Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this charity deserve prosecution for being so bloody stupid?

298 replies

Fucklechuck · 02/01/2023 21:48

Just seen this in the news and went down a rabbit hole reading the whole story plus comments on their FB.

They took a bunch of young kids on a frozen lake (apparently without parental consent) and tried to justify it as a safety lesson despite clearly having no understanding themselves of the actual dangers. For example they're claiming the entire lake was frozen over with 2ft thick ice - no, it definitely wasn't, not in the south west of the UK, it's just not that cold in this country even in the recent cold snap. That's just impossible.

Their comments on their FB page are shockingly blasé and they've even been liking other people's comments saying that vaccines are a bigger danger to children than this was Hmm

Just can't believe anyone would be so stupid less than a week after the tragedy in Solihull Sad and then to take to social media calling it a knee jerk overreaction to suspend their license until an investigation is complete shows a total lack of regard for the most basic H&S or risk assessment processes. I actually hope their registration to look after children is revoked by whoever has such powers!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:27

They are right that to keep children active but safe, they need to know how to manage risks.
If they are correct in what they are saying, this is total hyperbole.

Doormatnomore · 03/01/2023 00:27

Riddle me this, if they were teaching children what safe ice feels like, how were they put that into practice? How many steps onto ice do you need to get to tell if it’s safe? Then what do you do if it isn’t?

I live much further north and in the recent snow fall we had about a foot, and in places it had drifted so was deeper. I slipped and fell under the snow! Was the lovely powery kind but my whole body went under the snow. I was less than 5 mins from my front door in normal conditions but iy was less than lovely.

FeinCuroxiVooz · 03/01/2023 00:29

we went on a frozen pond as kids in the early 90s - my dad who is 6'2" and very big and burly would jump up and down on it and if there were no cracks after that we were allowed on, but if there was any cracking from the impact of his jumping we were not allowed to set foot on it.

The thing that strikes me in the article linked in the OP is the charity saying that it's their policy not to mitigate any risks because they want the children to learn to manage their own risks. that's insane

Itisbetter · 03/01/2023 00:29

I think 3 feet is fairly deep for a child. If you broke through the water would be well up your chest. I think they need shutting down. Don’t go o the ice is the message surely?

reesewithoutaspoon · 03/01/2023 00:29

Doesn't matter whether it was waste deep. falling into icy water causes a cold shock response where the person involuntarily gasps for 1-2 minutes, and if their head goes under they can inhale and drown.

Whydidimarrythis · 03/01/2023 00:29

Fraine · 03/01/2023 00:21

No one has refuted them though have they? Here is their statement.

In a statement, the Rewild Project said: "After a week of minus 10 degree temperatures- Woorgreens lake was frozen solid - the lake is 3ft deep right across to the island, and had at least 2ft / 60cm of ice on it.

"[...] There were two adults present (trained leaders, keeping the children in a compact group at all times).
"Lake is so shallow, if the ice did break / (which it wouldn't because of the depth of the ice & prolonged cold) then they would be able to stand up and wade back out - to go back to sheds (5 minutes walk) and warm up.

It was an important sensory lesson in what THICK SAFE ICE feels like - if they were to go out exploring on their own they would have more idea of the difference and would have some knowledge [...] about how people cross ice in the Nordic countries.

"Plus kids that have the opportunity to explore WITH adults present, are much less likely to go out and take risks on their own.
"No one was in ANY DANGER at any time."

The forest charity added: "We do know that people die on ice, people do also die on roads, they die in vehicles, they die doing knife work and cutting arteries, they die chainsawing, and die when trees fall on to them - people still do all of these risky activities and- we still run these activities, do training in these risky activities - we do this because we have proper measures in place to mitigate risk of death and serious injury.
"Not all roads are the same, and there are simple measures and commonsense approaches that are important.

"We purposely do not mitigate low risks (trips / slips / falls etc) for young people as its important for their development to learn their own boundaries and risk assessments."

Show quote history

It’s been refuted by science and common sense. It simply wasn’t cold enough for long enough for that to be true. Repeating their whole statement doesn’t make it true and it doesn’t mean it wasn’t refuted by anyone.

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:30

They do not say that. They say they do not mitigate low risks such as slipping over on ice.

Whydidimarrythis · 03/01/2023 00:32

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:27

They are right that to keep children active but safe, they need to know how to manage risks.
If they are correct in what they are saying, this is total hyperbole.

Good stuff. I’ll teach your DCs how to manage the risks of walking into a burning building tomorrow and then on the weekend I’ll teach them how to manage the risks of injecting paprika into their eyes. Or, we could just tell our children to just not do dangerous and completely unnecessary things? There’s no reason to walk on frozen lakes. None. Don’t do it.

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:32

If the ice was as thick as they say, it is not going to crack. If it had cracked slightly you get some water coming onto the ice. No one is going to be chest high in icy water or have their head under water. These are 11 year olds.

And comparing this to powdery snow is insane. You obviously have never been taught how to walk safely in powdery snow.

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:34

@Whydidimarrythis But everything is dangerous. They are talking about low risks. So walking on an icy path is dangerous, but no way should ordinary 11 year olds be stuck in the house when paths are icy. Everything is dangerous to some degree. It is managing that risk.

ontmove · 03/01/2023 00:35

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:34

@Whydidimarrythis But everything is dangerous. They are talking about low risks. So walking on an icy path is dangerous, but no way should ordinary 11 year olds be stuck in the house when paths are icy. Everything is dangerous to some degree. It is managing that risk.

Icy paths and icy lakes aren't the same though

Whydidimarrythis · 03/01/2023 00:36

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:32

If the ice was as thick as they say, it is not going to crack. If it had cracked slightly you get some water coming onto the ice. No one is going to be chest high in icy water or have their head under water. These are 11 year olds.

And comparing this to powdery snow is insane. You obviously have never been taught how to walk safely in powdery snow.

But it wasn’t as thick as they say because we can’t get ice that thick in England because it’s not cold enough for long enough, as has been covered a dozen times so far on this thread. The ice was not and could not possibly have been two foot thick but bloody hell the thickness on this thread would create some very safe ice indeed. Sometimes people lie. Sometimes people being criticised lie. And this is one of those times where the lie is so unbelievably obvious and yet some people still believe everything their told.

Whydidimarrythis · 03/01/2023 00:37

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:34

@Whydidimarrythis But everything is dangerous. They are talking about low risks. So walking on an icy path is dangerous, but no way should ordinary 11 year olds be stuck in the house when paths are icy. Everything is dangerous to some degree. It is managing that risk.

Do you not know the difference between a path and a lake?!

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:40

How do you know if the ice was two feet thick or not?

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 00:41

YANBU OP

10 days of -10C temperatures is not cold or long enough to create 2ft of ice.

You cannot tell by “feeling” whether ice is safe or not. That’s a line of bullshit that they were “teaching them what safe ice feels like”

I lived for over a decade up by Canada and have lived around ice and know when you can safely ice skate, walk or fish on ice.

They’re fucking idiots and of the worst kind- the kind that thinks they know what they are talking about.

Whydidimarrythis · 03/01/2023 00:43

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:40

How do you know if the ice was two feet thick or not?

Because I live in England and know it wasn’t below 0 for over a month, which is what would be necessary for ice to get that thick. I also lived in Canada and experienced actual safe ice. Ice does not get safe to walk in during a mini-snap like we had. If it goes above 0 every 24 hours (like it did) then the ice cannot freeze like that. It’s not possible. It’s called common sense and basic understanding of KS2 science.

If I said my dog can fly would you believe me? No? That’s the same reason I know the ice wasn’t two foot thick.

CavalierApproach · 03/01/2023 00:44

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:40

How do you know if the ice was two feet thick or not?

Sorry but — are you actually just spamming this thread without reading anything? Such as the many previous posts clarifying that ice doesn’t get that thick in England?

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:44

Not true. Once initial ice has formed following days do not even need to drop below zero for the ice to thicken further. So much depends on any water currents, depth of pond/lake and the wind.
Lots of you here are talking as if you know for a fact it could not be two inches thick but using ideas that are simply not true.

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:46

@CavalierApproach Ice does get that thick in England in certain conditions. We used to skate some years in a pond in England that developed as thick or thicker ice. It even froze all the way through occasionally.

SnowlayRoundabout · 03/01/2023 00:49

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:03

Agreed.
I have no idea if this particular activity was safe or not. But in many very cold countries people walk and skate on frozen ponds and lakes. And they do teach children how to tell if it is safe to walk on it.

Show quote history

But the UK is not a "very cold country", is it? In fact last year was the warmest we have had since records began.

ClareBlue · 03/01/2023 00:51

There is a method for predicting the thickness of ice that is used by scientists called ice freezing degree days You can Google it. To create 24 inches you need around 360 of these units. 15 per inch. It's calculated on an average of max and min temps through 24 hours in faranheight then take that from 32 as freezing point. A min temp of - 10 and max temp of - 2 is 8 so you get 24 freezing degree days. It takes 15 days at - 10 and never above - 2 to get anyway near 24 inches. Any direct sun or water movement increases this time. In practice the insulating properties of ice increase it even more. There is absolutely no way there was 2 foot of ice.

Onnabugeisha · 03/01/2023 00:54

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:32

If the ice was as thick as they say, it is not going to crack. If it had cracked slightly you get some water coming onto the ice. No one is going to be chest high in icy water or have their head under water. These are 11 year olds.

And comparing this to powdery snow is insane. You obviously have never been taught how to walk safely in powdery snow.

Jesus. If ice that is thick enough for you to walk on cracks….you don’t get “some water coming onto the ice”. What you get is a fissure and the ice then tilts down towards the crack, so basically the unbroken ice is now above the broken ice which is sagging down into the water. You now are on a icy slope tilting you towards the crack and can quite easily slip between the crack in the ice and into the water. The broken ice, once you slip off into the water, then pops back up once your weight is off it even with the unbroken ice and you can then be quite easily trapped under the ice. There’s no Hollywood circle of open water around you in the ice like they show in films- unless the ice is thin ice which you shouldn’t have even tried to walk on in the first place, in which case your best bet is to try and keep breaking the ice and plow your way to shore.

A crack in thick ice is no minor ooops my feet might get wet situation. That’s why up north in cold countries you wait a lot longer than ten fucking days before going on the ice! Exactly how long of sub zero days you wait depends on the specific locale, the size and depth of the body of water, the size and location of streams & other running water feeding it or coming out from it and how deep of a cold it has been. You have to get to know the lakes around you.

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:54

@ClareBlue Sorry that is an oversimplification.

Whydidimarrythis · 03/01/2023 00:55

BradfordGirl · 03/01/2023 00:54

@ClareBlue Sorry that is an oversimplification.

😂😂😂are you really complaining that people are simplifying things too much for you?

SnowlayRoundabout · 03/01/2023 00:55

No one has refuted them though have they? Here is their statement.

@Fraine, the fact that the charity has had its licence to be on that land suspended very quickly indeed suggests that they have indeed been refuted. I suspect Forestry England know a lot more about dangers on their property than you do, and indeed more than the employees of this charity do. And in fact people on this thread who live in the relevant area have also refuted them. It's a matter of basic science - you do not get ice 2 foot thick in the sort of temperatures we had in the south west in the week in question.