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

[????]

Seamus - I think that that's a pretty emotive response when loz was just making some genuine points about society's paranoia.....ditto Louisa's thread

[KateW]

You raise some good points Loz. From what I've watched/read of interviews with paedophiles, part of the thrill is actually being near to children, watching them in person, thus fuelling their fantasies. Paedophiles will try and convince themselves that what they are doing isn't wrong, thus trying to justify their actions. For example, he (you're right, most paedophiles are men) might argue to himself that he's just walking through the playground full of children because it's on the way to the newsagent. This might then escalate to taking a camera with him because he's a keen photographer etc etc. (To use a real example, 10 years ago I worked for a local authority youth service where one of the volunteers - who ran the photography club at a local youth centre - got convicted for paedophilia).

Re: the safer recruitment, in the Ian Huntley case, certain basic steps weren't taken in his recruitment which gave him access to children which resulted in the murders of Holly and Jessica. It's not about creating hysteria and making people paranoid, it's saying 'how can we create more obstacles which might detract a paedophile from applying for/getting a job with children'. This includes have thorough CRB checks, asking questions about their motivations for working with children, getting verbal references from past employers spanning the last 5 years, having thorough safe guarding training for all staff, regular supervision etc etc.

[Keef]

You know what Loz, you should send a letter to the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman

And yet they were killed by a trusted man who worked in their school. Not really a comparrable case at all.

I don't understand why in a situation like this someone doesn't just walk straight up to the bloke. If he sees you coming and legs it, then you know something may be amiss. If he stands there and explains himself, you can make your own judgement.

My mum has some lovely photos of my sister as a toddler in the park that she was given by some bloke who wanted to try out his new polaroid camera (this is approx '77). I do remember mum saying (years later) that she'd felt a bit funny about it at first, but the guy ended up being very nice and giving her every photo he'd taken. I know it's a different situation, but just made me remember it.

[seanmlow]

Loz -

Could end up on a child porn site. Enough said really.

[cdonline]

NSPCC statistics show that there about roughly 80 child murders a year, of which about 80% are killed by their parents. I really don't understand the argument about Holly and Jessica.

[KateW]

Cdonline - the point about the Holly and Jessica murders is about how someone who had previous allegations of sexual assault of young girls had managed to get a job working as a caretaker in a school.

[Keef]

Exactly, just grabbing the name of 2 murdered girls out of the air for a bit of scare mongering. FFS, White van man, kangaroo court bull sh!t.

[Keef]

Cdonline - the point about the Holly and Jessica murders is about how someone who had previous allegations of sexual assault of young girls had managed to get a job working as a caretaker in a school.

That is a very good point, but still has little or nothing to do with this thread really.

[KateW]

No Keef, it is relevant - see my post above. Social services, the police and the school failed to communicate the information they had about about Huntley being a paedophile.

[tiger ranks]

If this is the same person i was over dulwich park with my girlfriend enjoying the sun a little while ago while sitting on the grass around the pond near the cafe .

Which is about 7meters away from the pathway and it was a hot day i noticed a man with a black jacket on which i thought was strange he walked onto the grass and pulled out a camera of some sort and headed straight for a group of mums who all had little children with them and i could see that he had put the camera down to the sideand either was taking pictures or was fliming.

Another couple who was sitting near us also noticed this but by the time we spoke to each other we was going to question him but he had walked off

[KidKruger]

Louisa - not convinced that someone who was SUSPECTED of 'undesirable behaviour' towards children would not "really give a toss if their name was put up on this forum" because they know they're really innocent.

There is a a huge amount of stigma associated with this kind of behaviour and whether you yourself know you're innocent is irrelevant, as evidenced by teachers who're falsely accused and never work in education again even though all allegations have been withdrawn.

The concern around this stigma causes issues for both guilty and innocent folks.

[Loz]

Oh, KateW, keef, cdonline, etc - thank you for replying, I had started to think any chance of intelligent debate on this subject was doomed to failure.

KateW: I don't disagree with what you are saying - paedophiles can apparently be ultra clever, fooling even themselves. All the people on here saying 'gee if only he had some sort of a press pass' probably have never come across the term 'social engineering attack'.

But does the paranoia far exceed the risk? (all arguments starting 'one child is too many' notwithstanding). I agree that Ian Huntley slipped through a rather shoddy net and that that needed to be fixed, but CRB checks, in particular, have gone through a lot of scope creep and that's what tripped up the apparently innocent deputy head and a lot more besides. Instead of just dealing in facts, they now record rumour and innuendo. Are we at risk of tarring all men in teaching/childcare - and a lot of women - and ruining their careers?

seanmlow: Are there really child porn sites with fully-clothed children? Does that really happen or is it urban myth? How does that differ from the, say, clothing section of the Mothercare site?

[cdonline]

"No Keef, it is relevant - see my post above. Social services, the police and the school failed to communicate the information they had about about Huntley being a paedophile."

So, we should spend our lives waiting for something so exceptional to happen?

Or get on with our lives, not always worrying about the worst case scenario.

[Keef]

RE: Huntly, I agree that he never should have got the job, and I don't know how he did manage to without ful CRB checks, but I'm still not sure why he or his victims have been brought up in this thread, as that situation involving someone the girls knew, and his girlfriend (who they also knew if memory serves), bares no relation to this thing about a man in the park.

