Interfering stranger lecturing my son about bike clothing

[meic]

It is equally, if not more so, incumbent upon strangers not to place other people's children in that position in the first place.

This leads to the "walk on by" attitude. Fortunately most people will, despite the personal risk, not walk on by and will approach a child if they are worried about them.
On occasions I have had people approach my daughter and talk to her, she points me out, they look happy and carry on. I appreciate people who actually stop to make sure when they are concerned and would not dream of berating them for doing so, even if we do have a bit of a giggle about them.

[Lance Dopestrong]

There is a difference between an unsolicited approach to a child in otherwise unremarkable circumstances, or approaching a child who appears in distress.

I wouldn't dream of kicking down someone's front door and entering their house. However, if it were on fire and they were screaming for help then I just might.

Adults of average intelligence and social adjustment should be able to distinguish between something they perhaps shouldn't normally consider, and unusual circumstance which might justify at least stopping and thinking about the situation. Anyone conditioned sufficiently to be unable to recognise the difference would probably be of little use anyway should an emergency situation arise.

[meic]

But a young child seemingly all alone, is just as much "easy prey" for a potential abuser as worth consideration for a concerned adult.
Any adult can phone the Police, look for parents, escort a child somewhere, prevent them from going to a dangerous place.

[meic]

I had forgotten all about an incident with an interfering stranger and my son.
They considered my son to be in danger because he was walking alone on a pavement.
He totally failed to implement the very basic moderate instructions that he had been given to do in such situations.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=34627

[Tangled Metal]

But wasn't the child was in a pub beer garden having ridden up with an adult (father) who had left to get refreshments? By that he was not in a position of distress. He was in a public space I assume with a few people around. Stranger danger is probably minimal (or the op/father would not have left him). I would assume the bikes (child's and larger adult's) is nearby too. All things I would definitely notice being a keen cyclist.

So there was absolutely no reason for any adult to even suspect there was a child in danger or distress. So IMHO that line of argument is a non-starter.

The other point I have is that the old gentleman did not approach the child in concern about his safety. Or at least that is howi interpret the way OP seems to describe it. So why did the older gentleman approach the child? It seems to me it was to criticise not help. It was negative not positive. If I approached a child in distress then trying to help them is a positive thing to do. However the method of helping is a tricky matter in these modern times. I would not dream of telling a kid on distress or otherwise that they're wearing the wrong clothing or kit.

I'm sorry meic but for all the sense you post elsewhere I think you are not going to pursuade me with your argument or views. I obviously respect your opinion but I do not hold it and I find it a bit difficult to keep reading. It's defence of a curmudgeonly old gentleman and I feel it's right to call him out on it. Not wriggle around trying to find genuinely risky situations that have no connection to this instance to try and defend him.

[meic]

I'm sorry meic but for all the sense you post elsewhere I think you are not going to pursuade me with your argument or views.

I will be satisfied enough if everybody accepts that there is a different view.

In the case with my son there was no danger to him, either before the stranger arrived or even after the stranger interfered.
I do think that it is relevant on how we feel about strangers interacting with our children.
I think it is beneficial even in the case of interfering grumpy old gits just so long as they dont hang around too long.
I didnt welcome the strangers interference with my son it was not in my interests, it did not improve my sons safety, it was her imposing her world views and standards on my lifestyle. My son probably did welcome the lift home though.
However I do accept that as part of living in a world which is the better for looking after each other and I will put up with the misguided cases for that reason. It was merely a talking point and nothing to get really upset about.
In a way it was also a learning experience for me, showing that all my careful preparations and instructions given to my son were an utter waste of time and totally circumvented by a piece of laminated plastic.

But wasn't the child was in a pub beer garden having ridden up with an adult (father) who had left to get refreshments? By that he was not in a position of distress. He was in a public space I assume with a few people around. Stranger danger is probably minimal (or the op/father would not have left him). I would assume the bikes (child's and larger adult's) is nearby too. All things I would definitely notice being a keen cyclist.

Yes but the thread had drifted to Lance's kids defensive strategies against such dangers.

[Tangled Metal]

Oh I ignored his approach as a bit too extreme. No offence LD.

I'm a parent of a 5 nearly 6 year old and still at the stage of near complete parental control of his life (well his mother is I'm more laid back). He's never left alone anywhere without a parent, other family member or under school control. That includes classes he goes to where parents aren't allowed to be present. Overprotective parent (singular one of us isn't so protective).

There's enough taught at school, even in reception for kids to understand risks if they think about it. At least later on in primary school onwards. Trouble is kids don't think things through all the time. Child getting into unmarked police car for example.

