To think that taking your children to a peaceful protest is not a safeguarding issue?

[sewingandcakes]

- regardless of your views on fracking, AIBU to think that a parent has every right to take their children to a protest without the fear of social services becoming involved?

This is the way the government operates now, protesting against government policy you disagree with is not allowed. It started with the 'kettling' of students in the tuition fees protest - keep them detained until they've all pissed and shit themselves, are thirsty and hungry and they won't protest again. Yet most people just said 'good, stupid students'. Well now they use these degrading or threatening tactics for all sorts of things, expanding them all the time. Soon it will be too late to do anything about it, nobody will be left to protest.

There was even an article on BBC about how GCHQ and the NSA planned to use people internet habits against them to discredit their views. The government claimed this was reserved for 'terrorists', but you'd have to be very naive to think they wouldn't do this to anyway with an inconvenient viewpoint.

Where do they mention taking the kids?
Do you know the reasons behind the social worker (assuming that's what she is, the video is unclear) being there? For all we know, the children may be persistently absent from school because they are being taken to protests. Or maybe they have reason to suspect the children aren't with their rightful family, seeing as no one will answer her questions about who the children are with.
We don't know, and it's scaremongering titles like 'protest against fracking and we will take your kids' that give SS a bad name. (Not a social worker by the way, just hate how they are seen as the enemy. Not dissimilar to when parents point out policemen and say to their children that the policeman is coming to take them because they are naughty)

Why would you want to take children - peaceful or otherwise?

Why wouldn't you take them? Loads of peaceful protests include children and babies in biggies- have you never been on one, Meh?

Ha! Buggies, not biggies

My 13 year old was DESPERATE for me to take her to the big Fracking protest this year. she had read lots about it and felt that it was her responsibility to act 'as its our future'
why wouldnt you take them?

No I haven't been on any protests, let alone take my children with me. I don't think it's appropriate, however I certainly don't agree with SS being involved if people chose to do so.

How ridiculous. Ive not looked at the clip as my computer wont let me, but I'm sure social care have enough to do without issuing proceedings for taking a child to a protest.

For those that haven't seen the clip-

A woman with a clipboard is walking along a road. She speaks to another (offscreen) woman, asking whose the kids are. The camera holder tells clipboard holder that she is harassing them. clipboard holder asks if cameraman is related to woman. Man identifies himself as 'legal observer' or some such. At some point 'safeguarding issues' are mentioned by clipboard woman.

That's basically it.

There is absolutely nothing on that video which suggests that taking children to a peaceful demonstration means they will be taken away. There is nothing to suggest that the social worker's involvement was anything to do with the demonstration or frakking. This is a very silly thread.

Glad someone else agrees curlew.

I don't think education should stay within the classroom; I'll be taking my kids on protests, if they want to go, and have an interest in the issues. If they don't, then that's fine. I just don't like the way that this woman was approached for attending a protest with her children.

Wtf is a "multi agency unit".

Trumped up power crazed arsewipe. You don't even have to give your details to the police if you haven't committed a crime never mind someone who refuses to identify who they are or who they work for.

How do you know that is why she was approached? Maybe just before the video started she was seen swearing and threatening to belt her kids round the ear? We don't know why she was approached.

I wasn't at the protest, but from watching the news reports and reading Facebook accounts of people who were there, she was attending the protest with her children, walking ahead of the blockade, not actually part of it.

I have taken my children on protests too.

Where did the woman with the clipboard say anything about taking children away?

I didn't hear anyone threatening to take the children away. What I saw, was, it looked cold, it sounded like the road was fairly busy & the children seemed to be young.
I don't think we know enough as to whether it was a Safeguarding Issue. But, IMO as an adult, you can feel passionately about a topic, & protest etc. But it is Your protest not your dc protest, until they are old enough to make an informed choice on the matter. These children appeared too young to do that.
How do we know if this woman protests continually round the country, taking her children with her all the time. Perhaps that is a Safeguarding issue? Where is the dc choice in this?

"Trumped up power crazed arsewipe. You don't even have to give your details to the police if you haven't committed a crime never mind someone who refuses to identify who they are or who they work for."

She was asked to identify herself by somebody not involved, as far as we know, with the family she wanted to talk to. She should not have identified herself-she has a duty of confidentiality to that family.

Shouldn't the children be at school?

You can't make this an exception as too many parents would use it as an excuse.

I would bet that a good number of the people writing Facebook accounts etc have their own agenda. Like I said, look at the title of the video. Scaremongering. A more accurate title would be 'take your children out of school to attend a protest and some people might want to ask a few questions'. People see what they want to see. And given a few confident eye witness accounts, they see what other people wanted them to see. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable- look up Elizabeth Loftus and her research.

ChronicallySick I agree that the title is scaremongering, and I will look up Elizabeth Loftus, (when I've made the kids tea), thanks. I think I'm a just a bit concerned about going to attend the same protest this weekend with my own kids, as I hadn't considered that SS would have any need for involvement. I guess I'll leave them with DH at home.

Who mentioned removing children?
We have no idea why that social worker was concerned about the children. Simply being on a protest would not raise child protection concerns. This is total scaremongering and a huge strawman.

Here's a good starting point www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

Basically, if an eyewitness is exposed to new information between observing an event a recalling it, they can assimilate that information into their memory of the event.

The new information can be in the form of leading questions.

Most of Loftus' research has been based on videos of car crashes. As well as the one mentioned in the article, they found that participants were more likely to recall a smashed headlight if they had been asked "did you see the smashed headlight?" As opposed to "did you see a smashed headlight?". Participants were also more likely to recall seeing broken glass if they were asked questions about the cars smashing into each other as opposed to bumping into each other.

In the context of the OP, it means that it is possible that someone who was there who then watched a video/read comments/are asked about whether they saw anyone 'taking the kids away' could then write a Facebook account of it, involving a social worker trying to take the children away. It would then snowball- the more people writing about 'taking the kids away' the more people would 'remember' it.

It's important to note that the eyewitnesses are being entirely truthful- their actual memory has been distorted.

I seem to recall another piece of research- can't remember who by, may have been Loftus again but maybe not- that showed that people remember witnessing high profile events, such as a shooting, yet they weren't actually there!

That all sounds really interesting, thanks for pointing me in that direction.

You're welcome. It's nice to know my psychology degree isn't going to waste!