Schonrock kids and unchaperoned "school run"

[BB100]

chantelle Wrote:

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

> wait - just because children go to private school

> means money is not an issue? maybe that is true

> for a minority of parents but i doubt it applies

> to most children at private school.

Fair point but was just making the point that the reason the parents are letting them go to school on their own is because they want to let them, not because of necessity/financial reasons.

[James Barber]

Hi buggie,

your right that was OTT. Sorry.

[buggie]

apology accepted - edited above as hit post before preview and baby brain meant I then realised I'd not put it how I wanted.

[Alex K]

@Growlybear: You wrote "Or is it too old fashioned to make your children your first priority if you decide to bring them into the world?" This has made me think.

We are privileged to watch only a few marriages "up close". Mine is childless (although not by choice, and yes, to our regret). So I'm foreclosed from understanding what I might make my first priority, had I children. However, I did watch my parents' marriage.

I don't think that I'm dishonouring Mum and Dad to say that they made each other their first priority, and that we seven children -- although we knew that we were loved and cherished -- were very aware that this was so. "Your mother wants it" or "Your father wants it" trumped any "I want it" from one of us kids (I'll spare you examples). Our home revolved around them, and not around us children.

Perhaps their approach, making each other and their marriage their first priority, was even more old-fashioned than that of making one's children one's first priority...

[david_carnell]

Buggie

Whilst I know and respect you personally, and the work you and all other medical professionals do, do you not think that your view point on this is distorted by precisely that?

Working as a paeds nurse you undoubtedly see some horrendous sights. But these are statistically rare. And whilst people will scream till blue in the face that "one road injury/death is too many" may be a good sound bite it is impossibly optimistic.

Whilst I have no doubt you only have children's best interests at heart, I firmly believe no-one is in any position to make the decision the Schonrocks have made other than themselves.

Surely six months of incident free cycling should indicate they have taught their two children well?

[david_carnell]

dulwichmum Wrote:

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

> @David Carnell.

>

> You mis-understand me. The McCann's should be

> prosecuted for abandonment at least. What do you

> suppose would have happened there if they had not

> been white middle class? This is all about lazy

> parenting, not empowerment and exercise. My kids

> walk to school every day. Why can't parents take

> their responsibility seriously and walk with them?

I didn't misunderstand you. You crow-barred in a ridiculous comparison. I'm not going to move this discussion off its topic with a blow-by-blow account of the McCann incident but I could not disagree more. Nothing more than a terrible accident.

And if anything should ever happen to any child making their way to school in Dulwich it would be the same.

At what point is it just acknowledged as such? If a lorry runs of the road and kills a teenager it's an accident.

And so it should be for a 12 year old. And an 8 yeard old. And a 5 year old.

It has nothing to do with parenting. These people should be commended, not witch-hunted.

[buggie]

DC - accepted, it's not a daily thing, but from my POV the stress the children go through makes it while rare something that should be protected.

If it was more local (most children struggle to get into schools more than 500m away from their own door), on foot, and only the 8yr old I'd be a happier bunny.

It's the burden of supervision on the older child added with the distance/bike which rankles me.

[Narnia]

Dulwich Mum made a point about being fined for cycling on the footpath being illegal. I always thought that was the case here. Also is it not 'illegal' here to leave a child under a certain age at home alone? Regardless of the rights or wrongs of that law which I'm sure applies to these kids, that would presumably apply to them being away from home alone.

I don't think these parents should be witch-hunted nor commended, unless of course you know them. I wouldn't have had the courage (if that's what it is) to allow my kid do that when he was that young. It's a personal opinion as is everyone's else's here.

We can all judge each other till the cows come home. It would be nice to live in an environment where we wouldn't need to ask questions about the rights and wrongs of doing this. Unfortunately, we do.

[BB100]

Narnia Wrote:

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

> Dulwich Mum made a point about being fined for

> cycling on the footpath being illegal. I always

> thought that was the case here. Also is it not

> 'illegal' here to leave a child under a certain

> age at home alone? Regardless of the rights or

> wrongs of that law which I'm sure applies to these

> kids, that would presumably apply to them being

> away from home alone.

You can cycle on the footpath until you're 13 yrs old (a policeman told me). There are no laws as to the age you can leave a child alone at home. However SS can intervene if you leave your child alone and it is evident they can't look after themselves.

There are no laws as to the age a child can go out alone. It's down to judgement of child's competance. Since we do not know the children's competance in this case we have no place to make judgement.

[dulwichmum]

I really do wonder what the reaction would have been if this couple were working class and something had become of one of the children. As Narnia says "It would be nice to live in an environment where we wouldn't need to ask questions about the rights and wrongs of doing this. Unfortunately we do."

My aupair was fined last year for cycling with our daughter on the footpath. Because of the weight of traffic in the village, it was impossible for them to stay together if the aupair cycled on the road. The solution for us was a scooter or walking. Most of the parents I know don't take their children to school by car, it is usually only children who come from far away. Don't forget that lots of people travel some distance (Clapham/Kent/Battersea etc) to get to the independent schools.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

I really do wonder what the reaction would have been if this couple were working class and something had become of one of the children.

Well, from now on they'll have a point of reference for their defence.

[Narnia]

You know better than I do then BB100. Maybe it's a recommended age. I just seem to remember a single Dad telling me something about it when he took his boy to kids football on the astroturf at Dulwich Hamlets on a Saturday and remarking how his slightly older girl was at home alone and he shouldn't really be doing it.

