Schonrock kids and unchaperoned "school run"

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Whether the five year old is an excellent cyclist, is very intelligent, is very mature, has bags of common sense and so on does not matter, however you dress it up, the kid is FIVE!!! Sometimes I wonder if I am really sharing the same space as people who cannot grasp that five is young, five short years on this earth, you start school at the age of five. Five is simply not old enough!

[SeanMacGabhann]

It would appear, from all the evidence so far, that 5 is indeed old enough, especially if accompanied by older brother

[Growlybear]

The fact that, as far as we know, the children have so far managed to get themselves to school without coming to any harm doesn't mean that it is right. It means that they have been lucky.

[*Bob*]

LBC is drowning in a flash flood of paedophiles, murderous drivers, dog attacks, muggers and flashers.

I walked past my old junior school last week (in a leafy 'burb of a town nowhere near evil London) for the first time in about 15 years. It used to have a big playground at the front and an open football pitch with trees round it at the back.

It now has a small playground at the front, with a large car park and a card-operated barrier. The rear field now has a six-foot chicken wire fence around it.

None of this means I think the particularities of the Schonrock thing make it some kind of top idea (8 + 5 + Distance + Bicycles.. no way!) but the ensuing and entirely predictable polemic says a lot about the hysterical perception of danger half the population seem to have talked themselves into.

[pk]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> And did the parents go to the papers? Presumably

> that was after they had been informed of intention

> to prosecute in which case it's worth publicising

but there's no intention to prosecute is there? rather the school has considered whether to refer the matter to a body that specialises in assessing whether children are particularly vunerable- presumably for people with relevant experience to form a balanced judgement. no need to sensationalise

[kristymac1]

Now who's hysterical?? I wasn't referring to the risk of child abductors, I was referring to the risk associated with the inevitable heightened media attention along that route (for the next 24 hours anyway - after that no doubt the 'hysteria' will have moved along). Last week the kids only had to manage one road with a lollypop man, today they'll face a slalem of photographers.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> kristymac1 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Great, so the precise route that these

> little'uns

> > take to school unaccompanied is now national

> news

> > - doesn't that put the children at even more

> risk?

>

> Yes....yes it does. Do you know why? Because child

> abductors regularly scan national newspapers

> looking for clues as to the routes children take

> to school. It's pretty tricky for them to figure

> out otherwise. It's not like children have any

> identifying clothing that would associate them

> with a school or walk the same route every day or

> anything is it? Children these days have got

> pretty cunning. Often they disguise themselves as

> adults before burrowing tunnels to their school so

> as not be seen by predators lurking around every

> corner.

>

> My god, the hysteria on here would make Chris

> Morris blush.

[sian]

Saffron, Dulwichmum, Buggie and ???

I agree. This is asking too much of an eight year old - supervision, bike, busy road etc. I gave my older children increasing responsibility and freedom from age 9 so that they were allowed to go to the park on their own, go to school alone after years and years of driling them about road safety. I still would think twice about letting them escort their younger sibling across some of the busy roads here.

I also agree re the McCanns. We always book a babysitter when we are in a hotel etc and want to go out. if as ocassionally happens the agency babysitter fails to turn up, we stay in. What on earth were the McCanns thinking?. We were evacuated from a hotel in a suspected fire a couple of years ago. We were with our children luckily. What would have happened had they been in a hotel room alone?

The most disturbing feature of this for me is the way in which the parents want to turn their kids into a media crusade.

As for evidence of Boris's innate arseness...

"Children, especially male children, need to learn about risk and daring.."

Girls should stick to knitting eh?

[SeanMacGabhann]

pk - sorry yes, prosecution was the wrong word.

Maybe I meant persecution?

[????]

As Bob says "The kids getting snatched" issue is hysteria and this seems like 2 parrallel arguments to me.

But I don't know any 5 year olds who I'd let ride a bike unaccompanied in London traffic....a 'learning independence' stage too far for me.

[Bellenden Belle]

???? Wrote:

>

> But I don't know any 5 year olds who I'd let ride

> a bike unaccompanied in London traffic....a

> 'learning independence' stage too far for me.

But they aren't riding their bike in London traffic - they ride on wide pavements all the way, but for one crossing.

[taper]

Spare a thought too for the school. Without knowing the full details, the Head at Alleyns seems to have been placed in an impossible position on what is a finely balanced issue. But the media storm that has erupted is damaging to the school and the children involved and blame for that would seem to sit with the parents. I can't think what they were trying to achieve through going to the press with this. Seems like narcissism of the worst kind to me.

[david_carnell]

kristymac1 Wrote:

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

> Now who's hysterical?? I wasn't referring to the

> risk of child abductors, I was referring to the

> risk associated with the inevitable heightened

> media attention along that route (for the next 24

> hours anyway - after that no doubt the 'hysteria'

> will have moved along). Last week the kids only

> had to manage one road with a lollypop man, today

> they'll face a slalem of photographers.

*blushes*

Ah. In that case, accept my whole-hearted apologies for getting on my high-horse over a mis-understanding. Nuance isn't best conveyed in this medium.

You are indeed correct about the slalom of photographers - an amusing image mind you.

[Growlybear]

Bellenden Belle Wrote:

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

> ???? Wrote:

>

> >

> > But I don't know any 5 year olds who I'd let

> ride

> > a bike unaccompanied in London traffic....a

> > 'learning independence' stage too far for me.

>

>

> But they aren't riding their bike in London

> traffic - they ride on wide pavements all the way,

> but for one crossing.

