concern for child

KiKi III

I’m sorry you don’t appreciate the insinuation, but when you characterise what I would consider legitimate parent concerns as “busybodies”, that’s how it comes across to me.

I’m not seeing a huge level of concern for the children in your posts.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

I think you’ve taken me up wrong.

This is what you said:

KiKi III wrote: »

Paedophiles often come up with a pretext for spending time alone with children in order to groom them.......I care more about protecting kids than I do about bruising men’s egos

The insinuation that somebody is a paedophile is more than 'bruising their ego'. That's all I'm saying.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Just as an aside, and I somehow doubt that he is, but the recording of images, including those of children in public spaces isn't illegal. Indeed for classes like theater and dance, granting consent in these semi private spaces is often a requirement to participate.

My ex has a sister who's been involved in gymnastics for years, since she was a kid. Their father was also involved driving people everywhere, moving mats and beams and vaults and all sorts of equipment that even grown women would struggle with, never mind a bunch of kids. He was given a camcorder one year for Xmas, and used to tape their group performances so he could distribute copies so the other parents (and the kids themselves) had something to look back on.

He was approached by a bloke at the beginning of one particular show and your man started making comments."You like filming little girls, then?"......"hope you have written permission from all their legal guardians to film them running around in their leotards, pal". He stopped recording immediately. Long story short, when he was asked if he'd make copies of the video for everyone he admitted that he'd stopped recording because of the other fells's comments, whose daughter was basically shunned by the other girls until she ended up quitting the club. He never recorded anything again.

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is what you said:



The insinuation that somebody is a paedophile is more than 'bruising their ego'. That's all I'm saying.

Right, but how does asking that men involved in children’s extracurriculars go through the standard vetting process imply that they are paedophiles? That’s what I’m trying to get at.

SusieBlue

KiKi III wrote: »

I’m sorry you don’t appreciate the insinuation, but when you characterise what I would consider legitimate parent concerns as “busybodies”, that’s how it comes across to me.

I’m not seeing a huge level of concern for the children in your posts.

And I'm not seeing a huge level of experience in what you're talking about from yours.

If someone expected me to remove my (completely innocent) assistant/helper from the room, regardless of their gender, because their child was uncomfortable in their presence for no tangible reason (as is the case here), I would consider them to be interfereing busybodies and they would be told where to go. I won't apologise for that either.

Child safety is of paramount importance but so is maintaining your integrity and reputation, both socially and in the small circles these dance groups run in.
All it takes is word to get out that the partner was forced to leave due to children feeling "uncomfortable" for the rumour mill to start and that's how lives end up getting ruined.

KiKi III

SusieBlue wrote: »

And I'm not seeing a huge level of experience in what you're talking about from yours.

If someone expected me to remove my (completely innocent) assistant/helper from the room, regardless of their gender, because their child was uncomfortable in their presence for no tangible reason (as is the case here), I would consider them to be interfereing busybodies and they would be told where to go. I won't apologise for that either.

Child safety is of paramount importance but so is maintaining your integrity and reputation, both socially and in the small circles these dance groups run in.
All it takes is word to get out that the partner was forced to leave due to children feeling "uncomfortable" for the rumour mill to start and that's how lives end up getting ruined.

The difference between your class and the OPs is that your assistants are Garda vetted and as far as the OP knows, this man isn’t. If she’s mistaken on this and he has been vetted, that’s the matter settled. If he’s not, he’s a random man who turns up at one of her children’s hobbies. That’s creepy. If he’s not a formal, legit volunteer he should wait in the car for his gf, or wait the few minutes til the kids are gone to help her put the stuff away.

I don’t need a bunch of experience to know I don’t think randomers should have access to children they’re not related to. That should be obvious to most people. Of course the child feels uncomfortable, we teach kids to be wary of strangers from a young age and that’s what he is.

He should be brought into the fold fully or he shouldn’t be there.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

Right, but how does asking that men involved in children’s extracurriculars go through the standard vetting process imply that they are paedophiles? That’s what I’m trying to get at.

You opened your post with the statement about paedos getting access to and grooming children.

If you walked into that hall next time the dance class was being held and started saying "You know, child molesters are mad keen on places like this........Have you been Garda vetted?" how do you think he would feel?

hots

KiKi III wrote: »

The difference between your class and the OPs is that your assistants are Garda vetted and as far as the OP knows, this man isn’t. If she’s mistaken on this and he has been vetted, that’s the matter settled. If he’s not, he’s a random man who turns up at one of her children’s hobbies. That’s creepy. If he’s not a formal, legit volunteer he should wait in the car for his gf, or wait the few minutes til the kids are gone to help her put the stuff away.

