The headline doesn't really give the full story. The hotel staff were trained to do certain things when certain events occur, as a crackdown on child sex trafficking. Very often, one of the signs of a kidnapping is a lone adult with one child who may seem out of sorts. Unfortunately, children being children, it's sometimes hard to read the situation. The hotel staff thought it was better to be safe and have the police check it out then have a potential tragedy occur. The police questioned the girl to make sure she was, in fact, with her father. While this did upset the girl, the staff should NOT be dissuaded from reporting red flags in the future. Sometimes the only thing between an abducted child and horrible events is hospitality or airline staff on the lookout. Like the father said though, it would be wise if the hotel asked for identities of traveling minors ahead of time.
If you're trained to call the cops when you see a flag, then you see that flag and call the cops, it's not bullshit. Just because we know after the fact that all was well doesn't mean it couldn't have turned out very differently. And do you know why they actually called the cops? They asked the man if he had any identifying documents for his child and all he had were some Facebook pictures. He had nothing else to positively identify her as his daughter. Hotel staff is not supposed to intervene in the case of suspected trafficking, they are SUPPOSED to call the cops. Because the cops know what questions to ask and how to verify the answers.
I'm not a big fan of having to jump through extra hoops, but it gets old when some peoples' reactions. to everything are "OMG, INCONVENIENCE OR EMBARRASS ME AND I WILL SUE YOU" instead of "okay, what kind of screwed up shit have these people seen in the past that this brought on suspicion?" Most of the people screaming bloody murder would be on TV if their own kids were ever abducted lamenting that nobody did anything to intervene when they were spotted.
8Reply
deleted
· 7 years ago
I see how this is one legit side of a pretty effed up matter, some good points here, but why the title though, what's this got to do with *white* men?
Making a spectacle would only be counter productive. The staff did this to protect victims of human trafficking, punishing them would only help human traffickers get away with their crimes. If I'm suspicious that a child has been kidnapped the right thing to do is be sure and call the police, not give them the benefit of the doubt.
Police questioning reduced a 13 year old girl with one parent because her mom died to tears due to overzealous hotel desk employees.
Was a warrant served? Were they read their rights before questioning? I get a strong feeling that not only did this incident cause a significant and unfair public embarrassment for the two of them, it sounds like their constitutional rights were violated.
If it was me, I would own that fucking hotel chain, the responding officers badges, a huge punitive damages settlement and publicly televised apology by the time I was done.
Part of the public spectacle I made would include that men are unfairly targeted as pedophiles as a matter of policy when instances of sexual predator women on average occur just as frequently as male predation, but are often ignored and recieve lighter sentences if it ever goes to trial.
http://www.femalesexoffenders.org/2010/09/toptenmythsaboutfemalesexoffenders
What if they left it though, and it turned out he was a pedophile?
Obviously not all men are pedophiles, but every so often, one will come along. They're just trying to make sure that the girl is safe.
You're looking at this from a personal point of view and therefore you can't see the full picture
7
deleted
· 7 years ago
He's looking at this from a quarreling MGTOW point of view.
MGTOW is new to me, but I'm not surprised that such an organisation/movement exists.
A quick review of their stance tells me I can see where that comparison draws a parallel.
However, I am arguing from the point of fighting the erosion and violation of personal rights and freedoms by a nanny state driven by a prejudicial and overzealous reaction to a problem that isn't as large as they want you to think.
1) You don't need a warrant to question somebody, 2) no constitutional right is violated by police showing up and asking you a few questions, 3) most kids will cry when asked questions by police regardless of age or situation because the thought of having done something wrong is stressful to children 4) this was in England, near London, where hotel staff are TRAINED TO CALL POLICE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER A PROGRAM CALLED OPERATION MAKESAFE. You wouldn't get anything if you sued, because there wasn't even an invasion of privacy since it was a hotel and staff can call the cops for any reason they want as it's their property that you are on. And the guidelines of Operation Makesafe cover ALL ADULTS WHO EXHIBIT CERTAIN BEHAVIORS, not just men.
Profiling is wrong, mmmmkay? I'm torn on this. On one hand I can see this happening to my family and I would be enraged. I have a libertarian streak half a mile wide that is disgusted at what is considered probable cause these days. On the other hand nearly all suicide bombers are Muslims often driving vehicles not registered to them. Maybe we should have hotel clerks call the police when one registers?
I don't think your comparison holds, since hotels don't call police on all men traveling with minors (I think we'd have heard about that by now with the sheer number of single fathers) but do on ones exhibiting specific behaviors like arriving at an odd time with a child, trying to seem as if they aren't with the minortror are with a minor who looks like they're in distress. Now, if you were to say they should call the police on Muslims showing suspect behaviors, such as paying in cash, having suspect ID, handling luggage as if it had explosive items in it, and asking for specifics like where at a nearby event most people will be going, then it would be comparable.
Interesting, I don't recall. What were the other two about?
deleted
· 7 years ago
@smitty an "erosion and violation of personal rights and freedoms"? That guy was not exactly deported to Guantanamo, was he? He was asked to show an ID of his daughter and when he didn't have it, they were routinely interviewed by the police and everything turned out disco. What's the big deal? And who wants "us to think" child molestation is a bigger problem than it is, and why? And what would victims and their families think of that? All in all you don't really come across as a freedom fighter.
Rule: You can only go to Mars if you restore faith in humanity
How old is your son?
Was a warrant served? Were they read their rights before questioning? I get a strong feeling that not only did this incident cause a significant and unfair public embarrassment for the two of them, it sounds like their constitutional rights were violated.
If it was me, I would own that fucking hotel chain, the responding officers badges, a huge punitive damages settlement and publicly televised apology by the time I was done.
Part of the public spectacle I made would include that men are unfairly targeted as pedophiles as a matter of policy when instances of sexual predator women on average occur just as frequently as male predation, but are often ignored and recieve lighter sentences if it ever goes to trial.
http://www.femalesexoffenders.org/2010/09/toptenmythsaboutfemalesexoffenders
Obviously not all men are pedophiles, but every so often, one will come along. They're just trying to make sure that the girl is safe.
You're looking at this from a personal point of view and therefore you can't see the full picture
A quick review of their stance tells me I can see where that comparison draws a parallel.
However, I am arguing from the point of fighting the erosion and violation of personal rights and freedoms by a nanny state driven by a prejudicial and overzealous reaction to a problem that isn't as large as they want you to think.