mr knick knack arrested

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point, however, still stands: People who care about the safety of children but be vigilant regarding any man who wants to spend lots of time with little children.

This is critical.

That is the take home message.

Coaches, teachers, entertainers, are all professions, where people are around kids, making a living. Always be vigilant, no matter what, when it comes to kids. Absolutely

But ESPECIALLY men!

What are you going to do? You’re going to Still let your kids go to school and play sports, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would guess a lot of the PP who call grooming, etc., never saw Mr. Knick Knack in concert. Yes, he's with a bunch of kids in that picture--and the parents are probably one foot out of the frame. There were always tons and tons of parents at the shows, and the shows were always in outdoor or very public arenas. There is literally no way he could have touched a child inappropriately in those settings.

I actually talked to the guy a couple times with my kids nearby. I agree he's eccentric but I didn't get the creepy vibe. In one incident, he had problems with the promoter (I don't remember the details), and we said we'd vouch for him. The classic child molester would have happily taken our contact information, but he didn't--he said thanks but he'd figure it out. He also never remembered our kids' names or anything, even though we spoke to him a few different times.

I'm not disputing the charges. I'm just saying that it was NOT obvious that the guy was a sex offender.

Exacty what I’ve been trying to say. He did a horrible thing possessing child porn, but people thinking more is going to come out, because he inappropriately touched kids at shows, are going to be waiting for something that won’t happen. This poster is right, it’s impossible at one of these shows. It’s so crowded with moms, and sometimes dads, as well.

This is not what grooming is. You don't know what grooming is if you think it means touching kids inappropriately in public settings. I never said he did that, I'm only saying that he had the opportunity to groom kids--and their parents--because I know what actual grooming is.

You really are like talking to a wall. We all know what grooming is, as we watch the news, also. Look at your after school teachers, coaches, family members or people that can groom with the purpose of isolating that child. I’m not sure you know what grooming is after all. It’s to gain the trust of a child over a period of time, to eventually isolate that child and harm them.
Mr Knick knack or any other performer isn’t babysitting your kids to you get back. The point of someone in that situation grooming would be pointless, as he’s never alone with your kid. Uncle joe has a chance to groom and isolate your kid. What Knick knack did is horrible, but grooming your kids at show, no, it would be impossible for him to do anything there

The bolded is completely contradictory. Grooming absolutely could have happened after those shows, over time. If you don't want to believe that, fine, but that's on you. You really need to ask why you're so defensive around this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would guess a lot of the PP who call grooming, etc., never saw Mr. Knick Knack in concert. Yes, he's with a bunch of kids in that picture--and the parents are probably one foot out of the frame. There were always tons and tons of parents at the shows, and the shows were always in outdoor or very public arenas. There is literally no way he could have touched a child inappropriately in those settings.

I actually talked to the guy a couple times with my kids nearby. I agree he's eccentric but I didn't get the creepy vibe. In one incident, he had problems with the promoter (I don't remember the details), and we said we'd vouch for him. The classic child molester would have happily taken our contact information, but he didn't--he said thanks but he'd figure it out. He also never remembered our kids' names or anything, even though we spoke to him a few different times.

I'm not disputing the charges. I'm just saying that it was NOT obvious that the guy was a sex offender.

Exacty what I’ve been trying to say. He did a horrible thing possessing child porn, but people thinking more is going to come out, because he inappropriately touched kids at shows, are going to be waiting for something that won’t happen. This poster is right, it’s impossible at one of these shows. It’s so crowded with moms, and sometimes dads, as well.

This is not what grooming is. You don't know what grooming is if you think it means touching kids inappropriately in public settings. I never said he did that, I'm only saying that he had the opportunity to groom kids--and their parents--because I know what actual grooming is.

You really are like talking to a wall. We all know what grooming is, as we watch the news, also. Look at your after school teachers, coaches, family members or people that can groom with the purpose of isolating that child. I’m not sure you know what grooming is after all. It’s to gain the trust of a child over a period of time, to eventually isolate that child and harm them.
Mr Knick knack or any other performer isn’t babysitting your kids to you get back. The point of someone in that situation grooming would be pointless, as he’s never alone with your kid. Uncle joe has a chance to groom and isolate your kid. What Knick knack did is horrible, but grooming your kids at show, no, it would be impossible for him to do anything there

The bolded is completely contradictory. Grooming absolutely could have happened after those shows, over time. If you don't want to believe that, fine, but that's on you. You really need to ask why you're so defensive around this issue.

what? Grooming happens so that a child can be eventually isolated, but a kid’s performer isn’t ever going to be alone with a kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point, however, still stands: People who care about the safety of children but be vigilant regarding any man who wants to spend lots of time with little children.

