People Who Just Disappear (Go Missing)

[kesavaross]

I misread that as "an utter bastard to shit" and thought wow...they really do things differently over there

Feel better soon!

So did I. I did wonder about how having a head cold would make having a shit so difficult and it did seem a strange choice of wording.

@catseye Hope it clears up soon.

 

[Erinaceus]

Human remains found in hunt for missing two-year-old boy​

Bones belonging to a toddler who disappeared without trace eight months ago have been found in the Alps.

Ramblers discovered the remains of Émile Soleil, two close to the isolated family home from where he went missing in July last year.

He had been staying at his grandparents’ house, and was last seen playing in their garden.

https://metro.co.uk/2024/03/31/human-remains-found-hunt-missing-two-year-old-boy-20562541/

 

[Mythopoeika]

 

[escargot]

Human remains found in hunt for missing two-year-old boy​

https://metro.co.uk/2024/03/31/human-remains-found-hunt-missing-two-year-old-boy-20562541/

The page has a map showing where Émile was spotted walking along the street, presumably alone. What the actual? Why didn't anyone stop him?

Toddlers love to escape their parent and homes. They don't see the danger.

A small child out on their own is lost and vulnerable. It's an emergency: they need to be apprehended and returned to safety.
I have done this myself several times. No parent has ever been less than pitifully grateful.

Not criticising parents here. My own children did of course humiliate me in this way, as my siblings and I had scared our parents. It's what the little monkeys do.
Someone should have stopped Émile.

 

[kesavaross]

The page has a map showing where Émile was spotted walking along the street, presumably alone. What the actual? Why didn't anyone stop him?

Toddlers love to escape their parent and homes. They don't see the danger.

A small child out on their own is lost and vulnerable. It's an emergency: they need to be apprehended and returned to safety.
I have done this myself several times. No parent has ever been less than pitifully grateful.

Not criticising parents here. My own children did of course humiliate me in this way, as my siblings and I had scared our parents. It's what the little monkeys do.
Someone should have stopped Émile.

I find it inconceivable that any adult can see an unaccompanied 2 year old walking down the street and not take immediate action.

 

[escargot]

I find it inconceivable that any adult can see an unaccompanied 2 year old walking down the street and not take immediate action.

Yup, absolutely. If necessary you'll lay hands to keep them safe. I have done that. I bet you have too.

I've ranted about this before: at least two adults saw a 16 month-old boy walking alone on a caravan park towards a lake.
They took no action and he was drowned within minutes.

It happened in an area that we know well. I think of little Corey when I'm along there.

Baby dies after drowning in lake at Cheshire caravan site, inquest hears

Evidence was also read out by witnesses who were at the a caravan site who both said they had seen a baby wandering.

One man said he had seen a baby wearing pyjamas walking in between the caravans at around 8.20am but assumed someone was watching him or was there.

At around 8.30am another witness, a resident of the caravan site, said she saw a toddler near to one of the caravans adjacent to the lake but could not tell if it was a boy or girl.

She said she assumed that they were 'walking towards someone' or to one of the caravans and said it was 'only a couple of seconds' she saw him as she decided to make a cup of tea.

 

[maximus otter]

The page has a map showing where Émile was spotted walking along the street, presumably alone. What the actual? Why didn't anyone stop him?

The initial report states that he was last seen “playing outside of the family home”, and that the police were appealing for witnesses.

Even if someone had seen him - which is unclear - in the current climate of hysteria surrounding adults approaching unrelated children, many people would be uneasy about intervening. There was a case years ago in the UK where a lorry driver spotted a straying infant, but decided not to stop and intervene because he thought that he’d be accused of being a paedophile. The child was later found drowned in a pond in someone’s garden.

I’ve spent some time trying in vain to find a previous post of mine about it, my point being that you can’t have it both ways.

maximus otter

 

[Stormkhan]

I agree, Max.
There's a difference between the theoretical action and practical action.
Seeing an unaccompanied child should trigger worry and be approached by an adult. However, the fear of being accused as a child assaulter/kidnapper prevents most (not all) people. Sure, there are some who say "I don't care what the parent accuses me of - it's the right thing to do!" But even if the accusation is unfounded, it sticks in the gossip world. So there's a fear of looking like a paedophile.
Same goes with intervening in a public confrontation; one feels that if you think you can then you would. However, in practice people are worried about their own safety. Sure, a group will 'freeze' because they wait for someone else to make the decision, but it's a deep seated worry that involvement will risk personal safety. Not everyone are heroes.

Look at the Bulger case. People didn't intervene because they thought he was accompanied by relatives or friends. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Carse]

At my work we’re instructed specifically not to approach or talk to children found playing on the railway unless accompanied by the police. So you have the ludicrous situation of me being sent to a report of young kids on the line, finding a group of 8 year olds running up and down the track and having to silently stand some distance away just keeping an eye on them until the British Transport Police arrive to actually do something about it. Which, by the way, invariably means them being asked to go home and not do it again, since the BTP in Scotland have a policy that they won’t arrest or charge anyone under the age of 16.

They do slow the trains down once they know there are kids on the track though, so that’s alright I suppose…

 

[Stillill]

Yup, absolutely. If necessary you'll lay hands to keep them safe. I have done that. I bet you have too.

I've ranted about this before: at least two adults saw a 16 month-old boy walking alone on a caravan park towards a lake.
They took no action and he was drowned within minutes.

It happened in an area that we know well. I think of little Corey when I'm along there.

Baby dies after drowning in lake at Cheshire caravan site, inquest hears

I had to ‘lay hands’ once in the Natural History Museum. We were on the balcony above the blue whale. I noticed a toddler slowly climbing up the railings and no sign of a parent around. This was in the eighties before the paedophile paranoia but I was still reluctant to grab the child.
They were getting higher and higher and were just about to put their foot on the second from top horizontal rail when I jumped up and grabbed. I’m pretty sure they would have gone over. The mum suddenly appeared and I explained what had happened but I still felt uncomfortable.

 

[Ghost In The Machine]

The day we qualified as (primary) teachers, final day we ever went in to uni, they had union reps come in and one of them said "Never hug a child to comfort them even if they're hurt or upset because it could be misconstrued." and went on to say essentially, as a teacher you have to think of yourself and your career, first. This was many years ago, long before Yew Tree etc and when the culture was very different. But even then - first advice we were ever given, literally the moment we qualified was: "Protect yourself."

Not sure I'd leave a stranger's 2 year old to walk down a road alone, but on the other hand, I can also see why people might hesitate to intervene, assuming there's a parent about to hove into sight round a corner, or worried that they'd be accused of abducting him if they tried to return him.

Can't tell you the number of times we were cycling on the Sustrans track and some toddler or 4 or 5 year old was walking along unaccompanied, despite bikes going past at speed, loose dogs, small bodies of water as it's managed as a wildlife area, etc - whilst some parent followed a long way behind (even out of sight) intent on their phones, totally ignoring the child. I also live on a national speed limit road and we'd often see our ex neighbour, the dodgy one, "walking" their kid to the school bus stop, tapping away on her phone and not even holding her kids' hands or looking at where they were. No pavement so the children were walking right on the road and the traffic going past at full speed because they think it's the middle of nowhere. And again, the parent utterly disengaged and intent on their phone. We saw this daily for several years til the school cottoned on they were alcoholics in charge of young kids and laid on a taxi to pick them up from their front garden. There was no intervening as a person who saw this and if anyone had walked past and tried, they'd have been verbally or even physically assaulted, no doubt.

In recent years it's become more common to see a child wandering along alone whilst the parent is some distance behind, so depending on the terrain (if there's blind bends for example) people seeing the child might not intervene as they'd assume 50 metres away, just round the corner, is a parent playing Candy Crush or texting a friend.

 

[Austin Popper]

I once encountered a toddler who lived around the corner from us, walking along the sidewalk, carrying a bag. He was not far from his house, but there were no adults in sight. I asked him where he was going. He said he was on his way to school. He was probably three years old. I pointed out to him that it was Saturday, but he didn't seem to care. I managed to herd him back towards home, where Mom eventually appeared. She had no idea he was outside the house. I would have grabbed him and carried him home if I needed to, but I was glad I didn't have to do that.

 

[escargot]

I stand by my point: an unaccompanied toddler is my problem if I believe they are in danger. Never have I let one wander past me without intervention. If necessary I'll pick them up. I've done it before and would do it again.

