Schonrock kids and unchaperoned "school run"

[James Barber]

Hi Dulwichmum,

Southwark Council has nearly 600 Looked After Children. This doesn't to me imply intertia. This is a slightly higher ratio than most other London boroughs. Southwark Council has a full compliment of social workers and all councillors take their Corporate Parenting responsibilies very seriously.

If you EVER encounter such problems and are unhappy with the response you tell your local councillor. If you fail to get engagement from them you escalate to their party leader.

Whinging on a forum after the fact with the implication kids have suffered is - well I'm incredulous.

[Growlybear]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Alleyn's School has released the following

> statement:

>

> ".. Both children are below the 9

> years-of-age threshold currently recommended by

> the local authority (Southwark Council) for

> crossing the road independently. Moreover,

> Bikeability, the government-approved,

> cycle-training organisation, itself does not

> recognise a child's ability to cycle unsupervised

> and independently until they are over eleven years

> of age. "

Presumably the parents have been given these recommendations, and it is very clear from both the Southwark Council and Bikeability guidance that a five year old is way below their accepted threshold to cross roads/cycle without adult supervision. I don't understand why they couldn't have taken the advice a little more seriously and reflected that perhaps their decision to send their infant child to school by bicycle, having to cross at least three roads, might not necessarily have been right. Even if they had decided that they know better than the local authority and a national cycle training organisation, what ever possessed them to take this story to the national press and put their children in the spotlight like this?

[*Bob*]

Growlybear Wrote:

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

what ever

> possessed them to take this story to the national

> press and put their children in the spotlight like

> this?

Dinner party bragging rights.

[Keef]

Probably because they have never in their lives actually been descriminated against, and this allows them to feel like a wronged party, whilst also looking awfully green and "right on".

The school appears to have responded in a way that is right and proper, whether or not the kids are indanger, if people have commented / complained to the school, the school is right to act.

[Keef]

Whilst I was writing that, *bob* put it much better than I could, in much fewer words.

[tropica]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>" No, it isn't illegal to ride on the pavement for

> the small wheel sizes involved and age of the

> kids."

Please would you clarify this. I understood (from the DFT website) that there was no exemption to section 72 - so it remains illegal - nevertheless, the police are allowed to use their discretion in not prosecuting adults responsible for very small children cycling on the pavement. (Children of 8 and 5 would be below the age of criminal responsibility). I have never seen any official reference to wheel sizes - I thought the size issue was an urban myth. Please advise accordingly.

With regard to this particular thread it may be helpful if someone would confirm if the route used by these children is a designated shared cycle/pedestrian pathway which would indicate a safer (for all users) route.

[Keef]

I'm with tropica. I'd heard something about wheel size, but nothing concrete. I thought that cycling on the pavement was illegal full stop, but would be pleased to hear otherwise.

[Growlybear]

Given the large number of young children who would be in the immediate vicinity of Dulwich Village Infant School and Dulwich Hamlet at this time of the morning, does it not also create a potentially hazardous situation to these children and their parents to have two very young children cycling amongst them on the pavement?

[omniprescient]

Up to now it looks like a three horse race:

1) allowing an 8 yo to supervise a 5 yo's journey to school is totally irresposible - 70% agree with this - an unassailable lead I would say

2)allowing an 8 yo to supervise a 5 yo's journey to school is not unduly risky and is an acceptable way for them to get to school - 20% agree with this

3) it's none of my business - 10% agree with this.

Councillor Barber takes the archetypal politician's view in that his children are "not ready" to do such a thing but he supports the parents right to do so (= he wouldn't allow this himself under any circumstances but he hasn't got the balls to say so - this horse is from the same stable as claiming to support state education whilst sending your kids to private school - do you do that as well Councillor B??)

[bbug]

To save this thread being bogged down by technicalities, see this thread where I've posted the definitive legal stuff regarding cycling on pavements:

Cycle Issues (Lounge)

[Loz]

Alleyn's School has released the following statement:

"

Alleyn's Junior School would like to correct the misreporting of the travel-to-school story.

First, the school has not reported the family to the local authority social services.

Putting on my best Paxman-grilling-Michael-Howard voice... "But did you *threaten* to call social services?" (repeat 14 times).

[david_carnell]

Keef Wrote:

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

> Probably because they have never in their lives

> actually been descriminated against, and this

> allows them to feel like a wronged party, whilst

> also looking awfully green and "right on".

Oh puur-lease. Now it's a feckin class issue again Keef?!

They've never been discriminated against? Really? How do you know? Have you met them? Do you know the first thing about them beyond their names and where they send the kids to school? No, of course not. But don't let that get in your way to have a dig at the "awfully green" and "right on" crowd. As per ususal.

And even if you're right, and they've lead lives of serene happiness and bliss, so what? Somehow they're no longer allowed to make the same choices of any other parent without you or anyone else here wading in with you size nines?

Leave the personal attacks out of it at the least.

[????]

The Spartans used to put new born sons out on the mountain for their first night to see if they were strong enough. In my opinion it's been downhill since then.

[tropica]

Sorry bbug, you're right not to want the technicalities drawn out again but I would like James Barber to respond regarding his statement on the wheel size issue as his statement perpetuates a myth. Whatever the chances of being prosecuted, it remains illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavement, something that parents should be aware of, in case their child ever collides with a pedestrian.

[*Bob*]

There's still a mountain of sorts, ????. Only it's a Blue one and they do Eggs Benedict.

[david_carnell]

But the children really would die of starvation in there.

[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?

[BB100]

'On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance...:"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

'Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

And yes PeterW couldn't you hear the laughter across ED?

[Loz]

I only pointed it out clare999, as the school put out the press release to 'correct press reports', yet all the press reports I've read stated that the Schonrocks were told by the school they "could be reported to social services".

[Keef]

D_C, not picking *bob* up on his posts, because he's rather funny and popular, and well, you know, Sean probably likes his posts to?

[Keef]

Oh and I never mentioned class, and I'm size 10.

[david_carnell]

Keef Wrote:

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

> D_C, not picking *bob* up on his posts, because

> he's rather funny and popular, and well, you know,

> Sean probably likes his posts too?

Well, yeah, that and a sense of irony I suppose.

And you did mention class - you just didn't say the word.

[tropica]

> 'Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty

> needs to be used with a considerable degree of

> discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under

> the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John

> Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23

> February 2004)

Anyone under 16 cannot be issued with a FPN (common sense - most kids would just throw it away), but they can still be prosecuted in the normal way. (Apologies to bbug for carrying on the technicalities.)

[Keef]

No I didn't, but of course you're always right, no quesiton.

I'm usually the person who says class is a load of nuts actually, although you've tried to paint me as the one who "always" makes it about class.

Whatever class these people are, I think a 5 year old cycling to school is fecking stupid.

The fact is though David, that sometimes class, or whatever you want to call it, does make a difference, and that makes some people, a little bit uncomfortable, and defensive.

[HAL9000]

10/10 for a sensible edit.