To have never worried for a second about the possibility of my children being abducted...

[curlew]

......and to have never, as far as I can remember, made any decisions based on the possibility or factored it in to any plans I have made or actions I have taken?

Is this unusual? Do most people worry about this?

Of course you understand what hmc said because it is a common misuse of the word "risk" to use it in place of "probability".

The distinction is important in debates like this so people can understand where the other is coming from. Yes, probability of abduction is low, but the result is horrible if it happens. Probability of falling from a tree is higher but we let kids climb trees, for example, because if they fall we expect them to be hurt but get better in time.

Not 'management training', by the way. Real university with a real degree

But if we understand what hmc what actually IS your point? (apart from trying to sound smug).

My head is spinning, but it is all simple isn't it really.

Curlew is happy for her Year 6 child to get to school alone. It is possible he may be abducted. But not probable. It is a very small risk she takes. But the thought doesn't cross her mind that he may be abducted, he probably won't be, so they are both happy.

My year 6 dc have not been allowed to travel alone to school. So there is no possibility, risk or probability they would be abducted. I have taken that risk away. But I would have worried about them on every journey, so I have taken the worry away from myself.

Both curlew and I are content in our actions because of our individual worry, or absence of worry, about a potential abduction.

"Bewildered by the point of that exercise. What does it prove? That you're a bit of a no-nonsense adventurous wild spirit mum but your kids love it because they're mini Bear Grylls? I give up."

Well, if you think a 10 year old going on a 2 mile bike ride in broad daylight is being a mini Bear Grylls, I rather rest my case..................

Curlew, you're the one that brought up the odd travel to school scenario as if it mattered. Rest your case? Well done you. Bizarre and deluded that you think you've been proven right here somehow. About what I do not know.

LeBFG you were the one that made a snide remark to Cote first about management speak yet you didn't like it when she came back with an answer to that so the smug remark was uncalled for.

I like your summing up Bowler. We all do what we think is suitable. No need to question others or think your way is the only way or the correct way. No need for self-congratulatory pats on the back about how laid back you are in your parenting. We all adjust and modify depending on the situation, characteristics of our child and various other factors. To not give certain situations a second's thought though at all is naive at best, possibly negligent at worse in my view. OP YABU.

And no I don't think a 2 mile bike ride makes any kid a mini Bear Grylls. How stupid. It was your remark "much to DS's outrage" when you make him go by car that made me laugh - as if you need to make it known to everyone how wonderfully adventurous he is, more than kids that don't want to do these things, and you couldn't possibly cramp him in anyway with silly notions there might be people that he comes across that could do him harm.

@ cote, you seemed a bit bewildered about my expression 'common or garden' - it's a fairly well known saying....idioms.thefreedictionary.com/common-or-garden

Oh, sorry. I thought it was just a mild joke about the average 12 year old's ability to ignore rain- I don't need a coat mum, it's only drizzling a bit- when it's actually a torrential downpour.

But I withdraw the phrase unreservedly if it offends you.

I don't understand your last post Curlew. Not sure what phrase you think has offended me either. I'm not offended.

Curlew - are we talking about a 12 year old or a 10 year old? There is a difference, IMO.

It is true that traffic presents a greater danger than abduction.

He's 12 now. He started going to school on his own when he was 10.5, half way through year 6.

Tabliope- sorry. I was trying to be funny. Which has gone as well as such attempts usually do.

Good for you. Here's your medal for Smug Thread of the Year.

You don't fear abduction, others do. So what? That makes you a better parent, guaranteed to have more independent kids? Keep kidding yourself.

I see what you mean Curlew now, it went over my head. To be honest I probably wouldn't have stopped my 10.5 year old DS go to school by bike over a couple of fields if I felt comfortable with the route. 2 miles? What's that - 15 minutes cycling? At that age my DS was probably my size and also confident. My niece, no. Very dainty and the size of an 8 year old.

However, the difference between us is among the advice of no trespassing on farmland, don't annoy any cows etc it would have crossed my mind what if he did come across someone that meant him harm, just as I did at that age. So I would have reminded him don't take any lifts, ride like the wind if someone follows you and your gut instinct isn't good, you don't have to stop and chat with someone if they make you uncomfortable, just keep moving and be impolite if necessary, and text me when you get to school because going by my DS's primary you'd never hear if he hadn't arrived, which wouldn't be any good if he had been abducted or had come off his bike and knocked himself out.

