clare999

Loz said: > Putting on my best Paxman-grilling-Michael-Howard > voice... "But did you *threaten* to call social > services?" (repeat 14 times). I like the idea of Paxman peseverating pointlessley with that type of question - he's past his best and this type of thing that would really wind him up nowadays! But seriously, anyone providing a legally accountable service that takes responsibility for people or their children is obliged to explore and discuss the full legal etc implications of actions taken. Being informed isn't necessarily the same as being threatened. For example, was the headmaster "informed" or "threatened" that the press might become involved? This isn't meant to be a dig at the Schonrocks as it isn't necessarily the case they went to the press in the first place. But I do know however the press/Boris/David Cameron have stirred up the whole thing for their own ends, and I wish they hadn't got invovled. PS is this thread beginning to perseverate?

Mr James Barber: glad to see our councillor playing a part in this debate "Nearly all of those seriously injured and the definition for this being very broad. Many of these were car occupants" Not sure how "broad" you regard the definition of killed is. And re stats: numbers are from 2009 Dept Transport They state that of children killed or seriously injured in GB (2,590), pedestrians are 63% and cyclists 13%. Figure of thirteen KOSI for Southwark derived from an assumption about number of under 15 in that borough. It seems that stats you have to hand are "different". Whatever, I don't think you can say that car occupants (just 17% of KOSI) can truthfully be said to represent the "many". What can one say about a politician and statistics! And I guess a LibDem is never quite what he seeems. But seriously, the points I was making about the numbers was (1) they aren't to be ignored, and (2) they're happening despite a society that is often criticised for being too careful. What do we think will happen if we leave more under 5 year olds minimally supervised in the streets at the time of the school run?

Most of the children killed or seriously injured were older, and not supervised by an adult.

This thread started with a great deal of vitriol targetted at either the "authoritarian headmaster" and the "nanny state". But unfortunately, as always the facts of the case don't match the stereotypes. The issue has been running for months, with the school and, believe it or not, other parents generally being sympathetic to this modern (but rather contrived?) dilemma. So strike off images of mothers huddled in the playground, gossiping etc! But the bottom line is that 4 year old/8 year old are too young to make this step. They are too distractable. They don't have the skills to cope with the unexpected. Its an unecessary risk. Stats suggest thirteen under 15yo killed or seriously injured in Southwark on the roads last year - of which 80% cyclists or pedestrians. 2800 children killed or seriously injured on the roads in UK during the same year. Thats quite a lot. And that is with the so-called nanny state and paranoid parents in full swing. I can't think the numbers would reduce by adopting a more relaxed attitude to leaving your very young children unsupervised on the road. And of course these accidents don't happen randomly - they occur where children tend to congregate. And re the benefits (independence etc etc). Yes - sort of. But there are other ways, and whats the urgency in making kids grow up so fast by taking such a big step?! Just chill: walk them to school, share the health benefits - and its quite fun too! And don't cycle on the pavements - too many cars reversing out of drives to be safe, and a complete pain in the neck for those trying to walk. PS Not fair to really rely on other parents to watch out - or at least if you do, at least get their consent!