school children approched by stranger in car -Littlepace

Beechman

Kids at the local primary schools sent home with a note from the principal /Garda. There has been reported incidents to Blanchardistown Garda of children been approched by a stranger in a car.

short note without much detail but extra vigilance is needed in the area

mod : I have copy of letter if needed

Zaph

Seems to be a crime spree in D15 at the moment. However, unlike the previous two threads I locked, there clearly is something to substantiate this so I'm going to leave it, however discussion of any other alleged offences will not be permitted and posts will be deleted that contravene this.

OP, if you're able to scan the letter in and post it here for anyone who didn't receive a copy it would be great.

Gaspode

If I'd a euro for every time I'd heard this one - this story is as old as the internet!
The school may indeed have sent home a note based on rumours, but I dont imgaine the Gardai have actually had any such reports.

Bulmers

I live in B'field, got the following email below from the Res Association..not sure if anyone else has heard but worth spreading this around i think..

Subject: URGENT NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH NOTICE FOR BBECHFIELD ! PLEASE READ
To:


Hello

Children from the local primary schools , Mary Mother of Hope and St Benedicts have been sent home today with a note from the schools and Blanchardiston Garda station .

Apparently the Garda have had reports of a man trying to lure children into his car in the Liittlepace area, (this could mean outside the school.) This man does not appear to be a parent of a child.

This has only been brought to my attention this afternoon and details are sketchy but must be viewed with concern. I am trying to obtain further details from our local Garda and as soon as I do so I will bring to your attention.

Without been alarmist we ask all residents in Beechfield to remain very vigilant over the coming weeks not just around Beechfield but in the school and shops (littlepace and Ongar) vicinity.

Any suspicious activity please immediately ring Blarchardistown Garda station on 01 6667000 or dial 999 . Please let your neighbours know about this e-mail

Thank you

Missy Moo

Bulmers wrote: »

I live in B'field, got the following email below from the Res Association..not sure if anyone else has heard but worth spreading this around i think..

Subject: URGENT NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH NOTICE FOR BBECHFIELD ! PLEASE READ
To:


Hello

Children from the local primary schools , Mary Mother of Hope and St Benedicts have been sent home today with a note from the schools and Blanchardiston Garda station .

Apparently the Garda have had reports of a man trying to lure children into his car in the Liittlepace area, (this could mean outside the school.) This man does not appear to be a parent of a child.

This has only been brought to my attention this afternoon and details are sketchy but must be viewed with concern. I am trying to obtain further details from our local Garda and as soon as I do so I will bring to your attention.

Without been alarmist we ask all residents in Beechfield to remain very vigilant over the coming weeks not just around Beechfield but in the school and shops (littlepace and Ongar) vicinity.

Any suspicious activity please immediately ring Blarchardistown Garda station on 01 6667000 or dial 999 . Please let your neighbours know about this e-mail

Thank you

My son attends mary Mother of Hope school and never got a note about this????Thanks for letting us know about this,and please let us know of anymore info you get on this,would be much appreciated.

Missy Moo

deswalsh wrote: »

If I'd a euro for every time I'd heard this one - this story is as old as the internet!
The school may indeed have sent home a note based on rumours, but I dont imgaine the Gardai have actually had any such reports.

My Son attends the school in Littlepace and never got any note home .

Gaspode

OK, I had closed this thread but on reflection I'll let it stand, if only to tell people to get a bloody grip!

this 'near abduction' story has being doing the rounds on the internet since it began!

Remember, stranger danger is nowhere near the problem hollywood, the tabloids, or internet geeks would have you believe. Most harm done to children is by their own family & close friends.

It is vastly unlikely that the alleged 'abduction' ever occured. Please do some research and see how many confirmed abductions of children have occured in this country where the abducter wasnt a family member.

Now see how many alleged incidents of 'near' abductions you can find - I've heard/read these stories hundereds of times in my life (if not thousands!) and they all claim that the abduction failed, but only because of the children's quick thinking. so either we have he dumbest most incompetent imbeciles for child abducters, or our kids are just brilliant!
It just doesnt add up folks. How hard can it be for a grown man (or men, depending of the variation of the story you're reading) to get a child into a car?

