Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think adult supervision doesn’t mean any old adult?

118 replies

WomanStanleyWoman · 28/12/2021 16:36

I’ve just been for a swim at my gym. Members can usually bring their children for lessons and at weekends, but I think it’s allowed all day at the moment as it’s school holidays.

For most of the time today, it was only me and two children (probably aged around six to eight) in the pool, with what I presume was their dad watching from the side. At one point he suddenly got up and went out into the reception area. He reappeared quickly enough, but it seemed a bit of an odd thing to do, as the pool is unsupervised - the only adult there was me. Then a few minutes later he did it again, and this time was gone for longer. He just seemed to be chatting in reception! (The door has a glass panel, which is how I could tell - but he had his back to it, so he couldn’t say he was keeping an eye on the children through the door.)

When he did reappear I was going to say something, but the children got out at that point and he took them off to change. Also another dad had arrived with his kids at this point, so perhaps Dad One had seen him come and thought ‘Well, there’s two adults there’.

The rule is that under 15s must be supervised. I couldn’t get steamed up about two 14 year-olds without parents, but under tens is a different matter. AIBU in thinking that adult supervision means a parent or guardian (or at least a lifeguard or instructor) - not just ‘there’s a woman swimming; therefore I can just wander off’?

OP posts:
WomanStanleyWoman · 29/12/2021 08:56

I haven’t said that at all Confused

OP posts:
Srettel · 29/12/2021 09:08

I can't see very well without my glasses, so if I had been swimming I probably wouldn't have been able to see the father leave and would have had no clue that I was the only adult in the vicinity. I'd respond if the kids shouted for help, but if one of them was drowning quietly, I'd be oblivious.

Obviously when I'm supervising my own kids in the pool, I keep close enough that I can see exactly what they are doing.

But a blurry figure by the side of the pool walking away? I wouldn't even see that.

RedHelenB · 29/12/2021 09:11

@WomanStanleyWoman

I haven’t said that at all Confused
You said you didn't know how well they were swimming?
Riverlee · 29/12/2021 09:15

Haven’t read whole thread, but I don’t think he was expecting you to look after his kids, but neglected his duty, as such. Ie. He got bored of watching his kids, so went out to reception to chat to them. Maybe he thought that as there was a glass panel, he was still supervising them (even though he was facing away).

Dullrugby · 29/12/2021 10:11

Wow OP, I think you are pushing back really aggressively. Some people have pointed out something about the way you told the story. I thought, too, when I read the OP, that there was a sense of personal grievance- not just "This dad has made a dangerous call & as an onlooker I disapprove" but "This dad has done something bad TO ME because now I have to look after his children".

It is a completely fine response to your OP to say "Yes, but nobody asked you to look after the children, that's a narrative you generated in your own head, so YABU to take it personally".

As it happens you are right to think that onlookers end up taking responsibility by default, so I didn't feel the need to comment that you were taking it personally initially. But you've been so needlessly defensive with everyone who's made that point, that I conclude you're the sort of person who doesn't like to take on alternative perspectives.

santaclothes · 29/12/2021 10:20

I thought, too, when I read the OP, that there was a sense of personal grievance- not just "This dad has made a dangerous call & as an onlooker I disapprove" but "This dad has done something bad TO ME because now I have to look after his children".

I think this explains what I (rather badly) and other posters were trying to say last night. It really wasn't personal.

Kite22 · 29/12/2021 16:01

@Dullrugby

Wow OP, I think you are pushing back really aggressively. Some people have pointed out something about the way you told the story. I thought, too, when I read the OP, that there was a sense of personal grievance- not just "This dad has made a dangerous call & as an onlooker I disapprove" but "This dad has done something bad TO ME because now I have to look after his children".

It is a completely fine response to your OP to say "Yes, but nobody asked you to look after the children, that's a narrative you generated in your own head, so YABU to take it personally".

As it happens you are right to think that onlookers end up taking responsibility by default, so I didn't feel the need to comment that you were taking it personally initially. But you've been so needlessly defensive with everyone who's made that point, that I conclude you're the sort of person who doesn't like to take on alternative perspectives.

This is exactly what I was going to post.

You really aren't coming across very well at all here OP

WomanStanleyWoman · 29/12/2021 16:16

You really aren't coming across very well at all here OP

I think I’m coming across a hell of a lot better than people making needlessly bitchy comments.

OP posts:
WomanStanleyWoman · 29/12/2021 16:21

But you've been so needlessly defensive with everyone who's made that point, that I conclude you're the sort of person who doesn't like to take on alternative perspectives.

I conclude you’re the sort of person who doesn't like anyone sticking up for themselves.

I’ll just have to content myself with 91% of the votes being in my favour.

OP posts:
Kite22 · 29/12/2021 16:32

Except people were voting on your question :
AIBU in thinking that adult supervision means a parent or guardian (or at least a lifeguard or instructor) - not just ‘there’s a woman swimming; therefore I can just wander off’? and not about how rudely you are coming across. The thread has evolved since the original question was asked.

BogRollBOGOF · 29/12/2021 16:43

YANBU

The policy is supervision u15 and 6&8 ish is a long way under 15. 6yos don't tend to be confident, competent swimmers and 8yos are a mixed bag (especially at present with a large chunk of learning/ experience lost in the past 2 years)
"Supervising" from the side is a grey area depending on the pool.

Whether or not he intended on leaving the children because he delegated "supervising" to you is a moot point, it then put you in a position that compromised your decisions because there is no one else supervising them, and it's hazardous to ignore them with no supervision avaliable, meaning you don't feel free to leave in your own time.

There were a few random bees in the bonnet last night!

Dullrugby · 29/12/2021 18:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

ChateauxNeufDePoop · 29/12/2021 19:14

@WomanStanleyWoman

You are not the main character in this scene...nothing happened 🤣

If nothing happened, there IS no scene. A potato could work that out.

Harsh way to describe yourself.
WomanStanleyWoman · 29/12/2021 22:38

My niece has been obsessed with cracker jokes this Christmas. They’re beyond awful. They’re still funnier than that comment.

OP posts:
WomanStanleyWoman · 29/12/2021 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

WomanStanleyWoman · 29/12/2021 22:41

@Dullrugby

Completely agree with you OP that he WBU to leave his children. Thats what your 91% refers to, probably. What some of us are questioning them is whether he left them to YOU - "there's a woman swimming, therefore I can just wander off". You can't know he was thinking this.

I think you might not be very clever because you aren't arguing logically. So I will try and say it simply. You haven't taken on board the above point. I then infer that perhaps you don't like taking on different perspectives. Your retort about people "sticking up for themselves" just makes no sense in the context, I'm afraid.

I’M rude?! Look in a bloody mirror!
OP posts:
Dullrugby · 30/12/2021 09:00

I don't think you are arguing logically, that doesn't make me rude.

Georgeskitchen · 30/12/2021 21:54

You are not being unreasonable.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread