Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

999 replies

JumpingThroughHoops · 30/06/2012 18:38

Well I have emailed, so no AIBU about it really Grin

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?

OP posts:
Tanith · 02/07/2012 22:37

So you are saying that someone who raises an eyebrow is sinister? I'd like to confirm that because you've said the exact opposite all through the thread.

Gibbous · 02/07/2012 22:37

To the OP (who said this) yes it is.

Gibbous · 02/07/2012 22:40

To make that clear: To the OP (who said this) yes they are.

And actually I haven't said the opposite. For the umpteenth time I've said I understand her suspicious but she should have acted upon them in a different way (which was her actual question!)

Gah!

Tanith · 02/07/2012 22:44

Then I can't understand why those who have spent the entire thread telling us there's no cause for concern, we're being hysterical, sensationalist, disingenuous and reading things that aren't there are now up in arms.

Tanith · 02/07/2012 22:49

My previous reply was to Tinkerbel, by the way, who has said the exact opposite. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Gibbous · 02/07/2012 22:52

I can't speak for others but I have said throughout that this behaviour might send my hackles rising for inexplicable reasons.

But there is no way firing off an email to a school is an appropriate way to address such inexplicability (sp?!) and yes, having such absolute faith in one's uneasiness instead of tempering it with logic does somewhat smack of hysteria.

And to be fair, I'm pretty sure most posters anti the OP's actions have said the same. Without spending hours going back I can't say for sure who but the impression I got was that posters were more focused on the OP's actions.

The actions were the subject of this, not the uneasiness which sparked them.

Wider debates have sprung up around paedosteria, some posts have, quite frankly, been sensationalist (people with beards spring to mind...) but the nub of it is, who can say whether those instincts were right? And it is precisely the uncertainty of them that makes for far more appropriate actions than firing off a potentially damaging email to a school office (and pleeeeeassse don't make me explain again why it could be harmful! Soz, not aimed at you, just circles generally...)

FutTheShuckUp · 02/07/2012 22:52

I saw an extremely odd looking window cleaner walking down the street today. Who can I report him to. He had a mac on so must be a peeeeeeeedo after all...

Gibbous · 02/07/2012 22:52

Ach, sorry Tanith, I answered anyway!

zookeeper · 02/07/2012 22:53

I haven't read the whole thread but just the op - I just don't see what on earth is sinister about this man. Gut instinct is all very well but you have to have something to go on. YABU

tinkerbel72 · 02/07/2012 22:53

Stop rewriting the thread tanith

NO ONE has said paedophiles don't exist. NO ONE has said there is never any cause for concern with regard to child abuse.

What many people have said is that on the basis of what the op posted, her email to the school was ill judged and inflammatory, and worst of all, counter productive to the cause of safeguarding.

You WANT to believe that the rest of us don't believe paedophiles exist as some sort of weird justification of the ops outright maliciousness against other peoples children.

ShellyBoobs · 02/07/2012 22:54

Because, Tanith, OP has now said that she hopes children are confronted by someone 'who raises an eyebrow' which is the same as saying 'a fucking pervert' in the context it was written.

There is no ambiguity in what she said despite what you're trying to imply.

bejeezus · 02/07/2012 23:02

ALL the OP did, was to alert the school to the presence of a man who she thought was acting suspiciously (with a disclaimer, that she couldnt pin-point exactly what it was that made her suspicious)...she didnt tar and feather the guy...HOW is that inappropriate? the school wont even know who he is, ubless he acts supiciously again and alerts them to his presence

i wouldnt have used the word 'paedophile' if i had sent the email...but the school wont think he is a paedophile just because OP used the word. I imagine they might raise an eyebrow in the office; but i imagine they will for go all the cackling that has been done on this thread and concentrate on the actual point; is this man known/have there been other reports? file info incase there are further reports...contact police? i dunno...I am sure they have protocols...which wont involve mass hysteria over the misguided use of the word 'paedophile'

bejeezus · 02/07/2012 23:05

and, how 'suspicious' in your opinion does someone need to be, before you would tell the school?

are you waiting for an attempted abduction?

tinkerbel72 · 02/07/2012 23:07

All the op did was report a guy without any real evidence, using the word 'paedophile'. Oh and in the space of 48 hours she's shifted from saying it could all be entirely a set of coincidences, to asserting that she is 'definitely right' because something is 'plainly wrong' with the man. Oh and she then said she hoped my children would one day meet some nasty character.
So, no big deal eh? Hmm

kittyandthefontanelles · 02/07/2012 23:08

Bejeezus, he'd need to do more than just use public transport.