It seems a bit ridiculous to me that people worry over this sort of thing, yet happily put their childrne in a car to go a mile down the road to school, when the chances of the child being killed in the car are astronomically higher than their chances of being abducted by a stranger.

Rant over (for the moment!)

littlebitdull

I have kids who have been in three different schools, so far, and have never ever received a letter home.

I often hear of letters been sent, but have yet to see one in real life. I agree we should be vigilant with our children, and who have to say that there would always be a vague possibility that there could be a tiny grain of truth out there amongst these internet/school gate rumours.

But ... the facts never back them up.

I do have a close friend who is a school secretary (not D15 area) and she has sent letters home. In every alleged case over the past seven years of her working life it has turned out to be some car driver who stopped to ask directions from the kids. The kids then report it as an alleged attempted abduction. And the school is obliged - on safety grounds - to send home warnings.

Missy Moo

My son got the note home today,its says about a suspious stranger in the Dub 15 area,but also says,these activites did not take place in the Vicinity of the area, ie: clonee.Doesnt say anything about abduction outside school,just says to use extra caution and vigilance with your childeren.

gollyitsolly

My daughters note from CCC says he is stocky,dark hair and driving a red car. He has been reported in the Carpenterstown area harassing schoolgirls.

Powerhouse

deswalsh wrote: »

OK, I had closed this thread but on reflection I'll let it stand, if only to tell people to get a bloody grip!

this 'near abduction' story has being doing the rounds on the internet since it began!

Remember, stranger danger is nowhere near the problem hollywood, the tabloids, or internet geeks would have you believe. Most harm done to children is by their own family & close friends.

It is vastly unlikely that the alleged 'abduction' ever occured. Please do some research and see how many confirmed abductions of children have occured in this country where the abducter wasnt a family member.

Now see how many alleged incidents of 'near' abductions you can find - I've heard/read these stories hundereds of times in my life (if not thousands!) and they all claim that the abduction failed, but only because of the children's quick thinking. so either we have he dumbest most incompetent imbeciles for child abducters, or our kids are just brilliant!
It just doesnt add up folks. How hard can it be for a grown man (or men, depending of the variation of the story you're reading) to get a child into a car?

It seems a bit ridiculous to me that people worry over this sort of thing, yet happily put their childrne in a car to go a mile down the road to school, when the chances of the child being killed in the car are astronomically higher than their chances of being abducted by a stranger.

Rant over (for the moment!)

People are not talking about "alleged abductions" as you say.

What is being spoken of is attempted possible abductions.

I am not sure your flippant approach which seems to imply some knowledge of "stranger danger" that would have a statistical basis, without sharing those statistics with us is any less unhelpful than purported scare tactics.

I think on balance vigilance is a better policy than dismissing the rumours as the work of internet geeks.

This comment of yours is the most ridiculous I have read on a discussion board "It seems a bit ridiculous to me that people worry over this sort of thing, yet happily put their childrne in a car to go a mile down the road to school, when the chances of the child being killed in the car are astronomically higher than their chances of being abducted by a stranger."

If there is indeed a person inclined to abduct children who is travelling around the area then the odds on an abduction shift dramatically. Personally I would be happier to drive my children one mile any day rather than leave them unattended somewhere irrespective of your unsubstantiated odds.

In fact if the Gardaí saw me drive a mile down the road with a child in the car they would see nothing wrong with that. Yet, if I left a five year old child unattended on the side of the road I would be charged with neglect. No doubt there is a good reason for this.

Has it occurred to you that the low odds of a child being abducted are due to the constant vigilance of parents and the fact that children are constantly being supervised and picked up after school. It is not because there are not strange people out there.

It is probably not difficult for a grown man to get a child into a car. But getting them in undetected and discreetly when the child doesn't want to get in - and is around their peers and other parents picking up other chidren - is a different matter and I imagine that this is a key consideration for a potential abducter.

I would not take lack of abductions as proof-positive that there are no attempted ones. Given the busy nature of schools and the number of adults normally around children keeping an eye on them I'd say the success-rate is always bound to be very very low, but this shows the importance and effectiveness of vigilance rather than suggesting that attempted abductions don't happen.

Gaspode

Powerhouse wrote: »

People are not talking about "alleged abductions" as you say.

They are.

What is being spoken of is attempted possible abductions.

Sounds like alleged to me

I am not sure your flippant approach which seems to imply some knowledge of "stranger danger" that would have a statistical basis, without sharing those statistics with us is any less unhelpful than purported scare tactics.

I think on balance vigilance is a better policy than dismissing the rumours as the work of internet geeks.


This comment of yours is the most ridiculous I have read on a discussion board "It seems a bit ridiculous to me that people worry over this sort of thing, yet happily put their childrne in a car to go a mile down the road to school, when the chances of the child being killed in the car are astronomically higher than their chances of being abducted by a stranger."

If there is indeed a person inclined to abduct children who is travelling around the area then the odds on an abduction shift dramatically. Personally I would be happier to drive my children one mile any day rather than leave them unattended somewhere irrespective of your unsubstantiated odds.

The odds are hardly unsustantiated. Find me any proof of children anducted by strangers in the last 20 years in Ireland - you will be hard pushed to do it. Then have a look at the road safety statistics for the last 20 years. The road is the dangerous place to be.

In fact if the Gardaí saw me drive a mile down the road with a child in the car they would see nothing wrong with that. Yet, if I left a five year old child unattended on the side of the road I would be charged with neglect. No doubt there is a good reason for this.

Nobody is talking about leaving children on the side of the road. And no you probably wouldnt get charged with neglect. Are you suggesting that children should never play outdoors without adult supervision?

Has it occurred to you that the low odds of a child being abducted are due to the constant vigilance of parents and the fact that children are constantly being supervised and picked up after school. It is not because there are not strange people out there.

Yes this has occured to me, but it also occurs to me that some parents have gone beyond vigilant and have strayed into delusional paranoia and see paedophiles and other bogeymen in every white van they see, or instantly assume that any male seen talking to a child is plotting to take them away.

My comparision to the risks involved in driving, while perhaps not worded very well was simply my way of saying that people should do some sort of risk analysis or evaluation when trying to decide how much to protect their children. I see people with kids in the car with no seat belt, and the very same people teach their children to cross the raod if they see a white van parked in the street. By all means worry about and work on the real, measurable dangers and the ones you can do something about. Trying to protect your child from every million to one chance is virtually impossible. you'd need to wrap them in cotton wool and lock them into their room if you're going to go down that road!

It is probably not difficult for a grown man to get a child into a car. But getting them in undetected and discreetly when the child doesn't want to get in - and is around their peers and other parents picking up other chidren - is a different matter and I imagine that this is a key consideration for a potential abducter.

I would not take lack of abductions as proof-positive that there are no attempted ones. Given the busy nature of schools and the number of adults normally around children keeping an eye on them I'd say the success-rate is always bound to be very very low, but this shows the importance and effectiveness of vigilance rather than suggesting that attempted abductions don't happen.

To me a lack of proof that something exists means it's more likely that it doesnt exist, therefore it gets lower priority in my mind than things I do know exist.

I just hate that people have gotten so over-vigilant with child safety. Kids need to be allowed to be kids, not wrapped up in cotton wool like they were delicate china.

Nevyn

Anyone letting a 5 yer old walk to school along should be reported for neglect
but if the school is in reasonable walking distance, with safe paths and safe crossing places
like traffic lights and lollipop people then a sensible 8/10 should be able to walk
to and from school and should be encouraged to do so.

Everything we do has risks, but we should be teaching our children how to be safe in
this world and what to do if something happens rather then wrapping them in
cotton wool or in cars.

The 25 years of my life there have always been such 'rumors' and none of them
were ever substantiated.

matc66

Without a doubt the big danger to kids nowadays is traffic. Car seats have of course reduced the risk dramatically.
However abduction or assault by strangers not know to the child is incredibly unusual. It just makes a great story I think, and has been hyped beyond belief.

I strongly believe that children are too closeted without good cause.

Powerhouse

deswalsh wrote: »

1) They are.

