Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Brendan Wrote:

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

> I suppose if we were having this conversation 100

> years ago we would be discussing the nuisance of

> unsupervised children rather than their

> vulnerability.

>


Yes, that view of the child as 'born sinful and in need of discipline' was more dominant then.

Brendan Wrote:

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

> It would also take a while for all the messages to

> be delivered by post.


I quite like the idea of having a more genteel area to the forum; where carefully considered and thoughtful 'letters' arrive on a less frequent basis - and without all the froth and bluster.


Maybe this is one for Admin to think about.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Brendan Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It would also take a while for all the messages

> to

> > be delivered by post.

>

> I quite like the idea of having a more genteel

> area to the forum; where carefully considered and

> thoughtful 'letters' arrive on a less frequent

> basis - and without all the froth and bluster.

>

> Maybe this is one for Admin to think about.


*Bob* I've sent my thoughts on this to you in the post.


Apologies to Postie, I overestimated how much dog poo you could get in an A4 letter envelope.

DaveR Wrote:

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

> there are lots of relevant stats/research, and

> quite a few references to them on this thread.

> They include the statistical risk of child

> abduction, absolute and relative risk of road

> trafic accidents (including comparing the idyllic

> 70s when most of us walked or cycled to school

> unaccompanied with the present), and research

> regarding the positive benefits of exercise and

> exposure to risk for children


i haven't seen anything here that compares e.g. relative risks of accidents/abduction for accompanied v unaccompanied children on bikes or the impact on 'positive benefits' - can you point me to it?

pk, I'm not going to trawl all the way back and post every example - here's one:


Growlybear Wrote:

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

> > I can only

> follow my own standards and conscience...but we live in a very different world today,

>


If these statistics are to be believed we actually live in a safer world: traffic deaths are lower

than they ever have been (National Statistics, 15th April 2009) and child

murders at the hand of strangers remain consistently low (National Statistics,

11th June 2009).


So is it more dangerous, or has our perception of risk changed?"



If the point you are making is where are the stats specifically for accompanied vs unaccompanied, fair enough, but that wasn't the point I was making. And in any event, when the occurrence you are talking about is exceptionally rare, e.g. child murders at the hands of strangers, the difference in likelihood between accompanied and unaccompanied kids is likely to be wafer thin in statistical terms.

This is not the only example re a 5 year olds ability but . . . Valentino Rossi first began riding at a very young age. Rossi's first racing love was go-karts. Fuelled by his mother, Stefania's, concern for her son's safety, Graziano purchased a go-kart as substitute for the bike. However, the Rossi family trait of perpetually wanting to go faster prompted a redesign; Graziano replaced the 60cc motor with a 100cc national kart motor for his then 5-year-old son.

DaveR Wrote:

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


>

> If the point you are making is where are the stats

> specifically for accompanied vs unaccompanied,

> fair enough, but that wasn't the point I was

> making. And in any event, when the occurrence you

> are talking about is exceptionally rare, e.g.

> child murders at the hands of strangers, the

> difference in likelihood between accompanied and

> unaccompanied kids is likely to be wafer thin in

> statistical terms.


yeah that's what i was geting at - i thought that was what the thread was about


re murders i agree that the numbers are likely to be very low (thankfully) but in this extreme example i guess i'd be surprised if unaccompanied 5 and 8 year olds were not more at risk than those that are with adults

"re murders i agree that the numbers are likely to be very low (thankfully) but in this extreme example i guess i'd be surprised if unaccompanied 5 and 8 year olds were not more at risk than those that are with adults"


Me too - but I also wouldn't be surprised if the difference was between 0.000001% and 0.000002%, and if both those numbers were far smaller than the statistical risk associated with all sorts of things that parents let their kids do every day without thinking about it. I mentioned horse-riding before in part because of the notorious "ecstasy safer than horseriding' story that ultimately led to the resignation of half of the government's drugs advisors, which was a classic case of (statistical) reality vs perception.


I think this thread, as it has developed, is about quite a few things, but fundamentally, surely, it's about at what point a parent's decision about how they raise their child is challenged by the state, and on what basis.

Keef Wrote:

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

> I also feel that it is putting a lot of pressure

> on the 8 year old. If something did happen, and

> the 8 year old saw the 5 year old get hit by a

> car. They are tyhen expected to keep calm, call

> 999, administer first aid? Thety are 8, and should

> not be burdened that way.

trinity Wrote:

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

> > In addition older children having responsibility

> for their younger siblings in certain situations,

> in this case the ride to school, would also have

> been entirely normal and part of a healthy family

> relationship.