But assuming that the route printed in the Telegraph is correct, the children can't possibly get to Alleyn's without crossing more than one road.

[Bellenden Belle]

taper Wrote:

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

Seems like

> narcissism of the worst kind to me.

Yet another criticism we can level at these people we have never met yet have decided to label as neglecters of their children, irresponsible, etc.

If they decided to go to the press surely it's because if as a society we are going to run to social services every time a parent makes a decision we don't agree with, then there needs to be some serious debate around the matter. Though that doesn't appear to have happened on this forum where the debate is full of the hyperbolic statements we might expect from an LBC radio phone-in.

[????]

Oh come on. It's not. There's some reasonable points with some hysteria.

[Bellenden Belle]

You're right quids - some reasonable points have been made.

But to bandy words around such as neglect is incredibly damaging to this debate.

Parents have the right to make decisions about how they raise their children. And in the majority of cases the rest of us should cease our judgements.

[dulwichmum]

Actually, as we are being rational, there is no lollipop lady crossing from the school onto the parade of shops outside the Village infants school. She only assists kids across Turney Road.

The children then must cross Calton Avenue (a busy rat run, congested up with parked cars) and then cross a road again outside Alleyns - with their view of oncoming traffic regularly obscured by school coaches.

[????]

School attendance

Babysitting?

Alcohol?

TV Viewing

I hadn't seen you as such a Libeterian BB ;-)

I just personally feel deeply uncomfortable about a 5 year old cycling unaccompanied except by an 8 year old. Go up to Dulwich Village at about 3.30pm and look at the chaos. You're lucky if you make it without at least 3 knicks of a speeding microscooter.

[citizenED]

I don't, for a moment, imagine that the Schonrock's children are the only Primary age children going to school unaccompanied.

I think, on the whole, this is balanced. Just some people needing to take that step back before they post. Please.

[Growlybear]

I am really struggling to find any suggestion of hysteria in any of the posts in this thread. It is certainly being debated far more calmly on this forum, and with far less vitriol aimed at the parents than debates I have seen elsewhere on the internet. The parents appear to have chosen to make this issue public, and by doing so, I think that gives people the right to pass judgment on their parenting skills. Whilst parents generally have the right to raise their children the way they see fit, this doesn't extend to situations where they put their very young children in an unnecessarily vulnerable position because of their ideological beliefs. Clearly there is a difference of opinion as to whether sending a five year old to school on a bicycle through rush hour traffic supervised by an eight year old constitutes negligence, but the Headteacher obviously thought that the children were being put at risk. My own opinion is that the parents have been negligent, and that the HEadteacher was right in saying that he was going to alert Social Services.

[taper]

BB

You think going to the Telegraph and the Mail is a good way of engendering serious debate?

I don't think they've neglected their children. I think what they did was in good faith. I think the school, in response to concerns expressed by others, has reacted proportionately. The school appears to have sought to deal with the issue privately with the parents and did not "run to" the Local Authority. It is the parents who ran to the media and have sought to use this minor incident to make a broader political point, thus exposing their children and the school to public scrutiny. Not good in my view

[BB100]

Growlybear Wrote:

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

> The fact that, as far as we know, the children

> have so far managed to get themselves to school

> without coming to any harm doesn't mean that it is

> right. It means that they have been lucky.

Based on that assessment we are lucky everyday of our lives. There are risks to everything - even if it's just walking down the stairs. I walked down my stairs every day for 25 years and was lucky until I missed a step and broke my ankle. Inevitably harm may well come to you whatever you do in life. Just because society has a warped estimate of the probability of harm to these children (and possibly something may happen to them at some point because that is the nature of life and living)it doesn't mean we can force others to think and do the same.

[Bellenden Belle]

???? Wrote:

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

> >

>

> School attendance

> Babysitting?

> Alcohol?

> TV Viewing

>

Actually all those things I think are down to personal choice. From the parent who decides to take their children out of school to travel through to the parent who uses the tv as a babysitter. As for alcohol - I had quite a thing for Harvey's Bristol Cream at aged 5, much to the horror of some visitors to my parent's house - but no one thought it necessary to inform social services.

In a work environment we carry out risk assessments and make decisions based on the results. If concerned, I would like to think the headmistress would have had a discussion with the Schonrocks and asked them how they reached the decision and how they had prepared their children. My gut feeling tells me they didn't just open the door one day and go "there you go kids".

[Loz]

taper Wrote:

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

> Spare a thought too for the school. Without

> knowing the full details, the Head at Alleyns

> seems to have been placed in an impossible

> position on what is a finely balanced issue.

Hopefully the head will have learnt the lesson that quoting blindly from the 'cover your ass' manual isn't always the best option. Threatening to send in social services was a serious mistake on his part and probably prompted the Schonrocks to go to the press.

The head's judgement in this case should be seriously questioned.

[Bellenden Belle]

taper Wrote:

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

> BB

> I think

> the school, in response to concerns expressed by

> others, has reacted proportionately. The school

> appears to have sought to deal with the issue

> privately with the parents and did not "run to"

> the Local Authority.

The Telegraph article states :

Last week the Schonrocks met the headmaster and said they were told that unless they supervised the journey in both directions they would be referred to children?s services.

The couple said they did not blame the school so much as the rules on child protection.

So actually it would seem they weren't given the option of a discussion about their children's journey but that a clear ultimatum was given. Choice has been taken away from the parents and so yes, I do think they have a right to publicise that without being called narcissists.