Not to subscribe to the view that "there's a paedophile on every corner" and "you never know who's driving about" and allow my children what I consider to be an appropriate amount of independence?

[MrsSchadenfreude]

I'll start by saying that we live in the country and I might be a little less relaxed if we lived in a town. My children are 10 and 7 and are allowed to:

Go to the post box (5 minute walk, no roads to cross)

Go to the shop (2 minute walk, no roads to cross)

Go to the park (4 minute walk, two roads to cross) and to play there on their own for half an hour

Play in the moat and fields that back onto our house for up to two hours at a time. (They can - mostly - be seen from the house.)

They have been allowed to do all this for the past 18 months since we moved here. We had some friends round recently whose children are older (12 & 13), and were horrified when I told DD1 and DD2 to take them into the fields and show them their "camp" they had made. These children are not allowed out of the parents' sight - we walked down to the river and one lagged behind and the mother went hysterical when she realised she couldn't see her DD (who is 13).

Surely unless we allow them a small amount of independence they will have difficulties adjusting to "real life" as they get older?

The problem is that isolated incidents occur. Toilets that I use once had a woman beaten to death, even though it was the middle of the day in summer. I still use them. You can't go in fear of what might happen. We have had a whole thread of women who insist on their over 8 yr old boys using the ladies changing room at swimming pools because their fears are more important to them than the fact that many ladies aren't happy!

It is like the underground-dreadful things have happened on them but I still travelled round London on it last week. Life is a risk, you greatly reduce the quality of life if you refuse to take them.

AbbeyA, I live in the states (Texas) and while the traffic accident potential is higher than the pedophile danger (which I believe is understated) I still acknowledge that I worry about the latter more. Why? I guess it is because my two children that go out unsupervised are aware of traffic and it's potential more so than who is a ped and who isn't.
You can see a car coming (and sometimes hear it) but peds are sneaky. I make them aware but I do encourage them to do things outside my wingspread.
Oh, we have rattlesnakes here too. In the yard and although they are not apparent every day (have had one with it on the step outside the door and near the bush) I know they are there and the potential for a bite.
It doesn't stop me from going out nor my children but I keep a bite kit and if I know one makes itself known then everyone knows to stomp.

I just feel you have to give your DCs freedom-not all at once-but you gradually have to get to that point. I don't want to bring them up to be fearful and so a lot of fears I keep to myself. I can hardly bear to watch them climb rock faces even though they are correctly roped up but I don't say so!
No one denies paedophiles are about but you can't let them think that every stranger is a danger. You have to strike a balance by giving them sensible guidelines. They are in danger in their own home on the internet.

Bloss, fair point. I guess it's possible that something really awful could have happened to this dad/daughter or someone they knew, hence the over-protectiveness. It just seemed really odd at the time though.

Don't forget that that 120 figure, is only children who have been killed by cars. There are many others who have been permanently disabled or injured for a long time, causing psychological damage as well as physical.

This business about people who allow their children to have some independence and responsibility being lazy is so offensive. Personally, I think it's far more lazy to deny your child some independence because it makes you feel better. Every time I leave my DS alone in the house, my heart's in my mouth until I get home. I feel sick allowing him independence, I hate it. Rationally I know that he's going to be fine, emotionally all the horror scenarios go through my head. Allowing him independence is far from lazy, I'd be much happier letting him sit in front of a playstation where he's supposedly safe, but that wouldn't be in the interests of his emotional or social development would it? I really resent any implication that because I refuse to be cowed by the current hysteria, I am lazy. I wouldn't dream of accusing parents who smother their children, of being lazy, they have their reasons and I doubt if laziness is the primary motivating factor.

wehaveallbeenthere, I lived in Texas for a while when I was a child and used to roam about, collecting frogs from the ditches, and playing in the wasteground behind our apartment block, barefoot. I remember two kids getting hurt, one was playing in what turned out to be a fire ants nest near their parents, and the other was hit by a car next to an icecream van. School was the scariest place.
Nowhere is completely safe, and the danger of stunting a childs development is very real.
If you can teach them about traffic you can teach them about strangers and about inappropriate touching, can't you?

xx

When I was growing up my sisters were flashed at, and I had a difficult encounter with a stranger in the park, oh and I got hit by a car once. Would I rather have had no freedom? Of course not.

