I'm not really sure where to go from here, to be honest. I've clearly struck a chord here, and I'm not sure that further explanation or clarification on my part will do it any good.

What I find a bit...uh...confusing is this idea that we 'can't' (for want of a better word) make decisions on people based on a feeling, an impression, or a vibe. I mean, I would have thought we've all met people in our lives who we, within a fairly short period of time, decided we wouldn't trust. In whatever area....car sales, contractor/builder, door to door canvasser, etc.

What I find more than a little offensive is that what I was saying was that male teachers can't be trusted, or that people who look 'odd' aren't to be left with your children, or that beards and an earring give me a bad vibe.

I'm also not sure why I'm mistaken in trying to protect my children. You can't trust everyone. I'm not sure why I should just neglect that idea because it may give short shrift to someone who doesn't know they're being given short shrift.

Anyway, yeah, Bored makes some very good points, as does Amor. But I have to say that I'm more than a little surprised that I'm coming in for such a drubbing for believing that not everyone can be trusted with your children.

How often does this happen to you WOM? I meet people who I fairly quickly realise I don't like or people who I don't trust in the sense of concern that they're acting entirely in their own interests (but that also takes a little while), but I'm racking my brain to think of a situation where I met someone who I got this "vibe" from that you're referring to. Really, I just don't feel that this happens.

So, basically what others have said, that I think what you can do is to teach your kids to be aware and thoughtful and to communicate with you, but I have genuinely never been in a situation where I've met someone and thought "Hmm, bad vibe. I'm keeping my kids away from him"

Although you may be surprised, WOM, genuinely this is the case with many people that they don't use such, let's say, superficial details to judge people by. Indeed, I regard is as part of the education and modelling of good living (for want of a better, less arrogant phrase - it's early) for my son not to. Children can be very judgemental of the out of the ordinary and different.

Equally, I am sure that there are many people that think exactly like you and much much more so in the sincere belief that they are doing best for their children. The media and governments love to engender a "Keep them scared, keep them submissive" culture. You only have to look at the post-9/11 culture to see that.

It is a chance for people to be controlled, divided and diverted away from real issues. More children are killed and injured by cars than will be affected by child abuse or terrorism - probably both put together - yet the attention paid to this danger is relatively ignored.

I think my story is similar to Bored's. I'm 46, was a stay at home dad to my three children, and enjoyed it so much that I started volunteering in their school, which eventually led to me working there as a teaching assistant in a Year One class for the last couple of years. I also accompany a Year Four class to swimming lessons once a week and am alone with the boys in the changing rooms when they get changed.

I don't have any sexual attraction to children but of course I can never prove that I don't. I do all I can to protect myself - I make sure I'm never alone with a child in a room with the doors closed, try and turn my body slightly sideways as quickly as I can when I see a hug approaching, and try to comfort a child with as little physical contact as possible (which is difficult). I will hold a child's hand at playtime when I'm on duty, but I'm aware how it may 'look' to someone.

I always feel I'm on a tightrope though, and all it takes is one parent to think I'm suspicious for whatever reason (working with children, bad vibes, wrong look, etc) and my world will come crashing down.

I'm sure it's not your intention WOM, but I think it's sentences like this one that have got people's backs up a bit. Call me touchy, but there seems to be an implication in this that others here aren't so bothered about trying to protect their children. It's an emotive way of approaching an extraordinarily delicate and important subject.

Sorry, had to leave for a moment.

A child's welfare is more important than what people think of me of course I should have added, but I can't help feeling under constant scrutiny.

E10 Rifle wrote:


If you'll go back through my posts, you'll find that I never said 'protect my children'. It was Bored's introduction of the phrase that I responded to. I found, and still find, it odd - the notion that someone wouldn't protect their children. If you read some other implication into it, that's your deal. Not mine. I never inferred or implied anything.

ad hoc wrote:


Hell of a good question, ad hoc. Pretty much never. I talk to all and sundry and have always encouraged my kids to do the same. We don't do the 'don't talk to strangers' thing. I encourage them to shake hands and introduce themselves to people.

But I don't ignore or deny that I've met people who I, quickly, find that I just don't trust or take at face value. Who knows what it is. Maybe a vague way of answering questions, combined with a lack of eye contact, or body language, or a weak handshake, or shifting 'facts', or a demeanour that doesn't fit the situation. Who knows.

Now, if I wouldn't buy a used car from someone I decided I wouldn't trust, why wouldn't that extend to making decisions in other areas?

I mean, I'm really struggling with this. You've honestly never been walking down a street and seen four blokes standing on a corner or in a doorway and thought "Uh oh...this doesn't look right" and crossed a street or worried a bit for your safety? No specific threat...just a bad feeling.

That's really all I'm talking about. If you're not comfortable with a situation, for whatever reasons, why would you send your child into that situation? Am I really alone in making non-scientific judgements on things? Like....really really?

So do I, so does everyone here I suspect, so the question remains: who exactly is the "someone" who wouldn't protect their children?

I don't know. You introduced that idea - as I've pointed out. Why don't you explain it?

You really do like that tactic, though. You've used it before. The idea that by stating one thing, you're implying that others believe or do the opposite. It's oddly defensive.

Erm, no, when you said "find it odd that someone wouldn't protect their children" you must have been alluding to something or someone. I can't answer that because I don't know who that "someone" could be.