 

[Tigerhawk]

A few years ago, I was in the large mall near my house when out of one of the shops wanders a three year old kid, bawling his head off and just walking by himself. No parent in sight, everyone looking around to see whats going on. One woman picked him up, and asked him where his mother was, but the kid kept crying. Someone else said they were going to get centre management and as a crowd gathered the boys mother walked out of the store, not a care in the world, took her son, who began calming down, and without a word, wandered off herself.

The Looks she got from everyone were enough that I'm surprised she didn't spontaneously combust.

By the time management arrived, she'd cleared off.

 

[escargot]

I had to ‘lay hands’ once in the Natural History Museum. We were on the balcony above the blue whale. I noticed a toddler slowly climbing up the railings and no sign of a parent around. This was in the eighties before the paedophile paranoia but I was still reluctant to grab the child.
They were getting higher and higher and were just about to put their foot on the second from top horizontal rail when I jumped up and grabbed. I’m pretty sure they would have gone over. The mum suddenly appeared and I explained what had happened but I still felt uncomfortable.

You did exactly the right thing - though you don't need me to tell you that! - and your discomfiture is nothing compared to the child's mother's nightmares for the next 3 months.
Can guarantee she'd wake up in a sweat, still seeing the soles of her offspring's tiny feet disappearing over the balcony.

Source: lived in an upper floor flat with a young family whose father saw no problem with leaving the toddler alone in the lounge with the windows wide open.
I once awoke from a pregnancy nap and caught Junior in the act of climbing out.
Just remembering that makes me feel sick.

Went straight out and bought chains to screw to the wooden window frames. They'd only open about 3" after that.

Expecting the old nightmare now, TYVM.

 

[SimonBurchell]

Many, many years ago, back in the depths of time, in my first full-time job, I used to break for lunch and walk down the edge of the A31 Farnham bypass, then cut left down into the River Wey river meadows, which in summer were verdant with high wetland grasses and spotted with little copses, a very nice place to have my lunch. Once, I was walking along the edge of the reasonably busy bypass when I couldn't believe my eyes - a toddler was trotting along the side of the road. I was just processing this and about to burst into a run when a van came screeching to a halt and a tradesman type jumped out to grab the child and turned towards me quite aggressively, assuming it was my fault. I pointed out that the child had in all likelihood come up from some cottages down by the meadows, where a little path came up to the edge of the bypass. I offered to go down and see if they were missing a child, at the same time as a young woman was coming out of the cottages onto the lane that passed under the bypass (it is so long ago that I can't even identify the cottages on the OS, although I know the rough area they would be in). In retrospect my sentence order could have been better. I asked "Have you lost a child?" and the young woman said "Yes. Have you seen him?" and I answered "He's up on the bypass" at which point the woman vomited and I hurriedly said "He's OK, someone's up there with him." and I carried on my way...

I was maybe 19 at the time, and even then the option of not intervening wasn't there - if the van hadn't have stopped, I would certainly have grabbed the child.

 

[Stormkhan]

I stand by my point: an unaccompanied toddler is my problem if I believe they are in danger. Never have I let one wander past me without intervention. If necessary I'll pick them up. I've done it before and would do it again.

Well, good for you. You made the right moral decision, and there's nothing wrong in that. However, you don't represent everyone. You cannot assume that you do. You shouldn't look down on people who 'fail' the test in your eyes.
You can't understand why someone doesn't respond as you do, but you don't know the circumstances.

 

[catseye]

Well, good for you. You made the right moral decision, and there's nothing wrong in that. However, you don't represent everyone. You cannot assume that you do. You shouldn't look down on people who 'fail' the test in your eyes.
You can't understand why someone doesn't respond as you do, but you don't know the circumstances.

I wonder if there's a male/female split? Women intercepting a child are generally looked upon more favourably than if a man were to do the same? Particularly if the woman has her own children with her at the time.

 

[Stormkhan]

This is the problem - a man cannot do the right thing because they'd be suspected of wrong-doing automatically.
It's fine when you're an official, say a security guard, because you have the authority. Very often (not always), to get the post you have to have a criminal record check - I had to have one done, first when I worked as a nightshift cleaner in an arena/ice rink, and once when I joined the Lions International. I've no problem with this - after all, you get 'access' to children.
However, if I were to intervene then being a MAN then I'm automatically suspected of wrong-doing. Now, its fine to say "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" but I'm sure we all have experiences of malicious or accidental gossip of untruth.
Look at the discussions here about 'People who look wrong'. Often you'll see "They've not been caught doing anything wrong but ..."

