The world we live in.....

[forthbridge]

I then took the lad by the hand to find a security guard, but the lad was screaming his mouth off (understandably). The lad's father was in the shop next door (in which I had already asked if anyone had lost a kid) - and was none too happy that I was holding his kids' hand, saying 'Let the boy go' - I got not one iota of thanks for showing any concern.

Another sad fact about the society we live in is that in similar circumstances in finding a young boy/girl alone and distressed is that if you do approach and try to take them to a place of safety or stay with them, you could always be seen as a peodophile (sorry about the spellin', had a few glasses of whisky and not in full control of my fingers) :partyman: or some other pervert.

Just shows how things have changed to one of suspicion and distrust.



Nigel.

Precisely Nige. That time, there were 4 of us working in the shop, all scratching our heads 'Where's the lads mum and dad?' Of course after we'd asked around etc, the consensus was 'take him to a guard' (seems incredible now but back in the 80s there were no mobiles and no quick way to call any guards even via radio). Nothing else crossed our minds of course - but these days....

Which leads me on to a REALLY scary one.
It was a Friday night, and I was sitting with a shandy at the PC. (In the days I lived myself)... It was around 8PM, and I was working at 0600 the next day.
Door goes.
I think it's a mate walking his dog (who sometimes called in).

Open door.

15 Year old girl with blood on her face and looking and sounding agitated.

'I've been attacked - can I use your phone?'

I immediately thought 'xxxxxxxxxx'

Stuck my foot behind the door, leaving it about 10 inches open. I say 'Wait here I will phone Police'
Suddenly, she ducks and squeezes between the door and my leg and is in the bl**dy house!
(Had it been a male, the right foot would have ensured non-entry but of course I was being ultra-cautious)....

I then said 'STAY here (lobby) and I will call Police'

Except of course she followed me into the lounge.

There was no way I could leave her in the house alone, to get neighbours, so immediately I tried three numbers (to get people round) and needless to say everyone was out. Samantha was unavailable out on the Town in Edinburgh,

Anyway, I though 'typical'. Got the Sherriff on the blower, and gave them all the info I could, etc. I tried to KEEP them on the blower, and they eventually said they had other stuff do deal with. So I tried some more numbers, and, typically, no answer.
Then, the girl says 'Sorry, I have to do this..' As I sweated...
She then extracted a large can of hairspray from her coat sleeve, and went to inhale it.

I then said 'If you try that I WILL remove you physically.' Not in this house. After another ten minutes, where I was getting threatened with all sorts of vengeance for not letting her sniff away, an ambulance turned up. The Paramedics took one look and refused to treat her.

Anyway, as they left, the Bill drew up. It took FIVE male cops to restrain her and remove her from my house. I then tried to engage a deputy in conversation (to explain things etc) and they said 'We're busy - it's friday' and off they went!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
absconder from a secure unit and regularly did stuff like that.

But, I can say, I absolutely bricked myself, typically no-one was around (VERY unusually) who could have nipped in - but in a split second, since I elected not to lay a finger on the girl (even to protect my property) - she got in....

Needless to say I was later in to work the next day as a stiff drink was in order after that - luckily a colleague agreeing to clock me in and then pick me up,

But, that incident more than any other has made me ultra-cautious these days - I still shudder when I think about it.

Needless to say, Samantha, her sister, all my female relatives and friends all said afterward they woul have 'put her out on her ear' - but they were no-where around when I needed them!

On that note, ... :drinkers:

[Chris Trott]

I am usually hesitant to give assistance even to someone obviously broken down on the roadside, however thankfully in the US we have several laws collectively called the "Good Samaritan Laws" which pretty much protect people from any sort of lawsuits (and most forms of criminal prosecution) should they try to do the right thing and help someone within reason. This can even extend to the use of force of any level to protect the life or well-being of another (i.e. if I see someone being attacked, I can use necessary force to end that attack). Sadly, these laws only came into existance after some people were wrongfully imprisoned and/or sued after trying to help someone else. One might still get filleted in the "Court of Public Opinion," but at least now they won't get thrown in jail or have all of their property and savings taken from them for trying to do the right thing.