2) Sounds like alleged to me

3) The odds are hardly unsustantiated. Find me any proof of children anducted by strangers in the last 20 years in Ireland - you will be hard pushed to do it. Then have a look at the road safety statistics for the last 20 years. The road is the dangerous place to be.

4) Nobody is talking about leaving children on the side of the road.

5) And no you probably wouldnt get charged with neglect.

6)Are you suggesting that children should never play outdoors without adult supervision?

7) Yes this has occured to me, but it also occurs to me that some parents have gone beyond vigilant and have strayed into delusional paranoia and see paedophiles and other bogeymen in every white van they see, or instantly assume that any male seen talking to a child is plotting to take them away.

8) My comparision to the risks involved in driving, while perhaps not worded very well was simply my way of saying that people should do some sort of risk analysis or evaluation when trying to decide how much to protect their children. I see people with kids in the car with no seat belt, and the very same people teach their children to cross the raod if they see a white van parked in the street. By all means worry about and work on the real, measurable dangers and the ones you can do something about. Trying to protect your child from every million to one chance is virtually impossible. you'd need to wrap them in cotton wool and lock them into their room if you're going to go down that road!

9) To me a lack of proof that something exists means it's more likely that it doesnt exist, therefore it gets lower priority in my mind than things I do know exist.

10) I just hate that people have gotten so over-vigilant with child safety. Kids need to be allowed to be kids, not wrapped up in cotton wool like they were delicate china.

1)People are alleging that there have been abductions? What children have been taken in these alleged abductions?

2) Your ears do not deceive you. There is no dispute over the word alleged. The difference between us is that you are saying actual adbuctions have been alleged. I was under the impression, at least until you corrected me, that these were alleged possible or attempted abductions.

3) Comparing this with road statistics is an utterly false argument. Children are dropped and picked from school, walk in groups and are constantly supervised - that is why they appear to be and perhaps are in less danger from abduction. But comparing road traffic killings to abductions is like saying that it is quite okay for a child to walk along a railway line because statistically a lot more people are hit by buses than trains. The statistics may be accurate by the conclusion drawn from the statistics is absurd.

Deciding that you should take a certain level of risk in one area of life because of the odds on something happening in an entirely unrelated area is a quite bizarre way to make decisions. It's like saying that you think Italy have a really good chance to win the 6 nations because the odds on Manchester United winning the Premier League are so short.

Also you contradict me when I say that I that your talk of odds on abductions is unsubstantiated. You have had two posts on this, yet, despite saying that it is not unsubstantiated you fail to say what the odds are. Why is this? If you have the odds let's be having them.

Such odds can hardly exist as there is no way of assessing potential or unsuccessful adbuctions.

4) I am. I gave that as an example of something that would not be considered acceptable by the law.

5) Yes, potentially you could. You should familiarise yourself with the law before commenting on this.

6) To say they should never play outdoors without adult supervision is a comment clearly seeking to exaggerate the point, though in my experience, living in a Dublin 15 estate, it would actually be rare for a group of young children to be completely unsupervised by some parent even at arm's length. Obviously the age/maturity of children is a factor here so it's a bit of a silly question really.

7) "Delusional paranoia? Paeophiles and bogymen in every white van?
Parents instantly assume that any male seen talking to a child is plotting to take them away?"

Where on earth are you getting this broad stroke mad stuff from? Parents have always supervised and looked after children. They will continue to do so.

8) People do risk analysis on their children all the time. But it is slightly different from your version. If a child is hanging out of the upstairs bedroom window, parents would tend to help them rather than reassure themselves statistically that "ah sure only one child in 10 million falls out of the upstairs bedroom window". Most parents would assess such a situation on the basis of empirical rather than statistical thinking.

In the same way, a primary school teacher will not allow a 6 year old child to go home on their own even though statistics would no doubt prove (what can they not prove? that only a miniscule number of children are knocked down or abducted.

Some people can make decisions regarding the rearing of their children by reported statistics. Others choose to see reasonable potential dangers and avert them without fuss - which of course in itself affects the kind of statistics you allude to, but it hardly means that these reasonable parents are "paranoid".