The potential for bad things to happen to our children is unfortunately always there. The random chances of being caught in a cross fire/struck by lightening/grabbed by a stranger are really not mitigable. But they are also very very very unlikely.

However the chance that our children will grow up and need to be able to navigate the world in order to become happy adults is a certainty. If we want them to have the skills to grow up and enjoy the world, then the only way to do so is start letting them have their freedom slowly and safely.

I do worry that a generation of children are growing up dependent and fearful, with little life experiences and having missed out on a huge amount that I think of as being a child. Let alone obese, spoilt and unable to cope without electronic toys.

I was brought up in South London, and that's were my children were born. We now live in New York City. I have never felt that my children were running huge risks in not being glued to my side, and if anything feel less worried here in the States than I did at home, because cars seem very slow on side roads, there are crossings everywhere, and people genuinely look out for children. However the mums seem at least as paranoid as they did at home, where at least there was some reason to be worried, with all the youth stabbings.

When I became a teenager the children who did the stupidest things were the ones who had not had freedom when they were younger. They were the ones wandering around drunk in dodgy areas in the middle of the night, sleeping with unsuitable men (possibly even those who like young girls), and taking drugs. They hadn't learnt to take responsibility for themselves and pushed their limits because they were angry with their parents (not that this is unusual teenage behaviour). However as far as I am aware nothing terrible happened to them, or to my other friends.

We should judge our children's capacity based on our knowledge of them, and help them to grow independent.

I would say that it is very lazy to keep your DC in front of the TV so he is safe, to not let him post a letter so he is safe and to not let him go to scout camp so he is safe. Eventually you have to let go, much better to put the hard work in and force yourself to make him aware of risks and give him the tools to deal with them, to feel joyful about the world and ready to face challenges.

Abbey

I put the work in by doing things with my kids. Where is the work in non supervision?

why do you presume that parents who don't let their kids play out etc dump them in front of the tv?

The whole point bloomingfedup is that they sometimes need to do things without you.
Even if you aren't dumping them in front of the TV you are not letting them out of your supervision.

Good website to protect your child from internet bullying, grooming and safety www.thinkuknow
Remember other children can be criminals too(I should be teaching this, I can get a lot of people covered in one go and spread the word.)Paedophiles sadly are in families and strangers generally befriend the parent and groom the child. Keep channels open for your child to talking to you about everything. Be careful about sharing your adult concerns with children as they then do not want to burden you with more problems. Be careful of treating them like adults because they will try and solve problems themselves. Fields and freedom are the best

Starbear - your link came out wrong.
I think it's Thinkuknow

Thank you, UnquietDad it actual should be www.ThinkuKnow.co.uk I should have just shouted MAN and you'll fix it. google it it's very good. I think parents need to know a lot more about the internet. THe site tells children to look for the eye on legs symbol to report abuse. Very useful please read.

Abbey - my kids do loads of activities.

Stewie

i would not trust anyone with my child apart from gp's.

Sorry meant to say overnight.

Talk about over reaction.

ignore last comment, wrong thread.

And TBH my 7 year old has only ever been asked to 1 sleepover and that was a friend outside of school. i think the general feeling at my dc school is that 7 is too young for a sleepover.

Don't forget that that 120 figure, is only children who have been killed by cars. There are many others who have been permanently disabled or injured for a long time, causing psychological damage as well as physical.

That figure is Thirty two thousand and one hundred and twenty children - that would be the population of a large village or small town in the uk - in eight years, wiped out, gone forever.

The reality is that a car driver is far more dangerous.

bloomingfedup - I'm with you... the only sleepovers that were allowed in my childhood were at my aunts' houses. I'm a bit nonplussed about the trend for sleepovers, especially when the parents barely know the other parents.