[forthbridge]

Interestingly it's a common misconception that it's illegal to take pictures at schools, christenings etc. when in fact it is perfectly legal to do so. There are actually very few laws forbidding photography in the UK, the main problem is people believing it's illegal to take pictures of young children in case they fall in to the hands of paedophiles. Which if they took a minute to think about it is of course stupid a) it is in no way harming the child, b) pictures of children are available in all sorts of places, clothing catalogues for example. It is of course illegal to take pictures of children being abused etc. but if you're doing that at a school play there are bigger problems at hand.

Have a look at this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 651107.stm

[ianhind]

in the US we have several laws collectively called the "Good Samaritan Laws"

Maybe that is what will happen before long in the UK.

A law to enable us to do what we would have done years ago, until everyone was thought to be guilty.

Ian

PS Agree with Nigel's comment - and spelling almost correct - it is "paedophile" - must be some Greek or Latin in there!

[airboatr]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432781,00.html

[DispatchDragon]

Vegas

I have firends in several police departments across the US - they will tell you that the most frightening calls are "Domestic Disturbance" calls . More
uniformed policemen are killed every year in the US responding to these kind of calls than any other reason. What does disturb me is the fact that
in the past (both in the UK and the US) I would have not thought twice about stopping to help people on the roadside (and did) Even with "Good
Samaritan" you still run a high chance of getting mugged or carjacked - ever wondered why US police (except for Highway Patrol and State Troopers)
always have a backup officer in attendance even for routing traffic stops?


Maui is looking better and better everyday

Leif

[airboatr]

..and of coarse , for a witness,
because quite simply People lie
Hand caught in the cookie jar , look a person straight in the eye and say
Nope , no I didn't .. prove it, then pull something sleezy to put the one with the truth, in a bad light

,
but ya can't go around frettin about it.
there is a brighter side of life.

[Tarasdad]

I've worked as a police dispatcher for two departments. Both required at least two officers to respond to any domestic disturbance call. The single most dangerous response any officer can make, bar none.

[speedbird591]

Both required at least two officers to respond to any domestic disturbance call. The single most dangerous response any officer can make, bar none.

Yet married men have to face the imminent possibility of domestic disturbance danger every day of their lives - with NO back up!

Ian :-(

[Quixoticish]

The whole thing with not being allowed to take photographs of children because of the big bad paedophiles is something of an urban legend perpetuated by the media who love to make people think that the world is all doom and gloom. The real reason is that since Labour opted for an all inclusion policy in schools (there are now no "special" schools as we used to call them for children with low IQ's, severe learning difficulties or (and more relevant to this point) children who come from rough areas and live in rough families and have a very low learning age the reason many schools choose not to allow photographs of children to be taken by parents and family members is to do with witness protection; you'd be amazed at how many children and families have been re-located and had their names changed for their own benefit, and obviously the last thing these people need is photographs of themselves in circulation, especially with the advent of myspace, facebook, bebo and various other social networking sites. As has already been stated in this thread there is no law in the UK prohibiting taking photographs of minors at schools plays and suchlike, it is a school by school policy that they can choose to enforce if required.

I firmly believe (in fact I don't have to believe, I know it to be true) that the world is a far better place than we are led to believe. It's very easy to be miserable about the current state of affairs and don rose tinted glasses (an effect that intriguingly seems to increase with age as one focuses on the negatives and overlooks the positives) but while things are often in a constant state of flux with them getting worse, better, and then worse again on average things don't change over time. We live in a media controlled world with information flying about left, right and centre, and we are spoon fed masses of propaganda each day designed to keep us living in a state of perpetual fear. If we choose to open our eyes and remove the rose tinted spectacles for a while it is possible to see actions and events taking place each day that reaffirm your faith in humanity, you just have to choose to not focus solely on the negative reports and dismiss the positive.