Council not intrested who do you contact

powerful_Rogue

JReacher1 wrote: »

Because its 8 years old. The child being mentioned wasn't even born when that news article was published!

Your post was absolutely pointless.

I am surprised you didn't post something about latchkey children...

Pointless? The quote I posted from the article is still very relevant today. Your logic about the date of the article and the childs age makes absolutely no sense.

As you can see below from the organisation mentioned in the original quote - exactly the same advice.

Maybe you could go back to my post with the quote and tell me what wasn't relevant to the discussion?



http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/walk-with-us/walk-to-school/parents

JReacher1

theEnd wrote: »

What do you think has changed so much in 8 or 40 years. Everything I can think of is safer now than it was in the past.

What can you think of? I'm intrigued you think the roads and young children are safer on the streets than they were 40 years ago.

That's clearly not true!

theEnd

JReacher1 wrote: »

What can you think of? I'm intrigued you think the roads and young children are safer on the streets than they were 40 years ago.

That's clearly not true!

Enlighten me?

Road accidents are substantially down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#mediaviewer/File:Killed_on_British_Roads.png

Abductions etc are one of those very constant statistics. The fear is always up, but the numbers stay the same and are insignificant compared to the roads.

JReacher1

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Pointless? The quote I posted from the article is still very relevant today. Your logic about the date of the article and the childs age makes absolutely no sense.

As you can see below from the organisation mentioned in the original quote - exactly the same advice.

Maybe you could go back to my post with the quote and tell me what wasn't relevant to the discussion?



http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/walk-with-us/walk-to-school/parents

It's not relevant today. It was relevant eight years ago.

You've made a mistake by posting the first story you googled and didn't take the care to make sure it was relevant in 2015. Now you are being defensive about it.

I think it's time to move on.....

philatio

You know how the Daily Mail tells you that the country is packed with peeedos and there's at least one on every street and that no child is safe...


You do know that's not real don't you ?

gik

JReacher1 wrote: »

It's not relevant today. It was relevant eight years ago.

You've made a mistake by posting the first story you googled and didn't take the care to make sure it was relevant in 2015. Now you are being defensive about it.

I think it's time to move on.....

Care to explain why it's not relevant today? What has changed in eight years.

peachyprice

JReacher1 wrote: »

It's not relevant today. It was relevant eight years ago.

You've made a mistake by posting the first story you googled and didn't take the care to make sure it was relevant in 2015. Now you are being defensive about it.

I think it's time to move on.....

There hasn't been a significant increase in road traffic, there hasn't been a significant increase in child abduction (the biggest threat is still within the family/friendship groups), there hasn't been a significant increase of children having road accidents. The 'Walk to School' campaign is still an annual even.

So what has changed?

I've been taking my children to school since 1990, it's the same now as it was then, no different. Oh, except more children are seen wearing hi vis vests and perhaps a few more on scooters.

Johnnytwostep

maybe trying to get temptation away from him

JReacher1

peachyprice wrote: »

There hasn't been a significant increase in road traffic, there hasn't been a significant increase in child abduction (the biggest threat is still within the family/friendship groups), there hasn't been a significant increase of children having road accidents. The 'Walk to School' campaign is still an annual even.

So what has changed?

I've been taking my children to school since 1990, it's the same now as it was then, no different. Oh, except more children are seen wearing hi vis vests and perhaps a few more on scooters.

The walk to school campaign referenced is as you have stated a campaign for parents to walk their children to school.

The OP is talking about a 7 year old child walking to school on her own so as I have stated its not relevant. Also its very old story.

What has changed in the last 8 years is that the Baby P case (2009) has meant social services are much more careful about situations where a child may be put in a dangerous position. A 7 year old walking to school on their own could potentially be dangerous (based on distance, roads, area etc.). If you look on google you can find several case where social service has intervened as they are worried about cases like this.

e.g http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291970/Couple-threatened-social-services-children-ride-bikes-school.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2911969/Couple-believe-free-range-parenting-outraged-investigated-letting-children-10-six-walk-mile-home-park-own.html

bod1467

philatio wrote: »

You know how the Daily Mail tells you that the country is packed with peeedos and there's at least one on every street and that no child is safe...


You do know that's not real don't you ?

JReacher1 wrote: »

e.g http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291970/Couple-threatened-social-services-children-ride-bikes-school.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2911969/Couple-believe-free-range-parenting-outraged-investigated-letting-children-10-six-walk-mile-home-park-own.html

And bingo!