To lie about DD2s age

[princessparty]

Went to a big climbing wall today.You have to be 6 to climb and DD2 is nearly 5 but would have been really bored watching the other DC.
She is a tiny little thing who actually looks younger than her age anyway but they didn't question it.Was glad I did lie as she climbed all the beginner walls very quickly ( although she didn't bother with sticking to just one colour holds as she just wasn't physically large enough) She then moved on to bigger walls which are about 4-storeys high and she even had a good go at overhangs in the bouldering section.There is no danger really as DH was supervising and belaying for her.
So is it unreasonable to ignore age restrictions ?

Not even 5 and small for her age. NEver would I let dd do this. Barmy and negletful.

I wonder how many people on here went into a nightclub before they were 18 ?

PP I saw a child fall from a bouldering wall not so long ago - properly supervised, proper padding underneath, etc, etc but he went thump onto his back. No fault to anyone, and he fortunately wasn't hurt, but he could have been.

Liability insurance is there for a reason. YABcompletelyandutterlyU to ignore it and put people's business and livelyhoods at risk. But since you are, in fact, the centre of the known universe, you are never going to see that - so why ask?

SolidGoldBrass...
Please go back to the posts from GothDetective and myself earlier today. They are not piddling about rules for the sake of it! Go on to the BMC website if you think it is bloody mindless. We are just going round in flippin circles here!!

AALA was set up for a very good reason - to protect people, both clients and operators. Have a look at it's website and you will see how it takes safety seriously. Not to be annoying!

I give up princess just walk over authority, take the piss etc etc just don't turn up at any of my sessions!! You clearly know better than any National Governing Body, Instructors, operators etc.

Going to nightclubs before 18 is exactly the same as letting a child do something potentially serious .

PP - what's with all the posts? Shouldn't you be researching schools or something?

Age limits are there on activities like this for a reason. Not for you to waiver at your own request.

You really are something. I bet you'll be lying about your childrens age when they are too old to go into a soft play, but thats ok because they are small for their age anyway right

I'm not trying to be deliberately annoying you know,I wanted a debate perhaps more than to know just 'yes' YABU or 'No' YANBU.AIBU forum seenms to be the best place for debate.

The point is that I have often seen kids of 11+ get a couple of metres off the ground start shaking ,crying and panicking.So why is an older child 'safer' than a competent younger child.

Pixie... I'm an outdoor instructor that specializes with working with teenagers. That means ALL teenagers whether they are in mainstream school or have a learning and/or physical disability, whether they want to be part of an adventure club or I might be asked to work with the Guides, scout or other voluntary groups.

I might work alongside Conxeions and work with 'NEET'young people or single mothers.

I work for a County Council. We provide climbing, canoeing, mountain biking, sailing, residentials, hill and mountain walking, campcraft skills, absailing, sailing, archery and kayaking ( I don't specilize in all of them - I take the lead on the ones I have an NGB award in and support the other activities.

"Well their insurance would only pay out in any case if the operators were negligent"

You've seen their insurance policy, have you? Or are you an insurance lawyer?

Insurance companies avoid paying whenever possible, that's their business model. However if a company is sued and their insurance doesn't cover it that means that the business owner has to pay, not that no payment would be made.

I don't think it compares to underagers drinking tbh. Pubs/nightclubs are responsible for checking a teenager has valid ID before letting them in. If they fail to do this correctly that is their own problem IMO. Places like climbing walls rely on people telling them their age honestly. They don't ask for everyone's passports because it would be a bit OTT (but maybe not in light of this thread) so therefore it would be the parent's responsibility if they got shut down by H&S.

oh sweet jesus. princess, words fail me. seriously.

stop making excuses. and to say that you "have a real life" compared to everyone else? that's patronising and insulting.

your behaviour in this case was childish and selfish. accept it.

Nooka is correct.

The insurance policy would have some clause stating they are only insuring participants over the age of 6.

Were an accident to occur then PrincessParty could sue the climbing wall for negligence.

If no negligence were proved (no fault accidents are pretty common- negligence is actually not that easy to prove), then no award would be made.