9) More false argument here. Lack of proof of abductions does not prove that potential abductions do not exist or could not happen. Analagous to what you are saying would be to say that there's no evidence of break-ins in this area so you don't need a burglar alarm, while failing to make the connection between the existing burglar alarms and lack of break-ins. It is just a plausible that adbuctions do not take place because the treatment of children going to and from school and generally has become increasingly vigilant.

10) Who is stopping kids being kids? I have three children and they have a great time being kids. That does not mean I have to put them in potentially dangerous situations. Keeping kids out of obvious potential danger should not be confused with solitary confinement.

Powerhouse

Thaedydal wrote: »

The 25 years of my life there have always been such 'rumors' and none of them were ever substantiated.

This is just plain silly. The very nature of the business makes it very difficult to substantiate this type of rumour. It's not as if a potential abducter is going to pop around and tell people that the rumour is actually true. It would be inevitable that such people would vanish into the ether and lay low, while people such as yourself then dismiss the story as the work of loons because it has not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Lamenting kids being cossetted and put in cotton wool and the like is fine when you are talking in generalities and in a 'good old days' sort of way. But purporting to advise parents, without knowledge of specific situations, that they should be prepared to take risks with their children's welfare in the interests of creating a children's utopia which conforms to your general idyll is quite a different matter.

I am sure that the vast majority of parents are level-headed people who want the best for their children and are capable of making perfectly rational judgements in that context. Sometimes, however, that 'best' involves actually looking after them and keeping them secure, and usually in my experience this is done in quite a natural and subtle manner and does not involve parents closely monitoring every white van they see as has been suggested.

My children have been going to a local primary school for a total of six years now and I have never heard of a story of a potential abducter around there. But I am realistic enough to realise that this is at some level a function of the diligence of the school (and parents) in insisting on certain standards in terms of how the children are dropped, collected or make their way home. If such guards were dropped and it was much easier to abduct a child would it not be reasonable to suggest that it would probably emerge as a problem? In the same way that if drink-driving laws were abolished we might just see an increase in that activity?

Unfortunately most of society's problems are avoided by specific preventative measures and laws rather than relying simply on the goodwill of all the people.This one is no different, though it should be said that such preventative measures do not involve parents looking under manhole covers or the wanton destruction of childhood. There is nothing to say that children have to be able wander aimlessly and carefree across the countryside without any supervision in order to have a good time.

Gaspode

Powerhouse, my opinion is neither mad nor broad stroke. I'm simply saying that people need to relax a little and stop trying to fight shadows.
The ironic part is that cotton wool kids will be so lacking in self-sufficiency and street-smarts, that they could end up in more danger when they do get old enogh to want to head out without mammy and daddy to hold their hand.

Powerhouse

deswalsh wrote: »

Powerhouse, my opinion is neither mad nor broad stroke. I'm simply saying that people need to relax a little and stop trying to fight shadows.
The ironic part is that cotton wool kids will be so lacking in self-sufficiency and street-smarts, that they could end up in more danger when they do get old enogh to want to head out without mammy and daddy to hold their hand.

"Delusional paranoia? Paeophiles and bogymen in every white van?
Parents instantly assume that any male seen talking to a child is plotting to take them away?"

So you think these phrases of yours are not mad or broad stroke? You think this is a fair and accurate portrayal of all parents? That is ridiculous frankly.

I go to a primary school every morning and many afternoons and I see no unrelaxed parents "fighting shadows". These things are in your head I think, or else you have to exaggerate completely to make your argument which I suppose is a different problem.

Reasonable people will always take reasonable precautions. And kids being looked after by parents at a young age does not put them in greater danger when they get older. My kids are far ahead in terms of "street smarts" of where I was at their age.

But you don't seem to appreciate how naturally and subtly all this parenting happens. It's is not a military operation every day - just sensible reasonable people behaving sensibly and reasonably.

littlebitdull

Powerhouse wrote: »

I go to a primary school every morning and many afternoons and I see no unrelaxed parents "fighting shadows". These things are in your head I think, or else you have to exaggerate completely to make your argument which I suppose is a different problem.

