On 17 Mar 2011 at 7:26pm concerned parent wrote:
Just to alert everyone on here that it has been reported on Western Road School's website that a white man in his 40's approached a child after school on Wednesday and offered them a sweet from a box. There have been other reports recently of suspicious men in the car park, the school have asked us all to be vigilent. Please keep our children safe.
On 17 Mar 2011 at 8:19pm Williamdyer wrote:
He's certainly guilty of abusing a stereotype.
On 17 Mar 2011 at 8:45pm Concerned Parent No2 wrote:
It might be better to use time and energy a little more efficiently by retweeting this info rather than making smart-arsed comments... This is the second incident in central Lewes recently and, no so far afield (Brighton) a school girl was dragged off into a park and raped, on her way home from school. No joke. We should indeed be vigalent.
On 17 Mar 2011 at 11:01pm Vigilant Vince wrote:
A little more info please. What type of sweet was it?
On 18 Mar 2011 at 12:37am can't we just.. wrote:
VERY suspicious as sweets usually come in packets and not boxes..
On 18 Mar 2011 at 12:45am Vigilant Vince wrote:
Unless it was a very old box of Poppets
On 18 Mar 2011 at 5:12am Unconcerned wrote:
Given that an overwhelmingly huge proportion of child abuse cases involve a member of the victim's own family, strangers can be virtually ignored. We must all be more vigilant in watching 'concerned parents' than assuming anybody who engages in completely innocent interactions with children to be a paedophile. This disturbing witch-huntery incited by idiot Daily Mailers is destroying communities by breaking down a sense of trust. it disgusts me.
Instead of making indignant self-righteous comments, maybe you should start asking why your taxes are being given to banking firms that pay more than 300 of its staff bonuses averaging 1.2m rather than,say, providing a better education system.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 7:27am MC wrote:
At last, someone who knows how to spell vigilant.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 7:57am MC wrote:
An important point. The widespread feeling of distrust and fear manifest in parents not letting their kids play out in the fields until they are 12 years old or adults afraid to play physically with children that aren't there own has an insidious and pervasive effect upon our society and our relations, especially relations between adults and children.
Of course it is right to protect our children but at the same time we should be realistic. The numbers of children abducted anonymous perverts is tiny compared with children killed or seriously injured on our roads each year.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 10:15am Concerned Parent No2 wrote:
I would be interested to know how many of the above are actually parents themselves. So obviously Lewes Forum is just full of smart-arses with time on their hands to make light of what COULD have been a serious incident. You seem more interested in seeming clever and quoting statistics than actually trying to help. Are you a journalist perhaps? I won't bother using it again... Shame, could actually be a useful community resource.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 10:27am Unconcerned wrote:
I'd be interested to know how many 'concerned parents' are actually over compensating child abusers. The fewer on this forum, the better.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 11:25am Appalled wrote:
I am disgusted at the cynical and flippant attitude of some posters on this thread. One child killed or abused is one too many, and parents are right to be watchful, although it is sad that many people who see children playing and would like to chat with them perfectly innocently are now afraid to do so. Therefore we are probably right to mistrust the ones who do.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 12:15pm Hoist wrote:
It is completely awful that children don't play out any more and of course there has been an overreaction but there can be no good reason for a man approaching a child he doesn't know.
Unless it's to give them a clip round the ear for being a nuisance. Now those were the days...
On 18 Mar 2011 at 12:48pm MC wrote:
Or giving something back something the child dropped maybe?
I'm a concerned parent.
Appalled. Your justification is quite depressing. The continuing health of a society depends upon natural easy relationships between adults and children. The wholesale introduction of unease and fear into this relationship such as that encouraged by the tabloids over paedophilia only serves to undermine it. The resulting fracture increases mistrust, misunderstanding and fear, which manifests itself as, amongst other things, adults being scared of children and especially teenagers. This schism in natural human relations might even increase the likelihood of children growing up to become paedophiles. A vicious circle.
A good book on this subject is Scared of the Kids by Stuart Waiton. Link below.
Check it out here »
On 18 Mar 2011 at 12:53pm Hoist wrote:
But he wasn't giving the child something back - he offered the child a sweet. You'd have to be really, really stupid to do this if you are not a paedophile. Even in my day - which was a very long time ago - this was considered unacceptable.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 1:20pm Can't we just.. wrote:
Hoist you're sounding like a fool. "You would have to be really stupid to offer a child a sweet"??? I'm afraid Hoist that it's attitudes like yours that our ruining our childrens lives more than anything - get some perspective and try (at least try) to recognise when the media have manipulated every bit of common sense out of you.
As somebody else said on here why aren't we warning of the dangers of speeding cars outside schools? Or the large number of 'concerned' parents who endanger children by insisting on collected their children in cars from school? The biggest threat to a childs well-being is road traffic - maybe we should stop driving or would that be too unpopular with the Daily Mail readers?
