Council Threaten Parents Over 20M Walk To Bus Stop

[Gone baby gone]

They talk about cuts, how about cutting the jobs of the people who take these things forward:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-11295617

Lincolnshire County Council backs down over girl's walk

The council admitted the letter could have been "better phrased"

Lincolnshire County Council has decided to take no further action over a father allowing his seven-year-old daughter to walk alone to a bus stop.

Mark McCullough, from Glentham, said his daughter Isabelle was capable of walking 20m (65ft) to the stop.

The county council told Mr McCullough and his partner Natasha Fegan the matter could be reported as a "child protection issue".

A council spokesperson said the letter may have been worded too strongly.

I hope to got that some child isn't genuinely being abused in Lincolnshire while the Children's Services department waste time and money on nonsense like this.

</victor_meldrew>

[R K]

Now if only there was a law preventing bankers from walking out of their front door in the morning we'd all be £1 trillion better off.

[RichB]

Now if only there was a law preventing bankers from walking out of their front door in the morning we'd all be £1 trillion better off.

Not as well as if we'd stopped useless ******ing halfwits signing up for finance they were never going to be able to repay even if they did manage to keep their jobs...

[Sledgehead]

They talk about cuts, how about cutting the jobs of the people who take these things forward:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-11295617

I hope to got that some child isn't genuinely being abused in Lincolnshire while the Children's Services department waste time and money on nonsense like this.

</victor_meldrew>

Well, I agree with the NSPCC guidelines:

"NSPCC guidance states that children under eight should not be out alone; in this instance,

a seven-year-old girl has been standing unaccompanied on a roadside and left to cross the road by herself."

When I was that age my Mother waited with me 'til the bus came. Let's examine the information to see just how dedicated these "parents" are:

"It's only a quiet, little country road - you could sit there all day and maybe see 20 or 30 cars...” - Natasha Fegan Father's partner

Compare and contrast:

"Sarah Payne disappeared on 1 July 2000 from a cornfield near the home of her paternal grandparents, ...in Kingston Gorse, West Sussex, England." -

Sarah Payne, Wiki

Further:

"Ms Fegan said the family thought Isabelle was independent enough to walk to

the bus stop on her own. "She enjoys going to school on her own. How long can

you keep hold of the reins and not let them go out on their own?"

The girl is seven. This so called "parent" enjoys the company of her step-daughter so much, she can't be bothered to stand at a bus stop with her while she waits - alone! And what is the nature of their relationship such that a seven year old would rather be alone than share company with her "parent"?

More:

"This has got so much public attention that we will have to be outside with her for the

foreseeable future because now everyone knows there is a seven-year-old standing

on the side of the road every morning." - Natasha Fegan Father's partner

Why? Presumably because this woman knows dangers exist for a child alone of this age, and she can no longer rely purely on serendipity to secure the safety of her step-daughter. And can't you just feel the love in that "we will have to be outside with her (in the rain and snow)"?

More still:

"Previously Mr McCullough said the situation had made him angry."

Right. So having to look after his daughter makes him "angry". Well, there's a curious emotion. No "delight" or "sense of purpose". Just anger. I'm beginning to wonder whether the girl might be safer on that roadside.

Lastly:

"I'm not going to wrap my children up in cotton wool. For a seven-year-old not to

be able to walk 20m to the top of the courtyard and cross a quiet country road is an absolute joke." - Mr McCullough

Mr McCullough really is full of fatherly, protective love, dontcha feel?

[RichB]

hell, at that age most of my lot were walking or riding to school on our own.

[Gone baby gone]

Well, I agree with the NSPCC guidelines:

"NSPCC guidance states that children under eight should not be out alone; in this instance,

a seven-year-old girl has been standing unaccompanied on a roadside and left to cross the road by herself."

So at seven and a half, you are not safe, but 6 months later you are?

A feeble attempt at character assassination of the parents isn't helping your case.

[worzel]

So at seven and a half, you are not safe, but 6 months later you are?

A feeble attempt at character assassination of the parents isn't helping your case.

It depends on the individual. I think I was walking about a mile and a half to school each day by about 7 years old, and would have popped to the shops at the end of the road younger than that. I could have got a lift with my parents on their way to work, but I enjoyed the walk. I dont think its materially more or less dangerous now than when I were a lad.

[Dorkins]

I was cycling to school on my own at 8, it was a little less than a mile but on quiet roads. This was in 1990.

[Sledgehead]

So at seven and a half, you are not safe, but 6 months later you are?

A feeble attempt at character assassination of the parents isn't helping your case.

Okay, your argument goes in only one of two directions. You decide which:

1 ) - a set age at which you are willing to draw the line: you decide, but beware, you wouldn't want to be accused of "feeble" attempts to remediate your previous reply by setting the age anywhere near seven;

2 ) - a laissez faire approach, where you are willing to scrape the crushed corpses of toddlers from our roads, let loose by parents either too cold or too lazy to look after their children (I for one do not wish to be part of such horrors so if you must have your way, it's only right you do your best to keep these things from my attention).

So which is it?