I also remember panicking when my boy (probably 5 at the time) decided to walk out. I drove around the streets of East Dulwich looking for him only to eventually find out he had hidden himself at home in a very unlikely place. It wasn't a nice experience but kids do know how to punish their parents. It could happen to any parent.

[PeterW]

Dulwichmum:

In a surprisingly temperate (for the most part) discussion you're managing to be the voice of hysterical alarm and self-righteousness. I fear you might have lost your few remaining backers when you called for the McCanns to be prosecuted for neglect.

I'll try and make a serious, if obvious, point: all life, most particularly in raising children, is a constant balancing of risks versus benefits. It's grossly patronising to dismiss someone as neglectful because their assessment of the balance is slightly different to your own. I'm sure there's some anti-bike zealots out there who'd condemn your decision to let your own daughter out on a bike with the au pair as dangerous, which would be equally absurd and judgemental.

I'd argue it's very damaging in its way to wrap one's children in metaphorical cotton wool till they're 18 and emerge, blinking, mollycoddled and unsuspecting - not to mention most likely obsese - into the outside world.

[dulwichmum]

PeterW,

I am a very passionate woman, that is true (bats eyelashes). However sweet cheeks, I think it is you who is being hysterical. Who is suggesting that children should not be permitted to enter the outside world until they are 18?

I think that perhaps 11 - 13 would be a suitable age for a child to go to school alone, depending on the distance and maturity of the child. I just don't see 5, supervised by an 8 year old as at all appropriate.

[PeterW]

Dulwichmum:

The reference to 18 was deliberate exaggeration to make a point. I thought it was obvious, but clearly not.

You think 11-13 is ideal, that's wonderful. I've got no objection to that. I just think your earlier vilification of those with a different view - and this apparent, unspoken assumption that yours is the only true way ? a bit narrow-minded and judgemental. Same with the McCann reference, and the Damilola Taylor one. I'm just a bit worried you see perils everywhere. Yes, vigilance is sensible. But as mentioned ealier on this thread, sometimes parents' misplaced fears of certain dangers can cause, in their way, as much harm cumulatively as the dangers themselves.

It is, however, disarming to be referred to as 'sweet cheeks'. Very retro.

[Narnia]

As sad as I am for the McCanns, I wouldn't consciously do what they did in a foreign country and leave my child alone. However after a few drinks and in a nice environment, I might have had a warm feeling that this place is so nice and the people so friendly, there is no need to worry. I don't accuse them of neglect. They were just extremely unfortunate that this happened to them. Having spent many summers in Spain on holiday with a Spanish family, which is not that different to Portugal, I would say that living in south London is completely different. You may pick on DM for her views but ask yourself what would you have done in similar circumstances.

[Sue]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> dulwichmum Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > @David Carnell.

> >

> > You mis-understand me. The McCann's should be

> > prosecuted for abandonment at least. What do

> you

> > suppose would have happened there if they had

> not

> > been white middle class? This is all about lazy

> > parenting, not empowerment and exercise. My

> kids

> > walk to school every day. Why can't parents

> take

> > their responsibility seriously and walk with

> them?

>

> I didn't misunderstand you. You crow-barred in a

> ridiculous comparison. I'm not going to move this

> discussion off its topic with a blow-by-blow

> account of the McCann incident but I could not

> disagree more. Nothing more than a terrible

> accident.

>

xxxxxxxxx

A terrible accident? Leaving a three year old alone night after night in an unlocked, dark and unfamiliar apartment with two younger children? And even when by their own admission she had been crying for them the night before she disappeared?

Whatever happened, and we may never know, it could have been avoided if the parents hadn't been more concerned with going out to get pissed than looking after their little children, and yes the McCanns should have been prosecuted for abandonment/neglect.

[Narnia]

It seems this subject is being covered by BBC London news on BBC 1 now.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Ditto Dulwichmum and Sue, I would never ever ever leave my child alone at home, never mind abroad!

That in my eye is neglect as they were all extremely young and it was foolish to leave them alone.

If they wanted nights out without the childen then they should have left them with family members at home or hired a babysitter ( not a baby listener), but to leave two babies and a young girl alone in a room when they were not even on the premises was wrong on all levels.

[Sue]

HeidiHi Wrote:

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

> Ditto Dulwichmum and Sue, I would never ever ever

> leave my child alone at home, never mind abroad!

> That in my eye is neglect as they were all

> extremely young and it was foolish to leave them

> alone.

> If they wanted nights out without the childen then

> they should have left them with family members at

> home or hired a babysitter ( not a baby listener),

> but to leave two babies and a young girl alone in

> a room when they were not even on the premises was

> wrong on all levels.

xxxxxxx

Exactly. A child can be sick and choke, wander and fall, try to find their parents, quite apart from being emotionally distressed at calling for their parents and they don't come. What sort of parent knowing those risks (and these were doctors, for God's sake) leaves their children anyway? And not just as a one-off, but night after night? And not just in a familiar room, but in a strange place?

It beggars belief.

[Narnia]

Ok, but it's off topic.It was ok to use as an example of something but not to the point anymore. Did anyone watch BBC news? What did you think?

[dulwichmum]

I saw it on the news and I think Boris is an arse. I wonder how hands on he has been with his kids. He was probably out every night socialising when they were kids and doesn't have a clue. No-one is saying children should not walk or cycle. This is about supervision.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

I miss the news, will it be repeated? What did they say? Don't get me started on Boris as he lives in a bubble.

[dulwichmum]

He was saying that the parents should be celebrated... what an arse.

[Narnia]

DM, you may have missed the report on the Dulwich kids. Boris wasn't in it.