concern for child

fritzelly

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Well how do you propose she resolves it then? Give her some credit for being adult and being able to figure out from the information she gets if the child is lying or not.

I'm well aware that children lie. I'm a teacher, I encounter it on a daily basis.

The OP seems to want to forego any parental responsibilities, considering garda intervention, posting on a random forum looking for advise. Instead of hitting the issue head on

I feel for you as a teacher - a rewarding job but so hard these days.

TheChizler

Could she be uneasy because she feels there's an 'audience' in an unusual place? Might be purely location and nothing to do with the gender of the person. I might feel uneasy if I felt there was someone hovering around as I was trying to practice something.

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I didn't say anyone was guilty. And that girl is not guilty so why should she leave. But the man has no reason to be there during the class. And there is always the potential. He is making the girl uncomfortable anyway, that should be reason enough to have him leave.

Your ridiculous logic is making me uncomfortable, but, luckily enough, that should be reason enough to have you leave the thread and discontinue posting. I presume you are man enough to stand by your own reasoning and take the hit to prove your point?

Rubberchikken

I would prefer a clear honest explanation from the child before I would have this man's reputation sullied.

Yes we have to be careful where kids.are. concerned but jumping in and assuming the worse is.not fair on anyone.

Jim Root

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I'm sorry bu you cannot ask a young girl doing a dance class to leave because a man who has no active role in the class is watching on making her nervous. That is just victim blaming of the highest order. What if something had happened? Would you be telling her to leave because she is the problem in that case?

victim blaming? what?

JustAThought

Jim Root wrote: »

victim blaming? what?

!!!
because the minute you make an accusation, regardless of how groundless, you are a victim. And anyone who points out that your accusation are utterly without merit or based on myth or rumour or innuendo are cruel victim shamers. This country has become a nonsense . We meed a few good court cases to shake the snowflakes out of their cocoons in their trees -might stop lives being ruined by some of this hysterical unfounded nonsense.

TheBoyConor

Die Hard 2019 wrote: »

Donno what that's about; there is very little chance that he wouldn't pass Garda vetting if his partner is a dance teacher and has no issue with him waiting around and passing Garda vetting is only a measure of his ability to avoid detection.

If people are assuming innocent men are predators then there is little we can do to prevent it. It's impossible to prove a negatitive and innocent men are not responsable for wierdos behaviour any more than innocent women are. ( Or innocent non binary people)

At the end of the day if he is on the premises while there are under 18s also there, he should have garda vetting. And even if he is vetted he should not be in the room unless there is an actual reason for him to be there. If not, he should wait elsewhere. If he is indeed innocent then, as someone said, he would probably want to be anywhere else rather than in that room with 15 or so young girls. Why not go for a coffee, or a stroll? I don't think it is appropriate that he is skulking in the shadows down the back of the room on his phone - for all we know he could actually be clandestinely recording them or taking pictures. How do we know that he is not? It is too much a risk to take.
I think to put the ops mind somewhat at ease she should call teh National Vetting Bureau and express a concern at there being an adult male at the class and it is making her daughter very uncomfortable and ask that they check whether his name is on the list of vetted persons. If not perhaps the enforcement section of that body could follow it up.
OP could also discuss it with the other mothers after a class or over text and see if any other mothers are concerned about him and if he has made others feel uncomfortable also. It might be nothing, but sure look, it is no harm to have the conversation and ask questions anyway just to be sure.
And before someone says, would I have the same concern if it was a woman, then no, I would not. There is not the same level of risk there with a woman or girl. Not that it does't exist, but it is most exceedingly rare for a woman to carry out abuse. The child sex abuse that does occur is almost always perpetrated by men, except in a mere handful of outlier cases where it is women. And even then, the women would nearly always be suffering from mental illnesses.

JustAThought

as has already been repeatedly pointed out he does NOT have to have garda vetting as it is a private arrangement for the childs benefit. Go back and follow the citizen advice link posted snd read the link to the EXCLUSIONS for children.

this is exactly the kind of innuendo and verbal offal that ruins lives. but I guess you’re posting it as hyperbolae to make your point?

TheBoyConor

Even if that is the case, it would still be good practice for him to be vetted. And as said, besides that unless there is a concrete necessity for having him there, he should be made to leave. Maybe the mothers of the class could jointly write a letter of concern and present it to the teacher?

