Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just thought this ought to be made known. A letter came from the school with this information.


On Monday afternoon two girls from my son's school were followed by a man. He followed them into a quiet road and then picked one of them up and tried to run off. Luckily the girls made enough noise screaming to get people out of their houses and the man let go of her and ran away.


The police were called and have his description but I thought that people on this forum ought to be made aware in order to take precautions for a while.


I'm not scaremongering, rather passing on information.

I do not in any way dislike children, and I take this advice as seriously as the next person (if it is true). I do not however support the idea of a lynch mob style thread, where we do not know all the information and are relying on the word of one forum member. Tabloid style bashing based on limited information is not my style, or anyone elses on this forum.

I wouldn't worry about it. Every time I see Louisa's name on a posting I can't help thinking of 'The Childcatcher' from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.


More irritating/laughable is her continual usage of 'emoticons' after every posting, like a three year old let loose packet of wax crayons.

  • Administrator

Louisa consider yourself warned for your behaviour, this is the first time anyone has ever been warned and hopefully the last.


You have hijacked a serious thread in order to be vindictive against another user which in my book is unnecessary and just plain wrong. Please have consideration for the nature of a thread. Also purposefully trying to get a thread Lounged (where it will be seen by less people), especially this thread is out of order.


Some messages unrelated to the thread's title have been removed, apologies to those who wrote them but I think you'll understand why I did it.


regards

sorry to be a bit sceptical, but why hasn't this been followed up on the news? surely 2 events should qualify for london tonight?

why have there not been signs up from the police. i nice big yellow board would help raise awareness very quickly.


[changed to lowercase, please don't write in all capital letters- The Administrator]

I'm assuming the school issued the letter as it was an unusual and random event and wanted the parents to be aware of it. If it happened all the time they wouldn't need to issue letters.

As the school felt it was important enough to issue a letter, I felt it was important enough to pass on the information.

Is the sceptisism about the event occuring or that I'm making the whole thing up?

If there is any from me, it's not sceptisism about you or the letter being real Asset - honest guv


But something doesn't sit 100% - if the school had seen suspicious behaviour I would have thought that warrants a letter to parents.


But in the wake of recent events if someone actually got hold of a child and ran for it but was foiled (after an allegedly similar recent event in the area we later learn) then I would have thought at the very least BBC London would be at the scene and covering it? And if not why not?


ed-pete: I'm not saying it didn't happen. But saying it definitely happened when you are at least twice removed doesn't make it a case-closed. And if it definitely did happen are we absolutely sure this wasn't play-acting amongst people who know each other? That could sound harsh I know but just trying to square the facts. I repeat - if this did genuinely happen and there were witnesses I would expect more than a letter from a school (that sort of thing used to be for poor grades!) - I would want media coverage with on site reporters saying "have you seen the person who matches this description?"

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

    • Thank you for clarifying, James. So why would anybody want to take this on as a franchise if it is staying in this building? If it is now to be a sub office, does that mean that much of  the space could be used as a different kind of business altogether, with just part of it being used as a sub Post Office? Because if it is all to remain solely for Post Office business, (albeit as a sub Post Office it won't be providing all the services which it currently does) I can't see who would want to take it over? If it isn't profitable as a Crown office, how could it be  profitable running just as a sub office, even if staff are being paid less and it's opening for longer hours? Because presumably all the other overheads such as rent will remain the same?
    • Girobank was genuinely innovative, regarding the addressed customer base (significantly the previously unbanked) - but this would have been an ideally outsourced operation to an existing bank which already had the operational systems (and the regulatory experts) to manage a bank for someone else at marginal cost. The Post Office - when you consider the issues over the Horizon software - never originally designed by ICL/ Fujitsu for the application it ran - is a very good reason why the Post Office being involved in banking was long-term a bad idea.  To get back to the topic of this thread, the Horizon debacle is still not over (the software system is still in place) - most of the wrongly penalised sub-postmasters are still out of pocket - I'm not sure I would be leaping to take on the franchise being offered in Lordship Lane.
    • Otherwise in Bellenden Road are brilliant! They’ve made me stage dresses, restructured vintage finds and are working on remodelling my late brothers huntsman tweed suit for my modern husband! Not cheap and rents have meant they are moving premises at mo.
    • Penguin, I broadly agree, except that the Girobank was a genuinely innovative and successful operation. It’s rather ironic that after all these years we are now back to banking at the Post Office due to all the bank branch closures.  I agree that the roots of the problem go back further than 2012 (?), when the PO and RM were separated so RM could be sold. I’m willing to blame Peter Mandelson, Margaret Thatcher or even Keith Joseph. But none of them will be standing for the local council, hoping to make capital out of the possible closure of Lordship Lane PO, as if they are in no way responsible. The Lib Dems can’t be let off the hook that easily.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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