In letting him do that route to school I would have given abduction a second's thought as one of the various things that could go wrong. You say you wouldn't have though so presumably did not give him any advice on what to do in that unlikely (or not so unlikely) scenario. I think better to prepare for any possibility no matter how small. You can't protect them 100% sometimes but you can arm them so they're not lambs to the slaughter. Going by your OP you've never mentioned strangers to them and not getting into cars of people they don't know, which is odd.

I've agreed with you so many times Curlew (over many years, threads and names), but this thread displays a surprising lack of understanding and empathy and yes, reads as smug.

I hate this 'competitive laidbackness' on MN, and the massive double-standard where some people define what they themselves do as sensible caution but anything other people do as not just a bit more cautious than necessary (a perfectly reasonable point of view), but as positively hysterical, and start talking about people being fooled by the media and so on.

I have considered the risk of abduction (along with other risks) - although wherever possible the steps I take to reduce that risk, as with other risks, are chosen to limit my dc's freedom and independence as little as possible. It is possible to consider even quite unlikely risks and still value independence - those two things are not mutually exclusive and it's a straw man to suggest that they are.

Ahem, as I said on page 2, early on yesterday: "It doesn't make you a better parent or person if you have never had anything awful happen and as a result of that believe that nothing ever will!!"

And most people have been trying to get that point over ever since. Sorry Curlew, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are coming across as smug.

I am sorry if I come across as smug- I genuinely don't mean to. I am just fascinated by the way people perceive risk. I have my own headful of irrational fears- if I had my way, my children would never,never, ever use a level crossing, for example. Which would make life a bit difficult because in order to get to the aforementioned station, they need to. It is manned, has flashing lights and a siren, but it terrifies me.

I just think that children are being given a very skewed view of the world- somebody downthread said that they were going to have to have stern words with their 3 year old who, on discovering herself lost in a shop, very sensibly asked somebody to help her. What sort of a world view are we giving our children if we think the risk of abduction is so great that there is any possibility at all that a person a child asks for help is likely to be a predatory, opportunist paedophile? I don't think it would be possible to calculate the chances of that happening- there arn't numbers big enough.

True, Bridges, also smacks of 'bad things only happen to other people'.

LadyinDisguise the OP said:

'But no, I have never talked to they about going off with strangers.'

Sorry, but that's just fucking irresponsible. It takes five minutes to have a sensible conversation with your kids about it and it could potentially save their lives. There's no need for it to be frightening, just make them aware.

As what happened to me illustrates, nobody knows who these things will happen to or when. But it's such a small investment in time and effort that in my opinion any parent who doesn't do it is totally irresponsible and if their child gets abducted a large portion of the blame would have to lie with them.

I think my point is not that "bad things happen to other people"- rather, this particular bad thing happens to such a small number of people that more damage is caused by planning for it than by ignoring it. Because it makes children fearful of perfectly normal human interactions. And because it takes attention away from where there might be an element of risk.

I don't think there is anything wrong with letting a year 6 child walk to school alone BTW. I just think there is something wrong with letting a year 6 child walk to school without taking sensible precautions and making sure they're properly prepared should they face a difficult situation.

'rather, this particular bad thing happens to such a small number of people that more damage is caused by planning for it than by ignoring it. Because it makes children fearful of perfectly normal human interactions.'

Wow, a completely unsubstantiated and incredibly sweeping generalisation, too. Yes, fear of abduction is rife, people!! All of you are helicopter parents!

So with you on the competitive laidbackness on here, Doubles. Some of it seems to, IMO, cross so far over into stupidity and irresponsibility that I wonder how much of it is true, tbh.

Brain cancer happens to a very small number of people. So fuck teaching awareness about it. It just causes people to be afraid. After all, it's only rare when it doesn't happen to you.

No, Curlew. It doesn't make children fearful of perfectly normal human interactions or take attention away from where there might be an element of risk. It depends how you handle it. To not mention it at all is negligent. You are unusual I'd say because I don't know anyone that has deliberately never told their kids don't go off with strangers. You don't get it and refuse to. You knew the answer when you started the thread but wanted to portray yourself as laid back. You just seem astoundingly naive and stubborn to me.

ok, tabloipe- think what you want to think. And obviously, you know far more about my motives and feelings than I do. But we live in a society where people are scared to talk to children or to help them when they are in trouble. Where a child is told off for asking for help when lost. And that is because we have a deep seated belief that strangers are dangerous. Is that how you think things should be?