UKC

Are you Guilty Until you prove otherwise?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Removed User 06 Apr 2017
Having lost his wife ten years ago a man takes his daughter away for a treat, checks them both into a hotel and staff immediately assume that he's a paedophile:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/widower-checking-travelodge-nea...

Why have we let ourselves get into this sort of state where a man seen in the company of a child is assumed to be a pervert. For goodness sake, as a kid I used to go fishing with my grandad. To this day I still revere him and he would never have harmed a hair of me. I cannot believe that child abuse is so much more prevalent nowadays as to warrant this sort of behaviour.
2
 ianstevens 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

> I cannot believe that the perception of child abuse is so much more prevalent nowadays as to warrant this sort of behaviour.

Fixed that for you. I don't think that there has been an increase, has there? More just an increase in paranoia given a number of high profile cases in the media.
2
 GrahamD 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

Being asked for proof is pretty normal in my experience, especially if going abroad (tunnel) and absolutely especially if you have someone who isn't family in the car. Sometimes I think its healthy to just wind your neck in sometimes. Being asked for proof is not an accusation.
13
Removed User 06 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

But apparently they'd already called the police before asking for proof. And why should HE have to prove anything. Surely, with our law the onus of proof lies with whoever makes the accusation. Also, what's all this with having to use Facebook to provide proof? Not everyone has Facebook.
 Rob Exile Ward 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

I think it's the price you pay for protecting children. There may have been other stuff - e.g. body language, tone of voice, not knowing date of birth (which I sometimes forget) etc - that gave cause for concern. I don't know but neither do you.

One thing is for sure - if it was found that Humbert Humbert was checking into Travelodges with Lolita, and no questions asked, then there would be hell to pay. And quite right too.
1
 wercat 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:
I'd have been totally stuffed, not even a smartphone. Would UKC do instead of fartbook?
Post edited at 15:43
XXXX 06 Apr 2017
In reply to wercat:

Looking at the picture, the eyebrows should have been enough.

My wife was asked to prove our son was hers at passport control in France.

I'm prepared to accept the odd incident like this one if it makes life more difficult for those seeking to abuse children.

Removed User 06 Apr 2017
In reply to wercat:

I haven't got facebook either. No intention to do so. I've heard people talk about so called friends on facebook but I find it all a bit meaningless
5
 Rob Exile Ward 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

Well, I have family and friends on facebook, nothing 'so called' about either. It's fun seeing what they're up to, seeing videos of my granddaughter, exchanging banter, getting tips and ideas and being directed towards interesting music and articles. Perhaps you shouldn't be QUITE so judgemental of something you don't seem to know much about?
6
 Duncan Bourne 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

It would not have raised an eyebrow had a widow booked in
Removed User 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> It would not have raised an eyebrow had a widow booked in

Quite, and I don't doubt that some women are just as capable of child abuse.
 Greenbanks 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

> Quite, and I don't doubt that some women are just as capable of child abuse.

Care to point me to any substantive source in support your observation?
17
 The New NickB 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Greenbanks:

> Care to point me to any substantive source in support your observation?

Plenty of convictions to show that SOME women are just as capable of child abuse. Prevelance is another matter.
1
Removed User 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Greenbanks:

Are you suggesting that women child abusers DON'T exist?
2
 Duncan Bourne 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Greenbanks:
> Care to point me to any substantive source in support your observation?

Bazinga! You have just proved my point males are automatically treated with suspicion, women are not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11899484/Female-paedophiles-Wh...

http://jezebel.com/5335061/sexual-abuse-by-women-the-crime-no-one-wants-to-...

wasn't hard to find

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/04/uk-female-child-sex-offende...
Post edited at 16:53
 wercat 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Greenbanks:
does child murder count?


Mary Bell,

Mary Anne Cotton,

Myra Hindley


and that's just instant recall of a few national headline makers
Post edited at 16:49
 Trangia 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

This incident seems to have been overplayed and the father seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Or maybe he saw an opportunity to to try and recoup the cost of the weekend?

