Fiona MacKeown should be questioned...

[IR35 Avoider]

You can't be serious ?

What I said must be sensible, by definition. I meant do it if the advantages outweigh the risks. If not, don't.

I think the problem is that everyone is assuming scenarios where it wouldn't be sensible, and I'm doing the opposite, so it's a bit of a bogus argument.

The real question is, how likely is a randomly selected stranger to be dangerous?

I spent most of my primary school years exploring a town of 50,000 people on my bicyle, often travelling a few miles from home. As it happens I spent virtually none of this time in the company of any adults other than fleeting contact with the parents of school-friends whose homes I visited, but my parents didn't know that. My parents didn't worry about me, and didn't know where I was most of the day. Most of my school-friends led similar lives, i.e. my parents were not in any way atypical.

I don't believe children are in any more danger from predators today than they were then, the reason people here are surprised by what I said is that the perception of danger has changed. I'm not convinced that the change is towards rather than away from accuracy.

(Caveat: The town I grew up in was probably considerably safer, in terms of traffic if nothing else, than where anyone who lives in this thread lives, including me. So it's exceedingly unlikely any children of mine would be allowed a similar childhood to mine.)

[IR35 Avoider]

But of your 999, how many do you think would actually accept to look after your kid - how many would want the hassle and responsibility? That significantly reduces your 999 and in so doing increases the chances of asking a nutter to watch over them. I guess that nice Myra Hindley would have looked after them - she had a thing about having kids under her feet all the time, especially when she and her mate Ian went out planting them.

For goodness sake, I've told you twice to exclude scenarios precisely like the one you are banging on about. Try think of a scenario where no civilised person would refuse to help.

Perhaps your car has crashed, you can't move, and a complete stranger with room for one passenger offers to take your child to the hospital? Does your fear of strangers outweigh your concern that your child may need urgent medical attention? (A bit contrived but the best I can do at a moments notice. And no you can't assume there are other options such as the accident is in Britain therefore it's reasonable to wait for an ambulance.)

This is one (admittedly far-fetched) example where an irrational fear of strangers would compromise rather than enhance your childs well-being.

I guess not allowing your child to visit friends after school would be a more subtle example.

[Lucy]

Maintenance.

Some of the kiddies daddies must have a few bob

Absolutely not. She is not in contact with any of the fathers.

It's us, we are paying for it.

HURRahh!

[IR35 Avoider]

Reading back to my original post that seemed to upset some people, I can see why they are arguing with me. Although I meant to make an abstract point about risk, by quoting the post that had prompted the thought, I probably put the wrong sort of scenario in their minds. Hopefully I've managed to correct things since.

[SueEllen]

Absolutely not. She is not in contact with any of the fathers.

It's us, we are paying for it.

HURRahh!

Sorry having met some single mothers I'm suspicious.

Some have arrangements with the fathers where they give them money for the kids but they say they don't know where the father is, or they are getting money from the grandparents. Either way their state benefits are not reduced.

[oracleslave]

Reading back to my original post that seemed to upset some people, I can see why they are arguing with me. Although I meant to make an abstract point about risk, by quoting the post that had prompted the thought, I probably put the wrong sort of scenario in their minds. Hopefully I've managed to correct things since.

There is no going back now. You have been identified as a potentially dangerous parent and should never be allowed to breed.

HTH


Am kidding

[threaded]

Sorry having met some single mothers I'm suspicious.

Some have arrangements with the fathers where they give them money for the kids but they say they don't know where the father is, or they are getting money from the grandparents. Either way their state benefits are not reduced.

2nded

[Diver]

Yes Let's

I'll just leave my six year old granddaughter with that fella walking down the road. it'll be Ok, he seems like a nice chap, he smiled when I asked him to keep an eye on her while I pop to the bank.

Fancy Me goading IR35 into a sucker trap like that eh!


Still, it livened things up for a while

[SueEllen]

Reading back to my original post that seemed to upset some people, I can see why they are arguing with me. Although I meant to make an abstract point about risk, by quoting the post that had prompted the thought, I probably put the wrong sort of scenario in their minds. Hopefully I've managed to correct things since.

Leaving a teenage girl with a guy of 25 is negligent.

Leaving a 5 year old child with a mother of another 5 year old child who seems well-cared and goes to the same primary school is a risk, but not negligent.

[Diver]

If anybody has any 16+ year old daughters by the way, I'm available for babysitting duties.