Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

Child protection gone mad?????

42 replies

chloeb2002 · 27/08/2004 19:05

Just after some reflection on this one.... We DD (22mnts) and I were wheeling our way around tescos. Trying coincidently to keep DD happy as she had fallen off a gate... long story... and banged her head. anyway also trying to tackle potty training as she is very into it. The problem is that she will be 98% dry untill she has big girl pants on, so instead she is just wearing long dresses and going comando. so far so good, but whilst standing by the capsicums a woman with bright red hair acosted me and said " i notice your daughter has no knickers on" Yes say i we are ptty training and wernt expecting to come out but she had banged her head etc. yes says this woman, i undersatnd but as she had wriggled i the trooly her dress had ridden up and didnt cover her up, so she picked up a new oven glove id bought and placed it over her, uttering listen i work in child protection and you just dont know who is looking.
Is society so messed up?
help im losing faith!

OP posts:
alexsmum · 27/08/2004 19:17

sorry chloe, i think the woman was being very kind.It is sad that we have to think this way, but I think she had all good intentions.

daisy1999 · 27/08/2004 19:39

agree alexsmum

Momp · 27/08/2004 19:41

Agree that she was thinking with you and DD's best interests at heart.

Think how you would feel if some paedophile had enjoyed the view (sorry I know it's crude but this is the society we live in now)

CP · 27/08/2004 19:42

All credit to her for doing this I think - there really are some wierdos out there who may unfortunately get turned on by little ones with no undies on. Sad and sick I know but an unfortunate fact of life nowdays. I even pull dd's dress down around her legs when it rides up in the pram, I am so paranoid about this problem. Also, aren't you worried she could hurt herself on the trolly?

whizzz · 27/08/2004 19:46

Yes, I was horrified that when we took DS to a birthday party at a Wacky Warehouse - the birthday girls dad wasn't allowed to take any photos in case he got any other children in the pictures. If the woman was in child protection I assume she must see some pretty nasty things. It is a sad world out there

hatter · 27/08/2004 20:11

Sorry but I'm with chloe on this one. I think this woman was way over the mark. I've said this before here and I'll say it again because I feel it so passionately. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH CHILDREN'S BODIES. And I strongly feel they should not get the message that there is. I also feel that in making a big issue about covering up (eg, situations like this, not allowing toddlers to go naked on the beach etc) we are sending a message to paedophiles that yes, they are right, there is something "sexy" about a child's body.

And in what way was Chloe's dd at risk from harm here?

I'm afraid, Chloe, that I think society is messed up here and it makes me very very sad.

NotMyName · 27/08/2004 20:19

Please somebody explain me why, why, why people in England is so concerned about this? (though USA is slightly similar but people still can say bye bye to a child without fearing being confused with a paedophile).

I was sexually abused when I was 4 yrs old and the worst part of it was to live afraid of other people, now that I'm a mother I can't understand why people insist in going through this fear when nothing has happened to them. I would teach security guidelines to my children but wouldn't teach them to be afraid of what other people may be thinking.

I wouldn't take a child out without knickers however hurried I was, but this woman coming to scare you about what a hipothetic stranger may hipothetically be thinking it's just mad.

edam · 27/08/2004 20:34

well said, NotMyName. It's ridiculous.

Demented · 27/08/2004 21:01

It is ridiculous, and you should be able to take a little girl out with no knickers on and a dress when potty training (I remember my DS1 was ages before he could wear pants when PT). However last year on holiday my DH witnessed a lone man taking photos of my DS2 (15 months at the time) in the scud on the beach and today a photo of my DS1 (first day a School) I left in the hood of DS2's buggy whilst at an aerobics class at my local leisure centre has strangely gone missing. So if the lady really was involved in Child Protection then maybe it was a fair comment, I'm sure she has seen more than we would care to imagine.

hatter · 27/08/2004 21:03

notmyname - I think that in part people are like this because the media here make us think there's a paedophile on very street corner. I'm one of the people (if you haven't guessed) who refuse to think like this

MeanBean · 27/08/2004 21:06

I think the problem with working in child protection is that you are probably over-aware of peadophilia and see it everywhere. But what does worry me about this, is that the person who works in child protection is making no distinction between the damage done by a paedophile looking at a child (none) and the damage done by a paedophile abusing a child (horrific). I would hope that someone actually working in the field would have had a bit less hysteria and a bit more discrimination. But I guess that's too much to ask for.

