AIBU to question praying and sleeping in the library kids area?

[sunshine240778474]

Yesterday I took the kids to the local library (Inverness, scotland). The local library has a kids area. The kids area has a nice artificial grass mat for the kids to sit and read their books on.

When I entered the library there was a man who had folded the kids mat over so he could kneel on the floor and pray to Allah.

Therefore this prevented the kids from sitting on the mat and reading their books.
The man was praying for a while.

I don't have a problem with someone praying if that's what they want to do.

Is it appropriate to be doing it in the kids area in a local library?

Also, there was a woman curled up in the corner of the library sleeping. This was also in the kids area.

I've seen people sleeping in the library on a few occasions now. I've never seen it in the kids' area.

Ofcourse, I feel sorry for her if she's tired, but again is it appropriate to be using the local library, especially the kids area, as a shelter?

I left the library, and told the staff politely, I didn't find it kid friendly.

Was I being unreasonable?

But we cannot use that information to unilaterally state that they should never be in any space, that isn’t already single sex. That is quite clearly an over the top response. We can’t ban men from everywhere.

No one has suggested that. 🤷‍♀️

For example, men do represent greater risk to women and children - there’s no arguing with the stats.
Making it about anything more than “grown up praying in wrong place” is my issue. It’s nothing to do with it being a man, or specifically a Muslim, it’s just not a place of worship and he’s not a child.

So you accept that he is a man and you accept that men are a higher risk to children but you don’t like OP or us pointing out that as a lone man behaving oddly in a children’s space he is a problem.

You also accept he was carrying out a religious practice in the wrong place and we know that the only common religion with this specifically physical sort of practice is Islam but you don’t like us mentioning that he is Muslim (even though this has repeatedly NOT been the central part of the objection) and despite the earlier rather desperate reach trying to equate a public rally with this situation, no other religious groups are doing this with that stated intent.

As to his intentions, agreed, I can’t know what his intentions were but as the main Mosque is a mere 8 minutes walk away, he knowingly and deliberately displaced children who turned up to use the space and this encroachment on public space is a growing phenomenon, I think you’ll find that on balance of probabilities, I am right.

As librarian PPs have pointed out - yes -we should have a healthy suspicion of any man spending time in an area where children are. He may be entirely innocent or he may be introducing plausible deniability by looking at books. We don’t know which, so rather than waiting until a child is harmed to be sure either way, we keep an eye on him.

It’s called safeguarding and your apparent lack of understanding is worrying.

Is there a reason why you are arguing against exercising reasonable caution with men, given you accept that men commit almost all sexual assaults?

That’s a ridiculous use of safeguarding, and if you had any real experience of it you’d know that.

We do not monitor specifically men in all areas that vulnerable people access, and nor should we. You may do it individually, but there’s no legal mandate to watch the every move of men who aren’t threatening anyone, in spaces they’re either allowed to be or aren’t excluded from on the basis of sex.

There is no government approved safeguarding policy (like KCSIE) which would state “keep an eye on men around the children.”

We cannot go through life assuming everyone is out to get us, that’s a completely unhealthy way to live.

Keeping an eye on lone men hanging around children is a “ridiculous use of safeguarding”? Are you serious?

You may do it individually, but there’s no legal mandate to watch the every move of men who aren’t threatening anyone, in spaces they’re either allowed to be or aren’t excluded from on the basis of sex.
There is no government approved safeguarding policy (like KCSIE) which would state “keep an eye on men around the children.”

It would help the conversation so much more if you stopped making up things no one has said to argue against. No one said that there was a legal mandate to watch the every move of men.

Are you aware that the concept of safeguarding children is the responsibility of all of us? This isn’t just a government initiative - normal people have always done it.

I honestly can’t work out what you are arguing here. You acknowledge that men are the perpetrators of almost all sex offences but then you say it’s sexist to be careful with men, especially those hanging around children.

Are you saying we mustn’t be wary of strange men behaving oddly around children?

Apologies, my understanding of safeguarding is the actual legal and procedural measures that we have in place to protect children. Not the made up individualised type.

Safeguarding my child isn’t everyone’s responsibility, it’s mine and the people who care for him. There’s absolutely no need for you, or any other member of the public, to safeguard my child - that’s not your job.

Sure, I protect my child from risk - including from predators. However praying does not equate to being at risk from a sex offender. Prayer isn’t an offence.

In OPs case there’s no protecting from risk, unless you class waiting as a risk, because the man wasn’t presenting risk just by being there.

Trying to equate prayer in the wrong place with sex offences is an absolute overreaction.

Are you aware that the concept of safeguarding children is the responsibility of all of us?

That was certainly the message of the safeguarding training I had to complete at work last year. I'm in the public sector but don't work with children or vulnerable adults.

Apologies, my understanding of safeguarding is the actual legal and procedural measures that we have in place to protect children. Not the made up individualised type.

