Council not intrested who do you contact

shaun_from_Africa

JReacher1 wrote: »

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.
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

So you think an old story is not relevant then you go on to put a couple of links, one of which is about something that happened in Maryland (USA)!

suicidebob

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.....

So the story became irrelevant in the year it was published? Or did you just arbitrarily decide 8 years was too long?

powerful_Rogue

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.....

Why isnt it relevant now? Its not good to keep spouting the same line, can you back it up with anything?

Seems pretty relevant to me as the same advice is being issued by the same organistaion I quoted in my other post.

Unless you can advise of a law that has since been implemented stating a minimum age before children are allowed out by themselves?

JReacher1

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So you think an old story is not relevant then you go on to put a couple of links, one of which is about something that happened in Maryland (USA)!

Well spotted I didn't notice that.....

Doesn't alter the fact that the first post is the UK and social services got involved in a similar cas, of course I know from previous experience you like to selectively ignore certain facts when you argue

JReacher1

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Why isnt it relevant now? Its not good to keep spouting the same line, can you back it up with anything?

Seems pretty relevant to me as the same advice is being issued by the same organistaion I quoted in my other post.

Unless you can advise of a law that has since been implemented stating a minimum age before children are allowed out by themselves?

It's an 8 year old news article. Please post a news article from the last year that states the social services will have no concerns about a 7 year old child walking to school on their own.

I have posted a UK (and admitedly a US) article that shows that social services have got involved in similar cases.....

gik

JReacher1 wrote: »

Well spotted I didn't notice that.....

Doesn't alter the fact that the first post is the UK and social services got involved in a similar cas, of course I know from previous experience you like to selectively ignore certain facts when you argue

I'm surprised you think it relevant as it was more than four years ago.


Trying to link the baby P case and children walking to school is a nonsense.

shaun_from_Africa

JReacher1 wrote: »

Well spotted I didn't notice that.....

Doesn't alter the fact that the first post is the UK and social services got involved in a similar cas, of course I know from previous experience you like to selectively ignore certain facts when you argue

Who's arguing?
All I did was to point out a fact which was that one of the links you provided was totally irrelevant.
My post clearly pointed out that only one of the links wasn't relevant, something I found quite ironic considering:

JReacher1 wrote: »

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.

theEnd

Surely all links from the Daily Mail are irrelevant.

JReacher1

gik wrote: »

I'm surprised you think it relevant as it was more than four years ago.


Trying to link the baby P case and children walking to school is a nonsense.

My apologies the nuance of my argument was too clever for you. I will try and explain in more simple terms.

The baby P case highlighted problems with the social services where a concern about child neglect was raised and ignored leading to the tragic events we are all familiar with.

As a result of this social services are under a lot more pressure to ensure that all concerns about a childs welfare are properly investigated and appropriate action taken. In this case I would be very surprised if the parent was not visited by social services and a risk assessement was taken place.

I am not linking the two cases just saying that due to the Baby P case social services tend to be more on the ball. If you require any more clarification let me know and I will try and find a simpler method of explaining (this will probably involve crayons)

JReacher1

theEnd wrote: »

Surely all links from the Daily Mail are irrelevant.

50/50. Obviously the opinions they post are often irrelevant but when they are posting a news story then if you ignore the Daily mail rubbish the actual facts of the story are often true.

I realise some people like to say that if its in the Daily Mail it mustn't be true but thats just a bit of a weird opinion to have...