Angeliz · 27/08/2004 21:31

The one thing i think she did wrong was cover her up.
I think she was right in her view (sorry but i have worked in that enviroment too and it opened my eyes to thins i wouldn't have considered before.)
I would HATE to pass on my fears to my dd though, (aged 3.6), and i would hate her to feel self concious or aware at such a young age.
I think your dd may be too young to realise what the lady was doing, but i'd HATE to think of a little one being embarrased by a stranger so i think the woman should have had a word with you instead.
I think the world we live in has lovely people in it and dd meets these people every day but i will do all i can to protect her from the not so nice ones and that includes covering her up so sick perverts don't get off at it!
I seem to be in the minority but i wouldn't take a child out without underwear on.

Levanna · 27/08/2004 23:14

I agree with Angeliz, I really would have taken exception to her covering DD up. I wouldn't intentionally take DD out with no undies on, though have NO problem with her wearing nothing at all at home. I think that if this lady was accustomed to dealing with children in her child protection capacity, then she should have known better that to make an issue of this in front of a youngster. A quiet word with you would have been much more appropriate if she really had any concerns, it's then totally up to you whether you take on board what she said ...or not!

FairyMum · 28/08/2004 01:19

I am with hatter on this one. I don't think it makes much difference to a pedophile if he saw your daghter's naked bum or knickers either. Why do we think naked children is a turn-on for these people? It could be children's knickers, some tight shorts, school uniform....You can't even start trying to think like they do, so just forget they might be looking from some corner. I think the woman was a weirdo and not in child protection at all and I am quite happy to let my daughter out without knickers if she likes!

WideWebWitch · 28/08/2004 07:20

I agree with hatter too.

tigermoth · 28/08/2004 08:39

fairymum, great post.

edam · 28/08/2004 08:46

Agree. It sounds like it's this woman who is the person behaving strangely here, not some mythical bloke.

gothicmama · 28/08/2004 09:49

I think society is that messed up and the lady was being kind - As a devils advocate remark to those who think it is ok how do you know or feel if someone undesirable saw and it turned them on so they went out and abused another child or perhpas even worse if they used a camera phone and use the image to get off on. You really can't be too careful these days and rightly or wrongly we as parents have a responsibility to protect our children and also other children- sorry if I have shocked

paularat · 28/08/2004 10:12

Echo gothicmama - camera phones are a popular tool with paedeophiles.

Jimjams · 28/08/2004 10:40

ridiculous. I think it is common in people who work in child protection though. I know a family who had an education welfare officer or SW turn up unannounced at their doorstep. (they were home educating). Anywya he made a big song and dance about the fact that their 15 month old was wandering around the house with no clothes on (15 months FFS) and said seomthing along the lines of "you don't know who I am I could be anyone". OTT in my opinion.

edam · 28/08/2004 10:50

Oh for heaven's sake, this is urban myth. Where's the evidence that the supermarkets are full of dirty old men with camera phones? Honestly, this is completely out of all proportion. We'll be stuffing little kids in burkas next.

gothicmama · 28/08/2004 11:36

I think we have to accept that these people do exist are in all towns and it is important to protect our children how we feel best - As a parent I would not want my dd without knickers on from a practical point of view as well as a safety issues- I dont think I am teaching her fear merely self protection as this is important throughout life

MeanBean · 28/08/2004 21:53

But one of the things I really object to in all this, is that we are making little girls and boys and their parents, repsonsible for the abnormal responses of a paedophile to a normal child. Women have long won the battle (haven't we?) about whether wearing a mini-skirt incites someone to rape us - the consensus of informed opinion now says that it is not our responsibility for what we wear, but the rapist's responsibility for how he reacts to us - and I find it depressing and dispiriting that we are having to fight the same battles about responsibility twenty or thirty years later about children's appearance, and what that might do to paedophiles. As soon as we start saying that children shouldn't display one part of their young bodies, we're on the slippery slope of viewing children with the same abnormal over-sexualised responses as paedophiles themselves.

WideWebWitch · 28/08/2004 22:22

Quite, Meanbean - it's the contributory negligence argument applied to children ffs!

meandthomas · 28/08/2004 23:25

Quite tight mean bean.

Swipe left for the next trending thread