In my local paper today there is an article about new guidelines that will take place in libraries. All staff can no longer sit the child on their knee whilst telling a story and they must not take a child by the hand if they are to look for their parent. I understand their reasoning behind it, as it is sort of to protect, both the member of staff and the child. BUT not everyone out there is a child molester or a paedophile. I have taken both the girls along to Library story-telling and I have always been present and watched them enjoying it. I have seen kids loving the story and wanting to get close to the story-telling which in some occassions they cuddle up, or get close at the very least. The story-tellers that I have seen have been either young people or elderly. I think it is just very sad because to me, if a child was lost my immediate instinct would be to take that child by the hand, or give a comforting hug of reassurance and then set out to look for their parent. I was slightly disturbed though that it was noted that some parents use the library as a drop-off for their kids whilst they do shopping. The library quite rightly should not be used for this as the staff there are probably not trained as nursery staff but as library staff who tell stories. I find it worrying that some parents are quite happy to leave their children with people they know nothing about.

I think we are sending out the wrong signals to our children, I know they should be aware of stranger danger but it seems that the very small amount of people who do prey on children make it a very difficult and sad society for everyone else.

I agree Bella, it is a sad world where as adults we cannot comfort a child unless it is our own.

There are similar situations in all areas. At school swimming lessons, you are no longer allowed to help a 4 year old get dried and dressed, even though you could be best friends with his/her mother and have the child to sleep over at your house 5 nights a week, in school..no helping. I belive dinner ladies are no longer allowed to pick up and comfort a child who has fallen over in the palyground, just in case! (if I am wrong on this please correct)

How sad.

BUzz, my mum was a playground monitor and she was told that she must NOT comfort a child if they had fallen over, ie she was not to cuddle them or pick them up, or take them by the hand. She must take the child to the nurse and stay until the child was dealt with. My mum loved the kids she worked with and they in turn loved her, she was like an "auntie" type figure to them. She had to leave as she just could not work under those rules as it went against her human nature to help a child who was in distress.

These probably being introduced as a result of the extensive and somewhat hysterical press and public reaction to paedophiles.

These probably being introduced as a result of the extensive and somewhat hysterical press and public reaction to paedophiles.


Point taken SF

I thought this was gonna be a thread about over due books or something! Not that I'm feeling guilty on that score you understand!

I can see how it's protecting both child and adult, but it is a shame all the same. Last year I was told I couldn't take a picture of my son in the swimming pool. :sad:

The reason why these guidence notes as it were have been given is as much to protect staff from fanatical parents as it is to protect the kids.

There have been lots of stories where staff members from schools etc. have been wrongly accused of wrong doing due to a mis-understanding and an over reactive parent. Surely rather than stop people in these professions from offering comfort to a distressed child there ought to be more education of the parents. I mean in order to get a job working with kids these days a person has to jump numerous hurdles and run through a variety of hoops with the vetting proceedure growing tighter and tougher by the day. THIS IS GOOD! Maybe if parents had more oportunities to meet with the support staff aswell as the teachers who look after their children during the day there would be less suspiscion.

Yes there are bad apples in every cart and the odd one may get through but surely leading a child round a public place in order to find a parent is acceptable esspecially if the person doing the leading is a member of staff wearing the correct uniform and is known by the child or parent.

The whole thing with dumping kids so parents can shop is dire....the parents should go in with the children at least and point out to the child who is who and where to stay or go should they get seperated, lost whatever. It would take a couple of minutes to do if they must abandoned their kids for the sake of buying the latest gucci hand bag of Burtons suit!

As far as I am aware - all adults, over 16 years, whether paid or unpaid, who work or have contact with children or vulnerable adults, have to have been checked out by the new CRB Bureau?

I would assume that would also apply to library staff, and classroom helpers. As my tiddles school is so small [38 kids] - every single parent has been CRB checked - so all are available at the drop of a hat to help with transport, swimming baths duty, reading in school or playground duty.

Additionally, to my above check - as I run Family services at Church, and as I could be construed as a trustworthy person by a child in Church, then I have to be seperatly CRB checked for this too - as well as every other PCC member.

Obviously people do slip through these safety nets - but the more rigourous the checks and the more vigilant people are, surely we could return to some sort of semblance of sense when it comes to dealing with children??

I think we are sending out the wrong signals to our children, I know they should be aware of stranger danger but it seems that the very small amount of people who do prey on children make it a very difficult and sad society for everyone else.

I can't imagine why this should be!

I was slightly disturbed though that it was noted that some parents use the library as a drop-off for their kids whilst they do shopping. The library quite rightly should not be used for this as the staff there are probably not trained as nursery staff but as library staff who tell stories. I find it worrying that some parents are quite happy to leave their children with people they know nothing about.

Either we trust the nice story teller or we don't.

