Where: Seal Park (10th Avenue between 21st and 22nd) in ChelseaWhen: May 14th approximately 4PM
Who: A boy about 5 or 6, dressed in a beige shirt with horizontal stripes. With dark straight hair and almond brown eyes he appeared to be possibly asian or hispanic.
A woman in her 40s, dressed in jeans and wearing heels, curly shoulder length hair. She may be Hispanic, Phillapina or possibly from the Carribean.
What: I have seen this little boy at this park in the past, he is very sweet and is very receptive to playing with me in the small sand patch as I play with my 16 month old. He doesn't always make eye contact but seems very verbal when I ask questions. This time he joined a crowd of us who were with children in the raised concrete flower bed with bushes and shrubs using our pails, shovels etc. He was having difficulty with other children and resorted to pushing two if them (both much smaller). Two other adults (one a mom and one a nanny) told me that this has been happening frequently and pointed out the caretaker (we weren't sure if she was a nanny, babysitter or mom). She was on a bench very far from where the boy was playing, talking to a man (who didn't seem to be with her).
I left my son in the care of the other two adults and went over to ask her to help us. I was polite but firm, she tried to avoid my eye and seemed unwilling to come until I prodded her further. She was clearly not happy (by her face and walk).
When she joined us (she walked very slowly, I got there in twice the time) I explained that he had pushed the two children and suggested he might need to say he was sorry to them. The other two adults also chimed in explaining the details of the situation. She ignored us all and told him to move to another area. A little while later I saw him on the slide, again she was not paying attention to him and I wondered if she interacted with him at all!
If this were a person I had hired, I would want to know that my child was not getting proper supervision either physically or in terms of an adult explanation of how to interact with others. If this was the mom, well its just very sad…
Blog Master....I am attaching a picture of the little boy. i am not sure it is OK to publish a picture of a child without permission, but please use it if it is ok and would help get this kiddo some better supervision... (I am holding on to the photo. It will be very helpful to confirm the identity of the child should a parent think this is their child. Email me-JD)
48 comments:
This is very sad. From the descriptions that OP gave, it is more than likely the Mom, and that means that there won't be anyone stepping forward to help this little boy.
I'll keep my fingers crossed. Maybe another Family member will see this.
I think this nanny sounds awful. That being said, when is it ever ok to put a child's picture on the internet without the parent's permission?
This blows my mind. Sorry but it does, that someone would even wonder if this is ok.
No: it is not Ok!!!!
:(
ok..so you don't agree with moms way of dealing with the situation. I don't either, however, she moved the child to an alternative play area and took care of the situation (in her own way) that you asked her to...because it was not YOUR way does not make it okay to take a picture of her child and ask the "blog Master to publish it" you must be out of your mind!
Do you have any kind of idea how wrong that is?
What if someone disagreed with the way you handled a situation and published a picture of your toddler for any sicko to pull up on the internet.
I truly hope you re-think this one lady!You might just belong to the line crosser group who frequents this sight! Jeesh!
Tell you what..if this were my 6 year old constantly pushing "much smaller children" and you took a picture and published it on the internet..first..I'd whip his ass then I'd find you and whip yours!
I'm so glad you're ratting on this crappy nanny.
I'm a nanny who is focused on my charges every hour I'm at work. I do not space out at the park and ignore them. I interact with them so they'll feel loved and respected. If I wanted to sit around doing nothing all day, I'd work for the government! lol
Let's get rid of lousy nannies like the one in the original post! I see them all the time at my local park. They seem to expect me and other parents and nannies to play with their charges while they gab on their cell phones and gossip (usually in Russian, Hebrew or Spanish) with other bad nannies. Makes me sick.
Let's call them on their bullsh*t and embarrass them right out of the profession!
Even if it's a mother, I'm glad you brought this to our attention. People need to pay attention to their kids, or not have kids at all.
Do NOT attach photos of innocent children on the net! It's crossing the line and encourages perverts to visit this site.
Go ahead and identify bad nannies, but leave the children alone.
Bad move.
You people need to get a grip. Jane has never published a picture of a child from one of these posts without blurring his face or altering his identity.
Loosen up.
1:12/anti-line crosser
I think you got your point across in 12:56. Jeeesh!
These posters must not come to this blog regularly, or they'd know that you would never put children in harm's way, Jane. I have never been able to clearly see a child's face, much less at times recognize if it was even a girl or boy.
Oftentimes, the Parents will know that these are their kids, simply from their outfit, or shoes even.
