Witham dad warns of child accosting on estate

Braintree and Witham Times: Witham dad warns of child accosting on estate Witham dad warns of child accosting on estate

A Witham dad is warning parents to be on their guard following accosting incidents on a housing estate.

Father-of-two John Hookings no longer lets his 13-year-old son walk to the shops on his own after the boy was accosted twice by a man in a white van.

Mr Hookings, of Alan Road, said: “They thought of someone getting hold of my kid just doesn’t bear thinking about.

“I might get some flyers done to warn other parents because there are lots and lots of kids that live round here.”

An Essex Police spokesman said: “Police have spoken with the boy and will be keeping a close eye on the area.”

See this week's Witham and Braintree Times for the full story

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:17am Thu 20 Feb 14

keith_l says...

How about some more information on what he means by "accosted by". For example did the man in the van just stop and talk to him (which may have been offering advice such as "don't run out into the road without looking" which would be appropriate on that estate), or did he get out and physcally accost the child - which would be a serious problem?
How about some more information on what he means by "accosted by". For example did the man in the van just stop and talk to him (which may have been offering advice such as "don't run out into the road without looking" which would be appropriate on that estate), or did he get out and physcally accost the child - which would be a serious problem? keith_l

10:42am Thu 20 Feb 14

The Stinker Returns says...

and which estate are we talking about? Or it generally in the Witham area?
and which estate are we talking about? Or it generally in the Witham area? The Stinker Returns

11:02am Thu 20 Feb 14

verjo says...

I don't understand at all. What exactly happened , is he the only person approached in such a way?
I don't understand at all. What exactly happened , is he the only person approached in such a way? verjo

11:32am Thu 20 Feb 14

keith_l says...

The Stinker Returns wrote:
and which estate are we talking about? Or it generally in the Witham area?
Alan Road is off Allectus Way.
[quote][p][bold]The Stinker Returns[/bold] wrote: and which estate are we talking about? Or it generally in the Witham area?[/p][/quote]Alan Road is off Allectus Way. keith_l

9:46am Sun 23 Feb 14

keith_l says...

I've now read it in the Witham edition of the paper. The first time the person in the van called to the child rom the van without getting out - perhaps he was going to ask for directions or something equally innocuous. The second time he got out and walked past him, without speaking - just "stared at him" - perhaps in response to the boy staring at him because he was the person who had called to him a few days earlier.

NOT "ACCOSTED", and a very likely innocent explanation.
I've now read it in the Witham edition of the paper. The first time the person in the van called to the child rom the van without getting out - perhaps he was going to ask for directions or something equally innocuous. The second time he got out and walked past him, without speaking - just "stared at him" - perhaps in response to the boy staring at him because he was the person who had called to him a few days earlier. NOT "ACCOSTED", and a very likely innocent explanation. keith_l

3:29pm Mon 24 Feb 14

/@|_|@\ says...

keith_l wrote:
I've now read it in the Witham edition of the paper. The first time the person in the van called to the child rom the van without getting out - perhaps he was going to ask for directions or something equally innocuous. The second time he got out and walked past him, without speaking - just "stared at him" - perhaps in response to the boy staring at him because he was the person who had called to him a few days earlier.

NOT "ACCOSTED", and a very likely innocent explanation.
How naive can you be? Ever heard of "grooming"?

I'm all for trusting people but you know what?

Don't put a child at risk to substantiate your theory of peoples' character and morality! I suggest erring on the side of caution is definitely called for in a situation like this.
[quote][p][bold]keith_l[/bold] wrote: I've now read it in the Witham edition of the paper. The first time the person in the van called to the child rom the van without getting out - perhaps he was going to ask for directions or something equally innocuous. The second time he got out and walked past him, without speaking - just "stared at him" - perhaps in response to the boy staring at him because he was the person who had called to him a few days earlier. NOT "ACCOSTED", and a very likely innocent explanation.[/p][/quote]How naive can you be? Ever heard of "grooming"? I'm all for trusting people but you know what? Don't put a child at risk to substantiate your theory of peoples' character and morality! I suggest erring on the side of caution is definitely called for in a situation like this. /@|_|@\

4:09pm Mon 24 Feb 14

keith_l says...

/@|_|@\ wrote:
keith_l wrote:
I've now read it in the Witham edition of the paper. The first time the person in the van called to the child rom the van without getting out - perhaps he was going to ask for directions or something equally innocuous. The second time he got out and walked past him, without speaking - just "stared at him" - perhaps in response to the boy staring at him because he was the person who had called to him a few days earlier.

NOT "ACCOSTED", and a very likely innocent explanation.
How naive can you be? Ever heard of "grooming"?

I'm all for trusting people but you know what?

Don't put a child at risk to substantiate your theory of peoples' character and morality! I suggest erring on the side of caution is definitely called for in a situation like this.
Nothing in the newspaper article suggests grooming.
[quote][p][bold]/@|_|@\[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]keith_l[/bold] wrote: I've now read it in the Witham edition of the paper. The first time the person in the van called to the child rom the van without getting out - perhaps he was going to ask for directions or something equally innocuous. The second time he got out and walked past him, without speaking - just "stared at him" - perhaps in response to the boy staring at him because he was the person who had called to him a few days earlier. NOT "ACCOSTED", and a very likely innocent explanation.[/p][/quote]How naive can you be? Ever heard of "grooming"? I'm all for trusting people but you know what? Don't put a child at risk to substantiate your theory of peoples' character and morality! I suggest erring on the side of caution is definitely called for in a situation like this.[/p][/quote]Nothing in the newspaper article suggests grooming. keith_l

4:28pm Mon 24 Feb 14

/@|_|@\ says...

With all due respect, Keith, this is the Brainless and you refer to.
With all due respect, Keith, this is the Brainless and you refer to. /@|_|@\

4:35pm Mon 24 Feb 14

/@|_|@\ says...

/@|_|@\ wrote:
With all due respect, Keith, this is the Brainless and you refer to.
Pah: Sorry - " ... the Brainless and Witless ..."
[quote][p][bold]/@|_|@\[/bold] wrote: With all due respect, Keith, this is the Brainless and you refer to.[/p][/quote]Pah: Sorry - " ... the Brainless and Witless ..." /@|_|@\

12:31pm Tue 25 Feb 14

keith_l says...

Another thought occured - how much stick is the child now going to get at school because his Dad has gone on the front page of the paper saying that he follows him everywhere?
Another thought occured - how much stick is the child now going to get at school because his Dad has gone on the front page of the paper saying that he follows him everywhere? keith_l

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree