adults with learning difficulties on small childrens' play area.

[Bethshine82]

Took DS to the play area on Friday, it is not a huge play area and has one of those signs saying it is designed for use by children 14 and under.
Whilst we were there a group of around eight adults with learning difficulties and their carers arrived. The adults proceeded to go onto the playground.
AIBU to think this isn't very fair? They were adults and they weren't really aware of their strength and size. The carers weren't supervising brilliantly and twice I saw one of the adults just shove the children out of the way. Also some of the adults were shouting and screaming which frightened some of the toddlers. Many of the children left. I'm not in any way suggesting that adults with learning difficulties shouldn't be able to go out and enjoy themselves or that they shouldn't be part of the community, I'm just not sure a small childrens' play area is the place for an adults' afternoon out.

I think that the playground should only be used by children, it isn't safe otherwise really. AIBU?

"Could you imagine the public outcry if a park warden came along and herded all the children and their parents out of the park so that the group with LDs could access their pre-booked time? There would be quite a few catbum faces I bet."

Not from me.

Adults with LD who need to use equipment intended for small children should be facilitated to use it.

But small toddler bodies and large adult bodies on the same equipment at the same time is dangerous.

And no, I don't want to "supervise" my children closely at the park to make sure they aren't hurt by someone much bigger than they are.

missmaviscruet you are not alone and there are some lovely people who are very accepting I have a feeling the battle will never be won. Personally animals seem to get better respect
The Second Coming[thankyou]

well, that's the issue, sin't it, Athing?

you don't want ot change anythign about the way you do things. your right, to have your uninterrupted MN/gossip/peaceful sit down while your dc play is paramount. stuff anyone else who might want ot use the equipement. stuff anyone with LDs who might not understand the rules as well as your dc.

as long as you don't have to supervise your children, then they can go hang.

lovely.

TSC I agree

Bless you, TSC.

But tbh, the thing that gives me the absolute willies is what will happen to DD1 when she's an adult. She's 8 now, and I don't worry overly about where to change her (she still fits in the grubby space on the cubicle floor) or whether there's a ramp (I can still just about bump her up and down steps though my back is suffering now) but I do worry, so much, about who will look after her when I'm no longer strong enough, and she's no longer a cute little child - at least in body - and people's discomfort with her presence turns to outright hostility.

No, I can't be arsed to spend my time at the park protecting my small children from far bigger people who should not be on the same equipment.

Why should they be put at risk like that?

I have 2 children. I can't shadow them both permanently in case a grown man falls on one of them, something that could cause a significant injury to them (they, clearly, being tiny pose no risk to a grown man).

I feel exactly the same about teenagers and bigger children on equipment meant for small children.

Little kids should have the right to use play park equipment for small children without being at risk from much bigger, stronger bodies, without having to have their mother shadowing them to keep them safe rather than learning how to negotiate them independently.

If some grown ups need to use that equipment, then surely there are ways we, as a society, can arrange that without insisting that toddlers and adults share equipment when it is considered dangerous for 6 and 7 year old children to share with toddlers?

A beach is not remotely the same as a playground. But on a beach I would choose to sit well away from teenagers playing football.

I don't hate teenagers or football (except I do kind of hate football), but clearly large, almost adult bodies careering around and booting a heavy, leather sphere about, poses a risk to small children. That doesn't make it wrong, or unwelcome, just something where space needs to be made for both sets of needs.

When bigger children play football in the play park using the toddler swings as goals, I ask them to clear off if one of the DDs wants to use the swing.

I find the argument that they should play football wherever they want and I should just supervise my children more closely bizarre.

"Plus with a bit of public spiritedness from you, all people who enjoy the park can enjoy it together."

Public spiritedness doesn't make unsafe things safe.

Why do you imagine they put height restrictions on certain play areas?

Out of mean-minded hatred and fear of everyone over 3.5 feet?

Or because big children pose risks to small children on the same equipment?

My jaw is in the floor - "I don't mind people with LD or SN being in the wider community... " How big of you.

I don't have children with disabilities, but I like to think I have enough empathy to know that their lives and those of their parents are probably harder than mine. And because I am a normal, decent human being, I'll go out my way to do what I can to help - even if that means being inconvenienced. This thread is really horrible to read - so many selfish blinkered people. But at least I know which posters to avoid in future.

I've just been catching up with this thread and though I can understand (or try to) the feeling of constant attack from prejudice which those with SN and who care for children or adults with SN must get, I am quite shocked at the way in which some comments which seem to me entirely innocent have been turned around, misconstrued and leapt upon in order to make the poster look prejudiced when in fact they probably are not.

Particularly the OP and AwkwardMary.

I have scrutinised what AM posted and fwiw I am in agreement with her that taking the woman whom the carer warned AM about onto a crowded bus, and despite warning AM to keep her baby away from her, proceeding to stand in close proximity to AM so that AM was in fear of her baby being lashed out at, was unwise and possibly negligent.

I don't see why any adult or child with adequate supervision and control shouldn't be taken on a bus. I do see why an adult (or a child) who is judged by their carer to be liable to lash out at another passenger, to the extent that said passenger needs to be told to protect themselves or their own child, should NOT be placed in a situation such as that.

