Man stopped by police while walking with son ‘because they thought he was a paedophile'

FinglisHobbit

FinglisHobbit

FinglisHobbit

Associate
Joined
27 Mar 2013
Posts
1,971
Location
Lincolnshire
Writer and journalist Will Self was stopped by police while out walking with his son because they thought he was a paedophile, he has revealed.
Click to expand...

Full article here.

So we now live in a society where a man can't go walking with his boy without raising suspicion. This saddened me slightly. On the other hand, should we appreciate the fact the public are always on the look out for what could be considered as odd behaviour? Is it possible to be over cautious? :confused:
 
He does look a bit dodgy though..... :p


Guess when the media is always going on about pedo this and pedo that, people just jump to conclusions.
 
No win situation, if they had done nothing the headline would have been "police ignore security guard paedo plea".
 
So basically it wasn't on suspicion of being a paedophile, it was from the security guard reporting him to the police as he was worried for the child's welfare, as the walk was of an exception length (a 208 mile trip, not including where they originally left from).

The paedophile remark has been thrown in there by Will Self to make the story far more controversial; the wouldn't send a child welfare officer to examine the scene if they thought an act of paedophilia was potentially being carried out at that moment; they would have sent a response team.

Yet again more terrible journalism, both from The Metro and Will Self. What a horrible little man he must be to get on his soap box and put words in people's mouths over this.
 
LOAM said:
No win situation, if they had done nothing the headline would have been "police ignore security guard paedo plea".
Click to expand...

His issue isn't with the police, it's with the "jobsworth" security guards who decided to call him into the police for (in his opinion) no valid reason.

It's definitely possible to be too cautious. Or are we saying that lone fathers are no longer safe from accusations when out with their children engaging in regular parent/child activities?
 
MoNkeE said:
So basically it wasn't on suspicion of being a paedophile, it was from the security guard reporting him to the police as he was worried for the child's welfare, as the walk was of an exception length (a 208 mile trip, not including where they originally left from).

The paedophile remark has been thrown in there by Will Self to make the story far more controversial; the wouldn't send a child welfare officer to examine the scene if they thought an act of paedophilia was potentially being carried out at that moment; they would have sent a response team.

Yet again more terrible journalism, both from The Metro and Will Self. What a horrible little man he must be to get on his soap box and put words in people's mouths over this.
Click to expand...

Well no, they sent someone to potentially take the child into custody. I don't think it's illegal to take a child on a long walk.
 
Doohickey said:
Well no, they sent someone to potentially take the child into custody. I don't think it's illegal to take a child on a long walk.
Click to expand...

Well yes, someone reported that an 11 year old was being taken on a 2 month walk over 300 miles and was concerned for the child's safety. I don't think it's illegal to express (some quite justified) concern for a child's welfare just because the parent thinks it will be fine? They simply followed procedure with sending the relevant department to take the child in to custody. What if it turned out the 11 year old boy was suffering and was actually being forced to go on the walk against his will? "It's okay Jimmy, just wait for for an hour while we call the relevant person to collect you, as we didn't foresee this possibility"!

But this doesn't change the fact that the only mention of pedophile was by Will Self, who is then reporting that it was the sole reason for his interrogation, when it wasn't actually a concern at all.
 
MoNkeE said:
Well yes, someone reported that an 11 year old was being taken on a 2 month walk over 300 miles and was concerned for the child's safety. I don't think it's illegal to express (some quite justified) concern for a child's welfare just because the parent thinks it will be fine? They simply followed procedure with sending the relevant department to take the child in to custody. What if it turned out the 11 year old boy was suffering and was actually being forced to go on the walk against his will? "It's okay Jimmy, just wait for for an hour while we call the relevant person to collect you, as we didn't foresee this possibility"!

But this doesn't change the fact that the only mention of pedophile was by Will Self, who is then reporting that it was the sole reason for his interrogation, when it wasn't actually a concern at all.
Click to expand...

I'm sure 11 year old's get forced to forced to do a lot of things they don't want to do, you know tidy they're room, visit old relatives etc!

That aside at an average of 5 miles a day its probably gonna do the kid far more good than sitting at home doing nothing! The presumption of guilt from the security guard hardly reflects well on the individual - and you've got to wonder if they knew it was a 'celeb' so acted differently.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
What a completely daft non-story. Police speak to man and then he blows it up out of all proportion.
Click to expand...

Is he not entitled to be upset about having the police called on him for engaging in the perfectly reasonable activity of going for a walk with his child?

I've had the police called on me for no reason before (not in the same situation though, I should say). I have no complaints at all about the way the police handled the call, but the fact they were called at all? Furious about it.

Sure, he's using his celebrity soapbox to rant about it, which is offensive to some people, but I don't think it's completely without merit.
 
Would you trust this man with your child? He's a journalist... :D

ge4s.jpg
 
MoNkeE said:
So basically it wasn't on suspicion of being a paedophile, it was from the security guard reporting him to the police as he was worried for the child's welfare, as the walk was of an exception length (a 208 mile trip, not including where they originally left from).

The paedophile remark has been thrown in there by Will Self to make the story far more controversial; the wouldn't send a child welfare officer to examine the scene if they thought an act of paedophilia was potentially being carried out at that moment; they would have sent a response team.

Yet again more terrible journalism, both from The Metro and Will Self. What a horrible little man he must be to get on his soap box and put words in people's mouths over this.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem a correct interpretation of the story to me.

It says it was the school, in a follow up response, who said the guard had concerns for the child's welfare due to the length of the walk, which will self says contradicts what he was quizzed over by the policemen initially.

And lol over your defence of the concern that an 11y/o may be 'forced' to walk a few miles a day (while in rambling gear)...what is the world coming to :D
 
First comment on the website

In fairness he does look like a paedophile. Better safe than sorry.

Also, since it's Will Self, he probably should have been arrested and charged with crimes against humanity for breeding in the first place. The world doesn't need any more people like this smug conceited self-appointed social commentator.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that :p
 
MoNkeE said:
Yet again more terrible journalism, both from The Metro and Will Self. What a horrible little man he must be to get on his soap box and put words in people's mouths over this.
Click to expand...

He isn't really putting words in to anyone's mouth... he was going off what the police had said the security guard had called them out for.

It might be bad journalism, but the main issue I was discussing was the fact it was reported (or not!) in the first place. The fact it happened to a 'celebrity' might be one of the reasons it made news? If the security guard was just reporting the child's welfare surely he should assume this child's parent knows best?! He knows nothing of their situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom