Paedos in Speedos

castiron73 · Post by **castiron73** » 16 Jul 2008 16:55

Another example of hysteria in modern life

Just got back from swimming at the Bridge Pool with my three-year-old son. A woman turned up with a TWO-YEAR-OLD girl wearing a swimming nappy. The lifeguard called her over to the side and warned her that, although he'd let her swim this time, the TWO-YEAR-OLD girl should wear a top, or she'd be refused entry to the pool.

All the mums and dads looked at each other at this nonsense, and I asked the guard what the rule was. 'It's all right at one, but a two-year-old has to have a top if she's female,' he said. I shook my head in disbelief.

Now if he'd just shrugged and said, I know, but it's council policy, everyone would have rolled their eyes and got on with swimming. But instead the guard, a jumped up little jobsworth, took offence that his rule were being mocked in his pool.

'Paedophiles might be looking at them. he said. I pointed out that even my five-year-old daughter often doesn't wear a top (because even at that age she DOESN'T HAVE BREASTS) but he said: "Not in my pool she wouldn't.' Then he started saying 'What's it go to do with you' and 'This isn't your conversation.'

Another woman joined in asking who had told him that rule and saying she would write to the council about it. She was so irritated by it that she said 'about this bollocks" and at once he started saying: "Don't swear at me, there's no need to swear at me.'
I pointed out it wasn't at him, just in front of him, but he went to fetch the other guard and then disappeared to find the manager.

The manager arrived and the pool watched as, behind the glass walls, the guard related the mini revolt that was taking place. Then the manager came in and called the woman with the TWO-YEAR-OLD over and pointed out that her TWO-YEAR-OLD could swim now but please put her in a top next time.

It is bollocks, though. They're basically saying that it's your fault if a paedophile is attracted in to ogle your daughter, because they wouldn't be at all attracted if she had a top on.

In fact, the only man in there behaving oddly was the one wearing the whistle round his neck.

bigbadwolf · Post by **bigbadwolf** » 16 Jul 2008 17:26

Next time the little squirt takes it upon himself to point out your daughters lack of costume, push him in the pool.

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 16 Jul 2008 17:40

Tell him that her gender identity is male and she finds it very distressing conforming to "girls rules" and that you'll report him for "transphobic harrassment" if he carries on.

castiron73 · Post by **castiron73** » 16 Jul 2008 17:50

I like both of those suggestions. I think he'd only understand the first one though

catscratch · Post by **catscratch** » 16 Jul 2008 19:37

I would accuse the jobsworth of being a pervert.
Ask him why he is looking so closely at this two year old child as to be able to establish its gender.
I would then suggest such a close interest is in itself unhealthy and worrying to a parent.
Then ask if he has been cleared by the police to work with children, can he show you record of such clearance, and that you will report your concorns over his unhealthy interest in small children to his employer.
That ought to settle him.

Then claim you thought you saw him photographing them surropticiously.
Even if you didn't.
He'll loose a little sleep perhaps.

I hate jobs worths.

mosy · Post by **mosy** » 16 Jul 2008 19:37

Surely it's a matter of how protective one is of one's children and that is respected by "jobsworth's" enforcing rules set in place to consider such things and possible consequences? I would regard them more with a "thank you" for something I might not have considered.

It does seem silly on the one hand, yet some people are happy to put up "cutesy" pics of their children on the Net, which could either remain or circulate... I'd never be one of those people. In fact, I'd probably be someone who sent my kid off swimming in a jumpsuit. I disagree with tons of this PC stuff, but my maternal instinct kicks in 100% where kids are concerned.

Perhaps you could all say what you think of this recent article? Agree/disagree:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main. ... /nbaby.xml

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 16 Jul 2008 20:02

tosh. by even considering that a child's nudity could be sexual raises questions over why one would consider a naked child sexual. It is profoundly perverse to entertain the notion - making the person who considers it questionable in the first place.

