Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Oh my goodness, everyone! I had the most terrifying experience at the park on Thursday with my little one. We were in the children's area of Peckham Rye Park, and my 2-year-old daughter was happily playing on the climbing frame. I went to grab a drink from her pram, and the next thing I know, this woman in the photo is leading my daughter towards the gate! I panicked, pushed the woman away, and snatched my toddler back. I yelled at her, asking what on earth she thought she was doing. She claimed she thought my daughter was lost and was trying to help her, but then she accused me of being racist before sulking off. Thankfully, another mum managed to get a picture of her. The woman i has dark skin and short, curly black hair. She is wearing glasses and is dressed in a light blue hoodie, light blue ripped jeans with a distinctive "NOOT NOOT" T-shirt featuring a cartoon penguin. She is also carrying a small black bag and black trainers. 

We've reported it to the police, and it turns out there have been other incidents in the area. My daughter later told me that the woman had promised to get her ice cream from the ice cream van. Please, please be extra careful with your little ones. It's so scary to think something like this can happen so quickly. Stay safe, everyone!

 

Admin note: Photo removed. For legal reasons we cannot accept posting a photo here of a suspect without it coming from the police. It could also jeopardise the investigation.

Edited by mumlifebalance
Removed photo
  • Sad 1
4 hours ago, Dulwichway said:

There are some evil people about roaming our streets and parks!  take care.

I know nothing of this at all, but I am aware that attempted or actual child abduction can sometimes be the result of psychological trauma (for instance losing a child) causing a woman to act in ways which do not actually sit in the 'evil' box. But whose consequences, of course, can be just as awful as if the motivation was evil. Taking care however is still excellent advice.

  • Agree 1

If like you say the women thought she was lost it seems uncanny that as soon as the mum moved away to get a drink for her child .the other women made an attempt to take the child out of the play are.so she must have been watching them. Also as there were other parents present with their children. The women did  ot approach them to ask if the child was theirs.also the child said she said ile get you an ice cream .no if you think a young child is lost you look for help or ring the police.

  • Agree 1
39 minutes ago, Jim1234 said:

Can we please have the photo added back? We need to know who to look out for. Not sure about the legalities, and I don't think they matter on balance. 

Admin has explained above why the photo cannot be posted on here.

11 hours ago, Jim1234 said:

Not sure about the legalities, and I don't think they matter on balance. 

Well, that would be a good way to have this site closed down - is that your intention?

To publish a photograph of someone who is claimed ('attempted abduction' ) to be a criminal is a libel (as would publishing their name); should that person at any stage come to court the publication would be seen as jeopardising the case (once a charge is made such things become sub-judice) and could be deemed in contempt of court. Only when the police officially publish a photograph or photo-fit as part of their attempts to catch an alleged criminal can such things be allowed. Unless you are a High Court judge, and then only in the context of a case being held, can you determine the public good 'on balance'. I suspect, as you are 'not sure about the legalities' you may not be a High Court Judge.

Edited by Penguin68
  • Agree 4
8 hours ago, Jim1234 said:

I don't care about whether this site is shut down or not, I know nothing about libel laws, and I want to avoid my child being abducted. 

I agree there should be a description of the person (woman in this case).

"I don't care about whether this site is shut down or not, I know nothing about libel laws, and I want to avoid my child being abducted. "

If the site is shut down then you would be cutting off a useful supply of community information. But as you proudly state, you don't care

 

Children know what Stranger Danger is but they don't have any context and don't know what it means. Nearly All children can be persuaded by puppies, ice creams etc.

Even if you are watchful, predators wait for the one second you have turned your gaze away.

Abduction is nothing new, it happened when you were a child, your parents were children and so on.

Most harm to children comes from family members.

The vast majority of people will not do harm to children (yes we have had a dreadful incident in Southport, and sadly every few years there will be an atrocity).

We have to take a broad view on risk, or else we would never leave our front door.

I doubt if the Rye or other local parks are a particular danger.

It always makes sense to be vigilant.

The police should help and advise.  They are often aware of local problem people.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

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

    • Hi - I posted a request for some help with a stuck door and possible leaky roof. I had responses from Lukasz at Look_as.com and Pawel at Sublime Builders. I don't see any/many reviews - has anyone used either person?  Could use a recommendation rather then just being contact by the tradespeople... Many Thanks 
    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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