GhostofKNugget

TheBoyConor wrote: »

OP could also discuss it with the other mothers after a class or over text and see if any other mothers are concerned about him and if he has made others feel uncomfortable also. It might be nothing, but sure look, it is no harm to have the conversation and ask questions anyway just to be sure.

There's no harm? There's plenty of harm that could happen there. A chat like that could lead to unfounded accusations being made, like your notion that he could be clandestinely recording the children (even though you don't know anything about this person, you've already dreamt up a myriad of ways that this person could be a predator), and then all of a sudden it becomes a situation of 'well, there's no smoke without fire' and the guy's reputation is in tatters.

And all because of the crime of helping out his girlfriend with her classes and sitting down and waiting for her to finish the class? Jesus...

I sometimes sit and wait for my daughter's ballet class to finish when I arrive early. Should I be Garda vetted because there's other children in that class and I am a man?

seamus

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Even if that is the case, it would still be good practice for him to be vetted.

You cannot get someone vetted "just because".

Availability of vetting is very much restricted to those scenarios where someone needs to be vetted. You can't just fire off an email and ask for you or someone else to get vetted.

The only way to get the man vetted would be for the teacher to lie to the Vetting Bureau and say that he works for her.

TheBoyConor

GhostofKNugget wrote: »

There's no harm? There's plenty of harm that could happen there. A chat like that could lead to unfounded accusations being made, like your notion that he could be clandestinely recording the children (even though you don't know anything about this person, you've already dreamt up a myriad of ways that this person could be a predator), and then all of a sudden it becomes a situation of 'well, there's no smoke without fire' and the guy's reputation is in tatters.

And all because of the crime of helping out his girlfriend with her classes and sitting down and waiting for her to finish the class? Jesus...

I sometimes sit and wait for my daughter's ballet class to finish when I arrive early. Should I be Garda vetted because there's other children in that class and I am a man?

Well when it comes to child protection, I think most parents would agree that it would be the lesser evil that some egos are bruised and public reputations take a knock on a precautionary basis than for a child potential ending up being abused.

And no you should not be entering the venue where the class is on. You would have access to children and technically you should be vetted to have access. But you don't work there or have any role there so you cannot be vetted. Therefore you should not be in there and you should wait outside.

splinter65

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Well when it comes to child protection, I think most parents would agree that it would be the lesser evil that some egos are bruised and public reputations take a knock on a precautionary basis than for a child potential ending up being abused.

And no you should not be entering the venue where the class is on. You would have access to children and technically you should be vetted to have access. But you don't work there or have any role there so you cannot be vetted. Therefore you should not be in there and you should wait outside.

This is ridiculous. I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re trolling.

TheBoyConor

You can conclude whatever you want.

I think the current set up is not on.

splinter65

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Even if that is the case, it would still be good practice for him to be vetted. And as said, besides that unless there is a concrete necessity for having him there, he should be made to leave. Maybe the mothers of the class could jointly write a letter of concern and present it to the teacher?

A man is working alone behind the counter in a shop near a school where children come in to buy things. Does he need Garda vetting?

TheBoyConor

I don't know. Maybe?

I was also wondering about the TY student work placement thing. If a TY student or a few of them are going working for a company, would all the adult staff in that company need to get vetted? Because, it would be the case that many or all of the existing staff would then have access to children and it is a workplace.
Would it only be immediate colleagues and the manager that would have to be vetted or would it be all those that could potentially come into contact with the minors.

I would imagine that if this is the case the it would actually be very very difficult to get TY students onto placements in anywhere other than creches or places that already have their staff vetted.
Most other companies wouldn't want to know as they hardly want the hassle of vetting all staff for the sake of a few TY students who will be there a week or two and then gone.

What exactly is garda vetting anyway?
Do they just check pulse and say not a pedo ?

rainbowtrout

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Even if that is the case, it would still be good practice for him to be vetted. And as said, besides that unless there is a concrete necessity for having him there, he should be made to leave. Maybe the mothers of the class could jointly write a letter of concern and present it to the teacher?

You'd be great at organising a witch hunt. There is no need for this parent round up the troops to write a letter of concern. All she has to do is ask who the guy is. That's easily done.