I was slightly disturbed though that it was noted that some parents use the library as a drop-off for their kids whilst they do shopping. The library quite rightly should not be used for this as the staff there are probably not trained as nursery staff but as library staff who tell stories. I find it worrying that some parents are quite happy to leave their children with people they know nothing about. by Bella



Either we trust the nice story teller or we don't.

Snowfall, my point is not about trusting the nice storyteller or not, my point is that the library is not a creche or a nursery that you can drop kids off at. It is irresponsible of parents to do so. I mean you wouldn't drop your kids of at the local ELC in the shopping centre whilst you pop into Next or John Lewis would you? They are not a recognised body to supervise children without their parents being there.

Crazy!


Just how do you reunite a lost child, take it to a place of safety or to a nurse?...use long handled tongs?
We are in danger of raising future generations of children who will never know closeness or reassurance. OK a very very tiny percent of the population are child molesters, but really, this is going too far.
I really love to see the close interaction between adults and kids, and people in general, when I go to Fuerte or Spain, Greece or Turkey, I wonder if thats anything to do with the way the kids their tend to be (in the main) much more well behaved and stable?
Its so sad that the powers that be are increasingly alienating us from each other.
M

by Bella
Snowfall, my point is not about trusting the nice storyteller or not, my point is that the library is not a creche or a nursery that you can drop kids off at. It is irresponsible of parents to do so.
The implication being that people who work in libraries are somehow incapable of looking afer children?

They are not a recognised body to supervise children
Like parents you mean?

err.....no Snowfall that is not what I am saying at all - you are completely missing the point.

the library is not a creche or a nursery that you can drop kids off at. It is irresponsible of parents to do so.

Unreasonable it may be, irresponsible how so?

Unreasonable it may be, irresponsible how so?

Well, work it out Snowfall!

I would just like to back Bella up here. It is irresponsible for parents to drop kids off at a library and leave them there. The library staff may be more than capable of supervising children, but as Bella said they are not a registered, recognised body to do so.

working in a school environment, I know how many hoops have to be jupmed through to get registered to even be in the same room as children, and beleive me it is lots. I know several childminders who have to jump through similar hoops to get registered. So it is irresponsible for parents to use the library as a free childminding service whilst they shop. And who exactly would be held accountable should anything happen to that child whilst alone in the library?? Who would be blamed if the child was snatched from the premises or wandered off alone??

I agree Buzz and the point being it is not the library staff job to look after unsupervised children. Whilst they may extremely capable of looking after the children it is not what they are supposed to do, they may have training but within the library the training doesn't matter because they are not supposed to do it! So yes it is irresponsible to dump the children and as you point out, Buzz the library should not be used as a free baby-sitting service.

Well, work it out Snowfall!

I'm sure (s)he could, only I think (s)he prefers to split hairs! :laugh: :rolleyes:

For my part, I entirely agree that it is not appropriate to leave children under the supervision of unregistered people. Whilst I'm sure that most such people would do their best to take good care of the children, if they are unregistered you have no idea of their experience in childcare. Would they know what to do if one of the children had a fit, or started fighting with another child? If a bookshelf collapsed on top of them do they have the necessary first aid skills to handle the emergency? Who would be liable if the child hurt themselves?

Also, if parents are "dumping" their offspring in the library, I assume the library would not agree to a request from them to do this, so presumably they do so without leaving a contact name and number. If something unfortunate happend to their child, how on earth would the library know how to get in touch?

Of course it is irresponsible to do this. Common sense should prevail!

And to answer the question originally posed, I do think it is terribly sad that people who work with children are prohibited from almost any physical contact with the kids. I understand the reason why, but I think it sends out an awful message to the children. I can see the children of the future not having any idea how to be tactile or affectionate to anyone other than their own immediate family!

And who exactly would be held accountable should anything happen to that child whilst alone in the library?? Who would be blamed if the child was snatched from the premises or wandered off alone??
We were talking about a group of children, under supervision with other parents present. That is the topic under discussion is it not?

Earthquakes bringing bookshelves down aside, library staff are more than used to dealing with children, they do so everyday of their working lives. Despite the somewhat dramatic scenarios dreamt up elsewhere, in my mind a public library under the supervision of staff and other parents would be an extremely safe environment for a child. Perhaps more so than behind closed doors with someone you hardly know, yet who happens to have the correct certificates. After all you never hear of registered childminders harming children :blink:

You will also find that a library being both a public building and a place of work is required to have qualified FIRSTAIDERS on the premises. Finally the staff are just as capable of dialing 999 as your childs nursery or school.

Bella stated that she thinks it is "sad" that such rules should have to be introduced and I agree it is. Yet from the responses in this thread it is fairly obvious why they are.

We were talking about a group of children, under supervision with other parents present. That is the topic under discussion is it not?