.

Well , powerhouse, I have been at the gate of one playschool, or primary school for the past sixteen years, morning and afternoon, and often twice in the afternoon (early and late) and I have met these unrelaxed parents each and every day.

So I, for one, would have to totally disagree with you.... they are well and trully out there.

I have met the children who will scream and run away once they see a white van, who will quake in terror if some unknown person so much as asks directions.

Can you honestly tell me this is equipping children for real life?

Stranger danger exists - I dont disagree with you there - but is it as dangerous we are led to believe? That I dont agree with.

Powerhouse

littlebitdull wrote: »

Well , powerhouse, I have been at the gate of one playschool, or primary school for the past sixteen years, morning and afternoon, and often twice in the afternoon (early and late) and I have met these unrelaxed parents each and every day.

So I, for one, would have to totally disagree with you.... they are well and trully out there.

I have met the children who will scream and run away once they see a white van, who will quake in terror if some unknown person so much as asks directions.

Can you honestly tell me this is equipping children for real life?

Stranger danger exists - I dont disagree with you there - but is it as dangerous we are led to believe? That I dont agree with.

Stranger danger exists but is it as dangerous we are led to believe?

I have no idea to be honest with you. How do you assess or measure the level of stranger danger? The varying degrees of danger when a child is taken away by a stranger is difficult for me to comment on in an informed way. Presumably such danger ranges from mild sexual abuse to actual death but I'm not sure if many parents would regard even the lower end of this spectrum as an acceptable level of danger.

Would you have a view as to what is an acceptable level of danger?

As for your apparently extraordinary experiences observing people in schoolyards and at schoolgates, I cannot contradict you to be honest. All I can do is relate my own experiences and they are of meeting perfectly normal happy-go-lucky parents who chat to when in the school and just get on with life. I presume I am talking about a different school to you or else there is serious misrepresentation going on.

Is all of this (the remarkable scenes you describe) equipping children for real life? I honestly don't know. Quite what the long-term effects of this are I wouldn't be qualified to comment.

Does a six or seven year-old being encouraged by parents to be wary of strangers approaching them to jump into their vans turn them into gibbering wrecks ten years later? Does encouragement to draw general attention to such unwelcome attention stymie their social skills at a later stage of life? I would have my doubts to be honest. It is not immediately clear to me how it could. But perhaps you can comment with more expert knowledge on the matter.

littlebitdull

Powerhouse wrote: »

Does a six or seven year-old being encouraged by parents to be wary of strangers approaching them to jump into their vans turn them into gibbering wrecks ten years later? Does encouragement to draw general attention to such unwelcome attention stymie their social skills at a later stage of life? I would have my doubts to be honest. It is not immediately clear to me how it could. But perhaps you can comment with more expert knowledge on the matter.

Dont know about your style of parenting but I have yet to meet a six or seven year old who goes unsupervised. So cant really comment on that.

I do know that my almost adult children have been instructed in aproprate behaviour from other adults/children. Do I feel that stranger danger is as real as you do..at the end of the day I would have to say no. Do I think that we are more at danger from people we know each and every day - I would have to say yes to that.

Fact is most children are at most danger, either from sexual preditors or violence or as you say actual death ... well lets face facts its from family that most of that danger comes from.

What do we covet - we covet what we see every day. Our children are at most danger from people they know. Not from wandering men in white vans.

I see you are not someone who is willing to see another persons viewpoint, let alone agree with it. So I guess I shall have to leave you to it. After all we are all entitled to our own opinion.

According to the NSPCC :

"An NSPCC internal survey of newspaper reports of children who were killed or died in suspicious circumstances found that of 128 reported cases, not one was of a child abducted and killed by a stranger."

Beechman

This thread has gone way of the orginal posting I made, can I ask the mod to lock it please. These issues can be discussed in the parenting thread

Wishbone Ash

Powerhouse - does it not seem a bit strange to you that all these stories relate to attempted abductions? Why is it that these people are so inept that they always seem to fail? Possibly something to do with the fact that they are not true.

