day. He wasn't with a lady (for that read wife or partner), no reason why he should have been really, he might have been a single dad. BUT. He was chatting with another father, or rather he was listening as the other father waxed lyrical, pointing out his children and all their little friends, getting them to wave over.

Two months previous, I was on a train and he sat opposite me, with a French lady with two small girls (maybe 3 and 5). I assumed they were together, he knew their names. He carried their suitcase. I assumed the stilted conversation was because the lady didn't have English as a first language. I also assumed they were together because he was teasing one of the girls until she screamed in frustration. He was also asking lots of questions, but not in an obvious way, such as "when do you go home?" What are you doing tomorrow?" "is your Dad missing you?" - which of course I was oblivious to on the train because it was general chit chat.

See him at sports day and think it's that annoying wind up merchant again "oh, I didn't know there were little French girls at this school". There aren't any little French girls at the school and they were too young to be in the KS3 sports day anyway.

See him at the bus stop and think "hang on a min" gut instinct kicks in, something just isn't right here.

So I've emailed school with a full description, a set of circumstances and no accusations, because he wasn't actually doing anything suspiciously.

*disclaimer, I don't see a paedophile behind every tree, but I am a believer in gut instinct. I don't know why the red flags shot up when I saw him again. Probably because he was a bit of charmer, again not in an obvious way, he was just very good at ferreting out information from people.

Probably an entirely coincidental set of innocent circumstances and he is a listener rather than a talker.

Would you have emailed the school?

Pandeen, if you are quoting me and asking me to respond back, please quote me in full. Thanks.

You have a choice to choose to ignore something or to respond in a reasonable , rational and intelligent manner. Indeed, you have a responsibility to do so.

The op could have spoken to the man herself (presumably she was near enough at sports day to overhear what he was talking about... Although she then goes on to say the other guy did all the talking so I'm not convinced her account is accurate anyway.

Firing an email to the school and mentioning paedophiles is NOT an appropriate or reasonable response. It's actually abusive.

how contradictory tinkerbel!

Maybe she was too creeped out to approach the guy? Is it her duty to approach someone she is creeped out by?

I know I wouldn't.

Nothing contradictory in my post at all. Maybe just the way you misinterpret read things

No- I am no suggesting she has a duty to approach anyone. She could mind her own business and let him mind his.
I was simply saying that if you're so 'creeped out' by your 'gut feelings' that you feel honour bound to act on it, at least have the intelligence to act appropriately. Anyone who thinks emails mentioning paedophiles , when there is not a shred of evidence of that really serious claim, is an appropriate response, clearly has no understanding of the seriousness of the issue

Tinkerbell your 2 contracdictory statements;

You have a choice to choose to ignore something or to respond in a reasonable , rational and intelligent manner. Indeed, you have a responsibility to do so

Firing an email to the school and mentioning paedophiles is NOT an appropriate or reasonable response It's actually abusive

just because I disagree with you, doesnt mean I have misinterpreted anything

You know what REALLY annoys me about all this: if it had been a woman, OP wouldn't have even noticed her.

Obviously there are no female perverts out there other than the many who have been detected and jailed for terrible crimes against children.

I feel so sorry for single men such as my own brother who is the most fantastic uncle to our DD. I dread to think what some people must have inwardly accused him of in his time looking after her and taking an interest in her life.

Spells it out in REALLY simple language:

If you feel a situation is strange, you have a choice - ignore or act.

Neither is right or wrong per se.

If you choose to act, you have a responsibility to do so rationally and intelligently.

The op chose to act, but did so in an entirely inappropriate and inflammatory way- emailing mentioning paedophiles.

Nothing contradictory in what I have said at all

I really hope pagwatch feels able to return to this thread- she made some really insightful posts and knows what she's talking about.

Oh I get ya. So only the cool calm and collected should report anything.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Some people garble on in an odd way when their emotions have come into play and they are trying to convey a situation. I'm not gonna judge them for it.

Her email could have been worded differently, if she hadn't let her own emotions and assumptions take over. Some people are more emotional than rational. It's not to say they or their emotions are wrong. Simply that, their reactions are not what more a more contained person would have done, is all.

So implying someone is a paedophile is 'garbling in an odd way'

Jesus I've heard it all now.

Seems some people actually want to belittle the fact of pedophilia. It's not something you just happen to mention - its a really serious issue and a very serious implication to make about anyone

She said: I would point out I'm not the sort to see a paedophile behind every tree, but my alarm bells just started ringing. I really cannot rationalise it either.

The one thing I have been unable to understand so far,is,if authorities do choose to investigate further,surely they do it discreetly.
Surely I am right in saying that if someone is contacted about this,I dont see how it could turn into a vigilante episode.
Or even for there to be gossiping.gossiping by who?teachers?

So implying someone is a paedophile is 'garbling in an odd way'

It is when all the bloke's done is wait at a bus stop, got a train and been to sports day!

I haven't had opportunity to read the whole of this thread but I would just like to add a comment.

It is because of the fear of people like the OP making unfounded accusations on the basis of 'gut instinct' without a shread of factual evidence that my lovely fil is to afraid to go and watch his own grandchildren in school plays or sports days or even to collect them from school. I think its very sad that people are so suspicious of others and just by being anywhere near a school and being friendly a person can open themselves to what could potentially be life destroying allegations and

Damsel, sorry for going off on a tangent, but I have to say I am disappointed you have chosen to ignore my last post.

I had the grace to apologise to you when I realised I had misinterpreted one of your posts but you have turned a blind eye to me pointing out that your accusation that I was "out for an argument again" was down to your misunderstanding.

To recap:
One poster referred to putting together an argument; you responded that you thought it was a discussion not an argument; I pointed out it was a reference to putting forward an argument, which is not arguing.

And from that you accused me of being "out for an argument again" today. Are you going to carry on ignoring this misdirected accusation?

tinkerbell you said the OP was abusive that is not rational or intelligent

there is a contradiction

also, you object to people bandying around 'paedophile', whilst you casually call op abusive

another contrad

It is abusive to imply someone is a paedophile without a shed of evidence. People can't just go bandying about serious terms like that just because they don't like the look of someone

So far we've had 'alarm bells ringing', 'red flags waving' and 'antennas going up'.

It's begining to sound like an episode of fucking Thunderbirds.

No wonder genuinely concerning incidents aren't always given the attention they deserve by the authorities; they're too busy investigating a load of bollocks.

Makes you wonder why CID departments aren't staffed entirely by mothers. Detection rates would soar as they all sat around a large table, eyes closed, fingers on temples detecting away with no evidence whatsoever but relying entirely upon 'mother's intuition'.

For arguments sake I will apologise for the misunderstanding.

I did feel like being shuttle cocked between you and Tinkerbel last night. Which is why I left the thread, with Tinkerbell ushering me out!

it is not abusive to report suspicious behaviour to the school. Please dont belittle real abuse, in that way

Well I'm genuinely sorry you felt that way, it certainly wasn't the intention. So much so I didn't notice Tinkerbel's contributions in relation to mine.

The only reason I picked up that bit of your post (and I do realise it wasn't to me and perhaps I was being a bit interferey) was to try and head off at the pass any semantic arguments as one was enough tbh!

I assume cockwomble and pandawatch are going by their "gut feeling".
However, MN has clear guidelines on what you should do if you suspect that someone is a troll. You notify them and let them check it out.

Then, if the OP is guilty, the thread is removed; if they are innocent, no-one is any the wiser, no leaked emails, no-one's life is ruined by the false accusation.

What you don't do is attempt to derail the thread and distress other posters by starting a troll hunt.

And when I say arguments I mean in the debate sense of the word...