To ask this man if this child is his daughter?

[wildsummerdreams]

I just saw a man carrying a child (she 3-4) against her will. She was throwing a tantrum and trying to free herself. It would seem like a normal scene if you have kids, but I could not help but think the worst, so I followed them and ask him if he was her dad. He stopped (good sign) looked at me and when he realised what I was thinking, told me to not be ridiculous. I asked the child directly if that was her dad, but she kept on crying. Then they wen off and he continue to carry her against her will. I watched them for a bit and took a picture of them just in case. Please tell me I'm not a total nutter and what would you have done or what to do if something like this happens.

The girl didn't have any shoes on and they were crossing Kentish Town high street.

Yes roses, but I do love sweeping generalisations. DH works but we're on WTC. DD is a high achiever. She's bonded with her teacher this year over maths. So whatever the statistics are, that doesn't mean that everyone fits into them. And we're not chavs.

Sorry but this always crosses my mind when I've seen a young child with a man - not even always when the child is tantrumming.

I don't think your were BU but it's a tough one.

FFS.....lower class......who are you???

Oh Lordy. That’s pretty nuts. I’m sure you meant well but definitely not normal behaviour.

No Mormontsraven, in my experience they'd just tell her to leave her child alone, and that she was a bully.

Yes roses, but I do love sweeping generalisations. DH works but we're on WTC. DD is a high achiever. She's bonded with her teacher this year over maths. So whatever the statistics are, that doesn't mean that everyone fits into them. And we're not chavs.

I think she said 65% in the post above - so a large number, but not everyone. I can well believe your DD is high achieving, as of course lots of white girls with low income families are.

Statistics aren't generalising, but they are meant to show the bigger picture.

Sorry but this always crosses my mind when I've seen a young child with a man - not even always when the child is tantrumming.

You need to seek help, if you honestly think every single man with a child is a kidnapper. Bloody hell.

What's the likelihood that ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen's father was not living in the same household as her during her childhood?

PerfectlySymmetricalButtocks: I'm looking forward to you thanking me for working so hard that I'm a higher rate taxpayer whose taxes can subsidise your family's lifestyle.

Money can't buy class eh Mormont

I'm looking forward to you thanking me for working so hard that I'm a higher rate taxpayer whose taxes can subsidise your family's lifestyle.

What a repulsive thing to say.

What's repulsive about what I said? It's the truth, isn't it?

I'm fine for people not to claim WTC if they're uncomfortable with the reality that other people are paying higher taxes to support them.

Until you reach a certain level of income, you too are supported by others across the economy. And those are on low incomes are taxed proportionately higher all things considered.

You are also conflating hard work with income, when the two are not always linked. Many work very hard for very little money, hence needing tax credits. Some work very little, comparatively speaking, for much more.

Your arguement is simplistic and a little dim, in other words.

I'm fine for people not to claim WTC if they're uncomfortable with the reality that other people are paying higher taxes to support them.

To expect people to "thank" you for paying your taxes - which you have little choice about anyway - is nasty, lacking in class and speaks of a sense of entitlement, not to mention a need to lord over others.

Using it in a debate or discusduon is a way of trying to make yourself look somehow superior. You just make yourself look nasty and classless, and by resorting to things like that it makes it seem as if you've got no truth to say. You're doing your true but irrelevant point no good.

*discussion

Autocorrect has begun "correcting" to incorrect spellings.

Not simplistic at all. Many choose not to work long hours (the mumsnet 16 hour week phenomenon) so don't earn much as a result. Many are lazy and don't apply themselves in school and as a result find it difficult to find employment in which they will be productive enough to earn even minimum wage. You're doing the usual stunt of claiming that some limited exceptions undermine the general case.

You're also lying when you say that "those on low incomes are taxed proportionately higher all things considered". How can someone who earns nothing and receives all their income from benefits be contributing more to the common pot than someone who is paying income tax at 45%? There are people on £50k or £60k (where the jump to 40% applies and child benefit goes) who are paying net (i.e. tax plus NI minus cash welfare) proportionately more than those on higher incomes, but £50k is far from low income.

Haven’t read the whole thread, so don’t know,if op is still reading. However, we had the same thing happen to us, but we were ‘the dad’. My dh and I was at a local country fair with his niece, about 6-8 years old. Someone came up to us and asked who we were, as dn’s parents weren’t around. We weren’t offended at all, and all was well. This was over twenty years ago.

"To expect people to "thank" you for paying your taxes - which you have little choice about anyway - is nasty, lacking in class and speaks of a sense of entitlement, not to mention a need to lord over others."

I have lots of choices. I could work half the hours I do and earn half the money. I could move abroad and work from somewhere else and not pay tax in the U.K. at all.