The vetting process itself is ridiculous as well. I've been vetted through the FAI already. If I want to teach I've to do it again. If I want to do coder dojo I've to do it again etc. The stupid process and stupid attitudes are going to (and already are in some cases) lead to shortages of people giving up their time to allow others to have fun.

SusieBlue

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Well when it comes to child protection, I think most parents would agree that it would be the lesser evil that some egos are bruised and public reputations take a knock on a precautionary basis than for a child potential ending up being abused.

And no you should not be entering the venue where the class is on. You would have access to children and technically you should be vetted to have access. But you don't work there or have any role there so you cannot be vetted. Therefore you should not be in there and you should wait outside.

He does have a role, he assists the instructor with lifting props and equipment.
You are being absolutely hysterical suggesting that this has anything to do with an abused child, and its very manipulative of you to say that when you know that ANY reasonable adult would of course put the welfare & safety of an abused child above the ego & reputation of the person abusing her.

However, there is absolutely zero evidence of this, apart from OP saying the child feels "uncomfortable".
There are a million possible reasons she could feel like this, and none of the most likely ones are that this man is abusing her.

It sets a dangerous precedent to give in to these kinds of notions and I'm not so sure you'd feel the same if you were asked to leave a room because some random child felt "uncomfortable", and it was your reputation on the line.

Life is uncomfortable and we all have to do things we don't want to, in order to get by and be part of an inclusive society.
What next? Requesting a new bus driver on the whim of a child who doesn't like the look of him? A new school teacher?
You can't expect innocent people minding their own business to cater to every whim of an oversensitive child.

GhostofKNugget

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Well when it comes to child protection, I think most parents would agree that it would be the lesser evil that some egos are bruised and public reputations take a knock on a precautionary basis than for a child potential ending up being abused.

And no you should not be entering the venue where the class is on. You would have access to children and technically you should be vetted to have access. But you don't work there or have any role there so you cannot be vetted. Therefore you should not be in there and you should wait outside.

Haha, Jesus... If this isn't grade A trolling then you're absolutely psychotic.

Have you kids yourself?

M5

Has the OP clarified if the individual is actually there for a reason? Perhaps cleaning up afterwards? First aid? Perhaps they already have clearance?

The above seems reasonable given the wild assumptions being jumped to

SusieBlue

M5 wrote: »

Has the OP clarified if the individual is actually there for a reason? Perhaps cleaning up afterwards? First aid? Perhaps they already have clearance?

The above seems reasonable given the wild assumptions being jumped to

As per the OP:

he carries the props used for the classes and helps out at show time (Christmas and annual performance)

So he has every reason to be there.

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

If he is indeed innocent then, as someone said, he would probably want to be anywhere else rather than in that room with 15 or so young girls. Why not go for a coffee, or a stroll? I don't think it is appropriate that he is skulking in the shadows down the back of the room on his phone - for all we know he could actually be clandestinely recording them or taking pictures. How do we know that he is not? It is too much a risk to take.
I think to ............................... The child sex abuse that does occur is almost always perpetrated by men, except in a mere handful of outlier cases where it is women. And even then, the women would nearly always be suffering from mental illnesses.

You are off your rocker, if that is the way you think. You are suggesting that because he assists his partner to earn a few bob, that he's a child molester/paedophile, 'skulking' in the shadows.

You need help.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

The vetting process itself is ridiculous as well. I've been vetted through the FAI already. If I want to teach I've to do it again. If I want to do coder dojo I've to do it again etc. The stupid process and stupid attitudes are going to (and already are in some cases) lead to shortages of people giving up their time to allow others to have fun.

The vetting process is indeed a bit of a joke. The nature of the work that my wife does, she works with children but is often subcontracted to various organisations.

So she has to be vetted for her own business that she does directly, but also for every single organisation that hire her. She's just submitted her 4th vetting application in six months.

It's an insane waste of individual time, but also state resources. The vetting process should result in providing a reference number for the individual, so that if a company needs someone to be vetted, they submit the reference number and get back a result instantly. This would allow (e.g.) childcare workers and teachers to move jobs without having to wait for their vetting application to be processed, and would save the Vetting Bureau millions.

