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?

Yes and we used to torment a man known locally as psycho who used to threaten us with a knife. Years later he brutally murdered his girlfriend
Shudder

No, LeBFG you didn't just say about 'only' fatalities, your screen was wider than that including people that you know and not necessarily directly - so my mother's friend's neice's next door neighbour's plumber type of thing. On the other hand, the people that have commented directly about dodgy experiences as kids on this thread that could have turned nasty have pretty much been talking first hand. Anyway it's irrelevant. All I was trying to do was pick holes in your particular argument that the risks are similar. They're not so it was a stupid generalisation.

I didn't worry about this until about 3 months ago, dd (who was a few weeks away from being 6) got lost in tesco. We were looking for her everywhere, and eventually found her at the front of the shop with the manager. She had apparently approached a man who was shopping and told him she'd lost her Mummy and Daddy. Thankfully, he took her to the front of the shop.

I had to give her some stern stern words when we got home about only approaching people in shop uniform, or a police man/woman or a man or woman who is with other children if she ever gets lost again.

Most people have been saying it's a risk you consider and warn your kids about. No more emphasis is placed on it than on talking about people you know doing things you don't like or how to cross the road or advise on any of the risks through childhood that kids could face. A few have admitted it is an irrational fear in their heads that probably has too much head space. They seem aware of that and presumably will adjust it so that their child isn't stifled. A lot of people seem to think it strange to have not even considered it for one second, which is what the OP was about.

Completely agree with Bertie and LeBFG.

I have looked at the risk and come to the conclusion it was more risking for them not to go out and experience the world around. I actually decided that the risk is so small that this is NOT what I will concentrate on That it would make them less independent and more frightened of life and certainly less resilient.
But then I've also always though that children need to have as much independence as possible. I've always done that. From letting eat as soon as they hold a spoon (even if it was very messy), to letting them chose their clothes at 2 yo, going to the toilet on their own to now going out on their bikes etc...
I know that they are doing those things a few years before any of their friends.
But they are also able to care for themselves in a way that few of their friends are able to. eg the son of a friend of mine was found distressed and crying because he went back home from school before his mum and she wasn't there 2 mins after so was completely panicked. he didn't think about doping the trip back to school to find her, or to wait knowing she was talking with someone else. This is a child who was in Y6, towards the end of the summer term. 3 months later he was supposed to be able to go to his secondary school on his own, come back home and let himself in....

I have read before that we don't live in a world of information but of misinformation.

I agree with that. Most of our fears are not proportionate to the risks. It's a fact. From the likelihood of abduction to the issue with vaccines or car crashes or food in pregnancy.

The other thing to remember is that the number of children abducted by strangers hasn't changed between now and the 1960s.
So all our precautions, trying to protect children from abduction etc... has actually made no difference whatsoever. If it doesn't make a difference, why doing it??

Someone tried to get me to get in his car when I was 17 by pretending to be a taxi driver needing directions. I am now 99% certain it was Levi Bellfield who murdered Milly Dowler. I recognized him but also it was the right area and a journey he would have been making at that time of day, plus it fits in with crimes he was supposedly committing at the time.

I'm glad I had been given the 'don't go off with strangers talk'.

Yes you shouldn't scare them or overly limit them. But not taking sensible precautions just because you want to look cool and lefty liberal is just stupid.

Lady, you're slightly missing the point. Just because the parent has 'considered' abduction doesn't mean they are stopping their kids do anything. My DS has more freedom than his friends yet I've 'considered' the risk of something happening to him over the years. Not now, as he's grown up plus I put the strategies and framework of how to deal with situations in place as he was growing up. All people are saying is it's just one of the things you warn your kid about when they're gaining some independence from you. Regardless I think if a kid is naturally independent and confident you can't stifle them to that extent, at least not forever.

