Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Zebedee Tring Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > FFS, when I used the word "attacked", I meant

> it

> > in the metaphorical sense of "criticised". That

> > should have been obvious from the context

>

>

>

> It was obvious.

>

> I disagree that she's been criticised to a level

> that could be described as an attack. People have

> questioned aspects of the story. If you're going

> to stick something like this on a public forum and

> get everyone scared, people are naturally going to

> question elements of the story.

>

> In my opinion this whole thread should never have

> been started, and it should have been left for

> police and local schools to decide how much to

> advertise things. But it was started, so people

> have a right to comment / question as they see

> fit.



While I also have my own questions on the incident. I would not so far as to say this post should not have been started. Making people aware is priority number 1. Then semantics later. I would not want any one else to be dissuaded from posting something similar on here, as the public message is more important than worrying about being questioned for your actions....


I appreciate the op as a parent. So thanks

Maybe the man thought the child was going to go straight onto the road.Seen it many times,child looking like they are not going to stop in time,and the adult is too far behind to stop them.Sorry this is what sprang to my mind when I first read this.I know the junction well,and at 3.30 there are lots of people collecting from schools.No offensive to anyone,everyone is safe,that's the main thing.
I'm with Medusa on this one - I'm seeing a lot of finger pointing and speculation. How do we know for a fact the wrong steps were taken? Is it possible that that, given the time of the incident, the nanny could have returned home, called the parents to inform them immediately, the parents then leaving work to discuss the matter further making the ultimate decision to call the police? Entirely so, but it doesn't make nearly as good a story...

This morning my daughter's nursery warned parents about the "attempted abduction". They have just sent us a message saying that police have informed Dulwich Hamlet school that there was NO attempt to abduct a child.

This is 3rd/4th hand - can anyone confirm?


Maybe then we can stand down the lynch mob for the nanny.

Agree-- given no one on here knows all of the details about how the nanny communicated with the parents specifically, spending most of the thread speculating and criticizing her seems both unfair and besides the point.



intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin I've been thinking that . Poor nanny/au

> pair hope she's not reading all this .After all

> she did thwart the alleged "perp" .

IF there was no actual abduction attempt then the nanny was probably right not to immediately involve the police, but to discuss this with the parents (assuming this is what happened) and the parents right to report what might have been (but apparently actually wasn't) a worrying incident. Everybody thus seems to have acted sensibly and in proportion. Except perhaps for some posters here.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> IF there was no actual abduction attempt then the

> nanny was probably right not to immediately

> involve the police, but to discuss this with the

> parents (assuming this is what happened) and the

> parents right to report what might have been (but

> apparently actually wasn't) a worrying incident.

> Everybody thus seems to have acted sensibly and in

> proportion. Except perhaps for some posters here.


What, you mean the ones who said something didn't sound right and that it didn't sound as though there was an attempted abduction?

Wow, this is an odd thread. Firstly, I don't think it's fair to criticise the nanny for allowing a child to run ahead of her. You can't keep children constantly by your side. Secondly, it's wrong to speculate either way on what may or may not have happened. Clearly the nanny thought something was amiss and as the only witness, you've got to give some weight to that, so best to be cautious. That said, based on the account, it is possible that all was not as it appeared and so we shouldn't overreact either.
I'm relieved to hear that there was no attempted abduction. I'm sure the police treated it seriously enough to satisfy themselves it was not a criminal matter. I'm sure it's not the sort of thing they do (or should) take lightly.

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm relieved to hear that there was no attempted

> abduction. I'm sure the police treated it

> seriously enough to satisfy themselves it was not

> a criminal matter. I'm sure it's not the sort of

> thing they do (or should) take lightly.

The police are completely underwater and underresourced. I don't think any such assumptions are safe, unfortunately.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...