This is critical.

That is the take home message.

Coaches, teachers, entertainers, are all professions, where people are around kids, making a living. Always be vigilant, no matter what, when it comes to kids. Absolutely

But ESPECIALLY men!

This.

The feminazi man haters are out in force today!

You're the "paddy whack" poster, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point, however, still stands: People who care about the safety of children but be vigilant regarding any man who wants to spend lots of time with little children.

This is critical.

That is the take home message.

Coaches, teachers, entertainers, are all professions, where people are around kids, making a living. Always be vigilant, no matter what, when it comes to kids. Absolutely

But ESPECIALLY men!

This.

The feminazi man haters are out in force today!

Get stuffed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would guess a lot of the PP who call grooming, etc., never saw Mr. Knick Knack in concert. Yes, he's with a bunch of kids in that picture--and the parents are probably one foot out of the frame. There were always tons and tons of parents at the shows, and the shows were always in outdoor or very public arenas. There is literally no way he could have touched a child inappropriately in those settings.

I actually talked to the guy a couple times with my kids nearby. I agree he's eccentric but I didn't get the creepy vibe. In one incident, he had problems with the promoter (I don't remember the details), and we said we'd vouch for him. The classic child molester would have happily taken our contact information, but he didn't--he said thanks but he'd figure it out. He also never remembered our kids' names or anything, even though we spoke to him a few different times.

I'm not disputing the charges. I'm just saying that it was NOT obvious that the guy was a sex offender.

Exacty what I’ve been trying to say. He did a horrible thing possessing child porn, but people thinking more is going to come out, because he inappropriately touched kids at shows, are going to be waiting for something that won’t happen. This poster is right, it’s impossible at one of these shows. It’s so crowded with moms, and sometimes dads, as well.

This is not what grooming is. You don't know what grooming is if you think it means touching kids inappropriately in public settings. I never said he did that, I'm only saying that he had the opportunity to groom kids--and their parents--because I know what actual grooming is.

You really are like talking to a wall. We all know what grooming is, as we watch the news, also. Look at your after school teachers, coaches, family members or people that can groom with the purpose of isolating that child. I’m not sure you know what grooming is after all. It’s to gain the trust of a child over a period of time, to eventually isolate that child and harm them.
Mr Knick knack or any other performer isn’t babysitting your kids to you get back. The point of someone in that situation grooming would be pointless, as he’s never alone with your kid. Uncle joe has a chance to groom and isolate your kid. What Knick knack did is horrible, but grooming your kids at show, no, it would be impossible for him to do anything there

The bolded is completely contradictory. Grooming absolutely could have happened after those shows, over time. If you don't want to believe that, fine, but that's on you. You really need to ask why you're so defensive around this issue.

There are a couple of us who actually went to the shows trying to get across to you the realities of those performances.

I posted earlier that I once spoke with him over a promoter dispute and offered to vouch for him. I had three young children at the time--two girls and a boy. He politely refused our contact information and said he'd handle it himself. I also mentioned earlier that, although we spoke a few times, he never remembered my kids' names and showed no apparent interest in them after the show. He didn't ignore them--he was just concerned with packing up and leaving, like every typical performer.

Pretty pathetic grooming techniques going on there. He was caught with the photos and he may have done other stuff on his own, and I do not dispute that he's a sex offender. But nope, the shows were not the scene of the crime, at least a few years ago.

I assume you're going to come back and say "But you weren't at every single show and didn't have your eyes on his hands at all times!" and really want to say that we who are giving the facts of the performances must be wracked with guilt that we brought our kids there. Nope, not at all. I've seen grooming in action, by the way, and know that it can take years and most groomers are very willing to wait. Lots of gifts, trips to the movies, and offers to help what is usually a single mom without means. I will remind you that kids aged out of Mr. Knick Knack fairly quickly. You rarely saw anyone beyond 6 years old, so the chances to develop a longterm relationship were slim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would guess a lot of the PP who call grooming, etc., never saw Mr. Knick Knack in concert. Yes, he's with a bunch of kids in that picture--and the parents are probably one foot out of the frame. There were always tons and tons of parents at the shows, and the shows were always in outdoor or very public arenas. There is literally no way he could have touched a child inappropriately in those settings.