Why does nudity - especially in children - have to have sexual connotations? I find the concept abhorant.

Frangipan · Post by **Frangipan** » 16 Jul 2008 20:33

Related to mosy's comment about 'cutesy' online pics...

I had a website where I put holiday pics, friend's wedding pics and family 'do' pics etc. When about to upload pics of a 6 year old relatives birthday party it was pointed out that maybe I should get permission from the parents of all children present to do this.

They were in party dresses/superman costumes etc but it was considered that putting pics online of children in any state of dress without parental permission might cause 'trouble in the playground if one of them found out'. Also, 'you never know these days...' I stress playground trouble being between the parents, not the children. Oh, I also stress that my family members involved did not prescribe to this view, only conceded that others might.

I may regret this post but it's how I saw things.

mosy · Post by **mosy** » 16 Jul 2008 21:05

bensonby wrote:tosh. by even considering that a child's nudity could be sexual raises questions over why one would consider a naked child sexual. It is profoundly perverse to entertain the notion - making the person who considers it questionable in the first place. Why does nudity - especially in children - have to have sexual connotations? I find the concept abhorant.

I'm not sure what "tosh" refers to, sorry. Perhaps you don't have young kids? It's regrettable that some men do consider even babies "fair game". The mind boggles; it's beyond belief let alone abhorrence.

@Frangipan: We make decisions and hope they were the right ones.

Juwlz · Post by **Juwlz** » 16 Jul 2008 23:06

I totally agree with the comments by bensonby and catscratch on this one. Why should people have to refrain from normal behaviour because of such a media-hyped unrealistic danger. Its ridiculous. I don't have children myself and this kind of attitude that seems to be seeping into society totally puts me off having them, pretty soon they'll have no freedom at all.

I've heard of this kind of thing in America but not here...up til now.

The one with the problem was the lifeguard and if it was my child I would have reported HIM for being a pervert, because he's the one with the twisted mind!

Savvy · Post by **Savvy** » 17 Jul 2008 09:56

A paedophile is a phaedophile.... I'm sure they're attracted to children whether they're clothed or not. A child wearing clothes is no protection to the perverse beliefs these people have; they're not going to think 'oh, my tendencies are subdued today because that child has a top on' and on the other hand its not like a safe and ordinary bloke swimming in a pool is going to be suddenly 'turned' by the sight of a naked child.

Doh!

Savvy · Post by **Savvy** » 17 Jul 2008 10:35

.... and another thing. Why is it just two year old girls that have to be covered up? Are we to believe that Paedophiles only go for GIRLS ??!!! Its nonsense and its wrong that we should be objectifying children (for that read 'girls') at a younger and younger age. Its perverse and it gnarls me that its acceptable within our society.

Savvy · Post by **Savvy** » 17 Jul 2008 11:15

If you are worried about the possibility of your children being sexually abused then you should first look at your family and social circle because that is where it happens, it happens when we sadly and mistakenly trust the wrong adult and leave our children in their care, and sometimes when we have no choice BUT to - (my niece lives across the road from the ex-deputy headmaster of a school in Yorkshire who is serving seven years for the abuse of children in his care)... not when we are supervising them ourselves in a swimming pool.

adrian · Post by **adrian** » 17 Jul 2008 13:27

It seems to me that this attitude is akin to strict dress codes in certain societies. Creating an atmosphere of danger and and enforcing draconian rules concerning dress just has the result of lowering the threshold for unwanted behaviour from the people supposedly tempted by various degrees of undress i.e. the 'asking for it' attitude.

I agree that to apply this to children goes hand in hand with general cultural sexualization which can be seen readily in many clothes stores (especially for girls - boys are supposed to dress as if they are heading for Afghanistan). Perhaps the jobsworth would have found it much better for the girl to wear a mini bikini top to cover her flat chest, which I find totally unpleasant.

marymck · Post by **marymck** » 17 Jul 2008 15:25

Has the world gone mad?