Perhaps more so than behind closed doors with someone you hardly know, yet who happens to have the correct certificates. After all you never hear of registered childminders harming children :blink:

You will also find that a library being both a public building and a place of work is required to have qualified FIRSTAIDERS on the premises. Finally the staff are just as capable of dialing 999 as your childs nursery or school.

Bella stated that she thinks it is "sad" that such rules should have to be introduced and I agree it is. Yet from the responses in this thread it is fairly obvious why they are.

Actually, we do hear of childminders harming children. There is one toddler group I go to where there is a childminder present and to be honest I find her manner appalling. She was childminding a 6 month old baby who every week was very unsettled. She would leave her to scream in the buggy whilst she chatted with everyone and anyone. She spoke to me on one occassion and told me that she was sick of this child as all she did was scream (well, I mean what do you expect from a 6 month old baby), and that she was spoilt by her mum as she picked her up everytime she cried. It was distressing to most parents who went to the toddler group as this wee baby was upset every week. I am not saying that every child-minder is like that, but I have heard a few horror stories.

We had a situation at Church one Sunday where one of the babies who was in the creche was really upset. With the creche we have all the parents details like where they will be sitting in church so if the child does get distressed, we can take the child to the parent. This child as I say was really upset and there was no calming him down, the other children were getting distressed, so I went into the church to get his dad. He wasn't sitting where he said he was, and I couldn't find him. The poor child cried for an hour solid, was sick and really distressed. The dad cam at 12.10 to pick him up and it was discovered that he didn't go to the church but had in fact went home! He was told that the creche was only for use if you were actually in church and that you had to be there for the reasons above.

Back to the library - Snowflake no-one is disputing that the library is dangerous or that the staff are incapable. The simple fact of the matter is that the library is not a dumping ground for children so you can do your shopping. I have left my children at various creches at one time or another, at shopping malls, the local swim centre, supermarkets etc and on each occassion I have to supply information, essential information like contact numbers, if your child has allergies etc. The parents who just leave their children and go off shopping are leaving no information whatsoever. We all know accidents happen, and if there was an accident, yes the staff could phone 999, adminster first-aid but how do they get in contact with the parent? My child goes to school everyday and she could fall over in the playground, break a leg but my contact details are held at school and if they can't contact me they have several other contacts they can phone. The library staff as I have stated do not have these details. I do still think it is unreasonable and irresponsible of parents to leave their children in a place where clearly they are not supposed to.

I do still think it is unreasonable and irresponsible of parents to leave their children in a place where clearly they are not supposed to.

THis is a separate issue from your main point about library staff not being allowed to touch childen isn't it?

My thoughts on it are -

How do you know people are leaving their children at libraries?

If they are, is it with the permission of the library, if so where's the problem?

What's the difference between leaving your children with a library storyteller, and leaving them at:

-Sunday School
-Cubs/Brownies
-After School club

And finally, whether you do the shopping while they are there, or if you are doing something else like having sex in the garden shed, does it really matter?

THis is a separate issue from your main point about library staff not being allowed to touch childen isn't it?

My thoughts on it are -

How do you know people are leaving their children at libraries?

If they are, is it with the permission of the library, if so where's the problem?

What's the difference between leaving your children with a library storyteller, and leaving them at:

-Sunday School
-Cubs/Brownies
-After School club

And finally, whether you do the shopping while they are there, or if you are doing something else like having sex in the garden shed, does it really matter?

It is a seperate issue. And I personally don't know if parents are leaving their children at libraries unattended, it was mentioned it the article that library staff were concerned at children being left and their parents not being there. It is not with the permission of the library, and that is the concern.

I have stated in my other post, the difference with leaving with Sunday school, Cubs/brownies etc is that the people you are leaving them with have your contact details, the library does not.

Another point on that is that when you are looking after children, it is pro-rata. There is supposed to be a certain amount of adults to each child, I know on occassion where the creche is busy, some parents are asked to stay behind as we don't have enough cover. We have a huge waiting list at the Rainbows as there is not enough adult helpers to allow more children to come along.

And no it doesn't really matter what you do when they are there as long as you provide the contact details!

Plus, I know that I had to be interviewed by the Child Protection Agency to look after the children in the creche at Sunday School. I am not sure if the same applies to library staff who technically are not supposed to look after children unsupervised.

Plus, I know that I had to be interviewed by the Child Protection Agency to look after the children in the creche at Sunday School. I am not sure if the same applies to library staff who technically are not supposed to look after children unsupervised.

The thing here though is that you are possibly falling prey to the very thing that you complained about in your opening post - that a small number of child abusers are creating a climate of fear and a tendency to be overcautious where it comes to concerns over child safety.

