Jump to content

Recommended Posts

iaineasy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think allowing any child of primary school age

> to take themselves to school is hugely

> irresponsible.

>

> ------------------------------

>

> I couldn't disagree more, my dad left when I was

> 5, my mum worked two jobs to pay the mortgage and

> keep a roof over our heads losing the house and

> being homeless would have been irresponsible. My

> taking myself to school may not have been ideal

> but nothing ever happened to me.

>

> my point remains hurrah for the parents.

> hugsb


The parents mentioned in the article aren't in this situation though


PS

Your mum sounds amazing!! You make sure she knows it!!

Growlybear Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Apart from the obvious risk

> of abduction



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?


I found it a wrench to allow my 9 year old out without supervision a year or so ago but he needs to be able to do it because it's not suddenly joining secondary school that keeps you safe on the way to and from school but it's the gradual build-up of confidence and independence and dealing with the world unsupervised - my 6 year old will have less restrictions I think because its training us (parents) to keep our fears in check and realise that having children includes a responsibility to allow them to gain small amounts of independence so they are prepared for secondary and life beyond

184 or 176 from the Elephant and Castle to DKH School from about the age of 8 on my own...plus walking from the now defunct or redesigned Dante Road under the underpasses to get to the bus and home again.


But 5 years old, on a bicycle in London today is a little too young.


In my humble opinion.

It's not so much paedephiles lurking about, but traffic in general and my main concern is that these children are crossing the South Circular coming from W Dulwich. I get what the parents are trying to do but personally feel 5 and 8 are a bit young judging by the fact that my own 5 year old can hardly ride a bike.

I have seen these children on my way to school with my lot. They ride their bikes safely on the pavement and so traffic is not a consideration. They cross the road safely also with the older child looking after the younger.


Dulwich is one of the safest places I can think of for primary children to make their own way to school. If there was any incident or problem there would be hundreds of parents around to step in and help.


Well done to the parents.

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.

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.

Trinity said,


"Dulwich is one of the safest places I can think of for primary children to make their own way to school. If there was any incident or problem there would be hundreds of parents around to step in and help.


Well done to the parents."


Well said. I think this act should be celebrated and supported. The school should take a much more positive line. I think there is an issue regarding the cycling. If they were walking I would feel even more supportive.

So


traffic is not a problem as they cycle on the pavement,


abduction is not a problem as there are so many parents doing the school run


that leaves the problem of crossing the roads - which (according to the Daily Telegraph)so the family have minimised that risk by making sure they cross at a junction with a lollipop lady.


On the DT website Mrs Schonrock said that she believed the benefits to her children outweighed the risk. I agree with her.

Personally I think 8 and 5 is too young - I have nephews of that age and couldn't imagine tham paying enough attention or being responsible/mature enough to manage the journey on their own - I can accept that its probably a lot to do with the individual child/children but for me that would be too young. The article mentions that they are picked up by either a parent or the nanny - it's hard to imagine why one of them couldn't cycle with them in the morning as well?

There is no debate here in my view. A mile from home to school.

An 8 year old and a 5 year old on bikes in any situation, let alone an urban one is dopey.

The school seems to have taken a half-sensible, if slightly namby-pamby approach to the parents.

I'm guessing they're not working-class, benefit-scroungers, though, eh?

I caught a school bus on my own from 5 onwards. I 'let' my mother accompany me for the first 2 days before telling her I could manage on my own. From 10, I caught a train 30 miles through to Edinburgh, caught a bus and then walked to school. Again, basic rules were drummed through my head, what to do in emergencies etc and it made me pretty self-sufficient.


If the parents are intelligent enough to have done a 'risk-assessment' which it sounds like they have, then this seems like an extreme reaction unless the head has already done the 'private conversation' route. It feels more like the head is worried about potential bad publicity if anything should go wrong rather than the well-being of the children.


I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with it until the youngest was a year or two older but I don't know the kids in question. In terms of cycling, West Dulwich is pretty nice to cycle around even on the roads and given these two are on pretty wide pavements (and I'd doubt going particularly fast), I wouldn't have said it was particularly risky - especially if any road crossings have lollipop/pelican crossings.

woodie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> they are a fine family i know them and vouch for

> their care of their children. Im sure they would

> have done the journey many many times with the

> children making sure its safe before trusting

> them.


Trusting the children is not the issue, it's the untrustworthy variables that might occur on their journey between home and school that might harm them.

My children were far too precious to me to let them go to school by themselves. That doesn't mean to say that the Schonrock children aren't precious to their parents too.

In my opinion, taking and fetching your children to school is all part of being a parent. To share and care for them and protect them when necessary. To meet the parents of your childrens friends, and to know what is going on in the school community.