When I was a child it was routine for little girls to swim without tops and, on the beach, for children to wear nothing at all.

I agree with bensonby - it's tosh. & with Adrian that putting little girls in bikini tops is unpleasant (and impractical, come to that!)

I used to work a lot with pre-school children. They seem to have a real affinity with me and it used to be lovely when they spontaneously came up for a cuddle. Now I'd be terrified of being accused of something depraved.

Last summer I was walking round the edge of a park. I was following a footpath through the woods that skirted a playing field. Several little toddlers (unsupervised - Mums all in a gaggle, smoking by the goalposts at the other end of the field) came running up to me. My natural instinct was to start talking to them, but my husband called me away. If their Mums had spotted us what would we have been accused of?

It's so sad.

I remember when old men were allowed to play with children. It was lovely for them and for the children. They daren't now.

What would be made of the lovely Patrick Kavanagh today if he now did what he talked about one of his poems ...

Oh dear & can't remember the exact words now ...

Something like ...

"... on Grafton Street look out for my ghost
Dishevelled with shoes untied
Playing through the railings with little children
Whose children have long since died."

marymck · Post by **marymck** » 17 Jul 2008 15:49

Pembroke Road not Grafton Street.

Apart from that I got it right! The old brain cells aren't all dead yet.

Annie · Post by **Annie** » 17 Jul 2008 16:18

My Father used to love football, he worked in parks in Beckenham as a Games Warden setting up the goal posts and organizing the school footie etc.
when he got older and retired he still went to watch the footie in the local parks, i hate the thought that someone would think his behaviour was anything but innocent.
it's a horrible world that takes away innocence in thought.

catscratch · Post by **catscratch** » 17 Jul 2008 18:58

In Panmure road in the 1950s, lived an old chap notable im my memeory for his lack of height, probably 5ft or a bit less; he had an equally diminutive wife.
He would always have his pockets full of sweets, this was when they were not only rationed, but scarce amongst the hard up kids anyway; these sweets he would dole out liberally to the kids as he walked about, to the extent we would waylay the old chap as he walked.
At no time could any untoward intent be levelled at this kindly old chap, he and his wife were childless and obviously just liked kids.
what the reaction would be in these days to these sort of benificence i can't imagine.

question.

What level of charge would be brought against him these days?
assault on ones tooth enamel?
I, incidentally, am well into my 6th decade and have all my own teeth despite this largesse of which I took advantage.
All thanks to the NHS, free orange juice,free school milk and free cod liver oil.

mosy · Post by **mosy** » 17 Jul 2008 19:31

It is indeed to do with perception though. For example, I can stop a child running into the road or steer little kids back to their mums in the supermarket. I doubt if I would do that these days if I were a man - in fact I know I wouldn't. It's not that I think any man would have any less regard for children (apart from an odd one); it's more just how people might today see such intervention. In that sense, whatever I think is irrelevant if others might see it differently.

bensonby · Post by **bensonby** » 17 Jul 2008 20:11

mosy wrote:It is indeed to do with perception though. For example, I can stop a child running into the road or steer little kids back to their mums in the supermarket. I doubt if I would do that these days if I were a man - in fact I know I wouldn't. It's not that I think any man would have any less regard for children (apart from an odd one); it's more just how people might today see such intervention. In that sense, whatever I think is irrelevant if others might see it differently.

Perception is often wrong - as you admit. However, one should always strive to do the right thing. We, irrespective of gender, must not allow ourselves to be influenced by this apparent paranoia and continue to act in a responsible manner.

I speak to, smile at, and help children when appropriate. If the child's parents have a problem with that, then it is indeed their problem - Not mine. I, as a man, am not a criminal - nor are nearly all others. It is up to society at large to challenge this paranoia; to challenge the notion that we are all "potential paedophiles", and adjust the perception back to the fact that normal behavior is nothing but normal.

I am friendly to people no matter what their age. That is how it should be.

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004

Paedos in Speedos

Paedos in Speedos