Plus, I know that I had to be interviewed by the Child Protection Agency to look after the children in the creche at Sunday School. I am not sure if the same applies to library staff who technically are not supposed to look after children unsupervised.Bella, I am not sure if the laws relating to the CRB agency are the same in Scotland as they are in England and Wales, but here ANY person who is likely/does [to] have contact with children or vulnerable adults does have to be CRB checked. So if they are then I would suggest that library staff are one of the many occupations/vocations that require a check.

And my second point, cos I am not sure whether I read your initial post correctly, but if parents are leaving/abandoning children unsupervised [and by that I mean absent from the building itself] are in effect committing a criminal offence - neglect. [Children and Young Persons Act 1933] [well IMO anyway]

The thing here though is that you are possibly falling prey to the very thing that you complained about in your opening post - that a small number of child abusers are creating a climate of fear and a tendency to be overcautious where it comes to concerns over child safety.

In what way am I falling prey, SF?

In what way am I falling prey, SF?

Well, in your opening post you were saying that it is unfortunate that the activities of a handful of people creates a climate of fear in which ordinary people like librarians get nervous about being accused of child abuse.

Yet you went on to say that you find it worrying that someone might leave their child with a librarian they don't know anything about, and repeated that concern a few posts back. I took that to mean you are worried that the child could be in danger of harm by the librarian, that's what I meant by falling prey to the very thing you were critical of in the first place.

If you get my drift!

Well, in your opening post you were saying that it is unfortunate that the activities of a handful of people creates a climate of fear in which ordinary people like librarians get nervous about being accused of child abuse.

Yet you went on to say that you find it worrying that someone might leave their child with a librarian they don't know anything about, and repeated that concern a few posts back. I took that to mean you are worried that the child could be in danger of harm by the librarian, that's what I meant by falling prey to the very thing you were critical of in the first place.

If you get my drift!

SF, if you read through my posts you will see that I don't mention that the child would be in danger of being harmed by the librarian. If you do read you will see that my concern with the child being left is that the library is not a registered place for looking after unsupervised children. In fact, I mentioned that the library staff are probably more than capable of looking after the children and that are probably very trust-worthy. My concern was that parents were "dumping" their children without any contact details!

OK, although I had read your posts, and you made at least three points, one was that libraries don't like children being left with them , another was that it's wrong not to leave a contact number, and another - the one I was referring to - was this:

I find it worrying that some parents are quite happy to leave their children with people they know nothing about.

But if as you then said you are not worried about that, fair enough, my mistake.

OK, although I had read your posts, and you made at least three points, one was that libraries don't like children being left with them , another was that it's wrong not to leave a contact number, and another - the one I was referring to - was this:


I find it worrying that some parents are quite happy to leave their children with people they know nothing about.


But if as you then said you are not worried about that, fair enough.

Oh, you do love to split hairs, SF don't you? ;). I appreciate that I may be saying one thing then on the other hand seeming as if I am saying a different thing, maybe I should have worded it differently. Sorry.

My general point is that the library are not equipped to look after unsupervised children. I think you will find that any place where you do leave your child (families, friends, babysitters aside), they have to be inspected, given a seal of approval etc and have the recommended number of staff as per child.

Put it this way, would you go to the library leave your kids with the story-teller and then go off do your shopping or have sex in the shed?

Put it this way, would you go to the library leave your kids with the story-teller and then go off do your shopping or have sex in the shed?

To be honest, if the library was happy to do it then I'd be OK with it!

To give you another example - would you leave your child with a piano teacher at their house?

SF, if the library was happy to do it, I would too. With regard the piano-teacher, yes I would. Again it is as you have also mentioned that people have this mad hysteria that everyone can be a paedophile. In the majority of cases where children have been sexually abused it is usually a family member or someone who is very close to the family. It is down to trust and I think with some people you just get gut instinct.

When I was working I had to interview this guy who wanted to top up his loan. There was just something about him, his profiles, payments records etc everything checked out, but there was just something. Now, we couldn't turn the loan just because I didn't like him. He had to come back with payslips and on this occassion my boss saw him and he also thought there was something. We did turn the loan down, can't remember the reason. Anyway about 5/6 months later he stopped payments on his loan and my boss went to his house. He spoke to his neighbour and he was told that this guy was inside for interfering with wee laddies! Now, I didn't suspect him as a paedophile or anything like that, I don't know what it was. HOwever that said, we also had another customer who was lovely, very respectable, married. He was later found guilty of sexually abusing a child over a period of 7 years. So maybe the gut instinct isn't really a fair comment. In fact it isn't, people don't have paedophile tattooted over their head, but neither do they have normal, so it is wrong to judge everyone as a potential abuser.

Perhaps more so than behind closed doors with someone you hardly know, yet who happens to have the correct certificates. After all you never hear of registered childminders harming children :blink:
Irony, in case anyone missed it.

Irony, in case anyone missed it.

Really........... :sleep: