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?

I agree this thread is full of fruit loops.

The fighting and nit-picking from all angles is pathetic but please do not think that people who have been through this sort of thing have only one view. I'm not prepared to discuss my experiences in detail on here but know I was subjected to some vile things as a child. 'Stranger danger' and 'watch out for paedos' is not a wrong concept but because it's so emotional, people lose rationality. We need to teach the younger generation to be vigilant, not hysterical and suspicious. That is no way to live. We need to teach the younger generation that gut instinct tells you a lot but that you cannot accuse without evidence.

The fact that the school "referred" on OP's email means absolutely nothing. That is just standard safeguarding practice. The school is probably obliged to refer it on to the LEA. OP should not use the fact as some sort of proof that her suspicions were well founded.

You nosey cow.

Good grief, just read thread and agree the rhubarb.

People who have had hideous childhood experiences are of course entirely justified in having a - to put it mildly- wary of their fellow human beings. And also need to be given leeway. But that does not change the statistics. And one person't bad experience should not inform universal behaviour.

I don't know whether a person who has been abused is better at spotting potential abusers. They will obviously be more suspicious generally -and, in fact might need to be careful about letting their experience colour their view of the world- and crucially, the world view they pass on to their children.

Some of these replies have been sickening and incredibly hurtful to read.

The troll accusations were upsetting enough...

Bit different however When my son and my friends twins started preschool we always saw this man with his girlfriend/wife and two young girls, after seeing him a few times at the preschool my friend realized she remembered him from when she was around 8 years old. The man was a convicted pedophile, with charges against him for child porn and many other things related to children. The next day we went in we both reported the man to the preschool and handed in our notice at the preschool. She also rang the police after than the whole time serving our notice he was never seen again. We was just lucky she remembered this man and then confirmed with her mum who he was.

Tanith

Right, you get upset if someone on here get accused of being a troll with no apparent proof.

Do you get it yet?!

I was hoping you did, cockwomble, but apparently not

No - I get upset when I see a thread to which I have contributed a sensitive and incredibly difficult personal experience reduced to a troll hunt - an implication that someone was just using my feelings, my experience, my hurt, for entertainment.

You said at the time you saw no one distressed. You weren't looking.

No you don't get it.

Whatever has happened to you does not justify villfiying another human being for no reason with no proof.

It just doesn't.

And where did I say that it did?

Right, think. You're upset about the troll accusation yes?

There was no reason to call the OP a troll in your view, yes?

Therefore it's upsetting, yes?

There's no reason to spread shit and call someone a paedo imo in this situation, yes?

It's upsetting, yes?

So why can't you see that the reverse is true, given that the op did not publicly out him and gossip about him?

Look, you're not going to see what I'm trying to say, either now or then. You haven't removed the troll accusation even though you now know it did cause upset. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you.

Seeker
That is interesting and true. I quite accept that childhood experiences may make people wary. It seems likely and understandable. I certainly understand that dynamic.

It is partly why I try to articulate (obviously poorly sometimes ) that we don't all feel like that.

My dd is 9. I remember getting incredibly anxious when she was a toddler and then realising that that was my memories of my abuse being triggered by her reaching the age when I start remembering it happening.
But I decided that I don't want to protect her by teaching her that the world is to be feared and that passing strangers constitute a threat. I tried instead to make her open and confident and able to say what she wanted and ask awkward questions.

I can't protect her. None of us can unless we lock our children up. But I want her to see the world as broadly benign, to accept that the world includes oddities and differences.
I am not making much sense but thinking that anyone odd is bad and anyone 'normal' must therefore be safe just feeds into a paranoia that may make us feel safer but in general it just makes society more and more separate. I don't want that for my child even though I have every reason to be wary. Turning into someone who sees danger in anything outside normal behaviour would just mean my abusers had continued to hurt me.
I am sure that others would chose differently and I do respect that.
But the idea has been articulated that to chose to assume that odd behaviour is probably just odd behaviour is somehow denying that predatory pedophiles exist. I just wanted to refute that and to try and express myself better.

I have probably failed [smoke]

I don't smoke.
And the whole post is addresses to Seeker but actually it is mostly mulling...

I haven't got that impression at all, pagwatch. I've seen it more the other way: that predatory paedophiles do exist - we all know they do - so it's best to be on your guard and report anything you're uncomfortable with so it can be checked out. This what I intend to teach my own children, giving them confidence and clear guidelines of what to do and who to tell if they are worried.

While we're clearing things up, I honestly, genuinely do not understand how you interpreted my post in the way that you did. I picked on your quote as the most recent one saying something I wanted to correct because I was concerned that people were dismissing the oddballs who do abuse. I wasn't dismissing anything of your experience and I was horrified to read that you thought I was. I'm sorry that you interpreted it as such - it's something I would never, ever even think, let alone say.
I was also bitterly resentful of your comment regarding expat as I thought it had no place here.

I'm seeing your "pissing contest" comment as distressing - can you elaborate?

Well this thread doesn't have much longer to go but as reading the most recent pages is doing horrible things to my brain I am going to hide it.

did not publicly out him and gossip about him

What a load of crap.

But before I leave...pag I'm trying to bring my kids up the same way.

This entire thread is a load of crap, with a stupid OP and so many idiot posters happy to accuse a stranger FOR NO FUCKING REASON.

[sigh]

No. Honestly no. Because I wasn't clearing things up in a 'you said this and I said that and I am more offended than you' way.

I was just trying to post my general view about a difficult issue. I wanted to say 'i just feel this because of my experience but I u derstand and respect that others see it differently'.

The fact that you have responded with more aggression and an apparent attempt to pick another issue to battle about suggests to me that we are in a different place and there is little to be gained by engaging in any further.

I am sorry for all the ways in which my posts have upset you. None of them were I tended to do so but I think you are viewing everything I post as an attack when it is not and the best thing to do is agree to differ and walk away.

A lot of the discussion on this forum seems to be upon how much we should act upon 'gut instinct' (GI).

For those of you who feel that we should value 'gut instinct', here's a link to the DM which supports your view.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031848/Why-right-trust-gut-instincts-Scientists-discover-decision-IS-right-one.html

Personally, I worry that GI is overly influenced by stereotypes (eg. age, race, sex), and also by cultural expectations, norms and media hypes.

In other words, Gut Instinct is irrational and should not be the basis for any other action other than 'hmm'.

A lot of "hmm's" would indicate suspicion, but not evidence.

Well, again - where are you getting "aggression" from? Where are you getting "picking another battle" from?

Because I'm doing neither. This thread is absolutely full of people missing points, reading what is not being said and misunderstandings.

I wanted your comment elaborated o because it read to me as though you thought I'd posted my experience in order to trump yours.

Don't you see why that is distressing? Do you honestly not see why I asked for clarification?

Nor, apart from your initial post to me, am I viewing everything you post as an attack on me. That's why I asked for clarification on the one point in your later post that did upset me.