Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am now fortunate to live in an area of 'good friends and neighbours'. Many years ago used to walk, with my friend to Dulwich Hamlet School from Friern Road. We would take several routes, one of them being through Dulwich Park. While I never felt afraid or threatened then I would not allow my children now to do the same. Can you parents not get together and take it in turns to escort your youngsters to there various schools? This would still give children the 'independence' of not always being with their own parents but it would give them the support and safety they should have.

It's a real shame children are so 'protected' these days. We walked the 30 mins to school and back every day from the age of 7.


These days it seems the stranger danger has consumed the collective imagination. Children are no longer allowed out to play, unless chaperoned by an adult, or in the confines of their back gardens, if they have one.. As child abuse is said to be commited largely by adults known to the child, surely this puts them at more risk than if they were off in the company of other kids.


The creepy people in my life were an uncle and a primary school teacher - both of who would have been trusted by my parents, plus the occasional flasher hanging round the the park.


Elsewhere, in the world, children are prepared for adulthood by being given responsibilities - they learn how to deal with the ups and downs of real life by living it.


What a deeply wierd world the UK has become.

I agree, Minkey. In the 50s I went to a prep school (not in this area) where the Deputy Head spent much of his time spanking boys who he had told to take their clothes off and where beatings were routine for the most minor offence. I then went to a minor public school (again not in this area) where the previous year the PE master had been sacked for throwing a javelin at a boy (he missed), where boys had to swim naked in the outdoor swimming pool and where monitors were allowed to beat other boys. No CRB checks and Health and Safety in those days.


Of course they were the bad old days, but we have gone too far the other way.

"I think this thread, as it has developed, is about quite a few things, but fundamentally, surely, it's about at what point a parent's decision about how they raise their child is challenged by the state, and on what basis."


Exactly!


It's got precisely ZERO to do with the age at which children should be allowed to cycle to school etc etc. All of those comments miss the depth of the real point.

I disagree new mother. People gave their opinions based on their experiences with children for the most part. The intervention or lackof by the state in childrearing in neither here nor there. Given that social services have enough on their hands dealing with serious cases of child neglect whatever depth this thread has/had was borne from personal experiences of the people who know best in most cases, parents.

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

The intervention or lackof by the state

> in childrearing in neither here nor there.


Unfortunately it has everything to do with it. It is the shifting sands of the responsibilities of state and parents that makes parenting such an uncertain activity. If responsibilities were clearly defined we would not be having this debate.

Unfortunately it has everything to do with it. It is the shifting sands of the responsibilities of state and parents that makes parenting such an uncertain activity. If responsibilities were clearly defined we would not be having this debate.


in response to Narnia's

The intervention or lackof by the state in childrearing in neither here nor there


Are you, BB100, really saying you want some kind of state sponsored job description and / or qualification for being a parent or child rearing? If so, well words truly fail me.

Human instinct has always been to adapt and survive. Like Marmite, you either love the idea or hate it - but the Schonrocks clearly trust and believe their children will be ok, it's their decision, they should be respected for it.

Competetive parenting and nurturing is getting the best of some people. Nanny state; please quit telling people how to raise their children.


Pessimists - yes, any child could get into an accident on their way to school, shops - but that hasn't happened, so let's not concentrate on what ifs.

Noted, uppereastsider. However, will the Schonrocks now stop their children cycling to school on the pavement and thus breaking the law? If they cycle to school, they should travel on the roads like all law-abiding people. Surely parents have a duty to get their kids to obey and respect the law.

Narnia,

This cycling issue is just one example of the wider macro point. The real issue is clearly whether the State has the right to interfere and /or override parental decision making. Most people would say no in this instance and when I phrase it like that.


but then you get into more complex debates like the child who lives in a high rise block and is allowed by the parents to lean out of the window as he/she is old enough to do it safely. THe parents have made their risk assessment but a lot of people wld not agree with it in this example. So, what happens? CAn the state intervene?


THis is what it's about. it's not really to do with cycling.


Marmora, I don't think BB100 was suggesting that at all. Rather he/she was saying that today's society has State interference in some aspects whiere it is welcomed and others where it is not, hence the confusion over it's limits. That's what I took out of his/her posting.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Noted, uppereastsider. However, will the

> Schonrocks now stop their children cycling to

> school on the pavement and thus breaking the law?

> If they cycle to school, they should travel on the

> roads like all law-abiding people. Surely parents

> have a duty to get their kids to obey and respect

> the law.


