Strange man near the Peckham Rye Cafe / One o'clock club

[Mark]

Don't expect to be attacked shoshntosh, your point's been made before and hopefully now most people would ask this guy a question (of some sort) if they were to see him now that they are more aware. Perhaps they should gather a few other parents together and approach him in a group if it feels safer.

[SimonM]

...alternatively carry a small digital camera, whip it out & begin quite ostenatiously to take photos of him. That would soon clarify his motives I'd think...

[Clinker]

There's nothing wrong with paranoia in this day and age. Better to be safe than sorry I say. I think it's well dodgy for a man to take a video of kids playing in a playground. One time a friend of mine saw a guy with a camera on the bus, he held it under a girls skirt as she was walking upstairs. Who knows what kind of opportunity this guy was waiting for?

[BJL]

Clinker Wrote:

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

> One time a friend of mine saw a guy with a camera on the bus, he

> held it under a girls skirt as she was walking

> upstairs. Who knows what kind of opportunity this

> guy was waiting for?

He could have been a photographer for a tabloid. I hear that's the sort of thing that sells these days...

(Edited for grammar.)

[linzkg]

everyone's entitled to their own opinions - yes, and it's unfortunate that this is what we've become - suspicious of many things.

but for those that have had that unfortunate experience of being the little kid at the mercy of an adult - caution is everything!!

so for those who have been offended by mothers, and like, questioning a man photographing young children when he should be playing bingo lets replace "paranoia" with "caution".

are we allowed to be cautious??

[Pierre]

Before I post what I mean to say, I'm keen to point out that I'm not competing to be the perfect liberal, that I think it's probably a good idea to warn others of someone's suspicious behaviour but that if you see something suspicious you should act on it at the time. Anyway...

There's nothing wrong with paranoia in this day and age.

At the risk of re-inflaming the argument, paranoia is never justifiable. Especially when it's encouraged and endorsed by those with advertising space to sell, whether on news paper or around web pages. As tabloid and magazine editors have said in the past, giving people something to hate increases sales.

Also, I don't believe "this day and age" are any worse than any other day and age. There have always been people who are turned on by doing wrong to others. Sometimes they get organised into groups, sometimes they act on their own. Sometimes someone will convince themselves that things were better in the good old days but I don't believe that's true, I think it's usually because that person was more naive before that point. Then again, my opinion's only as valid as anyone else's. Unless that someone else has children... ;)

: P

[david_carnell]

Not wishing to be tarred with the "perfect liberal" brush either (although wouldn't it be marvellous?!) but I agree entirely, Pierre.

The type of hysteria whipped by the tabloid press surrounding child sex offenders is abhorrent and shameful. Rampaging lynch mobs through our town centres are a poor inditement of a supposedly civilised nation.

To keep this ED specific (for now at least) do local rags like Southwark News or the SLP indulge in the same sort of shit-stirring? I never buy them so wouldn't know.

[Jimbob]

so theres a bloke in the rye holding a camera at waist level, but in someones eyes hes furtively using it. how do they know hes using it, are they close enough to see if a)its actually on and b)if theres a disc/tape capable of actually recording anything in the device. to compound the suspicion he suddenly walks off, maybe he was fed up waiting for someone, maybe hes out for a stroll, maybe he has to be somewhere else. i would actually like to know how he was furtively using it, because theres a pretty big accusation being made here and no substance whatsoever to back any of it up and all of you who have jumped on the bandwagon and started hysterical outpourings of pervs and paedophiles out to be ashamed of yourselves.

[Ganapati]

Pierre--surely you believe though that in "this day and age" people--thanks to technology--have much better access to groups of similarly-minded people, better access to information on how to go about things, as well as a faster, easier means of distribution? I think this holds true for "innocent" hobbies as well as the more deviant. Human nature itself is probably no better, no worse.

[david_carnell]

Ahh yes, modern technology, the perverts greatest weapon:

[espelli]

I have read this thread from the beginning and I have resisted posting so far. However, we are in danger of re-hashing the argument again and the word "paranoia" has been mentioned repeatedly so here is my two pennyworth: (and before I am shot down in flames I have been involved in child protection for many years, take it very seriously and care deeply about the welfare of all children. However I think we need a bit of perspective here.) It is interesting that those taking the "liberal" line have felt the need to be defensive of their positions. (as I have too now!)

Firstly what the man was doing (and I agree it appears to be an odd thing to be doing) is unclear as no-one approached him. Therefore no-one is any the wiser and all concerns we may have about his actions, motives or the end product of his actions are based on our imaginations and a collective memory of cases/reports that have been horrific (and unusual) and therefore made the national press. So at this point in time, as far as we know, no-one has been harmed.

