Sherlika - most people on this thread are agreeing with you, they are not 'unbelievable'. Glad this has given you a laugh though.

Seriously, I wonder if MummyDanni has read the different views here, if so do you still think you were right MD to call the police? (we were not there after all)

You are all unbelievable. I often read these posts to have some fun and pinch myself if you are real people, but this post tops it all. It is real to have such concern?

This guy may be a writer and was looking for inspiration or need to observe people. There is nothing wrong with that. A public space is still public.

[quote="Medway"]I completely agree with everything you have just said, previous poster. The assessment of risk in this case, and the response, was completely excessive imho. I wonder why our generation of parents is so paranoid and so disproportionate in our response to 'threats', particularly those posed by men, paedophiles etc etc etc. It's probably to do with the 24 hour news culture, high profile cases, the BBC 1970's Saville etc...[/quote]

From my research I know that people are increasingly disproportionate in their assessment of the risk posed by other people in general. Our perception of the risk posed by crime has shot up in the last few decades and perhaps unsurprisingly the amount of news and other information available to us about crime has also increased due to television and the internet.

I'm no believer in ignorance is bliss or in not providing people with negative news. We should all be kept informed and live in an incredible time of free information. But there seems to be a drawback in that a greater awareness of crime seems to have brought a greater sense that crime is all around us. Whatever the truth, something is going wrong, because surveys show that people firmly believe that crime is currently getting worse and that your child is more likely to be abducted or mugged or attacked than ever before, when the reality is that crime has been dropping for years, which tends to surprise people. We just didn't hear about it as much as we do now.

OMG :o
I must warn my husband as he might have reported today... He called me at 4.30pm telling me his meeting had been cancelled and was in CJ asking where we were. Told me we were getting ready to go to playground so we ll meet there. (Not the clapham common one tho). But due to a little tantrum before going he had waited 15min before we arrived.
He was sitting on a bench with his blackberry doing some work in the meantime. How suspicious is that i wonder?
When i ll tell him tonight he ll fell off his chair. He sat there waiting for us in good view of the gate so the children could see him and run to him.

Did you think that this man might have been in the same situation?

You're absolutely right Medway. We need to be careful or we will have a generation of paranoid children who lack independence. I think our generation is sometimes over involved. This is very apparent at the school gate. Some parents seem to be in the school office nearly everyday, wanting to know this, that and the other. I seem to remember my mum just dropping me off and letting me get on with it. I don't remember her ever crossing the threshold!

It is sad that the world is a scary place and that we live our lives with caution always looking over our shoulder. The news and papers do tend to keep us all on edge and sometimes we may be over reacting. Better to safe than sorry.

I completely agree with everything you have just said, previous poster. The assessment of risk in this case, and the response, was completely excessive imho. I wonder why our generation of parents is so paranoid and so disproportionate in our response to 'threats', particularly those posed by men, paedophiles etc etc etc. It's probably to do with the 24 hour news culture, high profile cases, the BBC 1970's Saville etc revelations, and the emergence of 'professional parenting' (by that i mean reading loads of parenting books, planning absolutely every minute of kids time, fretting over nappy brands and when to feed solid food) - we have lost the plot!! (I know I am guilty of this, and others reading this - ask yourself honestly - do you think your Mum controlled every aspect of your life like you do your childrens'?). But we must question what this is doing to our children - the ability to trust, to decide where real risk lies, to play, to be unsupervised etc etc. They are going to grow up paranoid wrecks or else utterly fed up with controlling Mummy.

[quote="cheshirecat"]I would say the OP was there when none of us were so we can't say what she did was wrong. If she felt threatened or had a feeling something was wrong then why bash her for acting on it?

...

For me personally if a man or woman is in the playground acting suspiciously I really wouldn't care about statistics and rights. I'll report it.

Common sense says that you should try to avoid all danger. Not ignore some because it is statistically less likely to occur.[/quote]

Actually, it would not be common sense at all to try to avoid all danger, because that is impossible. Common sense would be to assess risks in a rational way and act appropriately. We all do it. Crossing the street is vastly more dangerous than anything else discussed here but we take the necessary precautions. We don't panic when approaching a road on foot or assume every approaching car is driven by a drunk or maniac.

