Just watch out you don't get reported to the police for suspicious behaviourirnbru wrote:Parents keep telling me how happy they are their little kids out "playing" unsupervised. Meanwhile i'm stood outside doing their job for them.

Just watch out you don't get reported to the police for suspicious behaviourirnbru wrote:Parents keep telling me how happy they are their little kids out "playing" unsupervised. Meanwhile i'm stood outside doing their job for them.
My point is that if you seriously don't want to take chances, never allowing your boy to go swimming would be a must for you.irnbru wrote:Not bothered about statistics, I just don't take chances I don't need to with my kids.Adrian42 wrote:I assume you will never allow your son to go swimming - the risk of drowning in a swimming pool is much higher than the risk of being snatched from the street.
Alright stattoAdrian42 wrote:My point is that if you seriously don't want to take chances, never allowing your boy to go swimming would be a must for you.irnbru wrote:Not bothered about statistics, I just don't take chances I don't need to with my kids.Adrian42 wrote:I assume you will never allow your son to go swimming - the risk of drowning in a swimming pool is much higher than the risk of being snatched from the street.
Drowning is a heavily underestimated risk, and people have funny incorrect thoughts like that a drowning person would scream.
And I actually know a girl who broke her neck by jumping head-first into a pool that was less deep than she thought.
But more realistically, you have to accept the fact that you cannot try to prevent all risks.
Despite all risks, it is extremely rare that a kid does not survive childhood healthy.
Yes, this. And every time I see the discussion of when to leave the child alone home (on boards where there are mostly US parents), I see long lists of risks that are minimal at best while at the same time people seem to be totally oblivious to much bigger every day risks we take with our children and don't even bat an eye about it (like your example of drowning or just simply driving our kids to school).Adrian42 wrote:But more realistically, you have to accept the fact that you cannot try to prevent all risks.
Dunno where you are from, but I hope not USA.irnbru wrote:Yep no sense in dragging out childhood. Lets get them independent and out of our hair ASAP.
Attached to a safety seat excluding the very small part of the year here when combination of weather and season could make the inside temperature rise rapidly, about safe as it ever will be.Whistling Lady wrote: Eventually, the father returned and he laughed when I tried to point out the dangers of leaving a child unattended!
Actually one of the few instructions I remember from my childhood (I don't have a good memory): Don't open the door to anybody when you're alone.if she was followed home and attacked in her own home, cos the attacker knew she'd be home alone?
One was three, other two years old. I would not recommend leaving unattended a child of those ages. Few would. (except for short time when they a sleeping in a safe place). You are probably capable of understanding that one would need a very long list of danger elements that you could include also wandering pedophiles on it.What of Madeleine McCann or Jamie Bulger
So you never let the grandparents to babysit either?You are quite correct in pointing out that most sex attacks are caused by someone known to the victim - so why make it easier for them by regularly leaving a child home alone?!
Some people might disagree http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... itain.htmlWhistling Lady wrote:There is nothing 'over cautious' about ensuring the safety and health of a child!
I'm sure you have some numbers to back that statement up.Whistling Lady wrote:Irnbru - I completely agree with you! Paedophiles paradise!
So you never ever let your child be in a car? A bus is far more safer. Not to mention left at home.Whistling Lady wrote:Adrian24 - I'd rather be an 'over cautious mother' than a greiving mother! There is nothing 'over cautious' about ensuring the safety and health of a child!
That is not the "Finnish Way" to do, and I'm sure that you will find similar parents doing the same thing in whatever country you hail from originally. Or have you actually seen scores of small kids in cars unattended? That said... exactly what was the grave danger the child was under, assuming he was not able to get out of his seat? Was the car in the sun? Was it freezing outside?Whistling Lady wrote:Eventually, the father returned and he laughed when I tried to point out the dangers of leaving a child unattended!
These are big news because they almost never happen. If it was something that happend even just every now and then they wouldn't be world wide news. So we are to pad our children up with cotton and lock them up in the basement just in case that one in a billion event would happen to our children? When at the same time we gladly go driving with them, or swimming, or leave them with their grandparents, exposing them to far greater risks? Children are killed daily, world wide, by car accidents, and they make local news but hardly more than that... and we may hug our child more that night, but it won't affect how we behave. My theory is that's it's easier to panic about risks that are very, very small, and take some random steps to assure that that never happens (not that what we do actually has any statistical impact) and by that feel like we are in control, than to accept that we do live under risk, every day.Whistling Lady wrote:So Adrian24 - imagine if that little girl was your daughter, only she didn't get away? Or, if she was followed home and attacked in her own home, cos the attacker knew she'd be home alone? What of Madeleine McCann or Jamie Bulger, the toddler who was murdered by two 10 year old boys? Their parents are full of 'if only ...'!