Can we find out for sure?

SavingPennies_2

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Oh come on... standard common sense would say don't let a stranger have unsupervised access to your grandchildren.

Let's face it, you want to know the gossip - plain and simple.

I agree


Also anyone could be a p****...you just never know, stranger, family friend, family member, for all anyone knows.

Mojisola

SavingPennies wrote: »

Also anyone could be a p****...you just never know, stranger, family friend, family member, for all anyone knows.

But most aren't so be alert for warning signs but don't make your children frightened of everyone.

j.e.j.

Fwiw we had some scrotes outside here shouting that one of our residents is a p--do. He isn't, - they'd just fallen out with him, after he told them off about something, and they evidently wanted to make trouble for him after that. So be careful when it comes to vigilantes and gossip. There may be some truth to these letters, OP, or there may not. I would just try and do a bit of digging, on the quiet, and see what you can find out.

SavingPennies_2

Mojisola wrote: »

But most aren't so be alert for warning signs but don't make your children frightened of everyone.

Yes I agree. The man in the OP's street might not even be - could be a bitter ex or someone getting revenge.

Nicki

SavingPennies wrote: »

Yes I agree. The man in the OP's street might not even be - could be a bitter ex or someone getting revenge.

Even if he has a string of convictions for offences against children, he still has to live somewhere though

The OP has said he has lived in the road for a year and keeps himself to himself to the extent they don't even know his name. There is no suggestion at all he is "grooming" adults or trying to interact with children in the street or doing anything at all of concern whatever his past may or may not be.

Vandalising his mothers property is appalling, as is poking around and trying to stir up scandalous gossip about this man. OP you know nothing about him, you never have to interact with him or even acknowledge him in the street. He is a total stranger to you. Consider minding your own business and not spreading rumours about him far and wide when you have no reason to believe they are true.

Spendless

zaksmum wrote: »

If the man is what the leaflet says he is I will avoid him and make sure my grandkids, who all visit and stay regularly, do the same.

That's why I need to know. If he is, then he's a danger to children and I will most certainly protect my own from him. There are a lot of young children in the road whose parents also feel the need to know if this man is indeed a !!!!!phile, and if so will keep their kids well away from him.

My own safety rules were my children were to never go off with someone, or enter someones house unless I or the adult responsible for them at that time (eg if I had a babysitter) knew about it.

I never told them they couldn't talk to a stranger which came in handy when eldest was attacked by several children known to him and the incident filmed but there was an adult passer-by son felt confident to run to after managing to get away from the 3 kids kicking him to the ground.

I had a password that I told the kids so in the event of an emergency and me not being able to pick them up, the person would supply the password. I told them this when they were at an age to understand that they didn't reveal this password to anyone.

They were also told that if I'd agreed that they could play 'in the park'. In the park was where I expected them to be if I went looking. If they then decided to call at the shops or for a friend, they weren't to do this without telling me first.

DUKE

Hi Zacsmum, You can look on the Electoral Roll to find out his name. If he's a convicted !!!!! he'll be on here https://en-gb.facebook.com/UK.database.

Tiddlywinks

DUKE wrote: »

Hi Zacsmum, You can look on the Electoral Roll to find out his name. If he's a convicted !!!!! he'll be on here https://en-gb.facebook.com/UK.database.

No matter how well meaning, that site should be closed down.

Firstly, the content is not a complete list of known offenders and so it could give someone a false sense of security when referring to it.

Secondly, not all p!!!philes are known to any authority - so sensible measures on personal security should be second nature to all those with children in their care.

That website is one step short of vigilantism.

phill99

People need to put this into prospective.

People are obsessed with strangers interfering with their children. But the reality is that over 75% of incidents of abuse are committed by a family member or someone close to the family.

Danger lies within, not without.

Yorkie1

MrsDanvers wrote: »

So a man in his 50s living with his mother is automatically suspect, you are prepared to believe it on no evidence whatsoever and the street is having collective hysteria when their children are more likely to be abused in the home by someone they know than a random stranger. I'd be careful what I say if I were you. Whether or not he's what you suspect it sounds to me like a situation where some bonehead is about to take into his or her head that vigilante action is called for and escalate things; and that could get really serious.

You're right. Vigilante action has already occurred - illegal damage to property belonging to an elderly woman.

phill99 wrote: »

People need to put this into prospective.

People are obsessed with strangers interfering with their children. But the reality is that over 75% of incidents of abuse are committed by a family member or someone close to the family.

Danger lies within, not without.

Indeed.