On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:09:46 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>MM wrote:
>
>> Can you imagine a stranger, a man, turning up at a school and offering
>> to take some children on a trip to the countryside for the morning?
>> No, of course you cannot!
>
>I could imagine it - but the chances of his generous offer being taken
>up would be zero. About the same as if he turned up at someone's house
>and made the same offer. Parental consent is required for *organised*
>trips away from the school, for Heaven's sake.
Yes, and I am saying that this should NOT be necessary! Do we no
longer trust ANY adult unless accompanied by reams of forms to certify
that this person has been deemed trustworthy? And, of course, YOU are
going along with all this ridiculous, excessive nannying. What if the
man were offering to take the children to a place of safety because
there had been a major Buncefield-type incident nearby? Would you then
demand to see his certificates and wait for clearance from the
parents?
>However, were the vehicle he was driving to be a coach and were he
>flexible about when this trip could take place - then I am sure
>something could be arranged. With parents' consent. With a risk
>assessment of the destination. With adequately trained and qualified
>supervision. Teachers, schools and LA get sued these days, if a little
>darling runs off, falls in a river and drowns on a "trip to the
>countryside in the morning".
Oh, no, not more "parental consent", "risk assessment", "trained and
qualified" yada, yada, yada. The Nanny State writ large. Children
should be taught that life's a bitch and then you die. They need to
find out for themselves what pain is, not be mollycoddled inside
layers of safety helmet and elbow protector. Your attitude is directly
contributory to the Time Magazine article this week, i.e. unhappy,
unruly, out of control kids. And these are the kids that will grow up
and be looking after YOU in your dotage. Don't be surprised if they
just tell you to mess the bed. "Can't be arsed!"
>> You will immediately jump to his obviously
>> nefarious motive: "Why on earth would a man want to do such a thing?"
>> You CANNOT POSSIBLY ENVISAGE a situation in which this event could
>> happen with absolutely no adverse connotations whatsoever. You cannot.
>
> I've just given you an example above. Local schools would bite his arm
>off. No one would question his generosity.
>
>> It is not anywhere in your entire realm of thought.
>
>You want another example? OK. A local Devon Historian turns up and says
>that he will take a small party to Ancient Woodland at Two Bridges. The
> offer would be gladly accepted.
No, it wouldn't. They'd tell him to naff off, while calling the
police.
> The trip would happed. Organised as
>any trip off school premises would be. Risk Assessed. Supervised.
>Transport arranged as his vehicle would probably not be big enough.
Sorry, cannot see it happening, unless
qualified/certified/cleared/tested/interrogated/searched. With a piece
of paper and a computer record for each, no doubt.
>A school wouldn't hand over a computer to a total stranger, male or
>female, that just turned up and asked to take it away. Why on Earth
>should they hand over children?
The point is, there are tens of thousands of adults, men and women,
who in a different decade would have loved to volunteer their time to
give children new experiences, whether for townies in the countryside,
or for country folk in a factory, and so on. No longer possible. And
why? Because of the rabid fearmongering that is spread weekly, if not
daily, by the tabloids who know they're on to a real money-spinner if
they can churn out as many prurient stories as possible. Once they
found they had no story to hype up in the Shannon Matthews case, they
lost interest. The actual number of cases of stranger danger where
molestors have attacked children is disappearingly small, ergo the
risk, too, but because of the aforementioned fear, mothers dursn't
risk letting their lickle kiddies out of their sight for a single
second. Believe me, I RESENT the look I get from chav mums when their
kids jump on the bus and rush to the back where I like to sit. Their
mums take one look down the bus, see an old codger, and the look that
comes over their faces is set in pre-vigilante mode as they yell to
their kids to come back down the front. This used not to be the case
in Britain. How many milliseconds would a mum let a stranger merely
talk to her child before dragging the child away? Could an adult even
dare to speak to a kid who is apparently lost in the street or in a
large store?
>> To such an extent
>> you have been thoroughly brainwashed, if this isn't a tad tautologous.
>
>I don't think that I have ever written an unkind word about you and your
>views. Don't you think that words above say more about you, than about me?
No.
MM |