I don’t need a bunch of experience to know I don’t think randomers should have access to children they’re not related to. That should be obvious to most people. Of course the child feels uncomfortable, we teach kids to be wary of strangers from a young age and that’s what he is.

He should be brought into the fold fully or he shouldn’t be there.

You're putting a lot of faith in Garda vetting.


This thread could have been ended with "have a chat with the child and see what's up".

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You opened your post with the statement about paedos getting access to and grooming children.

If you walked into that hall next time the dance class was being held and started saying "You know, child molesters are mad keen on places like this........Have you been Garda vetted?" how do you think he would feel?

I probably wouldn’t phrase it like that myself.

GhostofKNugget

hots wrote: »

This thread could have been ended with "have a chat with the child and see what's up".

Pffft, talking with children is draining and a bit boring and that's not going to help with this simmering outrage.

I think it's much better to first talk to the other parents, let them know that you think the boyfriend is a bit off - use exaggerated eyebrow movements while you're talking - telling them that you're not for a minute suggesting he is a paedophile, of course not, but that it's not natural for men to be in the same room as young girls no matter how innocent he looks.

Give it a couple of weeks and one of the other mothers is bound to speak up and if that doesn't happen you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that the guy's reputation will take a hiding because of innuendo going around the town about his predilection for little girls. Best of all, you'll be able to tell people that you always thought there was something a bit off about him.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

I probably wouldn’t phrase it like that myself.

And yet, you phrased your post here like that. you also said he could be taking videos of these kids. Others have been even more forthright with their choice of language....."skulking........there is always the potential.......if he is indeed innocent......".

This man's character is being assassinated in a way I hope mine never is.

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And yet, you phrased your post here like that. you also said he could be taking videos of these kids. Others have been even more forthright with their choice of language....."skulking........there is always the potential.......if he is indeed innocent......".

This man's character is being assassinated in a way I hope mine never is.

Does it really surprise you that I would aim to be more tactful in a real life situation than in a hypothetical one on the internet?

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And yet, you phrased your post here like that. you also said he could be taking videos of these kids. Others have been even more forthright with their choice of language....."skulking........there is always the potential.......if he is indeed innocent......".

This man's character is being assassinated in a way I hope mine never is.

And no one’s character has been assassinated. None of us know who the guy is. The conversation is almost entirely hypothetical. What are you on about?

Garibaldi?

I would be concerned as to why the child is feels nervous. Has she had an experience which could have caused this? Is it possible that she was exposed to an inappropriate situation, in actual life or in a film, on social media, a written publication. As her fear appears to centre around a member of the male gender, who are the other males with whom she may have/had content. It does not appear that this man has been inappropriate towards her. Maybe she has some reason, real or perceived, to be wary of men in general?

fritzelly

Still no sign of the OP...calling BS on the whole situation

M5

I do wonder how many of these threads are sociology students gauging people's reactions to fictional scenarios

wally79

KiKi III wrote: »

And no one’s character has been assassinated. None of us know who the guy is. The conversation is almost entirely hypothetical. What are you on about?

The character of any male who helps out with children’s activities has been assassinated

Mules

I'm glad I had my childhood before all this hysteria started.

AulWan

Mules wrote: »

I'm glad I had my childhood before all this hysteria started.

I'm glad I'll be retired by the time this new generation will be entering the workforce.

KiKi III

wally79 wrote: »

The character of any male who helps out with children’s activities has been assassinated

Nope, and it takes a serious victim complex to see it that way. All anyone is suggesting is sensible precautions.

wally79

KiKi III wrote: »

Nope, and it takes a serious victim complex to see it that way. All anyone is suggesting is sensible precautions.

No victim complex just a fairly good review of the posts. A guy doing nothing is being associated with all sorts of crimes.

Guilty until proven innocent is now sensible?

KiKi III

wally79 wrote: »

No victim complex just a fairly good review of the posts. A guy doing nothing is being associated with all sorts of crimes.

Guilty until proven innocent is now sensible?

No one has been accused of or associated with anything. A series of hypothetical possibilities have been explored on an anonymous online forum.

The strongest suggestion has been that he should be Garda vetted. Why would anyone have a problem with that? It’s bizarre

wally79

KiKi III wrote: »

No one has been accused of or associated with anything. A series of hypothetical possibilities have been explored on an anonymous online forum.