The only person that anyone would intend to 'out' would be the nanny, and if there is a clear enough shot of her, sometimes that's ALL it takes ...
I have seen pictures of kids on this site who would be easily identifiable. What about that nanny in the library? I clearly saw the kids in that pic, they looked dark, like indian.
No pictures of kids should be on this site or sent to this site or ANY site without the parent's permission.
I do believe that Jane Doe is a person who does genuinely care about children. But I have no proof of that. This is a blog like any other. I don't know her, I don't really know her true motives. My assumptions could very well be false.
To be safe and kind, don't ever send a picture of someone's child to a website, or a blog written by an anon blogger named Jane Doe. It's a no-brainer to me.
Freaking duh.
11:20
It's return of the idiot.
Hello asshole who made a huge stink about nothing! The faces of those children were obscurred, you racist pig. What were you looking at? The arm color?
Why are you here anyway?
Why are you picking on this OP. Thanks OP for your sighting. Sounds AWFUL. You probably were so concerned about the child you took a picture of what you saw. I get that. Beware there is an anonymous nut trolling these posts who cannot be silenced. She is a real lunatic.
11:57 you are way out of line. You need to watch your mouth too.
This blog is no place for that!
anon 608..stop acting like you know who is posting..you obviously do not..jane has asked that we as posters do not do it anyhow..I posted 1256 but did not post 112 (that can be verified quite easily by an ip number) that you referred to. Obviously, there are a few people who once again see things a bit differently than you..why assume everyone who disagrees is the same blogger..that is ridiculous .
11:20 after reading your post for the second time..perhaps you need a new moniker..just a thought. And yes, I am the anon poster who feels you need to watch your mouth..this is not a racially motivated post..shame on you for trying to make it one and shame on you for calling names, it is bloggers such as yourself that cause such problems and get everyone so upset on this site.
according to Jane , everyone is entitled to their opinion and if she feels it it not appropriate to post..she will pull it..Lighten up, stop the name calling, remember that others have opinions too and try to stick to the issue at hand! Please!
undercover regular..you are wrong my friend!
If you go to the Rants section of Janes site you will see she has in fact posted a rant that includes a picture of a child peeing in public..it is a perfect picture of his face and yes, dear if you are having trouble..it's a boy!
This should never have been posted.
If your nanny did something stupid like this..should your child/family be the one's to pay for it. Any idea how many sickos out there have already taken that childs picture and used it for God knows what?
This is wrong and no childs face pr body should be put on the internet by anybody unless mom & dad give the OKAY..well meaning or not.
If a child is truly in that much danger..snap your picture for the proof and call 911!
Stop advocating childrens pics on the internet! It is sick!
smarteez..the post for undercover regular applies to you too!! get with it!
hi, it's 11:20 here: that is the only post I have made regarding this issue, and the only post of mine in this thread (besides the one you are reading now). I don't really know why people are accusing me of being different posters. I am not an idiot. If it came across as insensitive to say the children looked of indian decent, I apologize. I certainly did not mean anything by it. I babysit for an indian family and the children resembled the children I babysit for, that is why I made the connection.
Furthermore, I do stand by what I said: I don't think it is ever, ever right to send or post a child's pic to the internet. I will not change my opinion on that.
HELLO! The pic of the BOY peeing was from PHOTOBUCKET, not some random child that a poster took.
It doesn't matter anyway ... I didn't think that pic should've been posted either, but that's an exception. There was a huge debate about it. Done.
But I still stand by Jane. She has good motives, and has NOT posted a pic of a child sent in by anyone else complaining about their nanny, that we are able to make out FACIAL features on ... that I am AWARE of. And I'm not talking about the cutsie one's at top that are friends and family of hers. Just one's where there's a complaint.
Find one, and I'll apologize and keep my mouth shut.
Thanks.
Why would 11:20 need a new moniker, she doesn't have one to begin with.
Oh shit. 107 is all kinds of crazy. That picture was not posted on this blog. Only a link to it. Hopefully the parents are alerted. It's already out there on the world wide web, dumb ass. Why are you still carrying on?
I bet you have no friends.
1:48 you are so RIGHT! I didn't even go back and look, I was just reading 1:07 and took their word for it. Good catch!
HaHaHa!!!!
First of all, the child in the library was a horrible photo to begin with and his face was obscured. I think you are a bit nuerotic and I would suggest you need a hobby.
Children are innocent. Photographs of children are innocent except when beholden by perverts. There are hundreds of thousands of families with pictures of their children on the internet.
