Paedos in Speedos

[mosy]

How does one change public perception though when "incidents", such as Madeleine McCann continue to attract space on the front page of dailies?
Some might say by not stoking the fire by rules such as that noted in the opening post of this thread.

Nevertheless, a lifeguard has taken on the responsibility for trying to keep safe a pool full of kids which is effectively a sea of heads bobbing about. I've seen parents simply leave their kids in pools and wander off for a coffee and a chat. To suggest (as some have) that the lifeguard himself might have skewed thinking is unreasonable in my view, given the responsibility he's taken on simply by being in that position.

In years gone by, no-one would be allowed into a pool without a swimming cap. It was the rule and brooked no argument - their pool, their rules. It might be that the lifeguard could have handled the "ganging up on him" situation better, but he's a lifeguard, not a public liaison officer.

All will have their own views of course - this is just mine.

[bensonby]

How does one change public perception though when "incidents", such as Madeleine McCann continue to attract space on the front page of dailies?
Some might say by not stoking the fire by rules such as that noted in the opening post of this thread.

Arguably it is hard, when the "meedja" stir up stories about how little kids are snatched. They fail to point out how rare these instances are.

However, the people that jump on the bandwagon are stupid and need to look at the facts quite frankly.

Nevertheless, a lifeguard has taken on the responsibility for trying to keep safe a pool full of kids which is effectively a sea of heads bobbing about. I've seen parents simply leave their kids in pools and wander off for a coffee and a chat. To suggest (as some have) that the lifeguard himself might have skewed thinking is unreasonable in my view, given the responsibility he's taken on simply by being in that position.

No-one is questioning the lifeguards difficult and necessery job. Parents that leave children unsepervised as you suggest need to be brought up pretty sharply about the lazy, irresponsible and dangerous nature of their actions.

In years gone by, no-one would be allowed into a pool without a swimming cap. It was the rule and brooked no argument - their pool, their rules. It might be that the lifeguard could have handled the "ganging up on him" situation better, but he's a lifeguard, not a public liaison officer.

All will have their own views of course - this is just mine.

Of course, it is a private premesis and they are allowed to dictate whatever rules they like. They can dictate that everyone must swim naked if they like; its up to those patrons to use

But I would argue that such a rule is perverse - even if they do have the right to impose it - I would question why anyone would consider a toddlers chest potentially sexually alluring (as it appears that is what he was suggesting)

He is not a public liason officer, but any person who has a job that faces the public must be reasonable and communicate effectively. That is part of their job. If there was a perfectly reaosnable explanation for the rule then he could have explained it as much.

[catscratch]

To suggest (as some have) that the lifeguard himself might have skewed thinking is unreasonable in my view, given the responsibility he's taken on simply by being in that position.

.

I did not mean to infer that the lifeguard himself was pervy in any way.
What I was suggesting is that the best way to deal with these jobsworths is to turn their ideas/actions back on them selves, for if there was any basis to this scenario surely there is some well displayed officially santioned rule or byelaw?
If not I suspect that as per normal these days this guy is just taking it on himself to be over officious

[mosy]

...No-one is questioning the lifeguards difficult and necessery job. ...

Correct - they're just questioning his integrity by suggesting that he himself might be a pervert or might be thinking like one. That'll be OK then. Well, if you like...

...But I would argue that such a rule is perverse - even if they do have the right to impose it - I would question why anyone would consider a toddlers chest potentially sexually alluring (as it appears that is what he was suggesting)

He is not a public liason officer, but any person who has a job that faces the public must be reasonable and communicate effectively. That is part of their job. If there was a perfectly reaosnable explanation for the rule then he could have explained it as much.

How can a rule that's imposed to try to help keep children safe be considered perverse? In some respects, maybe a lifeguard needs to be a "jobsworth" since if a child were taken he would surely need to show that he had taken all reasonable steps.

If the rule were to be that no children were allowed to wear tops until the age of 5 years (whatever), I could better understand an outcry. Parents have a choice where rules are concerned. Abide by them, or choose somewhere else for their children to swim. I don't see the big deal about putting a top on a small female child, incidentally.

As reported in the original post, he did at least try to explain the rule. The fact that the explanation was poo-poo'd is a different point.

An earlier poster made the valid point (IMO) that someone doesn't just suddenly become a paedophile from seeing one small child in a state of undress (boy or girl). The lifeguard will no doubt be aware of that, but he has enough of a job on watching the children, without having to watch aduts as well. He can only do what he can. Who'd be a lifeguard eh?

[marymck]

I just wish they'd ban speedos, they really are offensive, and enforce a bikini wax policy for all sexes. Ugh.

