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.

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.

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.

I agree with DulwichMum - I've only ever seen the lollipop lady at the Turney Road part of the crossing. Nick Ferrari is just starting to talk about this on LBC. Both of his children went to Alleyn's so he knows the area and presumably understands what the area is like better than most of the other radio and TV presenters who have debated this.

I've just seen the route the children use to get to school which was published in the Telegraph. If this is correct, then I don't see that there is any way the children could possibly get to school without crossing more than one road. Now that it appears that these little children cross the busy junction in the heart of Dulwich Village on their bicycles alone during rush hour, I am even more horrified by the thought.

chantelle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And it's all > fine and well to say that work should be secondary > to getting your children to school, but how does > that work exactly if you have two employers > offering little flexibility on hours? Perhaps that should be something to take into account before you have two children? Or is it too old fashioned to make your children your first priority if you decide to bring them into the world?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi chantelle, > The parents are reported to have a nanny. > I believe they choose this start to the school day > for their kids. > They could equally have chosen to share school > runs, employed a nanny with expectation of them > taking kids to school. Perhaps they could even have chosen to take responsiblity for taking their own children to school themselves.

Apart from previous concerns I've already expressed about this issue, I'm struggling to think of a good reason why it is important to make a five year old independent and able to make their own way to school or why this could possibly be necessary. I live a similar distance from the primary school my daughter attended, and would never have let her travel to school on her own. As a parent, I saw it as one of my fundamental resposniblities to make sure that my child arrived at school safely and on time. In all seven years at primary school, my daughter was never late on a single occasion. I don't see that as anything special, just basic parenting responsiblity. My daughter did not have a problem adjusting to making a 10 mile journey to secondary school, and having been under my supervision on her way to primary school, had developed a really through understanding of road safety, and general awareness of her surroundings.

BB100 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > This is very sound reasoning. The problem is: who > should define what is perceived as being > vulnerable and at risk? As the below quote > suggests we have become a society of paranoid > parents, so are we really in the right position to > judge the Schonocks when our perceptions of risk > are distorted? (I'm not saying I would copy the > Schonrock's actions or they are doing the right > thing but I do think we are not in a good position > to decide for them). > > I think we all have our own perceptions of what constitutes a child being vulnerable. I can only follow my own standards and conscience, and without doubt, if I was aware of two little children of this age making a journey of this length to school on their own, I would have no hesitation in alerting the school concerned. In an ideal world, of course young children shoudl be able to live the sort of carefree childhood that I had, but we live in a very different world today, and I just can't see this situation as being anything other than irresponsible parenting at best, and downright negligent at worst.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The essential question is not whether you agree / > disagree with the Schonrocks but whether the > school, social services or other parents have any > right to intervene. > > I think that in cases where very young children are perceived to be in a vulnerable or dangerous situation, the school or other parents have a responsibility as well as a right to intervene. If intervention by the school has not persuaded the parents to take responsibility for ensuring that their infant daughter in particular arrives at school safely, then I can't think of anything else that the school can do but to alert Social Services. The fact that a five year old has, so far, managed to make her own way to school by bicycle accompanied only by her eight year old sister without coming to any harm doesn't mean that she won't come to grief in some way in the future. I really can;t think of any circumstances when I would have let me child travel to school alone on foot at the age of eight, let alone having responsiblity for a five year old.

trinity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If there was any incident or problem there > would be hundreds of parents around to step in and > help. > > If there WAS an incident and one of these little children lost concentration and, God forbid, got knocked down by a car when they were crossing the road, it wouldn't matter how many hundreds of parents were around to step in - it would be too late.