On 18 Mar 2011 at 1:29pm MC wrote:
Hoist, you said "there can be no good reason for *a* man approaching a child he doesn't know", not *the* man. There are loads of good reasons a man might approach a child he did not know. The reason that you can't imagine that there are is almost as sad as "Appalled"'s comment above.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 1:55pm Hoist wrote:
I am getting seriously tired of typing the same thing as this site loses my posts - please webbo do something about it.
We are talking about a stranger offering a child a sweet.
Stop trying to move the conversation on from something it wasn't.
If I am a fool I'm in good company I don't think that you'll find a single responsible adult who would advise a child to engage in conversation with such an adult - let alone accept a sweet.
I wouldn't even let my dog accept food from someone I don't know.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 1:58pm Appalled wrote:
MC - Go back and read my post properly, not putting your own biassed interpretation on it. I said:
1. The attitude of some posters on this thread is cynical and flippant. True.
2. Parents need to be watchful. True - though I didn't say they should cripple their
3. I said it was sad that people feel they can no longer communicate with children
they don't know, in the way that used to be acceptable, without being classed
as a pervert.
4. And what has led on from this is that people who hang about playgrounds and
offer children sweets are subject to mistrust. True, and sad.
What is your problem with that, MC? I think a lot of parents will agree with me.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 2:18pm cat lover, wrote:
So hoist, you wouldn't let your dog accept food from a stranger, but are quite happy to expect strangers to accept your cats crap in their gardens!
Strangers should not accept crap from cats.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 2:31pm OhFFS wrote:
This antiquated forum model needs updating so don't have to put up with the same nonsense from the same posters over and over and over. It's a shame it's hosted on lewes.co.uk which would appear to make it n#1 website / forum for Lewes
There's nothing of value in terms of discussion here, maybe check back in a year and see if you've moved on from cats crapping in peoples' gardens - maybe by then might have upgraded to forum software that will make people register in order to post, allow to hide posts by specific forum members and report idiots who use virtual bullying and trolling tactics to ruin any potentially interesting thread.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 2:31pm MC wrote:
Hoist, You did not express yourself clearly and appeared to be talking about all men, not the man. Hence the confusion. Do you really think that if a child dropped a glove without realising and an adult saw, the adult should not approach the child to give it back? It seems you do. Very sad.
Appalled. What I found depressing was your casual acceptance that this was fine and an acceptable state of affairs: "Therefore we are probably right to mistrust the ones who do.".
On 18 Mar 2011 at 2:54pm Depressed Mum wrote:
TOTALLY AGREE with OhFFS.
Hoist made a perfectly sensible comment that any person (man or woman) offering sweets to children they do not know, are bound to be treated with suspicion (whether this is a good thing or not it is a fact)...
Some posters on here are trolls (in the true internet sense)...and are incapable of having a sensible adult discussion.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 3:44pm MC wrote:
She said: "there can be no good reason for a man approaching a child he doesn't know". This is not a sensible comment.
I am not a troll. I sincerely find the overreaction to this crazy. I can see that the issue is very emotive but the fact is abduction of children happens so incredibly rarely that the fear that surrounds the issue is completely unjustified. To go back to road accidents. I think around 3,000 children were killed or seriously injured in traffic accidents in the UK last year. The number of children abducted by a stranger and sexually abused in that year can (easily) be counted on the fingers of one hand (and you will have heard of each and every one of them!)
I know this is not a popular point of view, but it is very easy to justify. We damage the upbringing of *all* of our children by the fear of something that will next to never happen.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 3:59pm Depressed Mum wrote:
Tell that to Sara Payne
On 18 Mar 2011 at 4:10pm Vesbod wrote:
So, am I correct in thinking that the "appropriate authorities" have been notified ? Much as I enjoy this website, I don't think it's a main stream grape vine, and warnings are better coming from the police, schools etc.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 4:13pm Penguin wrote:
Maybe so, but equally some people on here immediately accuse others of being trolls just because they do not agree with their point of view, or in many cases, because they do not read the posts properly and jump to wildly incorrect assumptions about the points that are being put across.
If you have a problem with cats mess in your garden, then it is a perfectly legitimate and valuable subject of discussion. You only have to read the thread to see the strong feelings either way on the subject. You, meantime, may not have a problem with cats where you live, and therefore think it trivial or idiotic and accuse those talking about it of being trolls.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 4:14pm BonfireVanityTown wrote:
What dreadful people there are on this forum. They can take nothing serious except for the dribble that comes out of their........
On 18 Mar 2011 at 4:39pm MC wrote:
Depressed Mum, Sarah Payne was abducted 11 years ago. Since then roughly 25,000 children have been killed or seriously injured on our roads.
I'm sorry but you really are frightened about the wrong thing.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 4:43pm bastian wrote:
Concerned parent 2,the rape in Brighton was a teenager and it was 1.30 a.m,I know because I have a daughter at the college next to the park,Also, the fact that there are two schools and three nusery schools in the same area makes WRS a hot spot of activity for strangers as it is so busy with kida and random adults.If you want to walk your kid to school it's ok,there's no shame in that,people make mothers feel crap these days for wanting to watch their kids and then they flip out when something like this happens.