Evidently Boris and the Met have decided to let children under ten cycle on the pavements. It was announced yesterday.

Boris Johnson has not decided to let children under ten cycle on the pavements; he hasn't got the power to change the law at a stroke, much as he might wish to do so. What he has in fact done is to back calls for children to be allowed to cycle on the pavement. He acknowledges that currently this is illegal.
Kids 10 or under can't be prosecuted anyway. So what is the difference? The Schonrocks obviously don't care. There are still plenty of kids and parents cycling on the pavement though and the parents think it is OK as they are accompanying their kids. Recently encountered two young men - about 18 - cycling with their dogs running next to them on the pavement and when I told them them that pavements are for people they whined and said what else were they supposed to do with the dogs? I suggested they walk their bikes with the dogs until they got to Dulwich Park. I often see a woman on Court Lane who regularly rides on the pavement with her dog running next to her. I really think there are a lot of people who don't know that they are not supposed to ride on pavements. Or perhaps they don't give a stuff and are willing to risk the fine. I didn't know that it was illegal over a certain age until this year. It would never have occurred to me to cycle on the pavement as an adult.
If the Schonrocks don't care whether or not their children are breaking the law, why should we care about their plight vis a vis Alleyns School? They are in no moral position to complain about any other law breaking of a similar nature by anyone else.

My brother and I cycled to school along a 60 mile an hour road from the age of 6. That was a couple of years after one of the neighbour's kids was killed on the same road. Life's dangerous. Deal with it.


I was at a meeting recently about proposals to build a skate park in Telegraph Hill (just on from Nunhead) and one of the parents told me he'd never let his kids travel the half mile to use the skate ramp in Peckham Rye. Either on the bus or on foot. He had to drive them everywhere. I was astounded he let them skate in the first place.


Well done on creating a generation of nancified kids.

I believe the main discussion is or was about a parent's right to make decisions about the well-being of their children.?

Cycling on the pavement may be breaking the law but so should the belief that parenting renders one a moving target for criticisms.



Zebedee Tring - I take it you won't be voting for Boris? :-)

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the Schonrocks don't care whether or not their

> children are breaking the law, why should we care

> about their plight vis a vis Alleyns School? They

> are in no moral position to complain about any

> other law breaking of a similar nature by anyone

> else.


I don't care about the Schonrock's plight. I was merely pointing out a few things. But I guess they knew that the kids couldn't be prosecuted. Zebedee, didn't you say you were pro the Schonrock's cycling but when you found out it was illegal you changed your mind? Do you think the law should be changed? Should parents be prosecuted for letting their kids cycle on the pavement?

I wasn't actually specifically in favour of the Schonrocks, I just thought that Alleyns were overreacting when they came down so heavily on them. But I am certainly against anyone of any age cycling on the footpath. Whether it would be feasible for parents to be prosecuted for the acts of their children in such circumstances is another matter.

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unfortunately it has everything to do with it. It

> is the shifting sands of the responsibilities of

> state and parents that makes parenting such an

> uncertain activity. If responsibilities were

> clearly defined we would not be having this

> debate.

>

>

> Marmora Man Wrote:Are you, BB100, really saying you want some kind

> of state sponsored job description and / or

> qualification for being a parent or child rearing?

> If so, well words truly fail me.



No, Marmora Man, I was referring to the boundaries between parental and state responsibilities needing to be more clearly defined.

The state SHOULD NOT be able to define what a parent's role is? Parents often know what's best for their children - the government of the day shouldn't have a say in this (unless a child is abused)... But at this rate there'll be a cap on when men/women can be parents. Ridiculous - I say!

BB100: If boundaries between state & parents are to be defined more clearly this implies state control and interference.



I'm with uppereastsider on this - what at first might seem a "reasonable" suggestion becomes state interference very quickly.

uppereastsider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The state SHOULD NOT be able to define what a

> parent's role is?


I agree but it already has. Parental capacity is laid out in the Framework for Assessment of children in need and their families (2000)


Parents often know what's best

> for their children - the government of the day

> shouldn't have a say in this (unless a child is

> abused)... But at this rate there'll be a cap on

> when men/women can be parents. Ridiculous - I say!


As Keef has explained, the state needs to define it's role and responsibilities more clearly so parents are not left with threats of intervention (and social finger wagging) when they make, often subjective but with good intention, decisions about their children's welfare.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...