Jump to content

Teenagers in playground


Recommended Posts

I've been to the Rye three times in the last week and every time I see teenagers playing in the playground. I especially sympathise with parents of children in this age group but they really need to get the message. As if a bolted gate and multiple signs weren't enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> I know, I saw adults in the park too.

>

> Why are people just NOT getting the message?



Because there has not been a sufficiently clear and coordinated public information campaign which tells people not just what they must and mustn't do, but also exactly WHY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peckhampam Wrote:

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

> Sue

> I have to disagree. What you can do and why has

> been repeated ad infinitum on all

> telecommunications channels. But some people just

> don't think it applies to them.

Yes Peckhampam is right. Every time I see a group of teens TOGETHER- they are the same age and obviously come from different households. They are putting themselves and their own families at risk. Their parents probably lost control of them some time ago and they will do just as they please. The public information is CRYSTAL clear....but as I read on a blog or post from a father- '24/7 parenting is impossible.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who parents the irresponsible adults who are out?


Every time I see a group of adults together - who clearly do NOT live together, I want to call the police or their parents. but at their age, they should certainly know better. They are not setting a good example to our young people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The information on what to do is crystal clear, yes.


I disagree that it is clear as to exactly why, for example that somebody can transmit the virus to many others whilst showing no symptoms whatsoever themselves.


And also the exponential nature of the transmission, and how that changes if one person initially transmits the virus to two, or to ten, and so on and so on.


It certainly wasn't clear on the government information I got with the letter from Boris.


If people don't understand the reasons why they are being asked to do things, they are less likely to do them, I would have thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it's only people who have lost a job and have to beg for some money from the government to live on, have to queue for an hour to buy food, need to pause your mortgage or rent payments and other debt, see family members in quarantine, have to home school your children... even if you didn't understand the reason for social isolation, you'd realise it was bloody serious.


If you're not directly impacted by any of these things, you'd need to have it explained to you in a different way. And clearly that isn't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That, exactly Binkylilyput.


Thanks for posting the link.


Don't let your fear of our teens make you forget they are extremely vulnerable.

They are too poor to move out if they need to be safe and have no control over their home environment.


If they were happy and safe at home, you can bet your bottom dollar that that is where they would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

worldwiser Wrote:

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

> I suppose it's only people who have lost a job and

> have to beg for some money from the government to

> live on, have to queue for an hour to buy food,

> need to pause your mortgage or rent payments and

> other debt, see family members in quarantine, have

> to home school your children... even if you didn't

> understand the reason for social isolation, you'd

> realise it was bloody serious.

>

> If you're not directly impacted by any of these

> things, you'd need to have it explained to you in

> a different way. And clearly that isn't happening.



No, it doesn't seem to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue Wrote:

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

> The information on what to do is crystal clear,

> yes.

>

> I disagree that it is clear as to exactly why, for

> example that somebody can transmit the virus to

> many others whilst showing no symptoms whatsoever

> themselves.

>

> And also the exponential nature of the

> transmission, and how that changes if one person

> initially transmits the virus to two, or to ten,

> and so on and so on.

>

> It certainly wasn't clear on the government

> information I got with the letter from Boris.

>

> If people don't understand the reasons why they

> are being asked to do things, they are less likely

> to do them, I would have thought.


Yes I suppose that accounts for the number of people who use a public toilet and don't wash their hands....

I don't believe there are many out there including teens, who don't know what's going on especially since Primark is shut etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking to my sister yesterday who is a business owner, (many people all different age groups use her store) she's not that often opinionated but yesterday she was.

She is getting angry (yes that's the word she used) at seeing teenagers/youngsters hanging out together instead of isolating.

I was quite chilled about it & thought well if they've got nowhere to go then good luck to them, if they get ill it's their problem (as well as the NHS' of course)

She weren't having it.

As she quite rightly put it if there ar elderly/vulnerable people in a hospital & they have to make a choice as to who's life should be saved, they'd no doubt choose the youngsters!

So yes people unnecessarily going out are putting other people's lives at risk & not realising.


Tbh I wasn't thinking on that level, but when she put it to to me..... Well what can I say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have to remember here, what is it like to be a teenager. You feel invincible at that age right? And death is something that happens to old people right? We live in a western culture where most people do not die before their time. This is very different to parts of the world where people frequently die from the impacts of poor hygiene, poor sanitation, and poor healthcare. In many ways, our first world sanitation is our downfall. We live in a bubble where the very idea of an unseen microscopic virus upending our way of life is an anathema.


So that poses a question that is as much about culture as it is about science. How do we impress on that minority of teens and adults alike who think they are not part of the risk? The good news is that they are a minority. The bad news is that it only takes one infected person to cause havoc with this virus. I don't have the answers either sadly, but if we are to change those minority mindsets, we need to be clever about it. It is about winning the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If teenagers today are anything I was like as a teenager, then they will automatically want to do the opposite of what they?re told. They are learning about life and testing authority. Just ranting about their behaviour and complaining about their parents won?t help, the problem needs to be articulated to them in a different way. I don?t have the answer to this by the way!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No idea. Ask One Dulwich   No. There are two seperate issues. I believe some cover their plates deliberately (delivery drivers etc) and a number are confused by signage. I spend a lot of time in that area and have only ever seen one car drive through and it was an elderly couple who were incredibly confused (and subsequently very apologetic to an angry cyclist who was calling them all the names under the sun).   Some questions for you to answer now: 1) Which consultation are you referring to? 2) Did you agree with the council's insistence on keeping the junction closed to emergency vehicles despite the emergency services telling them it was delaying response times?   3) At a time of funding crisis do you think £1.5m is a good spend to redesign a junction and those redesigns: - potentially increase emergency vehicle response times - do nothing to stop persistent number plate covering offenders - do nothing to slow cyclists at a pedestrian area  
    • I tell you what, I've answered every question you've posed to me on this thread so far, so before you deflect any further, why don't you address the simple questions I've put to you several times first. Here, give them a go: Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how? Do you genuinely believe that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the square due to inadequate signage?  
    • Which original consultation?    Err be careful with the expert opinion and data part.....if you think the cycle lobby and Aldred et al is the sole source of sound opinion on such issues! 😉 And this is where they fell foul of the law and had to re-run the consultation. It actually casts huge doubt on a lot of previous consultations (including the latest DV one) as they do not pass the legal watermark because they do not provide a yes/no response. The council are terrified of a judicial review because, I suspect under legal advice, they know they cheated the system in many previous consultations. Do you remember when the council claimed they had a mandate for the CPZs because of some seriously dodgy research conducted with a large tranche of students in the north of the borough in 2018.....
    • Perhaps the issue is that Southwark don’t listen. They didn’t take account of responses. The proposed CPZs for west Dulwich  stopped when the Council was threatened with a judicial review. Not before. Whatever consultation process was worse than flawed with McAsh arguing that because they were in power, they had a mandate and didn’t need to listen to anyone’s views, rendering any democratic process void. The criteria for LTNs was high population density, high public transport usage and low car ownership so Dulwich Village was a perfect candidate…not. Just a coincidence but I believe some councillors live within the scheme 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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