Accused of trespassing for helping a child

[tatt]

anyone know if there is more to this story or is it health & safety gone mad again? health&safety

Hey purits do you want a good chuckle there is a bloody funny link on AIBU. (I had a massive awful ding dong with someone on a religious thread and it got bad. Ihave felt hurt all day about it) but I was cheered up in the AIBU thread a very rude one about cunt cubes started by Peter Mandelson someone has posted a link within the thread called cunt kiev but christ it was bloody bloody funny I have not laughed so much for years, it was damn fine therapy! If I could link it to you now I would but am lousy techie{grin}

the woman did not go to the newspapers after the incident - which was 3 weeks ago, if the school are to be believed. She may have gone to the papers in annoyance at being visited by the police or the story may have been picked up by the papers who then approach3ed her.

There are discrepancies between the statement the school seem to have given to the Guardian and the letter they have on their website. The statement says the child was being observed by 3 people as it wasn't their policy to get children down. The letter says that the woman was seen by a teaching assistant who then saw her approach the child, no mention of anyone watching the child at all. The woman obviously thought break ended up 10.30 and the child had been up the tree longer than was actually the case - wonder if anyone bothered to tell her that?

Clearly the child was in a tree, the woman thought she was helping him, the police were called in. The school banned her for being aggressive when they suggested her motives were dishonourable - in effect accusing her of being a paedophile. Some of the comments on this thread are offensive - she goes to help a child, is accused of being a paedophile, storms off and that makes her a "loon"!

Message is quite clear - never try to help a child in danger - and its insane.

So - if there's ever a time when I'm on playground duty and a woman climbs over the fence and starts heading for a child, I have to stop and think 'now hang on - purit said she isn't necessarily a nasty person', shall I? Yeah, right.

Like I said, lots more random members to the general public to inexplicably defend on the boards tonight, purits - I know you wouldn't want to single any out, would you?

I must admit I do find the policy of not intervening to help the child strange. I'm obviously missing something. To just leave a 5 year old child to swing on the branch of a tree seems very dangerous. Suppose the child fell awkardly and landed on its neck. Would that just be one of those things? Surely they should intervene and coax the child down for the health and safety of the child?

It's almost like the fire brigade turning up to a scene where someone is balancing on the ledge of a building, and deciding to have a fag break and a chin wag and observe the incident from a distance. Then when a guardian angel member of the public rushes up the stairs of the building to rescue the person on the ledge, this person is accused of trespass and receives a visit from the police. It does seem a bit topsy turvy.

feenie from the beginning you have stated this woman was a "loon" and implied that she was on school premises not to help the child but to do him some damage. You have no evidence for either statement except that seeing a 5 year old boy on a tree she went further out of her way to help him than most people would be prepared to do these days.

I'm afraid you are damaging the reputation of your profession more than the headteacher did.

Oh please. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I believe the parent. I have been told today that I care more about Health and Safety than I do children, something which I find immensely insulting since my whole career is devoted to exactly the opposite, and I can't defend myself because I am damaging the reputation of my profession?

Are you for real?

Are you saying, like purit, you deserve the insult because you insulted a member of the public on an anonymous forum? Really?

I find Feenies attitude very odd.

The parent wasn't actually there though was she?
I don't know who to believe BTW.