However, even if negligence were proved, the Judge would also take into account the fact that the parent lied about the child's age, invalidating the insurance, and so was complicit in the incident.(if the climbing wall hadnt asked the child's age, that would be a different matter).

This would be especially true if the equipment failed but the equipment was stated not to be used for children under 6. Then the negligence claim would be against the equipment manufacturer who would not be negligent because they stated the conditions of proper use and these were ignored.

Therefore the award would probably be reduced considerably.

Well, technically the OP is BU - BUT I do think that the whole health and safety thing sometimes goes too far and ruins all the fun.
Only IMHO.

There's a huge climbing wall near us, and a child of that age would have been allowed to climb - under carefull supervision, of course.

Vess, you are right, but unfortunately we live in a litigious age, so we've got to ask who's fault it is that everywhere is so paranoid. In this case, the OP's child could have been paralysed with no right to any compensation. The climbing wall near you obviously has extended their insurance to cover younger children, which is great, but I guess it depends on the operator. If they hardly get any kids under 6, and the insurance costs a lot more, they probably take the commercial view that it doesnt make sense.

As a friend used to say to other friends who frequently broke "petty" laws whilst living in the Middle East - "It's all fine until it's not fine" and then you only have yourself to blame when it goes tits up and you've got no recourse.

We have several climbing walls near us and they are all 8+ even in Netherlands who are often a bit more relaxed about h&s it was
6+

Yes, Arctic Fox, I suspect that it's not actual safety concern but rather 'taking the commercial view that it doesn't make sence' to let younger kids climb.
Which makes me think the OP wasn't that unreasonable.

And another thing - a nearly 5yo who's small for her age cannot easily pass for a 6yo, and those people must see a lot of kids. So, i'm thinking (well, speculating) that maybe they actually turned a blind eye to the whole age thing, seeing as the child in question was very keen to climb, and was being secured by her father, who's an experienced climber, and actually managed pretty well...
I don't know what kind of people are running that wall, but usualy people who are into climbing are natural risk-takers. Too much health and safety is not in the spirit of things when you're climbing, it's more about daring, and taking (calculated) risk IYSWIM.

So, by the letter of the law the OP is BU, but there is more to life than H&S, right?

Actually, I think it makes the OP more unreasonable. Her viewpoint was that it was not unreasonable because there were no potential negative consequences of her lying about her daughter's age. The climbing centre staff were just being jobsworths and applying arbitrary age restrictions.

However, there were potential consequences, because, had there been an accident (including equipment malfunctions) it is likely that she would have been without recourse (for the reasons I outlined).The centre asked the child's age. The parent lied. What's the centre supposed to do- demand to see ID?

Completely agree that there's more to life than H&S but there's a difference between (eg) skiing a difficult off piste with broken leg risk and going on a ski holiday without any insurance.

However, I sense the OP actually started this thread as an opportunity to tell the world about her daughter's bravery and climbing prowess (note post re teenagers getting vertigo at much lower heights than her DD) rather than actually wondering about her reasonableness or lack thereof.

'However, I sense the OP actually started this thread as an opportunity to tell the world about her daughter's bravery and climbing prowess (note post re teenagers getting vertigo at much lower heights than her DD) rather than actually wondering about her reasonableness or lack thereof.'

I think you are right arcticfox. My dd1 would climb anything and everything given the chance at this age, but this was because she hadn't developed a sense of fear. A sense of fear is necessary for your own safetly, otherwise you end up taking stupid risks.

My dd1 is now nearly six and far more careful about what she climbs, and this is one of the reasons they have the six year age limit.

All my DSs rock climb, both on walls and on rock slabs. My eldest is going ice climbing next week. I wouldn't have wanted them going before they were 6 yrs for the very reason outlined by belgo. The only response to people like OP is to make the rules more stringent and make people give proof of age, which would be sad. The 4 yr old might have been bored but tough! She could be told that it is something she can do later.

YABU. Rules are for other people? Just selfish.

Yes, the OP's child could have been paralysed with no right to compensation. Then, as I said yesterday, she'd morph into (if she isn't one already) one of those screeching idiots on local television banging on about their rights, not letting people get away with this, yada yada ad infinitum. There'd be Facebook groups and everything.