[okaycuckoo]

Difficult one for parents to decide. But they should decide for themselves. Having local authority snoopers seems even creepier than the bogey man.

[ken_ichikawa]

Well, I agree with the NSPCC guidelines:

It is not in the interests of the NSPCC for child abuse to stop, so when they advertise the full stop campaigns they are liars, as if it did stop they would be out of a job.

If anything the NSPCC wants MORE Child abuse

Therefore the NSPCC's job is to make out there are tons of dangerous and nonces on each and every corner and to scare parents and tell them off that what they have done or do is evil. the NSPCC would love for this world to occur as it would both ensure their long term survival and jobs.

1987-1989 I used to bicycle on an orange BMX with scorpion stickers all over it everywhere and nobody batted an eyelid.

It is exactly the same with social workers and people who are supposed to empower others especially Job centre staff. Their job is to keep people down and out of the system, if they did their jobs properly they would be out of jobs.

[worzel]

Okay, your argument goes in only one of two directions. You decide which:

1 ) - a set age at which you are willing to draw the line: you decide, but beware, you wouldn't want to be accused of "feeble" attempts to remediate your previous reply by setting the age anywhere near seven;

2 ) - a laissez faire approach, where you are willing to scrape the crushed corpses of toddlers from our roads, let loose by parents either too cold or too lazy to look after their children (I for one do not wish to be part of such horrors so if you must have your way, it's only right you do your best to keep these things from my attention).

So which is it?

I tend to think the parents that are too lazy would be unaware and uncaring about an arbitrary age, so it doesn't solve the problem and just causes grief for responsible parents.

As for scraping them off the road, sensible kids have been taught not to run out in the road, others haven't. An arbitrary age will not help. I don't the see the choices you have presented as being opposite sides of the same coin..

[ken_ichikawa]

As for scraping them off the road, sensible kids have been taught not to run out in the road, others haven't. An arbitrary age will not help. I don't the see the choices you have presented as being opposite sides of the same coin..

Woo hoo self cleaning gene pool. Biker circles have had this since forever, since people who ride like idiots become organ donors. If you survive such people usually calm down..though on the flip side I've seen a few friends die from accidents which were not their fault.

Shame the same cannot be said for cars where driving like a c_nt often does not result in death

[Gone baby gone]

Okay, your argument goes in only one of two directions. You decide which:

1 ) - a set age at which you are willing to draw the line: you decide, but beware, you wouldn't want to be accused of "feeble" attempts to remediate your previous reply by setting the age anywhere near seven;

2 ) - a laissez faire approach, where you are willing to scrape the crushed corpses of toddlers from our roads, let loose by parents either too cold or too lazy to look after their children (I for one do not wish to be part of such horrors so if you must have your way, it's only right you do your best to keep these things from my attention).

So which is it?

It's neither.

How about ...

3) Allow the parents to decide at what age their child is allowed to stand at a bus stop that is 20m from their house by using their knowledge of the child, her behaviour and her level of maturity rather than abdicating responsibility to the NSPCC?

Even if I disregard the ludicrous notion that you can average out children's behaviour to arrive at an age they can safely be left alone for a few minutes, isn't this a severe over-reaction by the council? Surely all that any sensible adult would do would be to highlight the guidelines and allow the parents to make up their own mind.

Is there really so little to do in the Children's Services department in Lincolnshire Council that making legal threats against the parents over this issue is worthwhile? Aren't there children being physically or mentally abused somewhere in the council's catchment area that would benefit more from their attention?

[Sledgehead]

It's neither.

How about ...

3) Allow the parents to decide at what age their child is allowed to stand at a bus stop that is 20m from their house by using their knowledge of the child, her behaviour and her level of maturity rather than abdicating responsibility to the NSPCC?

Er, actually, it's 2.

[Gone baby gone]

Er, actually, it's 2.

Er, no, it's what is happening now, and has been happening since I was a youngster in the 70s.

Note the lack of crushed toddler corpses littering the streets.

[Sledgehead]

Er, no, it's what is happening now, and has been happening since I was a youngster in the 70s.

Note the lack of crushed toddler corpses littering the streets.

There may not be crushed toddlers "littering" the street yet, but how many do you want?

Toddler killed in road accident - 2009

"Anyone who witnessed the accident is urged to contact Bradford South roads policing unit."

More than 5000, or less?

"Around 5,000 children under the age of 16 die or are seriously injured on Britain’s roads each year" - The facts about road accidents and children, AA

There may not be crushed toddlers "littering" the street yet, but there are crushed teenagers at the bottom of Cornwall cliffs, and guess what? Yeah, I'm responsible for them (as a taxpayer) cos their parents let them loose to be cared for by the community, despite recognising their kids will :

- try to buy drink;

- probably get into trouble if drunk.

And there may not be toddlers on the streets but there are pre-teens in coffins and guess what? Yeah, I'm responsible for them too, because apparently I should be watching the TV or listening to the radio when some kid gets snatched, so I can phone in and report where they are to the taxpayer funded and operated service.