Feenie I have backed off now from laying int anyone again on this thread. It is hard to believe any one single version as the facts have been distorted/misrepresented first by press and the school there is a discrepency between the school's account to the press and then the 2nd statement tidying up the facts on their newsletter the next day.I have ignored all DM comments because they are irrelevant.It did occur to me that if the little boy is fairly disruptive the mum might want to toe the party line with the school on this. It would avoid upsetting the applecart wouldn,t it? I am just presenting this as a hypothesis not a fact, But what is an undeniable fact is the following...the mother was not there and neither was the Head. So I return to my earlier conclusion that the truth lies somewhere in between. Someone compared this to the girl on the Bristol First Bus from the off She was straight on the phone to the Bristol Evening News. This lady was not, I can see the time lapse and I understood it got to the broad sheets via the local paper. However she might regret speaking to the press because with her name in lights there will bound to be the vigilante squads in Melksham who want to call her more than a loon. If she is totally innocent I feel she is in for a tough time. Feeny good on you for stating you contempt re some Hand S legislationm I am glad you hight hug your pupils if needed so I applaud. I think your only mistake on this thread was maybe read the evidece too quickly and jump to conclusions but this was not just you most of us may have done it on the first reading, and you weren't theonly one to call the lady a "loon" so the finger could not be pointed entirely at you for this. The problem with this is the lady has a 6 year old she may be a mnetter her friends could be a mnetter and by calling her a loon we do her a disservice.How does she defend herself? We are riding on presunption and hearsay.This lady is not like a celebrity with pr and a battery of lawyers behind her. So I would hesitate to call her anything other than her mame. When the Bristol story broke ou there was amazing support for the breastfeeding girl, and som really harsh abuse and name calling lobbed at the poor bus driver. When the true story emerged I did not see one of those posters come back on the thread and apologise for the sheer nastiness of their comments. That poor man ha a family and his dignity to recover. It made me[shocked] and to be a mnetter that day.

bloody typos sorry.

As has been pointed out already the mother was not there. The school have implied that there were repeated incidents involving this woman and the mother is clearly of the type who will listen to anything said by a person in authority. You are obviously the same.

This may be one of a number of incidents - in which case the school would have proof of that and should have contacted the police themselves. More probably they have, by refering to the woman's beheviour in doing 3 things they disliked as 3 incidents, terrified the mother, misled the police and slandered/libelled someone who was only trying to help. My advice to the woman would be if she hasn't been to that school before to find a lawyer who will do no win no fee and sue. In fact I will go and post that on the Mail site, although sadly I doubt she'll see it.

Feenie you could defend your profession rationally and with logical argument. By descending to the levels you did you bring your profession into disrepute.

How utterly and completely ridiculous, tatt, that you believe I cannot defend myself on Mumsnet without bringing my 'profession into disrepute'. I notice also that you insist on saying that whilst sidestepping the questions I asked you. It isn't the beginning last century - teachers may disagree with others in on a public message forum without their professional ethics on a different matter being called into question. Purit said, out of nowhere, that I don't put the children first, and I took exception. When I objected, she said it was fine to insult me, since I'd insulted the member of the general public in question. Then you piled in to say I can't argue with that because I am bringing my profession into disrepute! Absolutely unbelievable.

I am going to leave this thread now - but if anyone ever does scale our fence and make a beeline for one of the children in my care, I will continue to assume that the child may be in danger. That, to me, is common sense - and believing does not bring my profession into disrepute.

believing that.

I'm afraid I'd missed the question because I don't pay much attention to comments from people who are so offensive.

If someone scaled a fence and approached a child who was in your presence you'd be right to think something was wrong. If someone climbed over a gate to rescue a 5 year old child who they perceived to be unattended and who was in adangerous position you'd be wrong. I hope that is clear enough for you.

Sadly the Mail webpage is closed to comments.

Sounds as if the head is trying to cover up his staff's failure by smearing the passer by who intervened. Very nasty indeed to try to make out she's got a habit of approaching children on school premises. That alone makes the head a liar, so I'm afraid I can't trust the rest of his story.

We live in very sad times when an adult can't go to the aid of a child in trouble without being attacked and portrayed as a suspicious individual.

A man once apologised for finding ds for me and bringing him back - I was sad that he felt the need to apologise for doing the right thing and hope he'll do it again if he ever sees another child in trouble.

I agree, edam, about the smearing and the 'sad times' conclusion.

DH and a young DS were mucking about on a bridge once, doing silly horseplay. A man saw them from a distance and came to DS's 'rescue'. He was very embarrassed when he realised the true situation. I told him not to apologise: I would much rather someone thought to intervene, instead of walking by on the other side.

Fully agree with the above, I worry that lady would read the "loon" comments here. People love to just pile straight in with the insults!

I keep thinking about the adults who questioned the children who took Jamie Bulger then accepted it was their brother and they were going home. For years after that I'd have wanted to escort home any children in a similar position. With stories like this in the press adults would be afraid to question any boy for fear of the police accusing them!

Yes it is a sad sad world Tatt