Now, tiger ranks' post, and the earlier post about the man in The Hearne do suggest the possibility of something being amiss, in which case someone needs to check things out, such as, have the police had any local reports, have the local schools heard anything about a man with a camera hanging around?

I still think the first thing to do is to confront this man (in a pair or more), and just ask him his business to see what he says.

[pk]

cdonline Wrote:

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

> "No Keef, it is relevant - see my post above.

> Social services, the police and the school failed

> to communicate the information they had about

> about Huntley being a paedophile."

>

>

>

> So, we should spend our lives waiting for

> something so exceptional to happen?

>

> Or get on with our lives, not always worrying

> about the worst case scenario.

or spend time on the internet telling concerned parents not to be suspicious of a person who to me (and many) behaved in a very suspicious way?

[tomk]

Yesterday in Peckham Rye there was a man filming the children in the playground. I didn't want my daughter filmed so I moved her from the climbing frame. I didn't bother saying anything to the guy but to be honest I would have forgotten about it if it hadn't been for this posting.

I am seriously thinking of not bothering with this site if this is the level of 'educated debate' on the topic of who is and who isn't a danger to children. To all of you who post inflammatory musings on the safety of children I think you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[lozzyloz]

Like jimbo1964 I'm also a parent and a photographer (CRB checked) and can sometimes be seen taking photographs in local parks of my own children and that of friends. I'm always aware of other parents fears (well founded in my opinion) and try to ensure that strangers children are not in frame.

I don't think it's paranoia to be protective about your children and to question the motives of a stranger filming your children. At the very least, assuming it is harmless, the documenter should ask for your permission out of respect. You have a right to know where and how images of your children are going to be used especially if they can be clearly identified.

jimbo1964 did the right thing to alert the Wardens although personally I would have simply asked him what he was doing and based on the response / attitude perhaps even some official ID decided how to take it further if necessary.

One can never be too careful when children are involved, better safe than sorry even if it's not your own kids. To call it paranoia is an ill informed statement.

(PS I'm not related to Loz but respect his/her views even if I disagree with them)

[Pierre]

I must say I'm with Loz on this. Fair point KateW, filming them is a bit odd, but not _necessarily_ sinister.

"Paedophile", like "terrorist" is one of the few remaining knee-jerk taboo words that tabloids and sensationalists love, principally because it is instantly synonymous with The Enemy, or Not Us. Worse still, it carries such an instant stigma that it's possible to build up a huge culture of fear around it, use it for political or personal manipulation and even worse justify all manner of acts on the spurious clich? "there's no smoke without fire."

: P

P.S. "I didn't want my daughter filmed so I moved her from the climbing frame. I didn't bother saying anything to the guy" is precisely why it appears a lot of silly people would rather hide in fear than actually deal with a situation and confront someone. On the other hand, possibly also the reason that someone keen on filming children for his own awful fantasy life might reason that he could get away with it for a while - after all, who's going to stop him?

[Pierre]

One can never be too careful when children are involved

I think that's absolute crap. One can be far _too_ careful, far too fearful, preventing them ever being exposed to any kind of risk. And that's not healthy for anyone.

: P

[lozzyloz]

Can you define the risk you think it's OK to expose children to?

[Ant]

Can you define the risk you think it's OK to expose children to?

Obviously that's a subjective judgement, lozzyloz. But enough to let them learn to assess and cope with risk themselves would seem a sensible answer.

[Goofy]

Well i read Gary Glitter is coming back to this country... i know lets give him a camera........

[lozzyloz]

Not sure that was a judgement, merely a question. I agree with what you're saying though and I'm certainly not an advocate of wrapping kids in cotton wool. Going back to the OP, I would be curious to know the intentions of the person filming and how that footage was being used. It may be harmless, but equally if it is going to become fodder for somebody that will go on to prey on children then I'm not going to make it easy for them. I'd much rather err on the side of caution than just assume they're innocent.

[Loz]

Well i read Gary Glitter is coming back to this country... i know lets give him a camera........

I think the point is: do we round up all balding, greying men with a touch of facial hair, just in case it's Gary Glitter. One can never be too careful when children are involved, you know...

I'm not saying that the OP's suspect person is innocent. Without starting a lozzyloz/Loz love-in, I think that alerting your nearest policeman is the right thing to do (not the park warden - they almost certainly have no training to handle this). However, posting a description on the internet is getting too much towards the torches and pitchforks brigade. Next thing you know your friendly neighbourhood paediatrician (sic) cops it.

[lozzyloz]

The other day I cycled up and down Adys Road trying to remember someone's front door whose number I'd forgotten. I only cycled up and down 3 or 4 times with a puzzled look on my face, when suddenly an old lady started screaming at me (from behind her privet) that she was going to call the police, etc. I instantly understood her fears and had police stopped me I'd have happily reassured them of my innocence. But I couldn't help feeling that her reaction was a good one erring on the side of caution. She's a frail old lady. How was she to know I wasn't casing her or her neighbours house?

Similarly if I was shooting in public and someone asked what I was up to (as has happened many times) I'd rather that person was reassured than feeling uncomfortable.

And no, I don't look like Gary Glitter.