That photograph of the child peeing was innocent. It was a cute picture. It was not pornographic. I don't know how hard you were looking but I didn't see any privbate parts, just the suggestion that they existed.
You are my least favorite poster and I recognize your ignorant words from other threads. You are, an idiot. I'm sorry to say that because it cannot be easy for you to learn from such a reliable source.
Thanks, 1:48. I'd forgotten it was a link. And yes, it already WAS out there. Nobody from THIS blog took it, and posted it.
12:05
What are you, the BLOG MOTHER?!?
Chill out! Everybody cops an attitude here occasionally.
To all of defending the picture of the peeing boy..really don't care how old it is..it is still wrong.
Yes, kids are innocent.but the pervs that take their pictures and use them to do discusting things are not. Can you imagine, just for one moment, how you might feel if you thought some discusting pedofile took a picture posted of your kid peeing and used it for his own,gross pleasures?It is horrifying!And as you suggets melamonk, just the thought that the childs privates exist are enough for some sickos!! Nobody has a right to post a picture of a child without the parents consent!
And to the poster who says all kinds of families have pictures posted on the internet..you are right and they chose to post them..not some stranger!! That is the difference here.
You can post that I am crazy but weather you like it or not, this site is here to advocate childrens saftey..posting a picture,weather you think it is cute or not, of someone else's child is not a safe thing to do..it is stupid and it is wrong!!Not to mention ilegal!!you must have written consent to post a minors picture on the internet unless you are that parents child!!
And while the peeing kid might have been a linked picture, Jane, whom by the way I adore, still posted the link with the post on HER site! She could have easily ran the story and told bloggers where they could inturn go, to find the picture!
A nanny did something stupid, take her picture..post it, blog it whatever, but stop advocating this trend..it is NOT ok.
Call your local police station and ask them what they think of you posting someone else' child all ovet the internet???
1:55 jane posted that link on Her ISYN rant site. No one else can post anything to her site except her!
Eye of Newt, Wing of Bat, as she cackels while stiring the pot. This witch is having a good time, getting the attention the she so craves by carrying on about a picture of a child with his face blurred. SHe doesn't care about that photo, she needs attention and is doing her best to get it. As long as she can stir the pot in here she doesn't have to watch her own children and protect them from a pervert. She is busy looking to see with a magnifying glass. Shre does not want to know that this picture was posted world wide on the wbe. She does not want to understand that there is nothing showing in that picture. She wants the attention and we are giving it to her.
JAK
oh honey, you really wanted the rant jane posted -which was authored by someone else- to say, "go to flickr and find your child"/
There are like 680,000,000 images on flickr.
You are wound too tight. I get what you are saying but you are carrying it wayyyyyyy too far!
And by the by, perverts subscribe to children's clothing catalogues.
Jak..you can go to hell
and 404..sorry you feel I am carrying this way too far.. you are right..I am wound way to tight when it comes to this..when your child's picture is posted on the internet without your permission and your child's picture is found hanging in a dank room filled with child porn and other pictures taken off the web..a room that belonged to a sex offender who was just charged for a second time of raping a young girl in your area..perhaps you too will take things too far in hopes that a bunch of idiots will understand that you should NEVER post childrens pictures on the internet! Period!with or without any one's permission!
I am done here.
What you are advocating is very dangerous, I learned that first hand!
I think it is rather strange that the Harry Potter witchy poster, (stirring the brew, cackle yadda yadda weirdo) thinks that there is only one poster who is pleading with people not to send or post pics of other people's children on the internet. Why do you think that? And why is it not ok for us to put forth our opinion?
To me, it doesn't matter if it is a link or if the face is obscured. Coupled with other information, and a clear picture of the nanny, it would be easy for someone in that area to tell which child it was. Not all pedophiles are stupid: some are cold and calculating and unfortunately intelligent. Sick, yes, but good at detective work. It is sad but true.
In my opinion, anyone defending putting OR SENDING TO A BLOG a picture of a child who is not theirs is wrong wrong wrong.
are you debating the merit of a picture that was never even on the blog? you are bored or desperate to make a point, aren't you?
and if your dumb ass nannies paid more attention to your children, maybe the nanny would say, "hey don't take pictures of the child".
But since they are off stuffing their faces, texting their pimps, smoking crack, dealing drugs and shopping at mandies, well hell. so be it.
Hahahahaha!
I wish I knew who you were, 7:53 - I like you! Are you here a lot? I dare not use the word "regular", because some people are known to have conniption fits!
