Attempted Child abduction.

[Carbonara]

I think the polie should distribute more accurate information. A text saying 'a Yr 6 child at a S London school was offered a lift on the pretext of the bus strike. Please emphasise to your children that they must not accept any such offers, and should report them' would perhaps have been more useful. It hadn't occurred to me that the strike would present an opportunity - that would have been a good reminder.

[Penguin68]

My grandparents (who were born in the 1890s) warned me of not talking to strangers!

Considering the incidence of offences against children conducted by those already known to them, including those perceived most worthy of trust, such as priests, the better advice might have been not to go off with anyone where your parents had not already pre-alerted you that they would be e.g. offering you a lift. I believe stranger abuse is far less common than abuse from known adults and elder chilren. [And, despite reports, both are pretty uncommon and not increasing, as far as can be judged given less than full reporting]

The suggestion made by Carbonara seems more balanced whilst still alerting parents to a possible (not proven) threat.

[Sue]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > But also very sad for the man offering the lift

> if

> > it was genuine.

> >

> > What a reflection on our modern society that we

> > have to assume, and teach our children to

> assume,

> > that apparently kind strangers can't be

> trusted.

> >

> > I think on balance the schools who texted

> parents

> > played it right though. Though perhaps

> "attempted

> > abduction" was a bit strongly worded.

>

>

> 'Modern' society? How old are you!? My

> grandparents (who were born in the 1890s) warned

> me of not talking to strangers!

xxxxxx

I'm in my sixties, though I fail to see the relevance.

You can remove the word "modern" if you want. I still think it's a sad reflection on our society, full stop.

ETA: And yes Penguin you're absolutely right, where children are harmed it is statistically far more likely to be by somebody related to them or who they already know.

[Husker]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The only evidence put forward so far is that it is

> an attempted lift offer

No it's not. Heber school sent a text message that stated "a man tried to abduct a Yr 6 child"

[Penguin68]

No it's not. Heber school sent a text message that stated "a man tried to abduct a Yr 6 child"

Based on the only reported incident, which is that a child was offered a lift and (sensibly) refused it. 'Attempted abduction' was an inference drawn (by someone) from the lift offer, but the only thing that actually hapened was the refused offer of a lift.

[henryb]

> ETA: And yes Penguin you're absolutely right,

> where children are harmed it is statistically far

> more likely to be by somebody related to them or

> who they already know.

According to the NSPCC nearly all under 5 homicides are committed by parents and most (2/3) child homicides are in that age group. In the school age (5-14) group less than 25% homicides are committed by strangers.

Looking at the 2010 stats there were 23 school age homicides. So if the NSPCC is correct that would be ~5-6 committed by strangers that year nationally.

To put the risk in context there 45 school age children killed by road vehicles in 2010; 498 by disease; and 619 deaths in total.

Statistics can be read many ways and should only be used as indicators but it does seem road safety for school children should be a greater concern than stranger danger.

[Penguin68]

henryb - you have looked here only at the 'worst case' scenario of childhood death, but I believe that similar ratios are also true of non-lethal 'abuse' whether that be physical or sexual. And probably children injured in RTAs (rather than killed) will also be a significantly large number.

'Stranger danger' is very scary, but also comparatively uncommon. Children are at far greater statistical risk in the bosom of their families, or amongst family friends (or in school or church) than they are alone in the street.

In fact just warning children to be wary of strangers is like warning them to watch out for artics when they walk on the streets, but not mentioning cars.

[Husker]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> No it's not. Heber school sent a text message that

> stated "a man tried to abduct a Yr 6 child"

>

> Based on the only reported incident, which is that

> a child was offered a lift and (sensibly) refused

> it. 'Attempted abduction' was an inference drawn

> (by someone) from the lift offer, but the only

> thing that actually hapened was the refused offer

> of a lift.

There is no inference - "attempted abduction" is the exact wording used by Heber School on their communication to parents.

With all due respect to WoolWitch, I'd rather heed the official communication from the school sent direct to parents than a post made on an Internet forum.

[ianr]

Husker wrote yesterday at 18:46:

> Heber school sent a text message that stated "a man tried to abduct a Yr 6 child"

Husker wrote today at 20:45:

> There is no inference - "attempted abduction" is the exact wording used by Heber School on their communication to parents.

Could you please just copy from your phone, word for word, the full text of the message you received.

