to think that objecting to a nursery being built on the grounds that it may attract paedos...

[MmeLindt]

is the most bonkers thing I have read this week.

What is wrong this week, I am running out of FFSs.

Nutty residents oppose nursery as it will increase traffic, noise and encourage paedophiles to move into the area so that they can overlook the nursery.

So where do put nurseries then, so they are safe from the 'paedos'?

I worry about society sometimes, truely I do

They don't mean that. They are using it as an excuse because they don't want a nursery. Traffic and - shock horror - the noise of children playing. The 'paedo' thing is a cheap shot. They're trying to make their selfishness look like them looking out for children.

I echo your 'FFS', loudly.

Hmm. Classic local paper reporting, really. I bet the reporter, who probably fancies him/herself getting a job on a tabloid, led the interviewee to say that final comment (because residents objecting, not entirely unreasonably, to a large nursery on the grounds of the extra traffic/parking difficulties is not that big a story even for a pile of crap like the News Shopper which often relies on Cat Stuck Up Tree type articles - whereas if you can scare people about a Peedo Invasion your circulation will go up).

Exactly Hecate.

Nimbyism disguised as concern for children's welfare.

So if someone had applied to turn the building into a dog grooming salon would they be objecting on the grounds that it would attract people who are into bestiality? Or if it was going to become a shoe shop would they object on the grounds that it would attract gangs of foot fetishists?

Actually I can sympathise slightly with the residents in this case. Knowing people who live near nurseries & schools, the biggest problem they have is inconsiderate parking. Opposing planning permission is really difficult and you are advised to come up with as many objections as possible - real or fanciful - in order to make your case. I don't think they believe the 'attracts paedophiles' argument any more than we do.

Oh that's brilliant. Are they really going to object on that basis? Because I think they're going to find that the planning system has no jurisdiction over paedos.

When our community was opposing the construction of a big, ugly mobile phone mast we had to submit objections ranging from it being a traffic hazard and an eyesore down to dubious rubbish like 'we think it'll melt our kids' brains and give us all tumours'. Councillors on the planning committee eventually decided to put the thing elsewhere and who knows which argument persuaded them?

omg that is priceless

So nurseries shouldn't be located in 'close-knit communities'

Or in quiet areas because of the noise?

Pathetic.

Filibear
Really? How mad.

The idea of collecting as many objections as possible is a bit daft. Is it just me who thinks that the paedo objection seriously weakens their case?

YANBU That is priceless. I really shouldn't but it's so ridiculous that I have to

Obviously planning departments will have to have access to the sex-offenders register in future - that way they can ensure that nurseries are located in areas which already have loads of paedophiles. .

I do hope that everybody posting on this thread is now feeling suitably ashamed that they have encouraged paedophilia through the simple act of actually having children.

Shame on you all.