The strongest suggestion has been that he should be Garda vetted. Why would anyone have a problem with that? It’s bizarre

All negative possibilities and considering how few boyfriends probably help out at their girlfriends dance class he’s probably identifiable to somebody

It doesn’t take much to turn into a Lynch mob especially when your comments about a guy literally sitting quietly on his phone go the the level of:

“he’s a random man who turns up at one of her children’s hobbies. That’s creepy”

“If he’s on his phone there’s obviously the possibility that he’s taking photos or video.”

KiKi III

wally79 wrote: »

All negative possibilities and considering how few boyfriends probably help out at their girlfriends dance class he’s probably identifiable to somebody

It doesn’t take much to turn into a Lynch mob especially when your comments about a guy literally sitting quietly on his phone go the the level of:

“he’s a random man who turns up at one of her children’s hobbies. That’s creepy”

“If he’s on his phone there’s obviously the possibility that he’s taking photos or video.”

Okay, I’ll leave you to your hysteria.

Over and out, friends.

wally79

KiKi III wrote: »

Okay, I’ll leave you to your hysteria.

Over and out, friends.

Haha. you are all but accusing an innocent man of being a sexual predator because he is sitting in a public place and I’m the hysterical one

harr

Neyite wrote: »

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.

Same as I bring my niece to football training and the training is being watched by a lot of parents and god knows who else Same as mentioned bringing my kids swimming. People labelling this man some sort of sex fiend is off the wall. And giving in to the child’s fears on this would be setting a dangerous precedent. People must understand even the smallest bit of gossip around this individual could ruin his life all because a young girl might have an issue with him or in fact the issue might be she doesn’t want to do the class.

mrslancaster

wally79 wrote: »

Haha. you are all but accusing an innocent man of being a sexual predator because he is sitting in a public place and I’m the hysterical one

Is it a public place though?
Why anyone running a private business involving children would NOT have a written child protection policy is baffling. It's up to the business owner to ensure any adult on the premises during the class has a reason to be there & they should be garda vetted if they are around children.
Maybe the class insurance needs a second adult on the premises for fire safety/ first aid reasons. In that case the owner/teacher needs to make it clear to parents when they sign up for classes.
The business has responsibilities & a duty of care. If they have all their policies & procedures in place there should be no issue.
Parents have to be sure their child is safe. It's not good enough IMO to say that any parent who asks a question should be asked to leave, now that is bizarre.

wally79

mrslancaster wrote: »

Is it a public place though?
Why anyone running a private business involving children would NOT have a written child protection policy is baffling. It's up to the business owner to ensure any adult on the premises during the class has a reason to be there & they should be garda vetted if they are around children.
Maybe the class insurance needs a second adult on the premises for fire safety/ first aid reasons. In that case the owner/teacher needs to make it clear to parents when they sign up for classes.
The business has responsibilities & a duty of care. If they have all their policies & procedures in place there should be no issue.
Parents have to be sure their child is safe. It's not good enough IMO to say that any parent who asks a question should be asked to leave, now that is bizarre.

There is one post from the op. The person works there. There is no information as to whether they are vetted or not but there are subsequently lots of baseless assumptions which don’t take long to turn into rumours

MonsterCookie

Funny; the OP has ****ed off after starting this thread. I wonder why? )

In no way would I advocate personalizing the matter based on the OP by singling out the guy. A little tact goes a long way.

Surely the sensible thing would be to ask the instructor if she has a child protection policy and can she share it?

I assume the kids are quite young therefore there are adults around at all times.

Seems like a storm in a teacup to me.

wally79

wally79 wrote: »

All negative possibilities and considering how few boyfriends probably help out at their girlfriends dance class he’s probably identifiable to somebody

It doesn’t take much to turn into a Lynch mob especially when your comments about a guy literally sitting quietly on his phone go the the level of:

“he’s a random man who turns up at one of her children’s hobbies. That’s creepy”

“If he’s on his phone there’s obviously the possibility that he’s taking photos or video.”

Don't forget "even if he IS innocent....."

Mrs OBumble

KiKi III wrote: »

I don’t need a bunch of experience to know I don’t think randomers should have access to children they’re not related to. That should be obvious to most people. Of course the child feels uncomfortable, we teach kids to be wary of strangers from a young age and that’s what he is.

The majority if child abuse is carried by people who are related to the victim: being wary of strangers is useful, but its limited. It would be far more useful to teach kids never to be alone with an adult.