 

[catseye]

This is the problem - a man cannot do the right thing because they'd be suspected of wrong-doing automatically.
It's fine when you're an official, say a security guard, because you have the authority. Very often (not always), to get the post you have to have a criminal record check - I had to have one done, first when I worked as a nightshift cleaner in an arena/ice rink, and once when I joined the Lions International. I've no problem with this - after all, you get 'access' to children.
However, if I were to intervene then being a MAN then I'm automatically suspected of wrong-doing. Now, its fine to say "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" but I'm sure we all have experiences of malicious or accidental gossip of untruth.
Look at the discussions here about 'People who look wrong'. Often you'll see "They've not been caught doing anything wrong but ..."

That is a societal problem rather than an individual one, isn't it?

 

[maximus otter]

That is a societal problem rather than an individual one, isn't it?

Very true, but it won’t be society that’s stigmatised or left with question marks attached to their name, it’ll be the individual: “He’s very - helpful - around kids, isn’t he? No smoke without fire, eh?”

maximus otter

 

[Stormkhan]

It is a societal problem ... but how do we change it?

 

[SimonBurchell]

It is a societal problem ... but how do we change it?

I think, in cold terms, this comes down to supply and demand. In Victorian times, there were many children per set of parents so each individual child had less worth (horrible to put it like that, but I'm just trying to frame reasons). At the tail end of the beginning of the 21st century, we have fewer children per set of parents, so the perceived worth of each child has increased greatly. More worth = more protection, and more paranoia.

 

[Stormkhan]

I also think the general media bears some responsibility.
It's not the true stories that they've reported on (with varying quality) but with the suppositions, the fear they stoke, the worthless 'retractions' they 'publish' after pointing to innocent parties. Bad news sells, there's a demand for 24/7 reporting on horrific incidents, and when there's been incidents of abuse committed by mothers or women, there's an instinctive blaming of social services meaning that the concept of a woman committed this awful crime is sidelined.
Child abuse has always been with us, sadly, but since the 'stranger danger' public service films of the 70's, the fear and scaremongering has been directed towards parents. The media hasn't emphasised the 'men are always suspect' - true - but blanket condemnation isn't far away from public discourse.
Now, I'm sure statistics would prove that abuse or assault by female strangers is far, far rarer than males. But it seems to me that blaming people has overridden the essential need - that we all should consider the care of children a moral duty.

 

[escargot]

Well, good for you. You made the right moral decision, and there's nothing wrong in that. However, you don't represent everyone. You cannot assume that you do. You shouldn't look down on people who 'fail' the test in your eyes.
You can't understand why someone doesn't respond as you do, but you don't know the circumstances.

Who says I look down on anyone?

 

[Erinaceus]

Clothes of French toddler Emile Soleil found near remains in French Alps​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68716807

Now a T-shirt, shoes and shorts that Emile was wearing on the day he vanished have been recovered, scattered over a small area about 150m (500ft) from where his remains were found.
Details of the new find came from local public prosecutor Jean-Luc Blanchon, who said Emile's death was still unexplained. It is still unknown if Emile Soleil was the victim of an accident or a crime.

 

[ramonmercado]

Who says I look down on anyone?

Indeed. You are vertically challenged.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Who says I look down on anyone?

Only because we look up to you?

 

[catseye]

I thought this thread from Mumsnet ('How many people have you known who have gone missing?') might make an interesting read for this thread. Reading through it is ASTONISHING how many people have gone missing and not been found, only for remains to turn up many years later. Interesting from the point of view of the 'he disappeared and no trace of him has ever been found - it's a MYSTERY!' posts we often get on here and goes to show that, however thoroughly a place has been searched, sadly someone can still turn up.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5042509-how-many-missing-people-do-you-know-of-in-real-life

 

[SimonBurchell]

I thought this thread from Mumsnet ('How many people have you known who have gone missing?') might make an interesting read for this thread. Reading through it is ASTONISHING how many people have gone missing and not been found, only for remains to turn up many years later. Interesting from the point of view of the 'he disappeared and no trace of him has ever been found - it's a MYSTERY!' posts we often get on here and goes to show that, however thoroughly a place has been searched, sadly someone can still turn up.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5042509-how-many-missing-people-do-you-know-of-in-real-life

I remember early issues of Fortean Times had mysterious disappearances that later turned out to be Fred West's victims.