The Rospa Talk Sense?

[Lonan3]

CLICK - Bumps and bruises are 'good for children’

 

Children should be allowed to play dangerous games and risk minor injuries as part of a wider lesson in life, the organisation responsible for avoiding accidents has said.

By scraping knees, grazing elbows and getting bruises, children learn “valuable lifelong lessons†that will help them to avoid more serious injuries in later life.

Peter Cornall, head of leisure safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), said: “We need to ask ourselves whether it is better for a child to break a wrist falling out of a tree, or to get a repetitive strain wrist injury at a young age from using a computer or video games console.

“Parents and children must not be frightened about venturing outside. When children spend time in the great outdoors, getting muddy, getting wet, getting stung by nettles, they learn important lessons – what hurts, what is slippery, what you can trip over or fall from. We need to try to break down the perceived safety barriers to playing outside. A step towards achieving this can be the creation of wild areas for natural play within parks.

“For example, there could be places to paddle on the banks of streams, climb trees and build dens. If these areas can be created within a supervised park environment in urban areas, parental fears should start to be allayed.â€

 

Could this, perhaps, be the first tiny reaction against the nanny state?

[whoracle]

finally! an official body saying exactly what parents have been saying themselves for years. well, some parents anyway.

 

i fully endorse every word this guy says. bravo to you sir.

[Albert Tatlock]

Could this, perhaps, be the first tiny reaction against the nany state?

I hope so. But I fear there are not enough of us left even to form a posse.

[Mr. Sausages]

Bloody nanny state, telling us to play outside. Mutter grumble etc.

[P.K.]

Still relevant today:

 

Were you born in the fifties?

 

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a tin, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then, after that trauma, our baby cots were covered with bright lead-based paints. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes we had no helmets, not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking. As children we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a van - loose - was always great fun. We drank water from pumps, the garden hosepipe and NOT from a bottle. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this. We ate cakes, white bread and real butter and drank fizzy pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because...... WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!

 

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when it went dark or the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K. We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

 

We did not have Play stations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape/DVD movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no text messaging, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them! We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

 

We played with worms and mud pies made from dirt, and on eating the worms they did not live in us forever. Made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen we did not poke out any eyes.

 

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!

 

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

 

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever! The past 50-60 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL! And if YOU are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS!

 

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good.

 

PS -The BIG type is because your eyes are shot at your age!

[Gladys]

I have long said the exact same. A child will only understand danger when it learns that some things hurt. No amount of saying 'don't do that because you may hurt yourself' will equip a child half as much as a few bumps and bruises where they will learn what to hurt themselves actually means.

 

I also like the bit about being stung by nettles; that was a hazard of the job when I were a lass, but I knew very early on to rub dock leaves on the stung skin, and so do my kids. Valuable lesson to make kids aware of what is around them, note what can hurt them, and what is available in nature's medicine chest to help.

 

It was also part of the job to have permanently scabby knees; that's what knees are for, falling on! Splinters, there's another, I became quite adroit at removing splinters from my right hand with a pin.

 

The current concerns with health and safety seems to just wrap our youngsters up in cotton wool, with no minor injuries so that they will never be able to assess what danger actually means until they are 16, then they can have a driving licence and just get on with it! Bizarre!

[Albert Tatlock]

Still relevant today:

 

Were you born in the fifties?

 

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a tin, and didn't get tested for diabetes....

Which explains why we're all five foot 8 or 10 - and our kids are all 6 foot 5.

[Amadeus]

Sort of related:

 

Child obesity 'a form of neglect'

 

Obesity has been a factor in at least 20 child protection cases in the last year, the BBC has learned.

Some doctors now believe in extreme cases overfeeding a young child should be seen as a form of abuse or neglect.

The BBC contacted almost 50 consultant paediatricians around the UK to ask if they believe childhood obesity can ever be a child protection issue.

The British Medical Association is due to debate a motion on this issue at its annual conference at the end of June.

Earlier this year the case of one obese child hit the headlines when social workers became involved.

Dr Tabitha Randell, a consultant paediatrician from Nottingham, is one doctor who believes some parents are killing their children with kindness.

In her clinic it has become more common to see children entering puberty before the age of 10 because of their obesity.

 

So, on one hand it's cotton-wool wrap 24/7 - don't cycle to school, too dangerous - don't play here or there, too dangerous - etc.. And on the other hand, people might commit an offence if little Joe balloons within the safe compunds of the house and in front of the playstation, whereby a lot of the calories taken in simply might have been burned off in the past due to higher levels of every-day physical activity - weird world

 

But then - even Clowns have to watch out now - don't let the kids chase soap bubbles - way too dangerous

[grant]

Unlike almost every other thread posted on this forum, everyone that's posted on here AGREES. Wow. This says a lot. It's not been long since I lived across and I think the reason most parents, including myself, placed such restrictions on their offspring, wasn't as much for the fear of something terrible happening to them. But because of the fear of being accused of being neglectful or uncaring.

 

Since moving here, my 9 year old has enjoyed more freedom than ever before and is a more confident, well balanced individual because of this. I am aware that he is growing up and improvements would be expected anyway, but the changes in his quality of life are immense. He takes himself to school, brings himself home, takes dog down to the beach, (to earn his pocket money) runs back, runs back down to play football, etc, with friends he's met whilst dog walking.

 

I still wonder, should something go wrong, whether I would be accused of neglect. Drawing the line is difficult and it's easy to be critical of parents with the benefit of hindsight. I feel critical of parents who keep their children in, but who's right and who's wrong?

 

I think RoSPA's latest stance is like a breath of fresh air, but I'm amazed that Peter Cornall had the balls to release it.