This is a worry I have. A number of adults (the ones I have spoken to are teachers) seem to have been through some kind of weird institutional ‘safeguarding’ training and have taken the message that only only safeguarding that exists is the policy and paperwork side of things and have totally missed the practical side that we should all be doing to keep an eye out for children in public spaces. The safeguarding for adults training

For example, the creepy guy who followed a girl into the toilets, the small child separated from his parents on the beach, the unsupervised child about to do run across the road in traffic. As a normal adult, if we see any of those things happening we should step in to help. I have looked after more than one lost child and helped several who have hurt themselves and needed a bit of help.

It makes me feel quite horrified that as an adult you are telling me to stand by and watch if I see your child about to come to harm, and presumably you would do the same to mine.

However praying does not equate to being at risk from a sex offender. Prayer isn’t an offence.
and Trying to equate prayer in the wrong place with sex offences is an absolute overreaction.

Yet again you are making up things that haven’t been said. It is quite tedious.

In OPs case there’s no protecting from risk, unless you class waiting as a risk, because the man wasn’t presenting risk just by being there.

I take it you don’t understand the concept of plausible deniability. You have no idea what his intentions were.

From the CQC:

Safeguarding is the proactive, legal, and practical process of protecting an individual's health, wellbeing, and human rights, ensuring they live free from harm, abuse, and neglect. It involves creating safe environments, implementing policies to prevent abuse, and taking action to support children and vulnerable adults.

Yes, thanks for the explainer but I know what safeguarding is.

There is no evidence that prayer presents risk, or that children and or vulnerable adults require protecting from it.

The CQC, or any other body, wouldn’t suggest that a space is unsafe simply because it has a man in it.

Teachers aren’t institutionalised, they’re trained to complete dynamic risk assessments that assess safety and risk - a man praying wouldn’t hit that threshold.

People with a background in actual safeguarding would know that you carry the burden of truth, and evidence. You have no evidence this man presents risk, you can’t assume that because he’s praying he has other motives, it’s not a legitimate safeguarding concern.

That's because women assaulting children is very rare while men assaulting children is very common as you know full well but then you're just trolling like a lot of men on MN.

I find your constant misrepresentation of what’s been said quite dishonest.

There is no evidence that prayer presents risk, or that children and or vulnerable adults require protecting from it.

It is not the prayer, it is the person supposedly doing the praying that is the problem. You have acknowledged that men are a far greater risk than women. (As an aside we also know that has been used as a cover for child sex abuse since forever but yes let’s ignore that factor as well).

I find it fascinating that you see absolutely no issue with a man behaving oddly in a space with children. I feel like I need to explain how he is behaving oddly seeing as your understanding of the world is so vastly different to mine.

The space is designated for children to read or do child related activities. He is using it for something quite different therefore he is behaving oddly. Normal people would look at a situation where a man is behaving oddly around children, have some suspicions raised and either keep a close eye, report it or leave.

People with a background in actual safeguarding

This illustrates the problem we seem to have here. You have no idea of my background or safeguarding training. It seems like you have a weirdly silo’ed view of ‘Safeguarding’ ™️, like it’s only something professionals can do and us non professionals should just butt out and stop even using the word and certainly not presume to gave any role to play in helping keep children safe where we encounter them.

What is your response to the examples I provided? Should I have let the lost kid just wander round on his own until his parents (or a predator) found him? Or ignored the kid I saw drowning in a swimming pool because her parents weren’t paying attention? I will remember her face forever.

and finally: Teachers aren’t institutionalised

I didn’t say that either.

He was praying. Not assaulting anyone.

OP was in a library, with I’m assuming staff.

There was no need to respond to a threat of assault, because there wasn’t one.

Nope, I think he was praying. Because he prayed, and then left. So what other assumption is there to make.

Safeguarding is a real thing, with a definition and practices. You can’t just commandeer it because you don’t like something someone is doing.

We see it all the time on MN, parents reporting safeguarding issues to schools that aren’t safeguarding, they’re just things they don’t like.

”Normal people” would have acknowledged it was an odd and inappropriate use of the space, and not leapt to the conclusion it was also unsafe or a cover up for something else.

People with a background in actual safeguarding would know that you carry the burden of truth, and evidence. You have no evidence this man presents risk, you can’t assume that because he’s praying he has other motives, it’s not a legitimate safeguarding concern.

The evidence is that he is a lone man behaving oddly around children in a children’s space.
The supplementary evidence is that religion is often used as a cover for abuse using plausible deniability.
Further supplementary evidence is that OP was made to feel uncomfortable by his behaviour.

Many of the worst cases of harm to children have occurred because people around either didn’t notice or didn’t question what was happening. Lots of people saw Jamie Bulger being led away by his murderers. The people present either ignored what they saw or didn’t question what was happening.

