Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I can see they had to send out a message. It doesn't say enough also whether the message was from the Police- and who would want their child going home on their own tonight? ! I Imagine their switchboard has gone 'ballistic' . Mine goes to After School club so in this case I am lucky. I guess all kids could go there until they are picked up. This is maybe one case when it would be good if kids had mobiles. Im anti them usually.

Text was as follows.


this morning a man tried to abduct a yr 6 child on his way to a local school. if you dont want your child to go home on their own please contact the school.


We know nothing else. Could be a kidnap attempt, estranged father or what we all probably assumed some kind of child abuser.

Please let's not speculate about a reported incident where we have no detail. What is an attempted "abduction"? That word conjures up violent images, but I wouldn't be surprised if the actual incident was nothing like that at all. Who reported the incident? Who witnessed it?


I'm not saying that the incident was acceptable, but as it stands the community might be getting whipped up into a panic when there is no way of knowing if there is anything for your own child to worry about or not.

According to the head at Heber, it wasn't a Heber child. It was a child on his way to Eliot Bank in Sydenham who was offered a lift by a man in a car, who used the bus strike as a reason for offering the lift. It happened on Sydenham Hill, and the boy refused the lift and reported the incident to the school.
In which case, I would say labelling it as an "Attempted Abduction" was unnecessary scaremongering (however dodgy the person offering the lift might have been). I would suggest that it is just as safe to let your Year 6 child walk to school in East Dulwich next Monday as it was yesterday, or ten years ago. In fact, it's probably safer. And remember children, if a stranger offers you a lift, always say no - just like my mother told me.
Alternatively: "This morning, a man offered a lift to a child on his way to school, as the buses were on strike. The child said no, which was very sensible as you should NEVER accept a lift from strangers. The incident took place in another part of south London." Put this way, I hardly think it was necessary to send texts to every parent of the school.
seems Heber cant do right for doing wrong - if they hadn't sent out the text having had the information and another incident occurred, folk would have been up in arms. As a receiver of the text myself it was very alarming and even if the details point to a 'lesser' incident, I'd rather have the text than not. Whatever the real details of the incident, the yound lad did exactly the right thing, refusing the lift and reporting it to his school - his school saw (rightly IMO) that they had a responsibility to share the information with other local schools (sydenham is very local, hardly 'another part of South London' which implies much further afield than SE26...).

Katy Tonbridge Wrote:

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

> Alternatively: "This morning, a man offered a lift

> to a child on his way to school, as the buses were

> on strike. The child said no, which was very

> sensible as you should NEVER accept a lift from

> strangers. The incident took place in another

> part of south London." Put this way, I hardly

> think it was necessary to send texts to every

> parent of the school.


Katy T - your interpretation seems very sensible and balanced. I agree with you entirely.

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

    • I have no agenda just a simple response expressing my thoughts and experience.  
    • Just as one example, the grass in a least some of  the tree pits in Ulverscroft Road appears to have been sprayed. If it's not the council who has done it, then I wonder if someone is trying to kill the trees 😭 although I doubt if that would work, as the council have sprayed tree pits in the past (ignoring handwritten notices by my then very young grandchildren asking them not to spray as they had sowed flower seeds there) 🤬 Grass in the pavement nearby appears to have been neither sprayed nor scraped out. I'm quite confused.
    • They aren't. They are removing them manually, scraping and cutting them out. I've seen them doing it on my road and surrounding roads. I can't imagine that they would have different methods in different parts of East Dulwich.
    • I see. But as I read it, Tesco would still need the agreement of the owners/ leaseholder to submit proposals, so would need Poundland’s cooperation? I suppose we’ll have to wait while this plays out. There’s applications re this site on the Southwark planning portal dating back over 70 years. In 1954, Woolworth’s applied to convert the original 4 shops here (Nos 29-35) into one Woolies but the council refused because the flats above the shops would be lost and there was a local housing shortage following the war. Small businesses being displaced by big chains on Lordship Lane was already a trend back then.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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