to send a nearly 9 year old 100 yards down the road to the chip shop

[workshy]

having left over roast beef and chips for tea but had no frozen chips in yes I know I'm a slattern but it is sunday so sent DD, who will be 9 next month down to the chippy which is on my road, to fetch a bag of chips

she was 'escorted' home by a woman who had happened to be in the chippy and though I was totally unreasonable to let her go to the chip shop by herself at that time of night (it was ten to six when she went)

have I totally lost it in my ability to make reasonable decisions about my child's safety or is she a nut job?

I agree to a degree seeker with your 15:02 post but if your child is the one who is taken I am not sure you really care about society. Parenting is the ultimate balancing act I think and constant decisions have to be made with fingers crossed a lot of the time.

Justfab - exactly. Some if us are just less able to rest easy with whatever statistics might be out there. The fact is that horrible things happen to some children, whether that child is one in a million or one in a thousand, it's still a real child and it has really happened

It's real children that are damaged by overprotective parenting too, though.

I know which damage is worse out of the two - and I also don't really believe it is in any way comparable

I think ts nice that the woman was looking out for your daughter and showing a bit of neighbourliness. I may have just invented the word neighbourliness though.

I find it so interesting that people are more afraid of stranger danger than road traffic accidents.

Seeker I meant...well...I tried to type it out earlier but couldn't find a way to explain what I meant, so I probably shouldn't try now either.

I only meant that a parent can be completely hysterical and over the top and never let their child out of the house, and they could still be abducted. Elizabeth Smart, as I said, was taken from her own bed.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do, beyond teaching your child to scream. And knowing that the risk of your child growing up completely incompetent is far greater than them being abducted.

I still didn't get my point across, did I?

"I agree to a degree seeker with your 15:02 post but if your child is the one who is taken I am not sure you really care about society."

Of course you don't.

Nut the rest of us should.

dropdeadfred the thing is that the dangers you mention (which statistically speakign are far less likely than a road accident - yet I bet you let them be in the car!) are just as likely to be an issue at 11-12-13 etc.

Yet it is OK for children to be out on their own at that age? Mainly the reason for the secondary school rule is that so many DC have to get there on their own as mum or dad is taking their younger siblings to primary. That's illogical tho - and IMO total freedom at that age is more dangerous than a gradual easing in from age 8-9yo.

You're right tho, it's none of my business what you do. Just my DC are/were desperate for freedom and a bit of independance waaaaay abefore they were 11.

Clary - you are right on that score. I probably have been guilty of wrapping them
In cotton wool a bit cos I always fussed about them walking home with friends, not taking the shortcut through the woods, getting a lift in the winter if it was dark etc - but like you say, we're all different and I don't condemn people who do it differently - in some ways I envy them being able to be more relaxed.