The OP's child's case I'd have hoped my son (at his age in the future) would just walk away from the old curmudgeon. Knowing what he's like with us at 5 I fully expect with the confidence a 10 year old develops between 5 and 10 he'd be a bit argumentative with him in the original situation. He's quite clever with his replies even now. Phrase mirroring to mock us for example or an almost forensically legalistic style of analysing what we've said then using it against us. I don't think he'll take [removed] when he's older. A bit like it's mother. If the OP's child was a little older or a little bit gobby I reckon this thread might have been about an old fella being put in his place for trying to have a go at him. Age may well develop this skill but not always. I can do it but I just be polite and think badly of such a guy.

[Cugel]

There are two themes going on (three if you count the helmet debate, which is irrelevant here really). One is about the particular situation described by the OP. The other is a discussion about the general social attitudes and behaviours concerning the interactions of children and adults, specifically adults who they have just come across in public.

Personally I think discussion of the merits or demerits of the OP's actions in his specific case are foolish within a web forum, since none of us were there and we only have one report of the incident from a participant who is hardly going to be objective about it. Ask any policeman (we could ask Mr Dopestrong) about the reliability of witnesses; or about the vastly different stories that different witnesses to the same event will usually tell about it.

*****

The general discussion about social behaviour toward children is a very different matter. The rampant stranger-danger paranoia encouraged by, for the most part, The Daily Frighteners, then amplified by those looking for people to condemn, is a very serious business I feel. It leaks into other social behaviours and damages children's ability to learn how to deal with the real world full of disagreeable people of every kind.

Mr Dopestrong's attitude is a prime example of the very poor risk assessments being made, the amplification of fear of others and the inclination to dismiss alternative views out of hand. It's summed up by his claim that "I don't care what other people think".

This "I don't care what other people think" mantra is the crux of the issue. If you don't care what other people think then you're always going to treat them as foes or, at best, as not the full human (like oneself) with the full rights to be treated as one would like to be treated oneself. They are "dangerous".

Of course, the claim that "I don't care what other people think" is nonsense anyway. The claimants often care far too much about what other people think and their bellow about not-caring is an attempt to cover that up or to browbeat "the others" into agreeing with them. In the worst cases the result is a dangerous narcissism (consider Trump and his love-me-I-hate-you tweets). In most cases it merely results in an inability to compromise or be tolerant with others not identical to oneself. These are both sad conditions all too familiar to us all at the moment.

Sadly, Mt Dopestrong's attitude has become the norm. People are now generally afraid to interact with children they haven't been formally introduced to (and still afraid even of those). Children themselves are often over-protected to a degree that keeps them socially incompetent and infantile far beyond the age at which they should be adult or on the path to adulthood.

Cugel

[slowster]

He was just a boorish prat with poor social skills who is probably incapable of striking up a normal conversation with an adult, and so picked on a young child to be the recipient of his wisdom.

What he said to the child was entirely critical and negative, and he knew how to couch what he was saying in terms that might have the strongest impact on a young child, i.e. telling him he didn't need to dress like Bradley Wiggins. Most kids want to wear the kit of their sporting idols, whether it be a football jersey, a rugby jersey or cycling kit. Cugel talks about treating children as people, but this man was rude, arrogant and condescending, which is no way to treat anyone, least of all a child.

According to the OP "the lady said nothing at all.When I caught her eye she appeared to give a slight smile." I bet she was inwardly cringing that once again her husband had behaved like a prat and got himself into a confrontation.

I've said before that the man did not know how to behave appropriately and did not respect social norms. He was lucky that the OP did. Many fathers would not be so tolerant of a stranger criticising and upsetting their child. Some of those fathers would be even less respectful of social norms than the old man, and would be aggressive and even physical. If the silly old fool doesn't change his behaviour, sooner or later he will end up meeting someone like that.

[thirdcrank]

A thread like this might just as easily have started, "Interfering stranger admiring my son's cycle clothing." There's now widespread unease about anybody striking up a conversation with anybody and especially with children.

[AlaninWales]

He was just a boorish prat with poor social skills who is probably incapable of striking up a normal conversation with an adult, and so picked on a young child to be the recipient of his wisdom.

What he said to the child was entirely critical and negative, and he knew how to couch what he was saying in terms that might have the strongest impact on a young child, i.e. telling him he didn't need to dress like Bradley Wiggins. Most kids want to wear the kit of their sporting idols, whether it be a football jersey, a rugby jersey or cycling kit. Cugel talks about treating children as people, but this man was rude, arrogant and condescending, which is no way to treat anyone, least of all a child.

According to the OP "the lady said nothing at all.When I caught her eye she appeared to give a slight smile." I bet she was inwardly cringing that once again her husband had behaved like a prat and got himself into a confrontation.

I've said before that the man did not know how to behave appropriately and did not respect social norms. He was lucky that the OP did. Many fathers would not be so tolerant of a stranger criticising and upsetting their child. Some of those fathers would be even less respectful of social norms than the old man, and would be aggressive and even physical. If the silly old fool doesn't change his behaviour, sooner or later he will end up meeting someone like that.

Or perhaps the conversation went more like:
GOM: "Hi, I see you cycled here. Are you enjoying the ride?"
Child: "Yes, did you cycle here too?"
GOM: "We did, those are our bicycles over there"
Child: "Then why aren't you wearing proper cycling kit? Where's your H****? "
GOM: "You know, you don't really have to dress like BW or wear a H*** to cycle. It's perfectly possible to ride a bike in normal clothes like ours."
Child: "Daddy! That man just told me off about my clothes and said I didn't need to wear a H***!"

Frankly, from the report of the OP we don't know whether the GOM was being a boorish prat or just having normal conversation and treating the child with the respect that his apparent age would call for. Many (including the OP) are assuming this was an out of context lecture - but the winess we have is second hand and unreliable. Of course for those so paranoid as to believe there is danger in anyone they don't personally know speaking to their child, this distinction is of no consequence. A sad life they must live and sad people they are raising (all IMHO of course).

[Vorpal]

There's enough taught at school, even in reception for kids to understand risks if they think about it. At least later on in primary school onwards. Trouble is kids don't think things through all the time. Child getting into unmarked police car for example.

I respectfully disagree. Schools teach kids risk avoidance, not risk assessment. They teach them not to climb trees because they might fall and hurt themselves, not how to tell if a tree is safe to climb. They teach them that it's not safe to ride a bike without a helmet and hi-viz, then let motorists park illegally at the front gates of the school. They teach them stranger danger, but not what is inappropriate touching. They teach them many rules without explaining them, and write 'risk assessments' without involving the kids who are at risk.

When I was teaching Bikeability to years 5 & 6, I had a few kids who had no idea how traffic moved and few who didn't seem to know how to cross the road without an adult telling them it was safe. I was convinced that it was because they were driven everywhere, and simply never did anything unsupervised, even at 11 or 12 years old.

[Tangled Metal]

I beg to differ. Reception class had information sheets sent home to parents outlining the approach and they outlined lessons about what constitutes abuse and how to determine it. 4/5 year olds so only the basics. The year 6 classes really go to town on risk I believe. All schools are different but this was an NSPCC led initiative and funded team coming in to assist this social development. It certainly went beyond avoidance and into assessment of risks.

[100%JR]

Or perhaps the conversation went more like:
GOM: "Hi, I see you cycled here. Are you enjoying the ride?"
Child: "Yes, did you cycle here too?"
GOM: "We did, those are our bicycles over there"
Child: "Then why aren't you wearing proper cycling kit? Where's your H****? "
GOM: "You know, you don't really have to dress like BW or wear a H*** to cycle. It's perfectly possible to ride a bike in normal clothes like ours."
Child: "Daddy! That man just told me off about my clothes and said I didn't need to wear a H***!"
Frankly, from the report of the OP we don't know whether the GOM was being a boorish prat or just having normal conversation and treating the child with the respect that his apparent age would call for. Many (including the OP) are assuming this was an out of context lecture - but the winess we have is second hand and unreliable. Of course for those so paranoid as to believe there is danger in anyone they don't personally know speaking to their child, this distinction is of no consequence. A sad life they must live and sad people they are raising (all IMHO of course).

Have you read this entire thread?
If you have you'll know that the conversation didn't go that way.The bloke confirmed he had said only what my son told me he had.
Had it gone the way you describe there would be no need for this thread in the first place as I've said more than once.

[Vorpal]

I beg to differ. Reception class had information sheets sent home to parents outlining the approach and they outlined lessons about what constitutes abuse and how to determine it. 4/5 year olds so only the basics. The year 6 classes really go to town on risk I believe. All schools are different but this was an NSPCC led initiative and funded team coming in to assist this social development. It certainly went beyond avoidance and into assessment of risks.

I have to admit that I haven't any experience in the last few years, other than what friends post on social media, but prior to that I was in schools every day, in Essex and East London. While at some of the schools, I just turned up, submitted my risk assessment and went where they told me. Other schools, I was at regularly, and knew quite a few of the children. Most of the schools where I had awareness of their approach, definitely erred on the side of risk avoidance, with the exception of a few socially acceptable activities, such as football. The only one that clearly did a much better job, also did lots of stuff to encourage kids using active travel, and was one of the best schools to teach Bikeability at.

I don't know that the NSPCC was ever in any of the schools I was involved with. But Mini V certainly never had any training like that, although the parents were told that the school had a policy of reporting possible abuse.