If it had been me with my daughter I would have been pleased that the hotel had bothered to check. Seems perfectly reasonable.
6
 wercat 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Trangia:
to the point of demanding access to sensitive family data?


sounds like an attempted Data Protection offence
Post edited at 16:56
2
 Trangia 06 Apr 2017
In reply to wercat:

Do you believe everything the press reports? Have you ever read a press report on a mountaineering accident?
 wercat 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Trangia:

well yes that is a point, but it also applies to your assessment of the situation. I certainly would not be happy if the police were called as was clearly stated in the report.
 Trangia 06 Apr 2017
In reply to wercat:

Well it wouldn't have bothered me that they called the police. If the hotel was suspicious, I'd rather that than the possible consequences of a real paedophile situation.

It was the bit about claiming "compensation" that strikes me as odd, but there again we can only go on what the press have reported!
Removed User 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Trangia:
> Well it wouldn't have bothered me that they called the police. If the hotel was suspicious, I'd rather that than the possible consequences of a real paedophile situation. It was the bit about claiming "compensation" that strikes me as odd, but there again we can only go on what the press have reported!

Which comes back to my original point. Are we now so paranoid that we assume that ANY single maleaccompanied by a minor is a paedophile?
Post edited at 17:14
 elsewhere 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:
In that report a police spokesman is quoted:
"Hotels, taxi companies and other licensed premises’ have recently been equipped with the right knowledge to identify children who could be at risk of exploitation under Operation Makesafe."
so it looks like the hotel was trying to follow corporate policy or police advice.

Could be pretty terrible if you are one of the false alarms but if you are going to ask hotels etc to report suspicions it is inevitable that some or most of the reports are false alarms.

I guess you just have to decide if you want suspicions reported and come up with a policy based on police advice.

>Which comes back to my original point. Are we now so paranoid that we assume that ANY single maleaccompanied by a minor is a paedophile?

Hopefully not.
Post edited at 17:19
In reply to Greenbanks:

> Care to point me to any substantive source in support your observation?

Familiar with the meaning of 'some'? Asking for justification in a smart way without properly reading that which you are trying to criticise does not make one smart.
1
 Trangia 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

> Which comes back to my original point. Are we now so paranoid that we assume that ANY single maleaccompanied by a minor is a paedophile?

Possibly that's what our society has come to, but I wouldn't take offence if checked out.

This story reminds me of when I took my daughter to Paris for the weekend in the 1980s when she was an an extremely attractive 16 year old

When I checked into the hotel the receptionist asked for my passport, but nor hers. I asked for a twin room. When we were shown up to it, it turned out to be a double. So we went back to the reception and I again repeated that we wanted a twin. The male receptionist looked long and hard at my daughter, then at me. "Really Sir?"he asked with a look of disbelief. "Yes", I replied, and with a sigh, a French shrug, and another look of disbelief, he handed me the keys to a twin room.
 Chris the Tall 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

Did they make that assumption or did they merely check ?

Why did you include the word "Guilty" in your title ?

When your bags are checked at an airport, no one is making an assumption of guilt are they ? But if you protest loudly enough you may well arouse suspicion.
2
 GrahamD 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

> But apparently they'd already called the police before asking for proof. And why should HE have to prove anything.

Why should anyone have to prove they are actually entitled to vote, or a citizen of the UK before being allowed to enter ? being asked for proof is common place.

OK in this instance the employee might have jumped the gun in calling the police but no harm done. I'd rather the odd false alarm in a case like this than an actual child abuse victim.

Its not like the consequences of being suspected of terrorism, is it ?
1
 summo 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I think if they have called the police before even speaking to the father, I'd say they presumed the worst.
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

They may have been equipped with the knowledge, but they don't appear to have been given any sensible training.

If I read the report correctly, the father left the daughter in reception to go to the car. Why not just make 'casual conversation' with the girl at that point, to find out their relationship? Or even during the check-in process. There are lots of ways you could make subtle checks without even raising the guests' suspicions that you were making checks ("Are you going to the Park? Who's paying!?", "Dad is" (looks at Dad) etc). Especially in the case of a hotel near Thorpe Park, where it's going to be very obvious that a lot of guests will be visiting the park.

