To be pleased children are no longer out from dawn until dusk unsupervised

[rosediamond]

I know some people claim they had a brilliant childhood roaming free but I think for the majority of children growing up prior to the late 90s (maybe?) they were pretty dark times.

I’m pleased that children playing without supervision is rare now.

Similar experiences here bazaar

It just seems obvious to me that children on their own are at risk.

Very strange thread.

Don't be silly OP. In medieval times free roaming children were at risk from the plague; nowadays kids are cooped up in doors getting obese and existing in a tiny virtual reality sphere of gaming and online porn (yes I know I'm exaggerating but it's to prove a point). Is either of those better or worse than the other?

The Op won't be back though - they are simply being provocative. "those who didn't make it" - ???

No one I grew up with failed to make it to adult hood, it was adult hood that took most of them. Some suicides, drugs, accidents.
Looking back to growing up and running wild.and free we never felt unsafe or at risk unless we put ourselves in that position.

Agree the OP is being provocative and is on a wind up and I'm wondering what their motives are

echt ok - I mean I am glad it’s not the norm for sometimes very young kids to roam all day without adult supervision.

Why wouldn’t I be back?

Some children didn’t make it. They drowned, were killed on the roads or railway lines, murdered.

How odd to say I’m being provocative.

Children still 'play out' where we are, DS will be allowed to go with them when he's older.

The biggest danger I think is cars (espacially as we didnt have mobiles to distract us) so I might be more wary of that, but he'll be allowed to play with his friends/cousins in the fields/woods like I was.

One thing I've noticed from mumsnet is that people don't seem to trust the older DC with the younger ones anymore. Back in the dark ages (approx 2002) our parents would say the oldest most sensible DC was in charge (usually aged about 13) and all the little ones 8+ would listen.

At risk of what ?

You must live under a rock @rosediamond because their are lots of children playing out unsupervised where i live.

Seeing as the OP (welcome to MN, rosediamond) hasn't chosen to elaborate her points much, one thing that has changed over time has been the reporting of the stranger danger crime against the child:

1. Child goes missing
2. Search for child
3. Child's body found
4. Suspect arrested
5. Court case
6. Verdict
7. Sentencing
8. Appeal
9. Daily Fail "investigation" into luxurious life of murderer

10. Etc., etc.

I am not suggesting that such terrible crimes should be forgotten, but the media saturation we have now heightens the fear response beyond the rational.

The person most likely to abuse/injure/rape/kill a child is in their home right now and is related to them.

Not on the street, not in the park.

I think the dangers have always been and always will be there it's trying to manage and assess the risk.

We live in a North East Colliery Village and it's no fairytale by any stretch but children do play outside.

My DS 10 plays out quite frequently (more so now he is older) with friends often for the majority of the day if we have no plans. He takes his mobile and is good at "checking in" with us.

I would much rather this then him sit in all day playing on a console when he is not taking part in his hobbies

I bet you drive op........driving is a leisure activity really. We don't need to do it. We're also taking a considerable risk whenever we do. Many don't make it.

But like giving kids freedom and an enjoyable childhood, it's a risk worth taking.

Drowning was one major one. Water is appealing to children. Look at - see how it places the blame on the children.

Traffic.

Electricity pylons

Trains and railways.

Adults - not just in the sense of predatory ones who might actually take their lives (though it does happen) but sexual assaults.

Where I grew up in the 70s and 80s, nearly all of us played out every day in the holidays and there were only rarely any accidents. No fatalities. The only kids I knew that sadly didn’t make it died due to illness, not accidents from being unsupervised. I find modern attitudes to children playing unsupervised absolutely stifling in contrast, though other things have improved, such as it being much less acceptable to smack and hit.

Yes kidscan be run over kids ca n fall into dangerbut at what age do you stop supervising them ? and I can only remember 1 local child dying when i wasgrowing up he was 10 and was killed by a car a terrible awful accident.

Some children didn’t make it. They drowned, were killed on the roads or railway lines, murdered.

Yes, but not ‘the majority’ that you posit in your first post.

Children are still suffering those same fates today. What makes you say that it happened to ‘the majority’ pre-1990, but is a less significant concern now?

I don’t know mrsjayy - it’s a difficult one isn’t it? You do have to allow some freedom. Just the same, I don’t think it hurts to be aware of danger.

The majority of children that played out weren't murdered or died tragically.

HTH.

Ok not 'provocative': howabout 'wrong' ?

Your claim that "for the majority of children growing up prior to the late 90s they were pretty dark times". On what evidence and stats do you base this comment ?

What exactly are 'dark times'?

Not to the same extent colourless

The only " dark times" I experienced was the orange and brown polyester.
That WAS pretty grim

Dark times refers to being at risk from other adults and also at risk from one another. Gangs of kids can quickly turn a bit Lord of the Flies.