Now, if you wanna go a step further and formalize the abdication of responsibility by refusing to compel anyone to look after their kids, fine, but it's pretty clear to me where that would lead us in this brave new world where children are supposed to grow up extra quick so as adults can stay juvelile and lean on society. All I'm saying is I don't wanna see, be made aware of, either by radio, tv or corpses on my road, nor pay for the consequences.

Actually I don't feel that way. I actually feel that parents should want to spend as much time as they can with their young kids. Why do these people need to be compelled by statute? If they don't want to be parents why have kids? I vote for sterilisation.

[JustYield]

Okay, your argument goes in only one of two directions. You decide which:

1 ) - a set age at which you are willing to draw the line: you decide, but beware, you wouldn't want to be accused of "feeble" attempts to remediate your previous reply by setting the age anywhere near seven;

2 ) - a laissez faire approach, where you are willing to scrape the crushed corpses of toddlers from our roads, let loose by parents either too cold or too lazy to look after their children (I for one do not wish to be part of such horrors so if you must have your way, it's only right you do your best to keep these things from my attention).

So which is it?

Mummy the scary man is here again.

[Guest eight]

Is there really so little to do in the Children's Services department in Lincolnshire Council that making legal threats against the parents over this issue is worthwhile? Aren't there children being physically or mentally abused somewhere in the council's catchment area that would benefit more from their attention?

That will be exactly the case. Remember, they have to make the case against cuts in their department by appearing to be spectacularly busy. They've just scored an own goal in this particular instance.

eight

[Dave Spart]

Well, I agree with the NSPCC guidelines:

"NSPCC guidance states that children under eight should not be out alone; in this instance,

a seven-year-old girl has been standing unaccompanied on a roadside and left to cross the road by herself."

When I was that age my Mother waited with me 'til the bus came. Let's examine the information to see just how dedicated these "parents" are:

"It's only a quiet, little country road - you could sit there all day and maybe see 20 or 30 cars...” - Natasha Fegan Father's partner

Compare and contrast:

"Sarah Payne disappeared on 1 July 2000 from a cornfield near the home of her paternal grandparents, ...in Kingston Gorse, West Sussex, England." -

Sarah Payne, Wiki

Further:

"Ms Fegan said the family thought Isabelle was independent enough to walk to

the bus stop on her own. "She enjoys going to school on her own. How long can

you keep hold of the reins and not let them go out on their own?"

The girl is seven. This so called "parent" enjoys the company of her step-daughter so much, she can't be bothered to stand at a bus stop with her while she waits - alone! And what is the nature of their relationship such that a seven year old would rather be alone than share company with her "parent"?

More:

"This has got so much public attention that we will have to be outside with her for the

foreseeable future because now everyone knows there is a seven-year-old standing

on the side of the road every morning." - Natasha Fegan Father's partner

Why? Presumably because this woman knows dangers exist for a child alone of this age, and she can no longer rely purely on serendipity to secure the safety of her step-daughter. And can't you just feel the love in that "we will have to be outside with her (in the rain and snow)"?

More still:

"Previously Mr McCullough said the situation had made him angry."

Right. So having to look after his daughter makes him "angry". Well, there's a curious emotion. No "delight" or "sense of purpose". Just anger. I'm beginning to wonder whether the girl might be safer on that roadside.

Lastly:

"I'm not going to wrap my children up in cotton wool. For a seven-year-old not to

be able to walk 20m to the top of the courtyard and cross a quiet country road is an absolute joke." - Mr McCullough

Mr McCullough really is full of fatherly, protective love, dontcha feel?

[IWantItNow]

It is not in the interests of the NSPCC for child abuse to stop, so when they advertise the full stop campaigns they are liars, as if it did stop they would be out of a job.

If anything the NSPCC wants MORE Child abuse

Therefore the NSPCC's job is to make out there are tons of dangerous and nonces on each and every corner and to scare parents and tell them off that what they have done or do is evil. the NSPCC would love for this world to occur as it would both ensure their long term survival and jobs.

1987-1989 I used to bicycle on an orange BMX with scorpion stickers all over it everywhere and nobody batted an eyelid.

It is exactly the same with social workers and people who are supposed to empower others especially Job centre staff. Their job is to keep people down and out of the system, if they did their jobs properly they would be out of jobs.

I'm not sure about that Ken. Child abuse will never stop, I think the NSPCC's view is that if they can just prevent one child from being subjected to any kind of abuse then it's a victory and makes the charity a worthwhile cause. Something I agree with.

[kingsgate]

Councils need to get half their staff sacked, then hopefully they will not have people in charge of checking how far kids can walk to bus stops.

Hopefully this will soon happen due to the coming cuts.

[sukuinage]

Well, the kids seem to survive here in Germany where those about to start the following year in the school are expected to walk back from Kindergarten and all kids are expected to walk or cycle to school (apart from those who take public transport).

Much as I tend to slag off some parts of the teutonic character I find the willingness and encouragement to allow children to achieve independance and not to be smothered by mindless bureaucracy is a huge plus point to living here. I'm very happy that there are no interfering do-gooders who want to stop my 7 yo from going to the park on her own or to the local shop.