Letting them hold the spoon etc - we've all done that. Bizarre references to what you see as independence. So you know the odd child that's sheltered, pampered and spoiled. We all do. Some of my DS's friends are not adventurous in the least. I don't think it's because their parents were unduly worried about abduction or anything else. Likewise my DS is very adventurous but I don't that's anything to do with what I did either. I just know now he can risk assess various situations well and come up with a couple of solutions as I've given him a complete picture of possible things that can happen.

Bloody hell seasick!

You know, at schools everyone is dropping and picking their kids up, causing traffic jams and all the problems that entails (accidents in particular). It's all done in the name of safety. We all live in fear of abductors and paedophiles and yet we've exchanged that risk for one of obesity and heart attacks because no one walks more than a few hundred meters anymore....

I spend my whole life worrying about this be very grateful that you don't-it is exhausting

As has been mentioned , I think the life you have had as a child/teenager very much clouds how you feel about the (perceived?) dangers your own child/ren faces.

The thing is SeaSickSal, no one on here is saying you shouldn't be careful and teach your dcs what to do. even though we clearly all have a different idea of what it means too

The starting point was about not letting a child going to the loo on his own in a coffee shop because 'he might get abducted'.
And the fact that some of us will not even think about that risk because we think it's too small to even be factored in before all the other potential risks.

So going to the loo at Costa? I would have wondered about the risk of them being exposed to inappropriate behaviour such as a man stroking himself. Or them feeling stuck in the toilet (lock issue). All that much before 'but he might snatched by an unknown person'.
And then I would probably have let them do it anyway on the ground that, due to the location (small place etc) the probability of any of these other risks was small anyway.

^The other thing to remember is that the number of children abducted by strangers hasn't changed between now and the 1960s.
So all our precautions, trying to protect children from abduction etc... has actually made no difference whatsoever. If it doesn't make a difference, why doing it??^

I agree on keeping risks in proportion, and I was told that statistic at college, too. But here's the thing: car ownership was rare in the 1960s, compared to now. Population mobility was far lower, and the population was smaller too - which actually indicates proportionately fewer kids were killed. We're also a far more violent society in general, to judge from crime figures. You can argue that the abduction and murder of children not having increased indicates the risk hasn't increased, or you can argue that greater vigilence by parents has decreased opportunity, and thus kept the figures static despite other factors which would have led to increase, otherwise. More simply: if you wanted to abduct a kid now, you'd be far more able to do so, if kids still wandered around in the free range way they used to. They don't, so abducting one, especially a young one, is going to be far harder for a predator than it was back in the day.

Again, I appreciate that we put our children at far greater risk every time we strap them into a car seat. I also think that cooping kids up in homes, and not allowing them opportunities to roam, explore, have adventures and build independence has troubling costs of its own - healthwise, in terms of activity levels, and in terms of independence, confidence and ability to manage risk sensibly. I'm not saying I think our modern attitudes are necessarily good ones. But I don't think the way that stat above - on abduction/murder rates not having increased - proves what you think it does. Far fewer kids are killed by cars as pedestrians now than were in the 1970s, despite far more cars on the roads... yet we accompany them everywhere, and kids no longer play out on the streets. Which is likely to be more to do with it than the road safety message having been absorbed more by current generations. It's not safe to look at a stat without examining surrounding factors.

Taliope my dcs are in Y4&Y5. They have being going out on their bike to places for about a year now. I have left them playing on their own in places a good 15min walk away from home.

None of their friends have ever done that. Actually all the children in Y6 at their school are just started to go out together to a local park, about 5 mins away from their home. Or going to see each other at each other houses. It's not about one child that has been over protected. Most of them all are.

NotEnough I do get though that for some people this is a really big fear. Whatever the reason, experience as a child or whatever. This can be hard to live with when it takes over so much energy from you.

LeBFG I think a lot of the driving kids to school is done in the name of laziness, convenience (as the parent has to then get to work) and choice. Who knows what the exact breakdown is but it's not "all" done in the name of safety as you say and again not "everyone" as you say is doing it. Again a sweeping generalisation. And yes I know more people that walk many hundreds of metres a day and that aren't obese than that don't and are. Another sweeping generalisation.