Such is the paranoia about paedophilia (and the awful nature of the crime) that being accused of being one is going to be very upsetting, however well intentioned. I can understand that.
Removed User 06 Apr 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

Fully agreed. There is also the risk, albeit slight, that the father may well be stigmatised by those less well informed of the events. Chinese whispers and all that.
 Greenbanks 06 Apr 2017
In reply to wercat:

Much of the recent (academic) literature on this indicates that women's active involvement as abusers (in whatever form) is between 10-15%. So yes, it is more a question of capability - which these percentages would support. So my deletion of 'some' in my request for evidence was certainly an error on my part.

But isn't the insertion of 'some' misleading, in that one could make a similar statement regarding 'some men': both are, in one sense, accurate; but quite misleading in other ways as neither accounts for prevalence.
 Rob Exile Ward 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

'There is also the risk, albeit slight, that the father may well be stigmatised by those less well informed of the events. Chinese whispers and all that.' Yeah right. If someone chose to stigmatise me because I was understandably checked out when I checked into a hotel, then it's their loss.

Anyway, welcome back Myprex, why not just post under your original name?
1
 wercat 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Greenbanks:
Having been a little bit younger than Mary Bell, and raised in the North East with tales of Mary Ann I think I've just always had at the back of my mind not to make assumptions that people of either gender I meet are "safe". That doesn't mean that I'm treating everyone with suspicion, just careful about giving my trust until I know people better. I'll give people the benefit of the doubt generally but it's not an unreserved benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps that was why my first contact with the internet back in 1998 when I signed up to Compuserve didn't end in disaster when the sign-up ended with an announcement that my card details needed to be reentered as there was a problem with the transaction (that had just gone through). Being educated and suspicious about the "enemy always listening" and later having had shock-horror talks about the Eastern threat at BAe might have helped too. But I do think people deserve trust at first sight unless there is real evidence. In this case a verbal challenge about relationship would have sufficed, providing the staff were confident enough to interpret a response.

As for prevalence, there have been many reports over the years involving women, usually reported with horror by the press as if it is unthinkable. There's prevalence of offending and prevalence of detection and I suspect detection of females might be low as in the case of female domestic violence as neither are expected


I still think most people are well intentioned though
Post edited at 19:35
Removed User 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Anyway, welcome back Myprex, why not just post under your original name?
?

3
 Yanis Nayu 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

Hotels, taxi drivers etc are more and more being trained in spotting child sexual exploitation, so it's reassuring that at least there is an awareness of it. I wouldn't mind if I was questioned if I checked into a hotel with my daughter as long as it was done in a proportionate manner.
 Timmd 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Greenbanks:
> Care to point me to any substantive source in support your observation?

Michelle Elliot who works (or worked) for Kidscape, the organisation involved in protecting children from child abuse, has been on record as saying that she thinks that females are just as capable as males of child abuse, and are just as guilty (in a general sense) too. To back this up, she's said that just as one individual, she has been contacted by 800 people who have been sexually abused by females, and mentioned a programme on This Morning, where 150 (it may have been more, I have the figure of 1000 and something in my head, but I don't want to overstate) people contacted the show about being abused.

She's mentioned it being something akin to the last great tabboo, citing a time when she went to a conference or talk on the topic, with people in the audience who were attempting to stand up and related their experiences only to be shouted down by other females who didn't want to accept what people were going to be saying, according to Michelle Elliot, it's generally a certain subset of feminists who don't want to accept that females can sexually abuse children of their own free (not being coerced or 'led astray' by men), because it goes against the narrative of men being uniformly the controller and the oppressor - ' the bad guys' if you like.

Having a sis in law who seemed to be of the impression that it's only men who sexually abuse, and that women only sexually abuse children if led into it by men, I've looked into it to a very small degree recently. I vaguely plan to tactfully put her right after more research.