It is quite horrifying that unless we have a background in actual safeguarding we are being told to keep our noses out.

You said earlier you didn’t think he should have been there. Why do you think that?

What’s your reasoning for why he shouldn’t have been there?

As an aside, can you possibly try responding to me in one go, rather than in multiple stages?

He shouldn’t have been there because it’s not the appropriate place for prayer.

Which has no link to:

• His sex
• The specific religion he follows
• The activity he was doing (because it wasn’t reading with a child, eg.)
• Assault

Had it been a woman doing yoga in the children’s area, she would equally have been in the wrong place.

He should have been told to move because it’s the wrong place, not because of risk. There wasn’t a risk, he was just obviously not in a mosque.

The suspicious part is that he didn’t need to be there. The mosque is less than 8 minutes walk - 2 minutes in the car.

Safeguarding is a real thing, with a definition and practices. You can’t just commandeer it because you don’t like something someone is doing.
So keeping an eye on and possibly reporting a man behaving strangely around children in a public place is not safeguarding? Mm hmm.

You appear to have taken the ‘he was praying’ information and translated that into ‘he is totally safe and definitely not a risk to children, not behaving oddly around them at all and warrants no further scrutiny’. Why?

It appears that some ‘safeguarding’ training has gone badly awry.

We see it all the time on MN, parents reporting safeguarding issues to schools that aren’t safeguarding, they’re just things they don’t like.
Except that’s not what we are talking about. There’s a difference between people misusing the concept and genuine misunderstandings.

Still no answer to my questions?

It was more of a general comment while I waited for the answers to my questions.

You appear to have taken the ‘he was praying’ information and translated that into ‘he is totally safe and definitely not a risk to children, not behaving oddly around them at all and warrants no further scrutiny’. Why?

Because he wasn’t presenting a risk to children simply by being there. He (from what OP says) made no threat, didn’t do anything directly to a child, didn’t approach a child - didn’t do anything except pray, and then leave. That’s not risk.

The answer to your examples is that the things you’re describing are actual risks. Parents should be making sure their children don’t drown, and I’d hope that’s fairly obvious. In the event they’re useless and haven’t - yes, I’d obviously support preventing a child from drowning.

But the point you’re widely missing, is that drowning is a risk. Being in a space you shouldn’t be, or praying, isn’t. Not in and of themselves.

I would prevent my child from jumping off a cliff. I would not protect him from… seeing a praying man.

Can you really only see the obvious. So naive

You could've asked the staff if there's a designated prayer area then politely direct the guy there and explain the area was for kids reading.

I’m not sure you’re even paying attention to what you are writing. You have pointed out that he shouldn’t have been in there because it’s not the appropriate place for prayer but then go on to say that it is not linked to the activity he was doing. How does that make any sense?

He shouldn’t have been there because it’s not the appropriate place for prayer.
*Which has no link to:

• His sex
• The specific religion he follows
• The activity he was doing (because it wasn’t reading with a child, eg.)
• Assault

You are the only one making a big point of his religion.

Did you know that being male is the biggest determinant of criminality?
Given news topics of the last 40 years his risk factor may well be bumped up by his being a religious man.
Given news topics of the last 10-15 years his religion may also be a contributing (I am NOT saying determining factor - please note) factor which bumps him up the risk stats a bit further.
Given his odd and inappropriate boundary encroaching behaviour, statistically a bit more risk.

I agree that no woman should be practising yoga in that space but I do not agree that the risk she presents to children is remotely similar. Given that in this scenario, the yoga practitioner would also have been allowed to continue and be in that space unsupervised until she decided to leave, the risk presented to children is higher with the man. Therefore his sex is highly relevant.

It makes sense because the activity that space is for involves reading, or any other library activity, with or for children.

So any activity which isn’t that, without prior agreement, is obviously in the wrong place.

Not pre approved yoga, mixing cake batter, spontaneous painting lessons…. Not the right space.

The specific activity isn’t the point, it’s that it is any activity that isn’t suitable for a children’s library.

I am paying attention to what I’m writing, you’re not understanding it.

Safeguarding my child isn’t everyone’s responsibility, it’s mine and the people who care for him. There’s absolutely no need for you, or any other member of the public, to safeguard my child - that’s not your job.

Was this you?

You were quite unequivocal there. Which contradicts your most recent post.

Identifying and calling out suspicious behaviour is surely a part of safeguarding. Everyone is responsible for doing that. I’m confused why you are trying to warn people off safeguarding with accusations of ‘commandeering’ it just because you don’t like it being pointed out that a man acting oddly in a space with children in should raise at least a bit of suspicion.

It’s not your job to safeguard my child, because I don’t allow him to fall into swimming pools. Your help isn’t required thank you.

I’m also definitely sure I wouldn’t like you to “safeguard” him from the “risk” of someone praying.