Lady, actually a few people are on here saying you shouldn't be careful and teach your dcs what to do in certain situations. A few have said they've not given these situations a second's thought (not even a 'second' thought which implies there was a first thought even if it was completely dismissed). You've actually just done with the coffee shop scenario what others of us have done - thought about it and assessed it, dismissing the unlikelihood of abduction but considering other possible risks -at least you've thought about it. From Curlew's OP it's like she's not given anything a second's thought never mind warning her kids about any possible dangers that could happen (she says she never factored anything like that in to her plans or actions). That's what the OP is about and why it's been so long. If no one was actually saying that then it would have died a death ages ago.

That's horrendous SeaSickSal.

I would say the only person I think has been affected to any degree where the effects have been passed on to the child is Denise Bulger who has said her kids don't go anywhere without her or her husband. Most people are within the extremes of this and Curlew who hasn't given anything like that a second's thought or based any of her decisions and actions on that and also LeBFG by all accounts who I think has said she's never considered it either. Most people are saying it's a thought and a consideration but it shouldn't take over your life.

Yes agree with the fact that there are fewer pedestrians death now than before but we think that it's now too dangerous to let children out...

Also agree about putting things in context. But my understanding about the fact that the figures are the same is that it's coming from the type of personality associated with that sort of crimes. Basically that the number of people (proportion of) people who are sick in such a way that they would perpetrate that sort of crime is still the same. We don't have any more or any less 'sick' people than before. Regardless of the increase in 'how easy' it would be now compare to before (let's remember that if it is easier to 'abduct a child' as you say, it's also easier to track them and find them than it was before. Therefore the risk for the perpetrator might just as well be the same, if not higher)

Lady, none of your DCs friends have done that but plenty of my DCs friends have so maybe it's just the area you live in. I don't think it proves much and not sure what you're trying to prove. You also have to consider the child - some parents make a decision on how naive their child is so will leave it to Yr6, others might work until 6pm so there's not opportunity. Not all baseline factors are the same so you're not comparing like for like. You think you've given your kids lots of freedom. That's great but no doubt you've given them some advise of what to do in various situations.

I agree with you perfectstorm. The situation isn't like for like between now and 30 or 40 years back at all.

perfectstorm actually, figures show quite clearly that violent crime has been decreasing steadily since about - 1600 in fact! - but certainly throughout the twentieth century. So have car accidents (there are some eyeopening figures I saw somewhere about car accidents and fatalities - even in the 20s when there were only a few cars there were extraordinarily high numbers of accidents, proportionately! Will try to find where I saw this....)

The fact remains though that we know abductions can and do happen - Milly Dowler, Sarah Payne, and others, for example - and though the risk is small, it is still there. So what do we do about it - ignore it and simply hope and expect it won't happen to us or our children?

I often wonder if the story has not been written already.How often do people leave a dangerous country just to be hideously struck down in say a leafy Kent lane.
Nothing,no vigilance, could have stopped what happened to these children mentioned above.

Nothing,no vigilance, could have stopped what happened to these children mentioned above.

YY to that!

Unless you shut your children in a room and never let them out, there will always be a risk.

Yes maybe the area (very middle class) where I live. But them my SIL says the same and she is very rural.

My point is that no children is allowed out like this, so it is independent of the child or the family situation. The opportunity to go out is there (plenty of friends in a small distance, a local park, some green areas to play football etc...) but not taken as shown by the very few primary school children using the facilities (unless very little and with a parent)

Yes traininhtedistance. All violent crimes have been in significant decline - actually there was a blip in crime in the 80s i.e. it was higher for a while across first world countries. We're back in a decline since then. So actuallyit IS safer out there.

Tabliope: parents dropping their kids off are not doing it in the name of laziness. There are doing it the name of safety covering up for the fact they're being lazy (or their kids more precisely).