'It is estimated that there are 175,000 young carers in the UK'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6636585.stm


Society doesn't seem to be making the same amount of fuss over the number of young children caring for their PARENTS in this country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6122190.stm

Next time you want a thread to die a death, Marmora Man, please post to let us know - for since you did this thread has has come back to life with some well measured points made. Like a lot the best threads on here it is tantalisingly balanced between the general and the particular - people pulling it back to the specific rights and wrongs of the Schonrock decision whilst others expand it out towards broader social points about parenting.


Can we yet put to bed the notion, made so forcefully yesterday, that these parents are actually negligent? We have had a parent with kids at the same school tell us that this arrangement has been going on all year. Is that long enough for people to believe that these two children are competent enough to make the journey safely. How long would it take for you to be convinced?

DaveR makes this point "I think this thread, as it has developed, is about quite a few things, but fundamentally, surely, it's about at what point a parent's decision about how they raise their child is challenged by the state, and on what basis." I agree but would add that it is also about at what point a parent's decision about how to raise their child is challenged by other parents. The creeping over-supervision of kids has, I suspect, progressed incrementally every time that one parent criticises the "free-range" techniques of another. It is the "I told you so" mentality that chips away at the confidence of mothers (in particular) so they feel less inclined to allow their children to take risks.

I have to admit my wish that the actions of the Schonrocks might at least give some others the resolve to follow their instincts and allow their (slightly older) youngsters to walk unaccompanied to their (closer)schools .

'Society doesn't seem to be making the same amount of fuss over the number of young children caring for their PARENTS in this country. [news.bbc.co.uk]'


alice Wrote:

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

> yeah but that's not a situation they have

> chosen....

>

>


You assume that all child carers are looking after physically ill or disabled parents. Actually many children have to look after their parents because they are alcholics, drug abusers or self-harmers.


I worked with a 6 year old child recently who looked after her five year old sibling and her mother everytime she was intoxicated (3-4 times a week). She even did the shopping and the cooking. Social Services knew but they just had a meetings about it.

Hi Keef,


It's not really about what I think. I was just illustrating the hypocrisy of taking the moral highground on parental responsibility when there are children taking very serious and significant responsibilities for others all around us and are largely ignored by wider society.

Keef Wrote:

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

> Out of interest, what do you think would be

> appropriate action from Social Services in these

> circumstances?


Apologies if I misunderstood what you were referring to. I understood it to be the title of the thread but it would seem not.

When I was a lad I used to walk barefoot six miles to school every day through six feet snowdrifts. And when I got to school I was regularly flayed alive. But it did me no harm - in fact it made me the man that I am today.


Them kids today have it soft.

My 11 yr old makes his way to school by bus or train happily - but at 5 or even 8, not a hope - having been a resident of Dulwich for a few years now and having the note in the school bag asking parents to be vigilant as an 11 yr old was followed - this happened on two occasions that I know of - and just two weeks ago the same thing happened near East Dulwich. Paedophiles do not hang around the frozen food section of Sainsburys. This is the extreme end of the scale but at the very least an 8 yr old should not be responsible for a 5yr old - children have a basic right to be looked after - no matter how capable they are or how much you can trust them - you cannot always trust other people - careless to say the least

When I first read this thread, I was inclined to support the parents and to take the view that the school's reaction was somewhat over the top. I have now read that the parents told their kids to cycle to the school on the pavement and not on the road. If this is true, it is highly regrettable that parents should encourage their kids to break the law in this way. And there is no exemption for kids of eight and under from the provisions of the Highways Acts barring cycling on the footway.


We live near Alleyns and are bedevilled by Alleyns kids, other school kids and other cyclists, including people who seem to think that they are taking part in the Tour de France, cycling at speed on the pavement. Recently I had the misfortune to encounter a most unpleasant teenager who, when I told him that he shouldn't be cycling on the pavement, replied with a very supercilious 'And your point is?' (a deeply annoying and overused phrase in itself). I told him what my point was in no uncertain terms and forced him on to the road.


Rather than trying to make an example of the Schonrock parents, the Alleyns head would be performing a better service for us by emphasising to his pupils that it is totally unacceptable for them to cycle to school on the pavement.

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...