Parents banned from play area

[gorionine]

I have just seen this in the news and it left me a bit What next?

Article here

Well that answers the question.

but what does 'at the mercy of other kids' mean

kids are kids and we should give them the benefit of being intelligent enough to sort it out between themselves

It means there's always one who realises that ds can't 'tell on them' or stick up for himself.
And I'm talking about children with learning difficulties being able to access facilities safely. Being intelligent enough to sort it out doesn't really come into it.

Ruddynorah, so you are basically agreeing that parents are not capable of supervising their play properly, and that some government official following guidelines will do a better job, as in your opinion the parents you see in playgrounds are doing it wrong.

SouthEastAstra, they are employed by local children to monitor children's play and to stop other adults being involved in that play. In what sense are they not a government official?

Well, I'm up for it southeastastralbeing.
I'll take my Aspie to the park and let you and yours reap the consequences of allowing children to call others 'retard' and 'weirdo' and let intelligent youngsters sort it out for themselves.

Is it my responsibility or yours to check that the rangers know emergency first aid?

Millyr you are very sensible and measured and quite right.

Millyr is spot on.

Southeastastra - so you think it's okay that the playground excludes certain children who were okay to go prior to the new ruling? Go somewhere else? What if there isn't somewhere else? What if the now excluded child wants to mix with friends who go to the playground. Which was okay before as a parent was able to watch and supervise if things turned a bit awkward?
As for kids are kids..... - sometimes their way of sorting things out can get a bit Lord of the Flies.

Milly you make sense to me.

""By ruddynorah Fri 30-Oct-09 21:57:08
i was in a normal playground with dd (3.5) this morning. i sit on a bench, call friends, make lists etc whatever, while she plays. i keep half an eye on her. i lost count of the other parents telling their kids not to go on the slide cos it was wet, not to run cos there were leaves on the floor they might slip on, not to climb the frame to high cos they might fall etc etc. poor kids. they'd be thrilled with an unsupervised play area where muck and wet is encouraged.""

Yes ruddynorah, in principle I agree that children should maybe have more unsupervised time in th sense that maybe parents should maybe take a step back and let their children get wet or dirty but...what is happening is not that, it is the government deciding that play should be supervised by officials/ students or whatever you choose to call them but not by the parents because they are (according to the article) a threat to the children. If that is not going a bit to far #i do not know what it is.

We are in a situation where an official says in very plain words that the decision has been made to protect children, not because it is an easier way to organise things.

Here it is again :"" Mayor Dorothy Thornhill said: ?Sadly, in today's climate, you can?t have adults walking around unchecked in a children?s playground.? ""

I am sorry that it is very repetitive, but that bit of the article is really the sore point to me. It says clearly that uncheckt adult are a threat to children. Saddly we had exemples quit recently that being checked is not a panacea against bad intentions. Also there is no mention of any other reason than child protection at all.

"" Mayor Dorothy Thornhill argued the council is merely enforcing Government policy at the play areas, in Vicarage Road and Leggatts Way respectively."" merely? it is only a start if you ask me.

I was reading through the comments below the article and this was what really worried me:-

"I haven't used the Harwoods Rd one but I've been to the Harebreaks WITH my kids lots of times. 1) Many kids are not dropped off, they make their own way there as parents are working, don't bother etc. 2) No attempt has ever been made to stop a child leaving when I have been there. The gate and front door are left wide open and children come and go as they please - straight onto Leggats way to play with the traffic if they want to! 3) I left one of my sons there once with a friend whilst I went shopping. When I returned about 1 hour later, they were in the adjoining park as the scheme had closed for lunch and they had been turfed out. They were 10 years old. No attempt was made to contact either parent although long and tortuous forms have to be filled in every year with at least 3 contact numbers."

Ds has been issued with a blue badge partly because he has absolutely no sense of danger and letting him out on the street would be like letting a toddler out on their own. But besides that, they are talking about NT kids of 5-15 years old. Assuming this comment is true (and I see no reason why it shouldn't be) What's to stop a 15 year old taking a 5 year old by the hand and just walking out?

@ children being sent out without their parents being informed, although, I suppose the mum should have asked at what time the scheme close.

that's the point of open access the children come and go as they like, like we did when we were children. my mum didn't ferry me all over the place we just played out alone.

of course parents should decide if this place is suitable for their child, it won't suit all but it's great for those that want somewhere to hang out - alone.

Oh I see further down that someone else has confirmed that they were told by a member of staff that they have no authority to stop children leaving.

Well then no way would I leave any child of mine in a place like that, disabled or NT. At least if I leave them playing in the soft play while I have a coffee I know that they can't leave because the exit has to be released by someone behind the reception desk, plus they can't go with anyone but me because I have the ticket to reclaim their shoes.

i don't see what watford are suddenly changing the rules though, they don't seem to understand themselves why they have done it. but please don't tar all play rangers from this report.

the kids are free to come and go. that's the idea. it's aimed at kids who would be wandering about the streets and parks anyway. it's trying to engage them in something meaningful.

so if you're a parent who lets your kid wander about, you'll be fine with that. if you aren't then you wouldn't drop your kids off there. that's my understanding of it

But SoutheastAstra, they are justifying the banning of parents by saying it is safer for the children, that's what all this is about, safety. But plainly it isn't safer.

I've no problem with children being able to go and play by themselves (I did the same when I was a child too) if they are capable and ready. My dd has gone off to the pictures with her friend today with no adult supervision and they are 13. However, children are different and it should be for the parents to decide when they are ready, not the council.

Children wandering about by themselves could still wander into the playground and the playrangers could still organise things for the children who want to participate.
But why ban parents going who would rather supervise their own children and/or get together with a friend for a chat at the same time? Psrticularly if this was okay and worked previously.

''merely enforcing Government policy ''

yet anopther example of councils following HeaLTH AND sAFETY guidelines as though they were Law.
Thus alienating parents and probably costing themselves more money in the process.

i would very much like tim gill to come onto mumsnet for a live chat.
here.

much of what he says is why things are changing yet i do feel that parents are the last to know why the government are implementing the changes.

though watford don't really mention any of this. and seem more concerned about the crb which it really isn't about iykwim!

what a depressing idea.

Children should either go to the park with an adult or go by themselves. We should not have government emplyed supervisors.

We are developing a ridiculously over-controlled and safety obsessed society which will do us no good.

no quite the contrary pointy! they are encouraging children to take more risks not less. watford have really done the service no favours at all.

tim gill sounds like a sesible bloke, southeast. Is he advocating this sort of thing?

yes, i'm surprised he hasn't spoken up on this (or maybe he has) would be great to get him on for a chat as his ideas are being put into pratice and do make totaly sense

but as i said parents are the last to be told so don't understand the changes and just jump to the wrong conclusions

total sense! (unlike me)