Should we be accepting these behaviours?

BlueBelle

Oh Fanny I don’t think you can say categorically
The man is clearly a pervert getting his kicks around kids
I would think it’s much more likely he’s a vulnerable old man with severe mental health problems and for his sake alone he should be kindly moved on The police will surely know if he’s a dangerous pervert
I agree he shouldn’t be there but it should be done kindly unless they know anything to the contrary

I pondered earlier about help and wonder what the criteria is for sectioning under the Mental Health Act is and if he might be considered a danger to himself or others.

Or is this behaviour permissible if he claims he is identifying as a 10 year old girl?

'The police will surely know if he’s a dangerous pervert' what?

they don't even recognise those among there force.

I have no doubt that the police have considered the Mental Health Act, they have to consider it all the time when dealing with all kinds of issues day and night.

He is clearly not judged to be a danger to self and others at the moment.

It sounds like he need a lot more care than he is getting atm*.

That doesn't mean to say that he can't be asked to move on - he should - no one but a parent or staff relative should hang around school gates.

*this man, a number of years ago, may have been given a bed in a more suitable environment but they do not exist anymore due to cut backs except In Extremis.

lemsip

'The police will surely know if he’s a dangerous pervert' what?

they don't even recognise those among there force.

that's because they are very good at hiding and deception - this man is clearly not.

This man doesn’t appear to be a risk to himself or others, he hasn’t committed an offence. I assume he has no history of sexual offending against children and this, along with talking with him led the police to conclude he poses no risk.
That’s a brave conclusion, unless they’ve involved sone one with forensic psych knowledge. I’m in no way disrespecting the police ability to assess risk, they’re often very good at it. Having worked with sex offenders, I’d feel more reassured by a ‘low risk’ assessment. No risk - really. This man is causing distress. His own needs dominate.

He shouldn’t be there, move him on, preferably to get help with his mental health.

The police are likely to have contacted local MH services in an assessment not just done a brief assessment themselves. He is causing distress I agree and needs to be moved on from school gates, unfortunately the state of care is inadequate to deal with him.

Wyllow3

The police are likely to have contacted local MH services in an assessment not just done a brief assessment themselves. He is causing distress I agree and needs to be moved on from school gates, unfortunately the state of care is inadequate to deal with him.

Possibly not if he knows his rights to be able to identify as he wishes. The police may think anything they say may be regarded as discrimination.

Yes, MH services are wholly inadequate now.

I agree, no risk cannot be the right assessment, Iam64.

Aren't people presumed innocent, even as they look odd? Do we want to live in a country (Iran, Russia) where people could judge us by our looks?

Sounds like calling PA guilty. He was found guilty of nothing.

I'd advocate to watch your children vigilantly, better than ever, be timely at drop-off and pickup, warn your children, keep them in groups, volunteer at their school, eyes wide open at all times.

Don't go on with unfounded accusations.

What if your (hypothetical) family member was falsely accused and it proved nothing? What then?

He should not be allowed to wear yhe schools uniform

He should not be allowed to loiter around a school he has no attachment to, no one should.

He should be receiving better mental health care

Would it not have been better if the police had been more forceful in telling him to stop what he is doing, havn't they left him in a rather exposed and vulnerable (to vigilantism) position. I accept they couldn't actually forbid him, but warn him strongly of the possible consequences. Or maybe they did and he took no notice.

It is not a crime to wear school uniform. How could that possibly be against the law.

It it is not a crime to wait outside school gates.

Better mental health care is in short supply for everyone.

Seen on Mumsnet:

That’s not all he’s doing. He’s riding the bus where school children are riding, dressed in the uniform, and taking pictures of the kids

No risk? 🤔

I know it's none of my business but i did wonder f he was known to social services or receives support from them and this is why the decision as made that he was not a risk.

Ilovecheese

It is not a crime to wear school uniform. How could that possibly be against the law.

It it is not a crime to wait outside school gates.

Better mental health care is in short supply for everyone.

Violetsky didn't say either of those was a crime, she said he should not be allowed and I agree.

We all on this thread agree that mental health care is inadequate.

We don't know what the price have said to this man or what he has told them.

Without facts we shouldn't villify anyone.

Red flags big and loud!! I am presuming they have checked to make sure he is not on a sex offenders register.... and this may be a 'yet'. This should be stopped! I certainly wouldn't let any child from that school walk home alone! Just to have to see this is disturbing enough for the children.

Police!

What bothers me is that all the consideration is being exercised on this man's side. No one is taking any notice of the fears the parents quite rightly feel faced with his behaviour. He may not be a threat, but the problem is, that often men behaving as he is are a threat, and you cannot tell the difference just by looking at someone.

I think much more consideration should be given to the parents and children involved.

AGAA4

We don't know what the price have said to this man or what he has told them.

Without facts we shouldn't villify anyone.

This ^

you cannot tell the difference just by looking at someone.

Exactly. So just as GSM said, its quite right that the police were involved. They will have more information about the man and what his background is, than any of the concerned parents are likely to have. If we get to a situation where we think we know better than the Police about random people we see in the street, then we are talking about anarchy.

volver

^you cannot tell the difference just by looking at someone.^

Exactly. So just as GSM said, its quite right that the police were involved. They will have more information about the man and what his background is, than any of the concerned parents are likely to have. If we get to a situation where we think we know better than the Police about random people we see in the street, then we are talking about anarchy.

Precisely.

But there are two sides to this story and no one is doing seems to being doing anything to help the parents and children deal with this very complex matter.

How do you know what the police are doing?

His own needs dominate.

Yes. They obviously take precedence over those of the children.

If it is true (MUMSNET) that he is also taking photo's of the schoolchildren that he rides on the bus with - that's an added intrusion. Because his behaviour is intrusive.

I don't want to see him persecuted - or prosecuted - but he should be told that his behaviour is unsettling to minors (although I'm sure some will find it a hoot) and that as they are compelled to attend school every day, they can't avoid him, and therefore he should stop it!

What if he decides to follow some of them home and stand around outside their houses? Does this have to be tolerated as well?