I must say, I think it's pretty rude to suggest that people have only managed to get their kids this far by accident. Can I ask how much time you spent with your kids was spent with nothing of note happening to them at all?
in response to being called hysterical and neurotic for following the advice of rospa and the nspcc? i think not.
in response to being called hysterical and neurotic for following the advice of rospa and the nspcc? i think not.
That's not nice either, but suggesting people have fluked their way to adulthood is pretty rude, and completely ignorant of their situation. Feel free to think the opposite, but you don't have to respond to rudeness with rudeness, it's not obligatory.
There's lots of advice out there, but you don't have to take it. The law doesn't go as far as those organisations - it says don't leave your children at risk.
There's lots of advice out there, but you don't have to take it. The law doesn't go as far as those organisations - it says don't leave your children at risk.
And the level of risk is what is up for discussion. The risk of something tragic happening to a child while left alone in a car for 5 minutes while the parent pays for fuel is far far smaller than the risk of having a crash on the way to the petrol station in the first place, yet some people seem to think that they'd remove ANY element of risk of danger to their child, while casually forgetting about the risks involved in many activities they do with their children.
Hence the neurotic/hysterical comment.
A pragmatic approach is taking each scenario and deciding the best option rather than applying the blanket 'never leave a child unattended ever under any circumstances'.
E.g. paying for fuel:
1) Pump is the closest one to the shop, the shop is empty, it is a mild day, child is asleep - leave child in car while paying.
2) Pump is furtherest from shop, child is upset, boiling hot day, you're parked in a very dodgy part of town - take child with you while paying.
I'm not talking about carrying out a health & safety assessment every time I have to consider leaving my child unattended, but a modicum of common sense and pragmatism comes into it.
what about going to the toilet or are your children glued to your side 24/7
maybe you cannot tell the difference between going next door and the bathroom? as it goes when my babies were small i carted them about with me. in a bouncy chair if i needed my hands free.
again, what part of the child safety advice from the nspcc and rospa do you consider wrong?
That's not nice either, but suggesting people have fluked their way to adulthood is pretty rude, and completely ignorant of their situation. Feel free to think the opposite, but you don't have to respond to rudeness with rudeness, it's not obligatory.
what about going to the toilet or are your children glued to your side 24/7
It would only take about five seconds for your baby to be abducted. I'm sure a lot of mothers would have someone with them if they were going somewhere with their child.
It would only take about five seconds for your baby to be abducted. I'm sure a lot of mothers would have someone with them if they were going somewhere with their child.
Again, my hysterical/paranoid comment springs to mind.
Are you seriously suggesting that you can't allow your child to be out of sight for 5 seconds That's taking attachment parenting rather far!!
Just to clarify, do you mean you wouldn't leave the child for 5 seconds in your own house or outside of the house? Obviously if you were out in town or in a restaurant and needed to nip to loo, you wouldn't leave the child unattended, but that's just obvious.
Comments
in response to being called hysterical and neurotic for following the advice of rospa and the nspcc? i think not.
No offence but you haven't really understood my point.
(Hint - it was sarcastic, not serious)
That's not nice either, but suggesting people have fluked their way to adulthood is pretty rude, and completely ignorant of their situation. Feel free to think the opposite, but you don't have to respond to rudeness with rudeness, it's not obligatory.
There's lots of advice out there, but you don't have to take it. The law doesn't go as far as those organisations - it says don't leave your children at risk.
what about going to the toilet or are your children glued to your side 24/7
And the level of risk is what is up for discussion. The risk of something tragic happening to a child while left alone in a car for 5 minutes while the parent pays for fuel is far far smaller than the risk of having a crash on the way to the petrol station in the first place, yet some people seem to think that they'd remove ANY element of risk of danger to their child, while casually forgetting about the risks involved in many activities they do with their children.
Hence the neurotic/hysterical comment.
A pragmatic approach is taking each scenario and deciding the best option rather than applying the blanket 'never leave a child unattended ever under any circumstances'.
E.g. paying for fuel:
1) Pump is the closest one to the shop, the shop is empty, it is a mild day, child is asleep - leave child in car while paying.
2) Pump is furtherest from shop, child is upset, boiling hot day, you're parked in a very dodgy part of town - take child with you while paying.
I'm not talking about carrying out a health & safety assessment every time I have to consider leaving my child unattended, but a modicum of common sense and pragmatism comes into it.
maybe you cannot tell the difference between going next door and the bathroom? as it goes when my babies were small i carted them about with me. in a bouncy chair if i needed my hands free.
again, what part of the child safety advice from the nspcc and rospa do you consider wrong?
sadly, just like everyone else here, i am human.
It would only take about five seconds for your baby to be abducted. I'm sure a lot of mothers would have someone with them if they were going somewhere with their child.
Again, my hysterical/paranoid comment springs to mind.
Are you seriously suggesting that you can't allow your child to be out of sight for 5 seconds
Just to clarify, do you mean you wouldn't leave the child for 5 seconds in your own house or outside of the house? Obviously if you were out in town or in a restaurant and needed to nip to loo, you wouldn't leave the child unattended, but that's just obvious.