Niki Bell, 29, turned her back for a split second to draw money from a cash machine when a woman approached her five-year-old son, Ryley, and asked him to go for a walk with her.
The woman, aged in her 50s, told the boy: "You don't have a mummy, so come for a walk with me." Luckily, the youngster had been taught by both his mum and school to "say no to strangers", and he shouted out. Mrs Bell, of Grimsby, immediately grabbed Ryley's arm and alerted security guards at Freshney Place.And the police came and arrested her and everyone lived happily aft..
Oh:
Mrs Bell said that following the incident, at about 11.30am on Wednesday, the woman followed them to the security desk in the shopping precinct. The woman, who had been wearing a red and white striped top with blue trousers and white trainers, put on a light blue jacket, which Mrs Bell believes was an attempt to disguise herself.Surely this galvanised them into action?
"The security guards told me they knew her as someone with learning difficulties," said Mrs Bell. "But I believe she must have known she'd done wrong because she changed her look, and went off after watching us at the security desk."No difficulties learning evasion techniques, then?
Humberside Police confirmed that a 57-year-old woman was arrested and released without charge.*sigh*
Jo Barnes, project director with responsibility for people with learning disabilities at North East Lincolnshire Care Trust Plus, said those with learning difficulties had the same rights to live in the community as anyone else, and called for more education about adults with learning difficulties.Yes, they do. But if their behaviour verges on the criminal, they shouldn't get a free pass, surely?
And what sort of 'education' would you like to see, Jo?
She said: "There are many people with learning difficulties who do not need managing or supervision within the community. There are many who are vulnerable.
"It is important to provide the support at the times these people need it.
"I do not know the lady nor the circumstances in question so I cannot comment on the level of support she may have had in the past or may have at this time.
"We support people with sometimes complex needs or lower level needs and we have a number of policies to mitigate risks to the people who support those with learning disabilities and the care we provide."What about mitigating the risks to parents who'd like not to have their wits frightened out of them by strangers approaching their children?
10 comments:
Jo needs to see what a couple of these special people did to a young boy in Adelaide a few year ago. She could have a talk to them .They might anally rape strangle then drown her to make sure she was dead
One wonders if Jo Barnes, as the project director with responsibility for people with learning difficulties forthat Care Trust would accepted any responsibility if the child had been abducted? With beaurocratic organisations such as this, responsibility seems to be like water - it tends to find the lowest possible level, which probably means some cleaner would be for the high jump! If she has responsibility then she should get off her *rse and be responsible.
The lady in question may well be harmless. She may not be. For everybody's sake, including her own, a greater level of supervision is obviously needed.
Has it occurred to Jo Barnes what might have happened to this woman had an irate father seen her apparently trying to abduct his young child? Spouting cliches about rights to live in the community won't do.
Humberside Police confirmed that a 57-year-old woman was arrested and released without charge.
She didn't get a free pass. She was arrested on slender suspicion of the terrible crime of 'having spoken to a child to whom one is not related'.
An aging woman who was reasonably well-known addressed a remark to a 5 year old boy, whose account, via his mother, we are told. Bearing in mind his mother's coaching, it is not clear that this a reliable account of what, precisely, was said or attempted. We do know, however, that he was immediately rewarded with toys.
From the report, the circumstances seem to be that the woman was sitting in a cafe in the concourse of a shopping centre and put out her arm, remarking that the child appeared to be without his mother and to come to her. It makes a huge difference to the account if she approached the child or if the child approached where she happened to be sitting. The report is not clear but the more lurid version is given first, but in the second account she is not quite so active.
She then put on her jacket on - which seems pretty normal to me rather than being a master of disguise as the mother alleges - when the child shrieked, having been spoken to by a stranger. Oddly for someone who is supposed to have known they were in the wrong and attempting an abduction, she did not immediately leave, waiting for a while.
It seems to me that LD or not, it would be very easy to be mistaken about whether the boy was lost and to say something like 'Have you lost your mummy? I'll take you to the security desk'.
I must remember the next time I see a child apparently dashing off on its own in to the car park that to say anything or, in an emergency, stopping a toddler running out (as nearly happened last week) may be interpretted as me being a wierdo with malicious intent and arrested.
Maybe the woman was released without charge because she hadn't done anything illegal and it didn't happen quite the way the mother is claiming?
Fair points actually WoaR
'Jo Barnes ... called for more education about adults with learning difficulties.
Sorry, love, but after countless years of 'awareness raising' by parasites like you who make a living by boring the tits off the rest of us about autism, dyslexia, Islamophobia, OCD, Munchausen syndrome by proxy, bi-polar hermaphrodites with Asperger's and all the other real, rare or imagined conditions used as job-creation schemes, the next time I see I see some dribbling half-wit dragging away a screaming kiddy I think I'll just rely on instinct and common-sense, so on balance I'l decline your offer of further taxpayer-funded indoctrination.
The security guards told me they knew her as someone with learning difficulties
Yep, just like the murderer who asked to be let off because he had a family to look after.
"those with learning difficulties had the same rights to live in the community as anyone else"
Yes, they do. Correct. They also have the obligations that come with living in society, and a crime is treated as such.
Abduction, or attempted abduction, might well carry a penalty.
@Woman on a Raft - yes, these are fair points, and far more sensible than the views of Jo Barnes.
Her view of people with learning difficulties includes the most useful word in the English language, "vulnerable". This has come to mean "needs an army of people like myself to 'help' them, however ineffectually, and carries a get-out-of-jail-free card".
" With beaurocratic organisations such as this, responsibility seems to be like water - it tends to find the lowest possible level, which probably means some cleaner would be for the high jump! "
Indeed!
"Oddly for someone who is supposed to have known they were in the wrong and attempting an abduction, she did not immediately leave, waiting for a while. "
Maybe that'll be the learning difficulty referred to?
And she was known to the security guards, as James pointed out. I wonder why?
"Her view of people with learning difficulties includes the most useful word in the English language, "vulnerable"."
It's astonishing how often that crops up. I've just typed it myself, for a post next week!
Post a Comment