I actually talked to the guy a couple times with my kids nearby. I agree he's eccentric but I didn't get the creepy vibe. In one incident, he had problems with the promoter (I don't remember the details), and we said we'd vouch for him. The classic child molester would have happily taken our contact information, but he didn't--he said thanks but he'd figure it out. He also never remembered our kids' names or anything, even though we spoke to him a few different times.

I'm not disputing the charges. I'm just saying that it was NOT obvious that the guy was a sex offender.

Exacty what I’ve been trying to say. He did a horrible thing possessing child porn, but people thinking more is going to come out, because he inappropriately touched kids at shows, are going to be waiting for something that won’t happen. This poster is right, it’s impossible at one of these shows. It’s so crowded with moms, and sometimes dads, as well.

This is not what grooming is. You don't know what grooming is if you think it means touching kids inappropriately in public settings. I never said he did that, I'm only saying that he had the opportunity to groom kids--and their parents--because I know what actual grooming is.

You really are like talking to a wall. We all know what grooming is, as we watch the news, also. Look at your after school teachers, coaches, family members or people that can groom with the purpose of isolating that child. I’m not sure you know what grooming is after all. It’s to gain the trust of a child over a period of time, to eventually isolate that child and harm them.
Mr Knick knack or any other performer isn’t babysitting your kids to you get back. The point of someone in that situation grooming would be pointless, as he’s never alone with your kid. Uncle joe has a chance to groom and isolate your kid. What Knick knack did is horrible, but grooming your kids at show, no, it would be impossible for him to do anything there

The bolded is completely contradictory. Grooming absolutely could have happened after those shows, over time. If you don't want to believe that, fine, but that's on you. You really need to ask why you're so defensive around this issue.

what? Grooming happens so that a child can be eventually isolated, but a kid’s performer isn’t ever going to be alone with a kid.

Dude, grooming happens *over time*. It doesn't have to happen while the kid is isolated.

The lengths to some people will go to avoid cognitive dissonance is astounding. You took your kid to see a children's performer, and that person ended up being a pedophile. These things happen. They're not shocking. At least, not to those of us who live in reality. You're not a bad parent because you took your kid to the show absent the information we know now.

[Anonymous]

NP here. You're making no sense. in order for a performer to groom a child he would have to have constant access. In your own statement you say overtime... First, how many times is a Child going to see the performance and how many times is that child going to be alone at the performance? Furthermore, after the performance what is he grooming them for? When would he get a chance to be alone with these kids?

This isn't cognitive dissonance. This is common f****** sense

I hate irrational stupid people like you who make it seem like others like me are trying to defend a bad guy but man. Use some common sense

[Anonymous]

Lots of misandry and broad assumptions about men being always guilty.

Imagine if you said it about (insert race here) instead of men. Would you still feel comfortable saying it?

One can point to statistics that those of a certain race are more likely to commit crime X or crime Y (just like more men than women are charged with pedophilia and related crimes), so should be treat them all with suspicion then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would guess a lot of the PP who call grooming, etc., never saw Mr. Knick Knack in concert. Yes, he's with a bunch of kids in that picture--and the parents are probably one foot out of the frame. There were always tons and tons of parents at the shows, and the shows were always in outdoor or very public arenas. There is literally no way he could have touched a child inappropriately in those settings.

I actually talked to the guy a couple times with my kids nearby. I agree he's eccentric but I didn't get the creepy vibe. In one incident, he had problems with the promoter (I don't remember the details), and we said we'd vouch for him. The classic child molester would have happily taken our contact information, but he didn't--he said thanks but he'd figure it out. He also never remembered our kids' names or anything, even though we spoke to him a few different times.

I'm not disputing the charges. I'm just saying that it was NOT obvious that the guy was a sex offender.

Exacty what I’ve been trying to say. He did a horrible thing possessing child porn, but people thinking more is going to come out, because he inappropriately touched kids at shows, are going to be waiting for something that won’t happen. This poster is right, it’s impossible at one of these shows. It’s so crowded with moms, and sometimes dads, as well.

This is not what grooming is. You don't know what grooming is if you think it means touching kids inappropriately in public settings. I never said he did that, I'm only saying that he had the opportunity to groom kids--and their parents--because I know what actual grooming is.