The white English chav classes need to realise that there are a lot of us who are tired of their overweaning sense of entitlement and shitty behaviour. The only reason that their dysfunctional lifestyles have been sustained is because of the welfare subsidies which our taxes have funded.

Of course the Bullington boys and their mates are such decent folk.

I don't think OP was unreasonable to act on her "sixth sense". But I think it would be unreasonable to expect every adult to follow, or report to police, every time they saw a screaming child with another adult.

It's an everyday scenario and the police would be overwhelmed with reports.

I have lots of choices. I could work half the hours I do and earn half the money. I could move abroad and work from somewhere else and not pay tax in the U.K. at all.

"I could go through a massive decrease in my income just so I don't pay taxes."

"I could emigrate in order to cheat the tax system, which I also benefit from."

The white English chav classes need to realise that there are a lot of us who are tired of their overweaning sense of entitlement and shitty behaviour. The only reason that their dysfunctional lifestyles have been sustained is because of the welfare subsidies which our taxes have funded.

"Lower income" makes you sound like less of an elitist than "chav" does, as a helpful hint.

It's not "shitty behaviour", nor "entitled" to get welfare. It's recognising your rights as a UK citizen to be able to provide for your family.

Again, showing an astonishing lack of awareness of systemic inequality and the effect it can have on outcomes across a lifetime.

Taxation doesn't just relate to income, it also relates to spending.

I wouldn't say the majority of people are only working 16 hours tbh, as such I would argue that it is you that is extrapolating the minority to try to force a point on the majority. Working full time hours on minimum wage will see you struggling in vast areas of the UK. Those people cannot be described as not working hard. Equally, someone has to do those jobs so while it may frustrate you, until the minimum wage matches the living wage taking into consideration regional disparities there will always be a need for tax credits.

But you are demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of the class system, which probably comes from not having grown up within it. Chav, working class, and low income are three very different things.

"I could emigrate in order to cheat the tax system, which I also benefit from."

Are you really so deranged that you are claiming that emigration is cheating the tax system? That's the same approach as communist eastern Europe pre-1990 - reason for the Berlin Wall. You're in good company with Eric Honeker and Nicolae Ceausescu.

Yes, chav, working class and low income are different things. However, the fatherless family phenomeon is common to the white English in all three categories. I differentiate because, apart from black afro-caribbean, ethnic minority low income groups don't anything like the same level of fatherless families.

Look at the statistics for children in care. Asian rates are only a third those of White children. And, if you take deprivation into account, white children have higher, not lower, rates than those for black children in the most deprived areas where the majority of black children live. And there are big differences between the rates for African and Caribbean children. See more detail here:
www.communitycare.co.uk/2017/10/03/new-looked-children-statistics-dont-tell-us/

I could emigrate in order to cheat the tax system, which I also benefit from.

In the context of the post 'emigration' seems to be code for 'living in the UK in all but name.'

Like I said, I have read reports. I'm not denying the statistics. I'm saying that your entitled, superior, snobbish attitude - paired with a lack of class and of the class system - is horrendous and does you no favours.

Women from this demographic aren't used to seeing fathers with their children and see men with children as potential abducters in a way that those from non-dysfunctional groups would never do

You have made two MASSIVE and unsubstantiated claims there:

'aren't used to seeing men with children'.
I live in a country where the vast majority of people are over 10 years old, does that mean I am not used to seeing anybody under 10? no.

'and see men with children as potential abducters in a way that those from non-dysfunctional groups would never do'
You have essentially claimed NO happily married could would ever see a man as a potential abductor. The phrase 'would never do' is far too dismissive.

Different people will interpret different situations differently. A man with a child needn't be seen as a potential abductor, often it's quite the opposite - depending on the context and interaction with the child.
However, in SOME contexts (a child reluctant to go along with the male, or seemingly protesting) might give rise to some people interpreting it as an adult struggling with an errant child, whilst others might pause for thought and wonder if there is something more sinister taking place.

Your assertion that 'chavs' are more likely to interpret this situation in a way that others never could is absurd. There are countless other factors that will influence the interpretation, to a point where with enough supporting evidence, almost all people would interpret an action as abduction, even if it's not.

For instance, if a father were to put their hand over a child's mouth and drag them off into a van, and a mother screamed - then that would almost universally be interpreted as an abduction, even if later it turned out to not be the case (the man accidentally put his hand over the child's mouth, they were in an extreme hurry to leave, and the mother screamed because she thought the van was going to collide with other traffic)

If however an abductor pulled up in a Rolls Royce, called out to a child and the child ran to them with open arms and shouted 'Daddy!!!' - HE could be an abductor (intending to take the child away from his estranged wife), and yet few would consider it an abduction based on the scene before them.

Do you still maintain 'chavs' are more likely to assume abduction?
Do you not concede there are many other factors that will influence the interpretation?