Savile-geddon continues to cut through the media like Hurricane Sandy with Savile apparently being told to stay away from BBC’s Children in Need (which is something I tend to do quite voluntarily) along with concerns amongst royal insiders of his conduct with Prince Charles’s female assistants, whom Savile would greet by kissing each one up the arm (why did Charles need so many? Doctor Who only needs one). There may be a day in which someone might actually have nothing of any consequence to say about Savile, but that doesn’t seem to be coming anytime soon.

I watched the Louis Theroux documentary again on YT, where Theroux was intrigued by the way Savile created a press opportunity when he chipped a bone in his ankle out in the Highlands. I only mention this because it seemed that Savile still had a network of those willing to keep him in the limelight even though, at the time of this documentary he hadn’t had a regular gig on the telly for years. It makes me wonder if this ploy helped magnify the whole Savile legacy by the time he breathed his last, perhaps paving the way for the whole media frenzy has escalated since these allegations first came to light.

E10 Rifle wrote:


Let's try this again.

Bored of Education wrote "Obviously, I do not agree with his view but he is mistaken in trying to protect his children, not really prejudiced."

And I wrote: "I'm also not sure why I'm mistaken in trying to protect my children. You can't trust everyone."

Then you took me to task for that. To which I responded: "I found, and still find, it odd - the notion that someone wouldn't protect their children."

I found the notion being introduced by Bored to be odd. Not that some people don't or wouldn't protect their children. I found Bored's notion - that there were some who would and some who wouldn't - to be odd.

I believe that everyone tries to protect their children, whether it's teaching them to cross the road properly or not to approach a strange car if a man asks them to help him find a lost puppy. Now, we can quibble all day about who is over-protective and who is under-protective. I mean, I'm game if you are. But let's not keep misrepresenting my position. Surely there are plenty of 'male teacher' or 'beard and earring' straw men yet to be tackled.

I'd suggest, WOM, that you do exactly what your best instincts as a father dictate that you should do, moulded as they are by accumulated personal experience.

On the other hand, you should probably consider tempering them in future if any of the points put to you on this thread suggest to you that you have a tendency to misrepresent positions or personalities.

Well said. Thank you.

WOM wrote:


Yes I understand what you're talking about WOM. On a directly related note, a few years ago I was walking down the street and spotted an older bloke, bit rough looking, forties, interacting with about 3 or 4 kids who looked about 12. Everything felt wrong. The kids looked a bit wild, not quite street urchins but they just looked uncared for. Don't ask me why I thought this, channeling WOM possibly but it all looked wrong.

Then I caught his eye and his look was a guilty
"what the fuck are you looking at?" My response was "You, you dodgy fucker"

All non verbal but I'm absolutely sure that was the exchange and absolutely sure he knew that I knew he was 'hinky'. I walked up to him but he turned away and walked off. The kids had disappeared into a shop.

I didn't do anything. What could I do? I'd seen nothing wrong, apart from an older man hanging about kids I was sure weren't his. It was his reaction that told me that I was right to be suspicious. I still think I should have done something but I'm not sure what.

But of course I could have been entirely mistaken. But as for WOM taking 'feelings' or 'hunches' seriously, yes, I understand that. Doing anything about it? Thats another thing entirely.

In my job I meet a lot of people and interact and negotiate with them. 30 years of experience has taught me to spot a chancer very quickly. Mostly it's what they say but when they come out with certain phrases my heart sinks. 99.9% of the time it means they're trying to stiff you. Generally they try too hard to prove they're trustworthy and dependable, usually by telling you they are. Trustworthy and dependable people don't feel the need to do this.

Of course I can't spot them all but there are a whole range of frequently non verbal clues that tell you a lot about a person you are interacting with. I think that very often we process this stuff almost subconciously which can make it difficult to trust sometimes.

However, I do get a (metaphorical) bell that goes off every so often that either tells me 'good guy' or 'hinky' and so far that has never been wrong. That I'm aware of.

So, WOM, if that's what you're talking about, I understand you.

When I was single it also worked with women. I knew within seconds of meeting a girl if I was going to 'get off' with her if the bell went off. To be fair this wasn't very often and I assume it was the girl giving me whatever signals they do that mean they want you. They can do that you know. Male signals tend to be much less subtle and successful.

You've honestly never been walking down a street and seen four blokes standing on a corner or in a doorway and thought "Uh oh...this doesn't look right" and crossed a street or worried a bit for your safety? No specific threat...just a bad feeling.

That's a little different though. Rightly or wrongly, there's empirical judgement at work in that decision. Just as there would be in deciding whether to walk past an unchained guard dog. But that's not the case when you avoid someone just because, in some indefinable way, they seem weird.

I admit that this is part of the emerging Savile story that bothers me. The eagerness of people to retrospectively condemn because "they always thought" he looked creepy or strange. Television, especially British TV, has frequently employed people in presentation roles who are idiosyncratic or eccentric — from Patrick Moore to Sister Wendy. They do so because the audience likes them. They take a prosaic, or difficult, subject or task, and make it more engaging. In that context Savile fit right in, and was accepted just as other oddballs have been.

I don't think most people who abuse children look particularly strange. They look like regular folk, and outside of their sexual proclivities, probably are. That's how they are able to get away with their activities for so long. Savile was an exception because — in his world — weird was expected, accepted, and normal. My fear is that in the wake of this scandal, those in society who don't conform to conventional notions of normality will be ostracised, or worse, even more than is usually the case.

Amor de Cosmos wrote:


Yes, and that 20-20 hindsight is, in a slightly different mode of use, part of what bothers me about the O'Hagan/Nefertiti axis, whose line is that we all knew he was a nonce and secretly liked that about him.

We didn't all know he was a nonce.

I, for example, would first have had to know that he existed.