Gibbous · 02/07/2012 23:09

Bejeezus, the possible harmful consequences of that email (and possible alternatives) have been explained time and time and time again in this thread.

You know there is a happy medium that exist somewhere between "man waiting at bus stop/having talked to dad at sport's day/and mum he knows on train" and attempted abuction. The idea that there isn't is precisely the mentality that I can't get my head around.

bejeezus · 02/07/2012 23:13

forget whats gone on in the thread tinkerbell all she did was alert the school-she isnt prosecuting the guy. Shes not actually accusing him of anything...just recording her suspicions, in case it is relevant

hard evidence? like i said, what evidence do you require? attempted abduction? flashing?

kitty you are being disingenious

Gibbous · 02/07/2012 23:15

Did we cross? If not I'll say it again...

The possible harmful consequences of that email (and possible alternatives) have been explained time and time and time again in this thread.

You know there is a happy medium that exists somewhere between "man waiting at bus stop/having talked to dad at sport's day/and mum he knows on train" and attempted abuction. The idea that there isn't is precisely the mentality that I can't get my head around.

bejeezus · 02/07/2012 23:15

i didnt say there wasnt gibous-im just asking where your line is? what constitutes suspicious for you? or is it something which is hard to explain?

Tanith · 02/07/2012 23:15

Not your fault, Gibbous: I should have made it clear.

Tinkerbel, you appear to be skilled in reading things that are not there. I said nothing about denying paedophiles exist and I am not rewriting the thread.

Shelly, I implied nothing of the kind; that's how you read my post.

I am saying that if, as you both have been saying all through the thread, there is nothing to worry about from someone who "raises an eyebrow" or invokes a gut feeling, then why are you so het up about the Op's comment? You've been ridiculing her enough all night!

bejeezus · 02/07/2012 23:18

i havent read the bits where the possible harmful consequences of that email have been explained

in reality..if everyone wasnt being hysterical, i dont believe there actually are any

OP inappropriately used the word 'paedophile'...but she was not wrong in having her suspicions recorded

tinkerbel72 · 02/07/2012 23:18

Tanith- stop being deliberately obtuse. It's perfectly clear that jumpingthrouhhhoops was saying that she hopes my children come to harm one day. You can try to put whatever spin on it you like, but that's the truth of it. It's a sick thing to think, write, or defend.

kittyandthefontanelles · 02/07/2012 23:19

I'm not being disingenuous. The op herself said he didn't do anything suspicious. She said that. Therefore, that's all I have to go on.

ilovesooty · 02/07/2012 23:23

i havent read the bits where the possible harmful consequences of that email have been explained

Really? It's been explained over and over again.

Gibbous · 02/07/2012 23:30

Yes it is hard to explain, of course, by its very nature. It's not an exact science and there are no hard and fast rules. Our feelings aren't infallible, if only they were, the world would be infinitely safer.

But I haven't disregarded anyone's suspicions. And never would. My argument is they should be tempered with rationality. And with that in mind I've answered the OP's question of whether she was BU in emailing the school. IMO she was using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Aside from the wider question of skewing people's perception of the reality of sex offenders (it's the nasty man in the mac rather than mum's charming boyfriend) and the dangers all that entails (which I admit to not knowing enough about), where do you go from there if everybody raised concerns to one authority or another about everybody they felt inexplicably uneasy about?!

Suspicions are all well and good (and believe me I am a supporter of the validity of microgestures in body language, the psychology of smell etc) but there has to be some commonsense and consequent restraint when acting on such suspicions. Otherwise there would be a flood of concerns and the line, then, would be so much harder to determine.

Phew... Sorry!