[catscratch]

I realise this is a bit late in the post, and its probably a very silly question, but what are speedos? I thought they might be some kind of sports shoe but now I am wondering, be kind to an OAP, to me a speedo is that round thing in a dashboard that tells you how fast you are going.

[mosy]

Hi catscratch. To the best of my understanding, Speedos are very skimpy elastane (stretchy stuff) male swimming trunks made famous by David Hasselhoff in Baywatch, aired on TV from the early 1990's. David became known as "The Hoff" and has self-parodied himself subsequently.

It's a while ago since Speedos were popular, though they were at the time, most men now preferring rather looser-fitting and longer swimwear.

[catscratch]

Thanks Mosy, on the rare couple of occasions I watched bits of that programme, I do not recall being mesmerised by mr hasselhoff, I may have been looking elsewhere.
As a confirmed non swimmer, I have had no need of bathing drawers since my school drowning classes at Forest Hill pools.

I was able to sink even while clutching two balsa wood floats.
I wonder if they still have the machine in the foyer that dispensed handfuls of Brylcreem?
As sit here, more than half a century later I can still vividly recall the incredible stink of chlorine from the pool.

[Juwlz]

How can a rule that's imposed to try to help keep children safe be considered perverse? In some respects, maybe a lifeguard needs to be a "jobsworth" since if a child were taken he would surely need to show that he had taken all reasonable steps.

Sorry but wouldn't he be best employed looking out for whether kids are DROWNING or not rather than have to worry about enforcing pathetic clothing rules.

[mosy]

How can a rule that's imposed to try to help keep children safe be considered perverse? In some respects, maybe a lifeguard needs to be a "jobsworth" since if a child were taken he would surely need to show that he had taken all reasonable steps.

Sorry but wouldn't he be best employed looking out for whether kids are DROWNING or not rather than have to worry about enforcing pathetic clothing rules.

I agree. It seems the lifeguard was waylaid by a group of mums whilst simply stating a rule (which you suggest in your opinion is a pathetic rule) and was being kept from his lifesaving duties and hence he referred the situation to the manager (according to what was written in the opening post). So, yes, it would (according to what was written) have been better if the matter had been referred immediately to another - e.g. "Take it up at the Reception Desk" so that the lifeguard could carry on unhindered.

[Juwlz]

Mosy - If this is some actual law laid down by the swimming pool then I suppose I agree with you that its not technically this guy's fault if he was doing his job.

But ultimately you appear to be saying its the fault of the people who thought 'why should a two year old have to wear a 'bikini'?' I agree with others that it is actually quite repulsive. I wouldn't be bothering to write if I didn't think it was so outrageously perverse.

Sorry but you do sometimes have to question authority!

[mosy]

I just called the Bridge Leisure Centre thinking it would be better than continuing to second guess on the cozzie top matter.

I was told that the Duty Manager (on duty at the time I called) said that a swimming nappy under a full costume would be fine, or a bikini top and nappy/pants, was required.

It would seem therefore that it is a pool rule, so discontent would be better taken up at a higher level than the lifeguard.

As I've already expressed my views on various aspects, I'll just say that I hope the above info is helpful

[Juwlz]

Mosy

Well done for calling up to find out if it was their policy. At least now I know not to ever take my nephews there - I don't want them in a swimming pool where the lifeguards are expected to waste time checking whether people have the right clothing on when they should be fully engaged in looking out for accidents.

[ALIB]

I found this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59vY1Q&NR=1

Just to lighten things up a bit.

Ali B

[castiron73]

That was the exact clip I was thinking of as I was arguing with the lifeguard, hence the title of the post. Wasn't sure anyone else had seen Monkeydust though.

[marymck]

I was at the Royal Festival Hall yesterday where lots of children (and adults) were getting soaked in the fountains (and it really wasn't the weather for it).

One Japanese man was there with his toddler boy &, very sensibly, took all the little boy's clothes and shoes off before letting him run around in his birthday suit in the fountains.

And the outrage amongst some of the onlookers was unbelieveable!

I think this chap had absolutely the right idea. He dried his child off with a cloth and dressed him in warm clean clothes and shoes afterwards (though he did try to run back in the fountain & was grabbed just in time).

This was about 6 o'clock and the drenched, complaining morons presumably had to walk around in soaking wet clothes for the rest of the evening.

[marymck]

Oh and Speedos really are horrible. When I agreed to marry my husband I was unaware he possessed a pair. He appeared in them on our first holiday together. I felt like screaming.

I went straight to the hotel shop to buy something more respectable and was shocked to discover that they were still for sale in Hong Kong hotel stores in 1993!

(Incidentally, although he now goes swimming decently clad, I have kept the offending articles and will bring them out in evidence should he ever accuse my bum of looking big in whatever I choose to wear.)