As a man who sometimes wants to be friendly to random children to try and cheer them up, in the way the females seem to do and only get smiles back in return from their mums (seems like a shame if children are fed up, and I seem to be OK at it), I'm conscious of the difference in reactions which men can get, and the need to be aware of the difference in people's perceptions.

Females can end up using objects, or in one case she mentioned things like the stems of roses which have thorns on them, though I dare say that all abuse is bad enough in the end.

I think Michelle Elliot may have written a book on the topic, too.

Edit: Correct spelling.> Michele Elliott

Edit number 2: She founded Kidscape.
Post edited at 20:06
In reply to Greenbanks:
The only case my mum encountered directly in her years of teaching was a boy who was being interfered with by his mother. This became apparent in one of her lessons, when this poor lad finally revealed what was going on (after being found hiding in a cupboard). I remember her being impressed by the reaction of the other pupils (in a design technology class full of the somewhat lesser-achieving 'headbangers' as she called them), in that they all suddenly found they needed to concentrate very hard on whatever piece they were working on. They all seemed to realise that this was something very, very serious, and there was no comment, and no piss-taking.

Yes, I know it's only anecdotal.
Post edited at 21:36
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> If someone chose to stigmatise me because I was understandably checked out when I checked into a hotel, then it's their loss.

Have you ever been accused of being a paedophile?

Have you ever had someone call the police to investigate your alleged paedophilia without making sensible checks to establish your relationship?

No?

Thought not.
4
 Rob Exile Ward 06 Apr 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

'Have you ever been accused of being a paedophile?' Dunno. Not to my face, in person, no.

'Have you ever had someone call the police to investigate your alleged paedophilia without making sensible checks to establish your relationship?' Er, well that's a bit obscure, tbh. I don't think so.

Sorry if you feel you've had a difficult time in this area. I haven't.
4
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

My point.

If you have never had this accusation levelled at you, I'd suggest you have no idea how you would really feel. So probably best not to pontificate on how blasé you'd be about it.
1
Lusk 06 Apr 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:
I'm waiting for QT to come on telly, so wasting some spare time....

There are approximately 18,000,000 adult males in the UK, and around 23,000 cases of paedophilia, so around 1 in a 1000 men are at it. We'll leave women out of it because it appears to upset some peoples' sensibilities.

If I was a victim of the original accusation, I would tell them to F*ck Off and go elsewhere.
I'm not ever going to grovel defending an substantiated attack on my innocence like that.


edit: and what kind of sick, retarded moron would walk into a hotel reception with their victim?
They're much more devious than that.
Post edited at 21:56
3
 Big Ger 06 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

A case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". However, calling the cops before reasonable attempts to ascertain their relationship is a bit OTT.
 Dax H 07 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

Looking at it from the other side.
The headline in all the red tops.
YOUNG GIRL SUBJECT TO A WEEKENDS RAPE IN A TRAVEL LODGE HOTEL.
Calling the police was ott but having concerns and checking is fine.
I don't think there is a paedo behind every lamp post and tree but checks have to be made.
5
 GrahamD 07 Apr 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> They may have been equipped with the knowledge, but they don't appear to have been given any sensible training.

Having watched, first hand, the border police doing a check on me and my passengers at Folkstone, I have to say that good training when you see it is obvious. Never impolite to me but very quickly and very unthreateningly getting a lot of information from the passengers. Happened to me twice and both times I was impressed.

I'd be surprised if a hotel receptionist gets this level of training, just as I'd be surprised if an article in the Mirror were any more than 50% accurate and unbiassed.
 timjones 07 Apr 2017
In reply to Trangia:

> Well it wouldn't have bothered me that they called the police. If the hotel was suspicious, I'd rather that than the possible consequences of a real paedophile situation. It was the bit about claiming "compensation" that strikes me as odd, but there again we can only go on what the press have reported!