If the Schonrocks are happy with their arrangement then that is fine provoding the children are safe. For me I would be at my wits end with worry!

lilolil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My children were far too precious to me to let

> them go to school by themselves. That doesn't mean

> to say that the Schonrock children aren't precious

> to their parents too.

> In my opinion, taking and fetching your children

> to school is all part of being a parent. To share

> and care for them and protect them when necessary.

> To meet the parents of your childrens friends, and

> to know what is going on in the school community.

> If the Schonrocks are happy with their arrangement

> then that is fine provoding the children are safe.

> For me I would be at my wits end with worry!


So LiloLil, you are saying these people are wrong to be doing what they're doing.

I would never ever let a five and eight years old make their own way to school. I do not think a 5 and 8 years old have the mental capacity to deal with potential dangerous situations. You get some very grown up children with common sense but most children of that age are still very young and will not really react quickly in some situations.

It is all very well people saying 'When I was younger..' lots of things happened in our lives when we were younger, even today etc but it does not make it right or safe.


They are too young. I am honestly quite astounded to see young children travelling by themselves on buses/bikes or walking. As an adult I have encountered dangerous situations just by walking around in Dulwich, my mother by cycling, and I would not want a child having to deal with that.


I think the school was heavy handed but I don't think they should be travelling at that age alone to school.

HonaloochieB.

I have reread my post and I think I made it very clear that if the parents feel that it is safe then that is up to them. In my opinion it is not safe for small children to go to school by themselves.

At the end of the day it is their responsibility. I do hope these children remain safe .

lilolil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> HonaloochieB.

> I have reread my post and I think I made it very

> clear that if the parents feel that it is safe

> then that is up to them. In my opinion it is not

> safe for small children to go to school by

> themselves.

> At the end of the day it is their responsibility.

> I do hope these children remain safe .


I don't agree that it's their responsibilty, there's that African saying 'It takes a village to raise a child', we acknowledge that by having legislation and systems of social care to cater for parents who are irresposible/abusive/careless when it comes to the welfare of their children.

If a parent is behaving irresponsibly then they require a word at the very least.

I used to walk to school by myself from about 7 but that was 1970 ad there's no friggin way I'd let my 5 year old ride a bike unaccompanied in London....or anywhere for that matter. The abduction/peado thing is a red herring on this but doesn't stop a load of stoopid comments I see - a 5 year old cycling unaccompanied in London is fooking irresponsible.
I have an eight and 6 year old and would not let them travel to school alone, this is for a number of reasons, but mainly that I would not want to burden an eight year old with the responsibility of having to deal with any manner of incident that may arise on the journey. I think HeidiHi is right- they do not yet have the capacity to be able to judge when a situation is safe/less than safe. Regularly on the 7 minute journey to school I take with my children, there will be some sort of 'hiccup' I need to deal with such as a fall, dog s**t mishap etc. and if I was not there my 8 year old would have to sort it out - and she's way too young still, maybe I don't give her enough responsibility but I think she has a few more years to enjoy being young and carefree. On a technical note, working in child protection, I am aware that the guidelines from Southwark social services (and generally all S.S. departments) is that children under 9 should not walk to school/cross roads unaccompanied, and I would think certainly not in charge of a 5 year old sibling. So I would say that actually the headmaster is merely following protocol...

@ mumofthreegirlies: Indeed it seems that the headmaster is only following protocol. My amazement followed from two aspects of the story. The first, that such a protocol is in place (it seems to see, in children walking to school, only risks and no benefits); the second, that other parents pressed him to intervene.


"Only risks and no benefits" may be hyperbole. However, my own family's private brand of dysfunction -- I think that to write of the normal, healthy family is oxymoronic -- strongly encouraged looking toward benefits and away from risks, and so my sympathies are with the Schonrocks.


I'm all in favour of "it takes a village" child-rearing. (When as a child I played where I shouldn't my mother or grandmother had heard about my misbehaviour from a neighbour well before I came home wet and muddy. Mrs Bates was particularly observant at tattling, as I considered her interventions then. It seemed to me bitterly hard that I never got away with anything.) If I saw a child ambling into traffic I hope that I should have presence of mind enough to pull her back forcibly and to deal calmly with accusations of "You laid hands on my daughter!" if they later arose. But for less emergent matters -- one must be very careful not to stray over the line between "helpful" and, with a tip of the hat to Mrs Bates, God rest her, "meddlesome".

For accuracy. The reports state that these kids cycle to school unescorted but are collected and taken home. That they cross one busy road which has a lollipop person supervising it. That they cycle on pavements - which in Dulwich Village are generally wide.

Statistically kids driven around everywhere are less healthy and at more risk but its no knowhere near as emotive. Irony that if anything happened to them it's quite likely to be from a car on a school run whose driver may even have posted on this thread how irresponsible these other parents are.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...