[the-e-dealer]

already did read the thread

[Husker]

Like e-dealer says, this has already been stated earlier, but as you appear to have missed it, the exact text word for word was:

"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."

I used the word "attempted" in my second post (rather than the word "tried" which admittedly is what Heber used), but nevertheless it seems pretty clear to me.

[Penguin68]

Once again, the only thing that appears to have happened is that a boy was offered a lift and refused it - other than an uncorroborated statement by the school, which, I suggest, arises from an inference made about the lift offer, there is no report of any abduction that I have read, or attempted abduction - certainly a lift, if accepted, could have become an abduction, but unless there are reports of attempts to manhandle a boy into a car, or to grab him from a car, then all we have for certain is the offer of a lift, very properly refused.

If an adult woman had been offered a lift, and refused it, would we be reporting an 'attempted abduction'- or just something slighly suspicious of which to be wary?

Just because Heber says its an abduction doesn't make it so. What Heber said has been properly reported here I am sure, but Heber has no lien on absolute truth. It had suspicions, it raised these with parents. Fine. But I have seen nothing of the actual incident reported which goes beyond 'lift offered; lift refused' If there is more information (rather than inference) on the incident, please share it.

[Jeremy]

Penguin - while you are technically correct in terms of syntax and semantics, sometimes you have to read between the lines. I find it hard to believe that any adult would be naive enough to offer an innocent lift to a child they'd never met before.

[Penguin68]

We do not know that they had never 'met' - there are children who live round me that I recognise - and (current climate of course notwithstanding) might have offered a lift to if I saw them walking, perhaps with a heavy bag. Nowadays they would be quite right not to accept that lift. I am sure that everyone's suspicions here are reasonable, in the sense that there was a possible danger; but what I am saying is that, apart from a refused offer of a lift, nothing actually happened.

It is of course, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, a real tragedy that the concept of an 'innocent' offer of a lift is no longer possible to contemplate. When a helping hand is automatically assumed to be an abusing hand, we have really got ouselves into quite a nasty place.

[the-e-dealer]

I'll cut and paste the message again

[the-e-dealer]

Next Post is a copy of the SMS . again.

[the-e-dealer]

Here it is again

This morning, a man tried to abduct a Yr 6 child on his way to a local school. If you don't want your child to go home on their own, please contact the school.

[the-e-dealer]

Sorry just seen someone else put it up, but pleased to see the original punctuated properly , Probably my fault!

[bluecanary]

Jeremy, sometimes in reading between the lines you can end up with a completely different book. I think Penquin's thoughts are perfectly rational and valid, and above all calm, which is something the communicator from Heber would not have been when sending the message to parents being duty bound to report any situation that may present a threat to the children in their care in order to protect not only the children but themselves from any 'Where there's blame there is a claim' situations.

A calmer message would have read something like ' This morning a yr 6 child was offered a lift by someone not known to them. The child refused the lift and continued to school. We will use our next assembly to remind the children of how to travel safely and feel sure that you will also take this opportunity to discuss this with your child. Meanwhile if prefer to make other arrangements for your child's homeward journey this afternoon blah, blah, blah.'

[the-e-dealer]

bluecanary I think ur msg may b 2 long for a normal sms message.

[Jeremy]

I'm sure the child has been fully questioned by school staff and police. They have heard the child's side of the story, and have deduced that it was an attempted abduction. So why doubt it? What information do you have that they don't?

[Husker]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Just because Heber says its an abduction doesn't

> make it so. What Heber said has been properly

> reported here I am sure, but Heber has no lien on

> absolute truth. It had suspicions, it raised these

> with parents. Fine. But I have seen nothing of the

> actual incident reported which goes beyond 'lift

> offered; lift refused' If there is more

> information (rather than inference) on the

> incident, please share it.

Heber wouldn't have made it up! What they said would have been based on what they were told from the other school/police. What you are surmising seems to be based on an "anonymous" post on an Internet forum!

[henryb]

"...blah, blah, blah.'

I not sure that would have set the right tone either.

[Otta]

This thread is absolutely ridiculous. Okay, so the text could have been clearer, and stated that it wasn't a Heber child.

Those of you who think it was scare mongering, and could have been a perfectly innocent man offering a young boy a lift, have a word with yourself.

Even if it was a man who had no evil intentions, in this day and age, you have no business offering a child a lift. That may be a sad reflection on the world we're living in, but it is true nonetheless.

[Loz]

What? No clowns?