Yes; same.
I think common sense and concern must override any thoughts of modern day paranoia in these sorts of instances.

And the chances of this happening are? It seems alien to me not to help out a child in distress, just because of a false paranoia. The chances of that happening are almost nonexistent, the chances of helping someone out and being thanked for it are far higher. Just try not to grab them in that 'area' and you'll be fine.

That's quite sad but is more a reflection of how you see yourself and how you interpret the world rather than the reality of what the world is like. The vast majority of people are decent and sensible and not paranoid or stupid.

I put that description in there because that is how the tabloid press would describe me if the parent kicked up a fuss as per the OP as that is almost exactly the same as their one dimensional demographic for paedophiles. So yes, I do not want a daily fail headline "lost child approached by middle aged man in broad daylight" followed by "The 44 year old loner swooped in to talk to the girl mere seconds after she became separated from her mother in the busy shopping center."

There was a thing done a while back, can't recall the full details, but it involved filming a young girl actress pretending to be lost in a shopping center and their angle on the story was along the lines "busy shoppers ignore plight of lost child" and I remember thinking at the time they could have used the exact same footage but shown the times she was approached by men and run with the "dirty old men swarm around lost child" angle. But they did observe that the lost girl was mostly approached by ladies, and noted than men they questioned did mention something like "What? A man of my age talking to a young girl? No way." as I did above.

So yes, with large sections of the news media being so obsessed with seeing a paedo around every corner, I am massively paranoid about how such situations would be perceived should they arise.

In other words, most men would do something to help the child.

Anyway it wouldn't make any sense to walk off with the child as you may be taking him/her further away from their parent or whoever else s/he was with.

It does happen: http://mashable.com/2015/05/11/darth.../#CmDnqUS8akqk

More nonsense. Do you actually live in fear of social media getting you?

Not slim.

There was a thread on here recently - probably only a few pages back so easily traceable if you're so inclined - about a man catching on camera four-lettered abuse and being spat on by a woman who had parked her car in his drive to collect her offspring from school. Though he was filming her and her behaviour, the fact that she had a small child in her arms (and one in the car IIRC) quickly led her to accuse him of filming her children for nefarious reasons.

Those on this thread who think that some people don't think like this are hopelessly naive.

ETA: Found it for you:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2185846

Well that was just an example. But I found a child wandering around in the carpark of a local row of shops once. It was pretty obvious he'd got out of the car and his mum was in one of the shops. So I took him by the hand and we looked in the door of all the shops and he pointed out his mother.

He had, apparently, been asleep in his car seat when she left and she didn't realise he knew how to undo the buckle and open the car door. In that case she was shocked and grateful.

But I'm not sure how many men would have been prepared to walk off with him in the way that I did.

They are but it is the tiny number that make it tricky for some people because the outcome can be horrendous.
I can see some people such as Paul_DNAP may feel they don't want that risk no matter how unlikely it is.
It is sad indictment that statements such as "Most guys would look for a female and point the lost child out to them." are often the best approach.

Paranoia is no excuse for not doing the right thing.

You really need to get a true sense of proportion and recognise what is right and what is wrong.

Refusing to help a child or ignoring a child who may be lost is wrong.

That situation is nothing like the one in the OP.

Yep. That's almost exactly the sort of scenario I am worried about. Except in my version I am unable to explain away why I made a conversation with the child and it doesn't end well for me.

People get knocked down crossing the road. Does this mean you never cross the road?

I would only help in conjunction with someone else (preferably a woman), which I have done in the past.

I was at a coastal park and saw a little girl on her own, so I stopped two women who were also there but had their backs to the girl.
I asked them whether they also thought the little girl was lost and we went over together to help her.
She was lost, and we took her to the wardens' centre, and they located her parents.

I would not have assisted on my own.

I'm sure there are examples whereby others have got the wrong end of the stick, but if approached in the right way the chances of this happening are so slim, that'd I'd always try and help if I could. I'd consider telling someone else nearby as helping, even if that individual didn't want to get involved themselves.

Hopefully, everyone would do the right thing. It beggars belief that some people would put their concern about themselves ending up on Twitter before the safety of a child..

I think if you'd been knocked down once crossing a certain road, you might find yourself being much more cautious the next time.

I think that's what can happen to someone who goes to the aid of a lost child and finds themselves the subject of a hostile or suspicious attitude. It makes them more hesitant the next time.

And how would you have felt if the girl came to harm because you did nothing? All because of your fear for yourself and your inability to do the decent thing?

I have thought it through and it is best all round for me to not approach the child at all.

If the child looked to be distressed I would find a staff or such to let them know there is a lost child.

Sure - but it shouldn't mean you would never help a child who was at risk.

And if there was no one else around, would you just walk away?

I didn't 'do nothing'. I sought the help of others and we sorted it out together.

How is that not doing the decent thing?

(And no 'whatbouttery' please. I described the situation I was in, and how I dealt with it)

Probably.

If there was no one else around, who is it that's gonna 'fit you up' on social media?