To think that our children aren't safe in general and we need to be super vigilant ?

[cafebistro]

I don't think in being unreasonable or paranoid after today. My friend and I went into town on a shopping trip with our children. My dd is 4 years old and my friend dd is just a baby. We were walking through town and has to stop along with a crowd of other shoppers at a level crossing for a good 5 minutes. During this time I noticed a guy looking at my dd. No actually he was eyeing her up and down. I quietly said something to my friend and she said alarmed "he's leering at her". I kept her close , she was messing with her dress and I was frantically pulling it down. I kept checking and he was still doing it, staring. Anyway the level crossing was clear and we carried on walking into a shop. Then I noticed the guy had followed us in. A little while later I was looking at something on shelves and then quickly turned round and the guy was right behind me , he jumped as in shock and moved away.

I'm in shock. I know the guy didn't actually do anything but I think this is the first time I've ever felt that my child may have been under threat. I actually felt like saying to this man "what is your problem! If you come near my child again ...."

I honestly don't think I was being paranoid .

Paedophiles are paedophiles whether they are around children in their family or random children in shops.

I think your thread title is VERY unreasonable.

Yes in this one incident you may have felt uncomfortable. The correct response is to be extra vigilent - although in that circumstance I believe the correct thing to do would be to remove your child/challenge the man.

In general schools and other places having lists of known offenders makes it much much safer for children - than when I grew up and people ignored very obvious suspicious behaviour. Similarly a lot of grooming cases wouldn't happen if all warning signs were acted on.

However what do you think could happen to your child if you are with them on a shopping trip? If they escape your attention they are far more likely to be run over than molested. (Most molestation occurs by people known to the child - not strangers.)

Anyonefortennis, I couldnt care less if they had special needs. If I genuinely thought my child was in danger.

MaryZ you started a thread the other day berating arseholes who come onto AIBU to post snippy little replies to OPs, saying that you thought MN was a meant to be a place people could use to talk about things that are worrying them.

You then come on this thread and post a very brief response ending with calling the OP 'weird'.

I completely agree with sillylass and MrsKoala here.

Apologies: meant KoalaFace

You had an experience which unnerved you.
It happens. You will be a bit more vigilant, rightly or wrongly.

Turning that into a slightly hysterical thread about all children bing in danger and the need to be hyper vigilant is a bit ridiculous and annoying.

I've told you what happened, Sangria. It's not how you've tried to misrepresent it.

Hakluyt - I do agree with you, about the stranger-danger FB horror story phenonemum, and it's effects. And the 'a child was found having it's hair cut and dyed in the toilets in Sainsbury's'

But in answer to a simple question does it ever happen? Well, yes, very very ocasionally it does.

Our challenge and the more complex issue is how we manage the actual infinitessimal risk in the face of a need to a)take sensible routine precaustions in all areas of our lives and b)the hysteria.

"It doesn't mean this guy was a creepy abuser, but I would be erring on the side of caution and keeping an eye on my kid in this situation. It really won't harm anyone to do so. " So would I. So would 99.9% of people. What we wouldn't do was then start a hysterical thread about out children not being safe and needing to be hyper vigilant.

"I've told you what happened, Sangria. It's not how you've tried to misrepresent it."

I don't think you were misrepresented. Your sister got lost and was found with a man who said he was taking her to the police station. Presumably you then went to the police station- what happened next?

Op your absolute right and a man local to me has been given ASBO'S for leering at young girls, he isn't allowed near schools etc and he has also followed people and so on.

He has never ever done anything more than look and stare.

On mn saying to you need to be vigilant translates from normal parent upping the vigilance to totally paranoid neurotic nut.

I do think if we could read minds people would be astonished though.

Do we never ever learn from Jimmy Saville cases?

I was somewhere with my DD once and she was running around and Rolf Harris was there with his wife and he was looking and made a remark about her....because he was RH I was flattered,.

Now I feel stupid.

Anyway, I am naturally on the look out anyway, I have had too many personal experiences not to be.

I trust men, my DD has lots of neighbours we are friendly with , and wider family friends....but I still manage to remain vigilant and cautious and hope to remain so.

Totally agree Koala Face.

I think some people live in very genteel bubbles on MN.

Do we never ever learn from Jimmy Saville cases?

There were many complaints - the police ignored them.

I was somewhere with my DD once and she was running around and Rolf Harris was there with his wife and he was looking and made a remark about her....because he was RH I was flattered

Don't be ridiculous. RH hasn't been accused of abusing very young children. His trial isn't over yet.

Now I feel stupid.

With good reason.

He wasn't taking her to the police station. He said he was but, in fact, had taken her out of the shopping centre and was going in a completely different direction.

No-one went to the police station. Mum didn't think they'd take her seriously.

CarpetBagger RH has not been found guilty

Anyway, I am naturally on the look out anyway, I have had too many personal experiences not to be

Hakluyt

Did you read that line or did you choose to deliberately omit it from your attack?

The whole point of Jimmy Savile is that they were known amongst some circles to be abusers ( pointing out Harris case is still on going) HOWEVER not necessarily to the children he abused and to their parents.

The point being that a genial friendly man ....in the media was actually a monster, the last person who is actually safe.

As they stress in stranger danger cases, monsters dont come at children with monster masks on.

Of course we should all be vigilant.

I presume all the people attacking the op, let their own children have total freedom? Alone in play parks etc walking back from school young and so on.

OP a similar thing happened to us whilst out shopping, the guy went after I approached security and the shopping centre watched him on cctv changes his coat and put glasses on!!!

We were very shook up by this:/

Isn't that what I said, sillylass? They used their status to abuse.

In answer to your question there is no doubt vigilence protects young children. I came very close to seeing a very young toddler getting knocked down today. She wandered into the middle of the road. Her caregiver was not being vigilant.

You will probably never know if your child was in danger today but if she was your vigilance protected her.

Therefore YANBU you need to be supervilgilant with young children however paedophiles are not the only danger.