You would not take a contagious child onto a bus and ask everyone else to hold their breath. AM could not physically move away from the poor lady and had something awful happened, the lady in question might well have endured far harsher consequences than AM or AM's baby - she might have had her outings taken away, completely - do you see what I am saying? And we might have had an injured baby as well.

I mean if you have someone who is likely to injure fellow passengers you really ought to be thinking about using a less crowded bus, taking responsibility for that person in terms of their threat to others, and not making other passengers feel that they are at risk of imminent attack.

And before anyone says so, I'm not comparing SN to a contagious illness...it's an analogy to do with personal responsibility - which in this case transfers to the carer, not the woman with SN.

YANBU

"If that's your approach maybe it's best for everyone that you don't go to public spaces then athing."

No, apparently there can be no restrictions whatsoever on how public spaces are used.

I love that you feel sorry for my children :o

Yes, poor lambs. Mommy doesn't follow them about everywhere and expects them not to get in the way of bigger children.

Big people only cause potential harm to small people if either are inadequately supervised.
You just don't get it,do you?

to TSC

Baking you think I exaggerate when I say that every time I go out with ds1 we get something? A stare, a tut, a shake of the head, a gawp?

How very naive. Of course it happens every time we go out.

I remember the first day I employed a new 20 odd year old to help out - she's training to be a SALT. She's a lovely girl. I had to queue in a mobile phone shop so I asked her to walk ds1 around outside while i kept ds2 and ds3 with me. After about 10 minutes (yes it was a ridiculous queue) she appeared practically puce and shaking with anger. She said 'oh my god how do you stop yourself letting rip at people'. Ds1 has spotted some shutters in the shop next door and was jumping up and down next to them on the pavement outside the shop. The shop was empty, the area outside the shop was empty, ds1 wasn't touching anything, he was just excited to see some new shutters and was jumping up and down. And someone came out and had a go at my worker and told her to move him away. She was gobsmacked and kept saying to me 'but he wasn't doing anything'.

She's used to it now.

I'm stunned that you wouldn't realise that. Of course we don't have to deal with abuse or aggression every time ds1 goes out. But something. Yes something. Every. Single. Time. Every. Time.

Mavis that is an extremely good point and one which I had not considered.

I do though feel that if someone poses a sustained (threat - sorry, cannot think of a less offensive word) to other people then sadly, their limitations in terms of whom that threat is addressed to must continue for the duration of it.

Isn't that just being sensible, in terms of damage limitation? Surely there are less crowded buses, and yes if needed then maybe a taxi...yes it would be awfully difficult to do but the alternative could be a series of incidents in which babies, or whatever the scenario, get hurt by people who are unable to control their impulses.

I'm not sure why this is seen as being prejudiced when a warning was given by the carer. The carer detected a risk and vocalised it, therefore presumably a risk existed.

at "I have 2 children, I cannot shadow them both"

I have 2 children too. one of them severely disabled, with limite understanding of social norms.

It is possible to keep control of 2 children at the same time, you know . and yes, possible to organise yourself so that both of them are being adequately supervised if the need arises.

I find some of the assumptions on this thread laughable, tbh. today, and will do for the rest of the week, I took dd2 into the playground at dd1's SN school. she was surrounded by several older (and much bigger) children, some of them distressed at going back to school, some giddily excited at going back to school. none of them particularly looking out for the small child wanting to wave goodbye to her sister.

it is my job in that situation to keep both dd1 (who is currently a person of interest to a child dealing with a compulsive interest) and dd2 'safe'.

yet dd2 emerged unscathed - what a miracle

possibly because I was able to keep an eye on 2 children at once. possibly because she knows already that the children might behave unpredictably, and so is aware of what to do/not to do (she has only been to dd1's school a handful of times before, so is aware only because she has been taught to be aware)

if you take your children to a public place and let them run free without supervision, then it is your fault if they get hurt. I don't think anyone on the thread has said the carers in the OP were doing a good job, and all have said they shoul have been doing things differently. but it cannot be solely down to those who have limited capacity to change their behaviour (and their carers) to ensure that everything runs smoothly. everyone else in the space has a responsibility too - to be tolerant and understadning, to occasionally modify behaviours or change plans, to supervise small children (who behave just as unpredictably, tbh) and so on.

no one's needs trumps anyone else's. everyone should be more aware and accepting.

SO WHO IS GOING FOR THESE TAXI'S

and the BABY WAS NOT HURT FFS

no but perhaps mummy can be a little more understanding towards other children that are not yours, that do not get the same freedoms but who may on occassion want to enjoy what your children and you take for granted and maybe mummy might have to do a little more supervision that she would have to normally is that really too much to ask really ?

I'm stunned that you wouldn't realise that. Of course we don't have to deal with abuse or aggression every time ds1 goes out. But something. Yes something. Every. Single. Time. Every. Time.

That is why I rarely leave my house. People think I'm exaggerating when I say that. I'm not. I don't even put the rubbish bags in the dustbin. I leave them on the doorstep and my husband does it when he gets back. Strangely enough though, nobody every says anything or tuts or anything else when my 6ft+ husband is with me. Funny that.