Curmudgeon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > do you really see abductors and paedophiles round > every corner, or do you think our perception of > danger is skewed by the media coverage of some > horrific, albeit rare, cases? > No, I don't see them round every corner, but I DO acknowledge that they exist and would never stick my head in the sand and think that things like that don't happen round here or couldn't happen to my child. I don't see the need to send 5 and 8 year olds to school on their own, but I do see the need to take basic steps to keep children safe. Like a number of other people, I cycled to school on my own when I was at primary school, but the world was very different then, and I didn't live in inner London. Whether or not there are more paedophiles now is something that is often debated, but it can't be disputed that there is far more traffic on the roads than when any of the members of this forum were five, and little children of this age can't be expected to have the attention span, concentration, or road sense to cycle a mile on their own.

I was shocked to read this article this morning, and to think that any parent would allow children of 8 and 5 to cycle alone to school. A mile is quite a long distance for such young children, and letting children who are of infant school age travel to school on their own puts them in such a vulnerable position. This isn't a little quiet country village in 1950 - it's a busy area in inner London in 2010. Apart from the obvious risk of abduction, the children have to negotiate traffic during the rush hour period whilst crossing the road. At five years old, children just don't have the necessary powers of concentration to be cycling without supervision, and an eight year old definitely isn't responsible enough to supervise such a young child. Whilst I think the Headteacher's approach might be a little extreme, I think it should be remembered that the school is in loco parentis for these children from the time they arrive at school until they leave. The parents might argue that it is their decision how their children get to school, but I can't see that the school could seriously be expected to condone allowing such young children to leave their care at the end of the day to cycle home alone and therefore to put them in a vulnerable position. If the Headteacher has spoken to the parents and they refuse to accompany their children to school and are insistent that they want to continue putting their children at risk, then I don't think the school had any choice but to consider involving Social Services - in my view it's clearly a child protection issue.

I'd like to add my name to Kerry's list of fans. She is by far the best nurse I've ever come across, and has a wonderful attitude. Nothing is too much trouble for her, and she is SUCH an asset to the practice.

My family have had a completely different experience with the Forest Hill Road Practice. I've never been unable to get an appointment for the same day when necessary, and have never had to wait more than a couple of days for a routine appointment. In 30 years I've never felt that I was treated rudely by a member of the reception staff and have never been made to feel unwelcome by any of the doctors. I've always felt that I've been given as much time as I've needed to discuss medical problems, and have been referred quickly for many many tests and different treatments whilst I've been with the Practice. I've never had any test results go astray. My only gripe over the years has been that the doctors at the Practice are generally not enthusiastic about making referrals for any vaguely alternative treatment. But overall, I can't fault the Practice.

Lewisham need to open 17 bulge classes across the Borough. It isn't really a question of the schools concerned agreeing to take an extra class; if they refuse, the local authority has the power to direct them to take an additional class. It's much better for the schools who are approached to take a bulge class to agree to this before the first round of offers goes out, then at least they get their extra class filled with children who have given that school as their first priority. If they refuse to take the extra class initially, by the time the local authority directs them to take a bulge class, that extra class could get filled up with chilren who would not necessarily be local to the school.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Time for the school to take more action - they > have a duty of care to their children and need to > invoke some responsible parenting in their > numb-skull clientele. The selfish attitude of some > of the parents of kids who go to that school is > beyond belief and someone needs to take a stand > before someone gets hurt. Other parents at the > school who do not cause these dangerous situations > need to challenge those who do. I have long been horrified by the selfish way so many parents park outside schools, but this is not a problem confined to Goodrich Primary School - unfortunately it happens at many, many schools. Whilst I would love to see parking restrictions imposed far more strictly, and parents who park or stop illegally being issued with tickets, sorting out this type of problem really isn't something that the school has any power to deal with. I know several headteachers at other primary schools in this area who have approached parents who park dangerously outside their schools, and they are usually just met with abuse. Schools have a duty of care to children when they are in their care, and that doesn't, and can't extend to parents who choose to park dangerously outside the schools. Most schools ask regularly for parking wardens to visit their schools, but are usually told that there isn't the manpower for frequent visits. I suppose when you consider that boroughs like Southwark, Lewisham, and Lambeth each have around 80 schools, the number of parking wardens needed would be huge, bearing in mind they would all be needed at the same time. The only thing that schools can really do is to write to parents regularly, or 'name and shame' illegally parked cars in their newsletters. Parking was a problem at my daughter's infant school a few years ago, but we realised that the school was pretty much powerless to stop the problem. So a group of parents got a supply of traffic cones, set up a rota, and put them outside the school on the zig zag markings for half an hour every morning and afternoon. It solved the problem. That would not necessarily solve the problem at Goodrich, because the road layout is different, but it could be a start.

I reported all three of the occasions that my husband's petrol was stolen, and felt that my reports were treated with courtesy and concern by the person who took the details. But crime of this type is very common in large cities, and I don't think it's practical for the Police to consider staking out several roads overnight on the off chance that someone might stop to steal ?20 of petrol from a car or bike, and where exactly would they instal CCTV? Outside my house where there have been three thefts? Outside the house of the person who's bike has been targeted several times? Or should they pick another address at random? It's incredibly annoying when it happens, and I agree that it might be worth taking finger prints, but quite honestly, I would rather think that the Police used their finite resources on attending to rather more serious crimes in the area than this.

TJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have been contacted by one of you about another > theft last night - The police are beginning to > take notice - please please report all the > thefts! > > I have also been in touch with the Southwark news > to get them on board - they are contacting the > police for a their side of the story, but we now > need more & more pressure on them to act! > Hopefully, a few articles and a few more > politicians getting involved will get the police > involved fully! I appreciate how annoying crimes like this are - it's affected us three times in recent weeks - but what do you expect the Police to do? I really don't understand what the Police can do to stop this type of crime.

I've reported each of the three occasions that Mr G's car has been drained. The Police were very pleasant and took details. They sent us a nice letter about the victim support scheme! I thought they would come to look at the footprints that the thief left in the snow the last time, but apparently they can't lift prints from surfaces like that. Just a word of warning in case anyone catches the thief in the act and decides to tackle them - the last time they drained my husband's car, they obviously had a dog with them, judging from the pattern of the footprints and paw prints. We are fairly certain from car tracks in the snow that they were draining the petrol tank directly over the fence into a car parked on the pavement. We checked carefully to see exactly at what point our security light came on, and realised that it wasn't activated by someone coming into the garden by climbing over the front fence. Mr G now parks his car the other way round so the petrol tank is close to the house rather than the road, and there is no way that anyone can get to it without setting off the light. So far, we've had two weeks without another problem.

The petrol thief came back again last night - and left a perfect set of footprints in the snow and tyre tracks where they pulled up on the pavement outside.

I just wanted to warn people in the Wood Vale area to be on the look out for petrol thieves. My husband's car has been broken into overnight twice this week whilst parked on our drive, and the petrol tank drained. I know there isn't much that can be done to stop a thief from breaking a locking petrol cap, but apparently at least one other person nearby has also been targeted, so this is obviously more than just an opportunist thief.

I agree with several of the other posters on here, and can't imagine any circumstances that would ever make me leave my keys in the car, with or without the engine running. I'm sure like lots of other people, I often stop at a post box to send my letters, but have never left my engine running - I don't understand why anyone would? As well as being an invitation to an opportunistic thief, if it was me I would be very worried that my actions might have allowed my car to be taken by an inexperienced driver, who could go on to cause an accident. Apart from the thief not being insured for any damage or injury they might cause to an innocent person,the downer of the car must surely invalidate their own insurance by leaving the car unattended, unlocked, and with the engine running.

I've had similar experiences at that junction, particularly when going in the opposite direction to you, driving along Court Lane with Harold George on the left. People don't seem to understand that the give way markings at the end of Calton Avenue mean that you really do have to give way to drivers who are on Court Lane, and who do not need to indicate if they are following the road round as it bends.

I didn't get a chance to get to one of the displays this year, and I really enjoyed the Wood Vale fireworks. They were among the best home fireworks I've seen and must have cost a fortune!