On 18 Mar 2011 at 6:54pm Appalled wrote:
I agree with your last post, MC. It really is depressing. At the risk of boring everyone I am going to say one last thing. From the age of about 7, many years ago, I roamed my home city at will. I am certainly not saying that was right at such a young age, but one certainly developed antennae which would warn of "stranger danger" and though I had a few scary moments I never came to harm. If we over-protect our children, do we deprive them of the chance to develop these antennae?
On 19 Mar 2011 at 7:23am Maxdrum wrote:
What's wrong with alerting parents to potential abuse. Anyone giving children sweets outside a school is either hopelessly naive or up to something.
Some of these posts are pretty dispiriting. They trivialise parents concern.
On 19 Mar 2011 at 9:26am Decent Citizen wrote:
Maxdrum I absolutely agree. This forum is ideal for alerting us to potential dangers etc.
On 19 Mar 2011 at 6:09pm me wrote:
I agree this forum is perfect for a witchhunt
On 20 Mar 2011 at 10:48am Peter Van Byron wrote:
I wish some of the concerned parents would stop giving their kids crap fattening food and perhaps playing a game with them some time instead of spouting off about dangers.
On 21 Mar 2011 at 9:56am LewesMusing wrote:
Many of you lot seem to thing that this is a laughing matter, but it isn‚??t! Children have been approached first at Pell's School, then in the car park at Western Road School and then again in Grange Road on their way home, what is funny about it? We have the prison here, and sex offenders are ‚??released in the community‚?Ě, who checks on them? Does it seem so unlikely that someone is looking for an opportunity to act upon his pulsion?
On 21 Mar 2011 at 11:39am Hoist wrote:
Thanks for your comments people. Sorry I missed the poo obsessives. (Not really.)
So MC ‚?? can you think of other reasons for approaching children apart from the glove one? I‚??m sure there are some ‚?? but not many.
You still haven‚??t said why you think its ok for a man to offer sweets to strangers. Would you let your own children accept?
I‚??m the last person to try to curtail children‚??s freedom ‚?? for a start I don‚??t have any kids myself and secondly I spent much of my childhood wandering over the south downs with my friends or alone.
Do you realise, though, that children probably don‚??t want to talk to you? I thought that adults who tried to chat were a bit weird. Most adults don‚??t go round trying to chat to children. This was true in the 60s and 70s and we knew not to go anywhere near men proffering sweets. I only remember one man approaching us ‚?? he asked me to go to his house and ‚??play on his piano‚?? and I‚??m glad I ran away.
However ‚?? in defense of strangers ‚?? the only paedophile that I came across (as far as I know) was a teacher at my primary school. (He liked boys.)
Anyway, having spent Saturday with my friend‚??s 10 year old I really can‚??t see why any adult would want to talk to the little b*ggers if they don‚??t have to.
On 21 Mar 2011 at 1:49pm MC wrote:
You live in a strange universe Hoist. The last time I talked to children I didn't know was yesterday, to a small group I met playing in the stream near my house. They'd made a raft and were doing the same things I'd done as a kid. We talked about raft building and they were interested in the types of fish in the stream. A perfectly normal conversation between adults and kids in a perfectly normal world.
FYI. I never said it was ok to give kids sweets.. but you did say that it it was wrong for an adult to ever approach a kid.
On 21 Mar 2011 at 3:23pm Hoist wrote:
Just the regular universe.
As I said - I'm not a parent, but I think that most would not like their children to be approached and I think that some of the replies on this forum bear this out.
Just be careful that you are not misunderstood.
On 21 Mar 2011 at 6:08pm MC wrote:
And there you have perfectly illustrated my point about the sad poisoning of the natural adult/child relationship by adult paranoia. A paranoia that is entirely unwarranted and unjustified and not at all borne out by the statistics and, as I see it, most likely to be the product of the regular profit-driven self-righteous feeding frenzies of the trash popular media.
That's enough now. It's spring and I'm just happy that I live in a village where, if people do not know each other well, at least recognise each other and are not immediately suspicious when an adult talks to a child, a village where many adults are not yet too frightened to look out for all the children, and not just their own.
On 21 Mar 2011 at 9:18pm Hoist wrote:
But MC - I only read the posh papers. ;-)
On 21 Mar 2011 at 10:47pm MC wrote:
It's contagious though! :-)
On 23 Mar 2011 at 6:49pm angel wrote:
i am a parent who lives in landport and i dont let my 10 year old out to play i am disgusted with most of the other parents who have ;let their kids run around the streets since they were 5 casuing trouble and getting in to bad things ie drugs if more people spent more time with thier kids instead of letting them do what they like the estate would be a better place. a man offering a child a sweet is always gonna attract the label of a peado hello every one knows that by now if a random stranger offers a child a sweet they know what their doing and why dont be so niave this should be taken very seriously until proven otherwise.