Oliver: a responsible adult speaks

I'm still shocked by a trader's visit to the market on Sunday to circulate a letter naming their child and family as the subject of my posts. I have been sent a copy of the note, but I don't intend to publish it as I have no wish to compound the harm it has already done. (I am grateful for the publicity though - the blog had more visitors yesterday than at any time since it started.)

Rather than address the note's authors, I'll address myself to the Dodger's parents, who, like the boy himself, I am not prepared to identify by name. I firmly believe they would be right to be angry with anyone who might name their child openly and therefore reveal their identity publicly, in a blog or a note. The lad is innocent and shouldn't be named to anyone who doesn't know who he is. I am a responsible adult and his identity is safe with me.

I also think the parents are right to be angry with whoever thought it was a good idea to expose this child to risk and them to ridicule in the first place. That Dodger was used as some sort of unofficial, unpaid assistant manager is outrageous and I am quite sure the boy's parents were blissfully unaware of this. I do not doubt that they had no idea he was being encouraged to collect rent, carry cash, vet traders and disrespect adults. I am confident they didn't know about the traders who left the office carrying receipts adorned with their son's childish doodles. I wouldn't question that they had no knowledge of their "friends" being afraid to refuse giving their son a tip, especially when he asked for one.

I'm sure of all this because I cannot conceive of any parent who, being aware of these things, would allow them to continue for a moment. I'm convinced that they would not have wanted their fellow traders, with whom they enjoyed much banter and laughter, to be fearful of attracting their son's displeasure, resulting in the real management's unwelcome attention. They would no doubt have admonished those responsible for encouraging their lad to play a game of "managers and traders".

What has been posted in this blog and reaffirmed here must have been news to them, and I envy them. In their blissful ignorance they were almost unique. A great many people in the market did know about these events. Many were affected by them. Everyone involved, including traders and GSM's staff, must have known these things were wrong, but did nothing to stop them, such was the climate of oppression.

If my little blog has helped alert Dodger's parents to the way their son was used, I am happy, and I hope they will actively pursue those who misused him and alienated so many potential friends.

In case Dodger's parents haven't been paying attention, this blog isn't directed against them - it isn't anti-anyone. Really. I know it may not seem like it sometimes, but that's true. What it is, however, is pro-trader. Of his parents I ask: can you honestly say that you never felt bullied, intimidated, disrespected or ill-used? You and almost every other trader - hence the blog.

Let me be clear. I don't write about these things to upset a child. Nor to disturb blinkered parents. Not even to punish the management that brought the situation about and allowed it to continue. Just to stop it. These things did happen, they were wrong, they affected many traders and they must never happen again. That's why I write the Oliver posts.

As to the motives ascribed to me in the misguided trader's note, I would have thought that I'm obviously not engaged in a quest for attention. If I was, haven't I kind of blown it by being anonymous? I'm not the message, just the messenger - so don't waste your bullets on me.