It would also allow for their vetting status to be automatically updated following any relevant arrest or conviction and for periodic "refreshes" of vetting, every 2-3 years or so.

At the moment someone can be working with kids and arrested on child abuse charges, but their employer may not know about it and the person keeps working with children because they're "vetted" on paper.

The process is a good first attempt at child protection, but it's time to overhaul it to something better.

M5

Reputation take a knock? Oh ffs! Being labelled a peado is a life ending scenario and certainly not justified to appease someone in a situation like that.

hots

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I don't know. Maybe?

You don't know whether someone works in a shop needs vetting? Should we just vet the population? Your every day life must be very difficult for you or very sheltered.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The vetting process is indeed a bit of a joke. The nature of the work that my wife does, she works with children but is often subcontracted to various organisations.

So she has to be vetted for her own business that she does directly, but also for every single organisation that hire her. She's just submitted her 4th vetting application in six months.

It's an insane waste of individual time, but also state resources. The vetting process should result in providing a reference number for the individual, so that if a company needs someone to be vetted, they submit the reference number and get back a result instantly. This would allow (e.g.) childcare workers and teachers to move jobs without having to wait for their vetting application to be processed, and would save the Vetting Bureau millions.

It would also allow for their vetting status to be automatically updated following any relevant arrest or conviction and for periodic "refreshes" of vetting, every 2-3 years or so.

At the moment someone can be working with kids and arrested on child abuse charges, but their employer may not know about it and the person keeps working with children because they're "vetted" on paper.

The process is a good first attempt at child protection, but it's time to overhaul it to something better.

I'd say it's a pretty poor attempt tbh. :pac: Before I got vetted for stuff with the FAI a bunch of lads were convinced they were ok because they'd already been vetted for the IRFU/GAA. Meant that *technically* they could fill a role for a few months. Though of course a blind eye was turned which is the major issue with having the system as it is.
Just to further the point I made in my last post I can think of a few people who've already been put off stuff because of it. One of whom was sure she was vetted and I had to find a link to prove to her that just because she was vetted for one role 6 months ago didn't mean she's been vetted for the new role.

Neyite

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Well when it comes to child protection, I think most parents would agree that it would be the lesser evil that some egos are bruised and public reputations take a knock on a precautionary basis than for a child potential ending up being abused.

And no you should not be entering the venue where the class is on. You would have access to children and technically you should be vetted to have access. But you don't work there or have any role there so you cannot be vetted. Therefore you should not be in there and you should wait outside.

I take my kid swimming. Hordes of kids in only swimming costumes there every session. The gallery/ changing room is full with adults, all of us on our phones and I could not tell you which of them might be parents or not.


The pool requires parents or guardians to be present for the duration of the lessons, and only those of us who are also involved in volunteering in a child-related field are vetted.

Your scenario means that not a single sporting event that children partake in would have an audience. Or any kind of hobby class.

So what you've presented is your own opinion, not any facts.

The simplest solution is for the OP to arrive early to pick up his daughter and sit beside the guy and strike up a conversation. He could very well be a dad equally as doting as the OP but has no car so takes her there by bus and waits somewhere warm for her to finish. Or his daughter has some sort of SN that requires a parent to be there. Or the teacher's partner waiting to give her a lift home. There's a myriad of other plausible explanations, and the best way to find out is for the OP to chat to either yer man or the teacher.

GhostofKNugget

Neyite wrote: »

The simplest solution is for the OP to arrive early to pick up his daughter and sit beside the guy and strike up a conversation. He could very well be a dad equally as doting as the OP but has no car so takes her there by bus and waits somewhere warm for her to finish. Or his daughter has some sort of SN that requires a parent to be there. Or the teacher's partner waiting to give her a lift home. There's a myriad of other plausible explanations, and the best way to find out is for the OP to chat to either yer man or the teacher.

There might be a slight confusion on your part. The first post was about the ballet teacher's partner, who occasionally helps with props in the class, being present during the lesson. I had asked TheBoyConnor whether I should be allowed to wait for my child in the room for her lesson to finish if I arrived early and his reply was that I shouldn't be there without vetting as I am a male.

From looking at another of his recent posts on the Gentleman's Forum, it's safe to say he's taking the complete piss.