7:53 you are about as bright as an adult that would ask a web site post master to post a picture of someone else's child!
Personally if the childs name address and phone number is not on the post pray tell how they are going to find this child?
How many people do you see that have a Homepage that have pictures of their families on it? Pictures of their vacations? Thousands.
You cannot stop someone hiding in the bushes taking pics of your children at the park and taking them home and being vile with them.
We cannot stop these people. You also cannot put your little kids in a mask like Michael Jackson either. I see pictures of kids on the web all the time. Those of little kids modeling clothing,advertisments for photo studios. Should they all be banned too? People are going to put their childrens pictures out there. This does not make them bad people,does not mean they do not care for their kids.Movie stars making 6 miilion dollars for hpotos oftheir kids that sell millions of magazines.
going after them might be a better way of getting it stopped rather than a small blog about Nannies.
If people truly wanted childrens picutres banned from the web or magazines I would think they would go to their Senatprs and copngressmen to have them enact a law against people showing pictures of their children on their websites. Until that happens it is pretty much a waste of time and enrgy trying to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their childrens pcitures or what they may or may not post on their websites.We could argue about this for the next 10 years and nothing would be solved.
753 you are right on..if these people are stupid enough to hire a nanny who does not pay attention let some pervert post their kids picture on a pedophile website and pass it around! they deserve it. Glad to see that so many of us think alike!
You are right they are all dumb-asses!
Way to go 753..I like you too!
anon 957..not sure what thread you are reading.
No one here is arguing that point. You are right. If a parent wishes to post their childs picture on the web..then so be it.Family vacations,modeling clothes..what ever.But let it be thier choice to do so!
This argument is weather or not a stranger should have that same right?
Again ..you are right..although..pedophiles do not even have to hide in the bushes as it is perfectly legal to take a picture of anyone at anytime if they are in a public place..but we most certainly don't need good citizens to help them along by posting another parents childs picture on the web because she is angry that her kid got shoved in the sandbox! These kids need all the help they can get today and posting them all over the internet is not a good thing!It is down right wrong!and a very ignorant suggestion by the OP!
I kind of think we are beating a dead horse here ... it is a little difficult to find out who a child is without a name, address and phone # (you are correct, 9:57) - unless of course, you are stalking them.
But the point is .... has Jane posted a child's pic from a post complaining about a nanny? Has anyone taken me up on my offer of finding one that is identifiable?
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying I agree with it, but a couple of posters went to town on Jane about posting these children's photo's, and I don't think that's a fair assessment.
As a matter of fact, I would venture to say that the photo OP has submitted is probably a clear one, and that may be exactly why Jane didn't post it.
undercover regular, what is really sad is that this site has become more about "the regulars" always being right,ruling the blog,alienating those with a diffrent opinion and is no longer about keeping the kids safe and alerting parents about potentially bad situations and employees!
Hey, 6:08AM
I posted the comment at 1:12
I did not post the comment at 12:56!
Stop pretending you're the IP police and get a life!
12:42
Who said anything about regulars? I've seen many of them stick up for both nannies and parents, and not always agreeing/disagreeing with the OP.
And undercover regular said she didn't agree with posting kids' photos, so what are you getting at?
I'm sorry, but I think you're being a little dramatic.
good grief! another thread ruined by this idiocy. i can't believe people are arguing about a picture that hasn't even been posted. @@.
it's a shame this child is pushing younger kids. by 5 or 6 most kids know better and then some.
So, let me get this straight. People (mostly) without monikers want to have their rights protected to say any ugly inflamatory thing they want to about any other poster, including other anons, "regulars" and even Jane Doe. However, these same first amendment loving flamers are, at the very same time, disgruntled that others, including "regulars," use their same right to express their individial opinions to either defend themselves or another poster against certain angry, out of line out of line attacks, or (horrors), outright disagree with their opinions?
Yes, it does seem like a "conspiracy" to me. But not the one you want to make it into.
I don't think it's ok to post pictures of kids on the internet. It's different if the kid is a child model or if the parents have it up on their own website or whatever. Then the parents have given permission.
Just like in most schools when the parents have to sign a release form for the newspaper to print their kids' pic.
It's pretty standard, I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's really not cool to take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, nor is it cool (in my humble opinion) to send it to a website, or to a friend, or anywhere.
This web site is a trip!
:)
mom posting at 1154am..you confuse the hell out of me with all of your rambling!
anonymous posting at 7:17pm...
shut the hell up, slag.
This was the post featured on the news!!! How cool!
Post a Comment