Speaking of common sense and acting appropriately, I have not meant to be critical of the OP personally, and I agree that if you feel your child is under threat from someone acting suspiciously then yes, you should take appropriate action. That is just good parenting.

However, we can only go on the information available and on the basis of the information available the action taken was not appropriate. Here we are told that the situation is that there is a man alone in a playground and using a computer. There is no information given to suggest he was acting suspiciously at all.

Instead, there seems to be a view amongst some people that men should be regarded as a potential threat to kids if they are nearby and alone, regardless of whether they are actually acting in a threatening way. Simply, it seems the fact that this solitary person was male was threatening enough in and of itself.

As a man, I personally find that more than a little insulting. There is simply no basis in reality to justify this view, given the incredible rarity that a child is abused or abducted from a public place by a stranger.

90% of child abuse is conducted by friends and relatives of the child - yet we trust, whilst also keeping an appropriate amount of awareness. We do not panic at the first sight of a relative.

There is no need to get defensive. I see plenty of fathers with their children but if a lonely man/woman was acting suspiciously, i would note/report. Best case scenario is that nothing is wrong.

I personat wouldnt casually go and sit at the playground when there are plenty of other benches

I think the man being in the playground is not a major concern. Men and women often go and eat their lunch in our local playground.

I would say the OP was there when none of us were so we can't say what she did was wrong. If she felt threatened or had a feeling something was wrong then why bash her for acting on it?

I have had two occasions when I have informed the police about men in playgrounds . One when 6 men were sitting in the playground and watching the children and another occasion when one member of this group was videoing children on his phone.

For me personally if a man or woman is in the playground acting suspiciously I really wouldn't care about statistics and rights. I'll report it.

Common sense says that you should try to avoid all danger. Not ignore some because it is statistically less likely to occur.

[quote="Jen66"]Is there really a by-law stating lone adults can't enter playgrounds? I have never heard of that.[/quote]

It depends on the council/area entirely. The thing about by-laws are, that they are not actually written in statute and so don't apply country wide or anything. Instead there is legislation which gives councils the ability to make its own by-laws which only apply locally. The point is they are still enforceable and breaking them in punishable by magistrates court with a fine of up to £2k.

I checked the Wandsworth council website:
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/downloads/download/200/bye-laws
and it says:

"No male person over the age of 14 years shall go or attempt to go into any part of any open space in contravention of any regulation of the council specified in a notice exhibited on such part reserving such part for the use of female persons and children under the age of 14 years old only."

In other words (interpreting the law is kind of my job), men are not allowed in an area which is marked as specifically for woman and under 14s. Presumably the park in question had a sign saying as much. Its worded really badly. I fail to see how a playground can be specifically for 'female persons and children...only'. What about dads?

I think its pathetic. I was in a playground opposite Latchmere Leisure centre the other day for about 10 mins without my sons, just me, listening to my ipod after a jog and sitting on the swings having a breather. There was a kid and his dad about, who paid me no mind. I actually quite like the swings. ;-) I don't remember seeing a sign, but think its grossly unfair that I might have been unwittingly breaking a by-law, written by some tragic paranoid who reads the Daily Mail too often.

Is there really a by-law stating lone adults can't enter playgrounds? I have never heard of that.

Totally agree with Zaarin and Kcai...it is so true that people are too scared to help little children now...it's ridiculous.

The biggest danger to the little ones in playgrounds now is injurying themselves while their parents are on their phones and not looking ;)

I agree. What a sad state of affairs. The previous generation would not have given it a second thought. We have become too over cautious.

[quote="zaarin_2003"]

I will explain why I find this sort of comment so depressing.
[/quote]

Well said, Zaarin.

My initial thought was that the man had gone in there to be a bit safer from off-leash dogs.

Calling the police was overboard. That kind of reaction is why some men go out of their way to avoid helping a child in need. My husband feels the need to take the time to find some sort of official, for example, when he notices a lost child, instead of directly helping the child himself. Pretty sad, and a bit scary too if you think about the James Bulger situation.