Secondly, the reaction to the report of this man's actions have created very strong, emotional responses in many people which has created a rather skewed debate. It is instinctive for parents to want to protect their children from harm and the thought that someone may want to hurt a child in any way is abhorrent. I have not read any posts on here that suggest otherwise, so on that point everyone agrees. Furthermore, while parents (and all who care for children's welfare) may take great care to protect those children from stranger danger, which is real and is a concern, and may be highly suspicious of anyone they do not know being around children unless: they have children with them or are there in a professional capacity. But the unknown bogey man is not the biggest danger to a child. Most abuse happens within families. Most abusers are known to their victims and trusted by their victim's parents. This is a more uncomfortable concept to come to terms with and we all find it difficult to think that anyone in our family or circle of friends could want to hurt one of our children. But this is what makes it easier for the abuse to take place.

Thirdly, this emotional reaction to the possibility of "outside" harm creates a culture of fear and paranoia which is just as dangerous. It means that people do not feel able to approach other people in broad daylight in the park with other people around and that someone on an earlier post suggested that there might be a case for a complete ban on all photography in all parks "just in case". It means that children have less and less freedom to explore the world and develop a taste for independence and it means that they are more anxious about staying safe than they are keen to have fun. This "day and age" is not more dangerous in terms of paedophiles on the loose than it was when we were kids, it is just more scared of what might happen, and I find that really very sad.

Wow this is such a long post! I'm sorry to have rambled for so long. But now you have read it let the shooting commence!

[SeanMacGabhann]

looked like a good post to me espelli !

[david_carnell]

Seconded. Spot on espelli.

[citizenED]

Agree with your post espelli. Glad you spent the time composing it.

[Loz]

Yep, fourth'd.

[fuzzyboots]

I agree Espelli. A well considered, informed comment.

Trish/Fuzzboots.

[ratty]

I hearby promise that if I see some individual takin film of kids in a play park then I will ask them what the fook they are doing.

Perhaps this could be an EDF pledge when someone registers their account, then this mess can be cleared up. :)

[cdonline]

Thanks for that Espelli.

Not having children myself, I often feel wary of having contact with children, in case it is misconstrued.

This thread reminded me of a visit to Dulwich Swimming Baths a number of years ago. I was with a guy I was seeing at the time. There were 3 young boys there, two of which were being a bit loud. They approached us for some reason, asking questions and then one asked if were we gay. We just swam off, not wanting to get involved. The third boy just kept staring at us and no matter which end we went to, he followed. After this kept happening, we decided to call it a day and leave.

Afterwards, when we were discussing it, we both presumed the staring boy was probably a gay kid. We were so wary of how it could possibly have been seen, or if one of the boys had said something dumb to one of the staff, that neither of us wanted to continue swimming, which was stupid.

Not sure how I would react today, but I am still sensitive around children I don't know. In the park and many other situations, I often find myself just look past them as though they're not even there.

I was certainly allowed to roam all over as a kid, but I don't think it was necessarily safer. I was mugged on the way back from school, was taken to hospital after I kicked really badly to the floor once after nearly hitting a guy with a peashooter and another time, two guys tried to drag me into a car aged about 9. I was still allowed out to play with friends. One thing I do remember is that in all these cases there were adults, who I didn't know, who came to my help.

[Loz]

Ratty - so close and yet... Try: "Hey, nice day we're having. What about those Gunners/Blues/(insert football or other sporting club here), eh? So which one's yours? That little tyke over there, I reckon..." >:D

[Keef]

Think you'll find that's Portsmouth, but you don't want to kill the guy through laughter! ;-)

espelli, that was a fine post, wish we could all put ourselves across so clearly.

[shoshntosh]

cdonline, therein lies the rub. i am fond of saying to my husband "the appearance of impropriety can often be as or more damaging than impropriety itself." (okay sean, who did i steal THAT line from??)

my very good (child-free) friend john was in the supermarket with his wife when they encountered a small girl on her own, sobbing. they asked her what was wrong and she said "i lost my mummy and daddy". without thinking john scooped up the toddler and began carrying her to the customer service counter at the front of the supermarket. naturally you can see where this is going...

before arriving at the customer service counter john (with his wife following behind him) ecountered the very angry father of the little girl, who not only snatched the little girl from john's arms but basically accused him of attempted kidnapping. poor john. he has told me that he will never try to be a good samaritan again (when children are involved).

of course he should have handled it differently. but how sad that he needed to think like a criminal in order to avoid being thought of as one.

[SeanMacGabhann]

most recently, Obama has been known to use that phrase - is that who you mean shosh?

Good post btw

[Keef]

On more than one occasion I have seen a crying child in a shop, and really not known what to do for fear of just that kind of thing happenin. Sad bloody world we live in!

[Jimbob]

just buy them some sweets, that should them up.