I moderated the Dublin City Forum for 2 years and occasionally has threads about this type of rubbish. Nothing was ever substantiated. The vast majority of children are at risk from people they know.

Powerhouse

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Powerhouse - does it not seem a bit strange to you that all these stories relate to attempted abductions? Why is it that these people are so inept that they always seem to fail? Possibly something to do with the fact that they are not true.

I moderated the Dublin City Forum for 2 years and occasionally has threads about this type of rubbish. Nothing was ever substantiated. The vast majority of children are at risk from people they know.

You should read back my posts as it would save me having to repreat myself.

I have already written this but I'll do it one more time - it is as plausible to suggest that abductions do not happen because children are well monitored as it is to say abductions do not happen because there are no potential abducters around.

To repeat another point I made earlier - how on earth do you substantiate a report of an attempted abduction? People here are readily dismissing any possibility that this could happen, and unfortunately I imagine potential abducters might not be inclined to rush forward to substantiate such stories.

It is the nature of the business that it is impossible to substantiate such reports as with any crime that is averted by constant monitoring. To repeat yet another point - which you'd have seen had you bothered to read my all previous posts - your argument is like saying that there is no attempted burglaries in an area so therefore we don't need burglar alarms. This obviously ignores the value of burglar alarms in potentially preventing attempted burglaries in the same way people dismissing reports of potential abductions while criticising parents for looking after children fail to make that connection.

Your claim that children are more at risk from people they know does not disprove the possibility that attempted abductions can occur. In fact it provides evidence that the monitoring of children arounds schools is quite effective. When a child is in the home on their own with their father there is nobody monitoring. It is entirely consistent with general thinking that such unmonitored children are more at risk. This agrees with my point. That it might be someone they know who threatens them is beside the point - the point is that unmonitored or unsupervised children are logically more vulnerable. That simply make the point for me rather than contradict it.

Powerhouse

littlebitdull wrote: »

Dont know about your style of parenting but I have yet to meet a six or seven year old who goes unsupervised. So cant really comment on that.

I do know that my almost adult children have been instructed in aproprate behaviour from other adults/children. Do I feel that stranger danger is as real as you do..at the end of the day I would have to say no. Do I think that we are more at danger from people we know each and every day - I would have to say yes to that.

Fact is most children are at most danger, either from sexual preditors or violence or as you say actual death ... well lets face facts its from family that most of that danger comes from.

What do we covet - we covet what we see every day. Our children are at most danger from people they know. Not from wandering men in white vans.

I see you are not someone who is willing to see another persons viewpoint, let alone agree with it. So I guess I shall have to leave you to it. After all we are all entitled to our own opinion.

According to the NSPCC :

"An NSPCC internal survey of newspaper reports of children who were killed or died in suspicious circumstances found that of 128 reported cases, not one was of a child abducted and killed by a stranger."

Again, this - quite incredibly really - ignores the obvious conclusion that monitoring of children in public areas does work in terms of making them safe. Could it not ever dawn on you that maybe this is why they don't appear in statistics?

Ths suggests that of course children tend to be in greater danger with people they know is because that is when the guard is dropped.

It is unlikely that a mother will leave a child with an unknown wandering man in a white van (who no doubt would be utterly harmless and trustworthy but still.........) so this probably keeps such statistics down. But children will be left with people they know so it is almost inevitable that the statistics pile up in the case of people they know. It'd be remarkable if it was any other way considering the lengths parents go to keep their children safe from people whose form the parents know nothing about.

Let us at least try to be reasonably intelligent when it comes to intrepreting surveys and statistics. What they don't say is often far more revelatory than what they do say.

If you are not prepared to stand your ground and debate the point that's fine but please don't depict me in advance as "not someone who is willing to see another person's viewpoint". I see other people's viewpoint. But I wasn't aware that meant I had to agree with them. Frankly, some of what you wrote is risible - for example, swallowing the results of a survey hook, line and sinker and interpeting them as meaning that just because children are abused by people they know, that there cannot possibly be anyone outside of this circle that way inclined. How ridiculous. How on earth can you expect me to do anything other than dismiss such nonsensical talk?

Zaph

OK, this is going nowhere really so I think it's time to close it