If you've paid a hotel and a misjudgement by a member of their staff sours the experience it would seem reasonable to expect a discount that compensates for their error.
1
 Rob Exile Ward 07 Apr 2017
In reply to timjones:

Or alternatively you could say, 'quite understand, no real harm done, better safe than sorry and all that' and get on with you and your daughter's lives without making a fuss about a misunderstanding.
4
 timjones 07 Apr 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Or alternatively you could say, 'quite understand, no real harm done, better safe than sorry and all that' and get on with you and your daughter's lives without making a fuss about a misunderstanding.

You could do, but there does appear to be a possibility that the staff member didn't handle the matter very well in this instance.
 GrahamD 07 Apr 2017
In reply to timjones:

> You could do, but there does appear to be a possibility that the staff member didn't handle the matter very well in this instance.

According to the Daily Mirror.
 Mark Bannan 07 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

The whole situation is particularly ridiculous, since most child abuse is caused by close relatives or friends, not strangers,

M
 timjones 07 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> According to the Daily Mirror.

Is it in The Mirror too?

Well done for doing your bit to boost their circulation

Wherever you read it there doesn't seem to be any doubt that the police were called and attended.
 GrahamD 07 Apr 2017
In reply to timjones:

> Is it in The Mirror too?

I just assumed so because of what it said in the original link:

"However at this point he was allegedly asked by a manager for proof that he was Millie's dad, The Mirror reports ."


 GrahamD 07 Apr 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> A case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". However, calling the cops before reasonable attempts to ascertain their relationship is a bit OTT.

How do you actually know that they weren't ? calling the police isn't something most people do lightly.
Removed User 07 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> I just assumed so because of what it said in the original link:"However at this point he was allegedly asked by a manager for proof that he was Millie's dad, The Mirror reports ."

To which some would have responded Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?
 GrahamD 07 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

> To which some would have responded Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

They could do that. But then again some people are born bolshie, confrontational and unhelpful. A reasonable parent might be more impressed that the hotel appeared to have the girl's best interests in mind and cooperate.
Removed User 07 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:
Not a question of being bolshie but of observing one of the principles of English Law. As I said before the onus of proof lies with the accuser. As much as I dislike the thought of children being abused we seem to be in danger of going down the road of saying he looks like a paedophile so he must be. I take it you have never been falsely accused of a wrong doing. My wife was and, as trivial as it was, it was not a pleasant experience. It was not until I asked the accuse to reveal what evidence he had of the alleged offence that he admitted that he was acting on hearsay and gossip.
Post edited at 15:04
1
 Rob Exile Ward 07 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

Er - a few non-sequiturs there Mr P. I don't throw a hissy fit every time I'm searched at an airport, even though I'm implicitly being accused of being a terrorist; and I don't think I would have thrown similar if I had been questioned at a hotel when my daughter was a bit younger, in fact I think I would have laughed it off and been grateful that they were taking these things seriously at last.

And don't get too hung up on legalese, the principles of 'presumption of innocence' and 'burden of proof' kick in once someone has been formally charged; if you had to wait for someone to be proven guilty before they could even be suspected then no-one wold EVER get charged, let alone convicted, would they?
 Trangia 07 Apr 2017
In reply to timjones:

> If you've paid a hotel and a misjudgement by a member of their staff sours the experience it would seem reasonable to expect a discount that compensates for their error.

What do you mean by "misjudgement"? Since when has carrying out check been considered a "misjudgement"? Do you consider being stopped and frisked by security personnel at an airport a "misjudgment"?

Expecting compensation for a check designed to protect children like his daughter is ridiculous and sheer greed.
 Yanis Nayu 07 Apr 2017
In reply to Removed UserBoingBoing:

> Not a question of being bolshie but of observing one of the principles of English Law. As I said before the onus of proof lies with the accuser. As much as I dislike the thought of children being abused we seem to be in danger of going down the road of saying he looks like a paedophile so he must be. I take it you have never been falsely accused of a wrong doing. My wife was and, as trivial as it was, it was not a pleasant experience. It was not until I asked the accuse to reveal what evidence he had of the alleged offence that he admitted that he was acting on hearsay and gossip.

I don't think you understand the legal system.

Are you on about the dog shit again?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...