You really are like talking to a wall. We all know what grooming is, as we watch the news, also. Look at your after school teachers, coaches, family members or people that can groom with the purpose of isolating that child. I’m not sure you know what grooming is after all. It’s to gain the trust of a child over a period of time, to eventually isolate that child and harm them.
Mr Knick knack or any other performer isn’t babysitting your kids to you get back. The point of someone in that situation grooming would be pointless, as he’s never alone with your kid. Uncle joe has a chance to groom and isolate your kid. What Knick knack did is horrible, but grooming your kids at show, no, it would be impossible for him to do anything there

The bolded is completely contradictory. Grooming absolutely could have happened after those shows, over time. If you don't want to believe that, fine, but that's on you. You really need to ask why you're so defensive around this issue.

There are a couple of us who actually went to the shows trying to get across to you the realities of those performances.

I posted earlier that I once spoke with him over a promoter dispute and offered to vouch for him. I had three young children at the time--two girls and a boy. He politely refused our contact information and said he'd handle it himself. I also mentioned earlier that, although we spoke a few times, he never remembered my kids' names and showed no apparent interest in them after the show. He didn't ignore them--he was just concerned with packing up and leaving, like every typical performer.

Pretty pathetic grooming techniques going on there. He was caught with the photos and he may have done other stuff on his own, and I do not dispute that he's a sex offender. But nope, the shows were not the scene of the crime, at least a few years ago.

I assume you're going to come back and say "But you weren't at every single show and didn't have your eyes on his hands at all times!" and really want to say that we who are giving the facts of the performances must be wracked with guilt that we brought our kids there. Nope, not at all. I've seen grooming in action, by the way, and know that it can take years and most groomers are very willing to wait. Lots of gifts, trips to the movies, and offers to help what is usually a single mom without means. I will remind you that kids aged out of Mr. Knick Knack fairly quickly. You rarely saw anyone beyond 6 years old, so the chances to develop a longterm relationship were slim.

Oh OP you sound kinda weird. “He didn’t groom my kids so he must not have tried with others!” Are you offended that he didn’t find your kids attractive ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of misandry and broad assumptions about men being always guilty.

Imagine if you said it about (insert race here) instead of men. Would you still feel comfortable saying it?

One can point to statistics that those of a certain race are more likely to commit crime X or crime Y (just like more men than women are charged with pedophilia and related crimes), so should be treat them all with suspicion then?

There are no meaningful biological differences between races. It’s a social construct. There are biological differences between men and women, most notably that men are inherently more violent.

[Anonymous]

Pedos usually gravitate towards jobs with kids. Still it's disappointing because he seemed nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. You're making no sense. in order for a performer to groom a child he would have to have constant access. In your own statement you say overtime... First, how many times is a Child going to see the performance and how many times is that child going to be alone at the performance? Furthermore, after the performance what is he grooming them for? When would he get a chance to be alone with these kids?

This isn't cognitive dissonance. This is common f****** sense

I hate irrational stupid people like you who make it seem like others like me are trying to defend a bad guy but man. Use some common sense

Exactly. I’m not sure how they think that this person can be grooming a kid, when they are never going to be alone in the future or ever with that child. Grooming happens with relative or close friend, not in this situation. Unbelievable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point, however, still stands: People who care about the safety of children but be vigilant regarding any man who wants to spend lots of time with little children.

This is critical.

That is the take home message.

Coaches, teachers, entertainers, are all professions, where people are around kids, making a living. Always be vigilant, no matter what, when it comes to kids. Absolutely

But ESPECIALLY men!

This.

The feminazi man haters are out in force today!

Get stuffed.

Men are more common, but anyone who is spending time or sleepovers with your kids should be monitored, even family members, neighbors, friends parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's an increase in men getting caught viewing/owning child pornography because obviously, there was no internet in the 1950s or whatever era you're comparing to.

It would be very interesting to find out if the availability of and/or the market for child porn has led to an increase in pedophiles actually molesting children.

I do think that 50+ years ago it was more common for molestation to be swept under the rug more as a way to protect the poor afflicted predator than to protect the child.

Actually, I have read that there are fewer molestation victims than there used to be because of the widespread availability of child porn. Reporting laws, I am sure, have also helped because sex offenders can't get access to kids the way they used to.

Thanks. This is exactly how a “groomer” speaks.
Parents beware.

I have no idea why you think I'm a groomer. I'm a mom and, of course, I think that child porn is awful. However, I know I've heard/read that there are fewer children who are victims today than in the past and one explanation is the availability of porn. I don't remember where I read this, and I certainly don't want to google this topic. But if someone has contrary evidence, please feel free to share it.