leaving children on their own?

Tupperware_Queen

poet123 wrote: »

The NSPCC are an accepted authority, so if they give an opinion it does carry some weight.
.

This the precise reason that the 'advice' they give is so vague and not at all definitive. If they did say that it was ok to leave a child of x age for x amount of time, and somewhere something dreadful happened to just such a child when they were left, then the NSPCC would be pilloried for advising such a course of action.

By recommending that children are not left regularly for hours at a time, they are sending a message without stipulating what they would consider acceptable. If they really did not consider it safe for children of the ages described (11 & 9) to be left at all, under any circumstances, for any length of time, then you can be sure that their literature would say so.

valk_scot

poet123 wrote: »

Yes, the NSPCC, who are hardly a little known or hole in the wall organisation.



Firstly, you are splitting hairs, secondly, I copied it verbatim, and the children mentioned include an 11 year old not just a nine year old, and the advice refers to both children.

It is obvious the organisation (NSPCC) are not happy with children under 12 being left alone, nor are the majority of posters as borne out by the poll on the other thread.

You may choose to interpret it differently but really it is quite obvious what they mean. As it is not a law they cannot be stronger in the their wording but the meaning is clear enough.

I'm not splitting hairs, that's what it says. You may chose to infer something different/read between the lines/choose to belive it has an obvious different meaning but really, if an organisation like the NSPCC want to recomend something, they don't have to beat about the bush with hidden meanings disguised in a example rather than in the main recommendation section. They are allowed to make recommendations stronger than the law states so why would they not do so here?

You're perfectly entitled to argue your opinion on this topic as is anyone on this thread. But you can't claim that the NSPCC says something when in fact they don't actually say any such thing.

zagfles

peachyprice wrote: »

FGS, enough is enough, where the hell did I say that. Please, don't make things up just because I don't agree with you.

I'm out of here.

Ah, but the poet-bot has an ability to read things which haven't been written.

poet123

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

This the precise reason that the 'advice' they give is so vague and not at all definitive. If they did say that it was ok to leave a child of x age for x amount of time, and somewhere something dreadful happened to just such a child when they were left, then the NSPCC would be pilloried for advising such a course of action.

By recommending that children are not left regularly for hours at a time, they are sending a message without stipulating what they would consider acceptable. If they really did not consider it safe for children of the ages described (11 & 9) to be left at all, under any circumstances, for any length of time, then you can be sure that their literature would say so.

Which is it?

zagfles

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

This the precise reason that the 'advice' they give is so vague and not at all definitive. If they did say that it was ok to leave a child of x age for x amount of time, and somewhere something dreadful happened to just such a child when they were left, then the NSPCC would be pilloried for advising such a course of action.

By recommending that children are not left regularly for hours at a time, they are sending a message without stipulating what they would consider acceptable. If they really did not consider it safe for children of the ages described (11 & 9) to be left at all, under any circumstances, for any length of time, then you can be sure that their literature would say so.

Exactly, as they do about babies who they say should never be left home alone under any circumstances.

Tupperware_Queen

poet123 wrote: »

Which is it?

Zagfles has made this a bit clearer for you

FBaby

poet123 wrote: »

You may choose to interpret it differently but really it is quite obvious what they mean. As it is not a law they cannot be stronger in the their wording but the meaning is clear enough.

Poet, you sound just like my partner, who cannot contemplate the fact that interpretation is what it is, open to different people reading different things! There is no right or wrong in interpretation!

If your child is under the age of 12 they may not be mature enough to cope with an emergency

My interpretation of this sentence, which is clearly at poles with yours, is that a child under 12 might possibly not be matured enough to be left alone, so if you are considering leaving them on their own, do consider whether they are mature enough (rather than taking for granted that they are).

FBaby

If they really did not consider it safe for children of the ages described (11 & 9) to be left at all, under any circumstances, for any length of time, then you can be sure that their literature would say so.

Without a doubt!

poet123

valk_scot wrote: »

I'm not splitting hairs, that's what it says. You may chose to infer something different/read between the lines/choose to belive it has an obvious different meaning but really, if an organisation like the NSPCC want to recomend something, they don't have to beat about the bush with hidden meanings disguised in a example rather than in the main recommendation section. They are allowed to make recommendations stronger than the law states so why would they not do so here?

You're perfectly entitled to argue your opinion on this topic as is anyone on this thread. But you can't claim that the NSPCC says something when in fact they don't actually say any such thing.

If you look at the whole tone of the pdf you can clearly see what they advise, for example:

f your child is under the

age of 12
they may not be
mature enough to cope with
an emergency. If you do need
to leave them, ensure it is only
for a short time.

If you want to be pedantic we can analyse the actual language rather than interpretation so, the above says if you "need" to leave them "ensure" it is only for a short time. So, drawn from that let's get rid of the idea that they think you should choose to leave them.

Then look at how you define "need" and if a "need occurs more often should you not think about eradicating that need?

poet123

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

Zagfles has made this a bit clearer for you

And how is "young child" defined?