RISK you take with your children

[mylittleimps]

Xenia said: "Anything can be discussed. Start a risk thread. Namby pamby look after children all the time parents who don't let them go out alone, run in forests, ride horses and risk death damage their children hugely. ", she also said that the case of Madeleine McCann would not change her in as much she would still leave a similar age child alone and go out to dinner in similar circumstances. Xenia also said it was just the same as putting them to bed and going down stairs to have dinner.

i let my young children ride horses, play outside witha river at the bottom of the garden or at their grandparents with a lake. they have lived in a "construction site" since birth, i let them sleep on their fronts BUT i would never ever leave them alone and go out to dinnerb or even leave my rpoperty boundary. and it is not the same putting them to bed and going down stairs.

i believe now the McCanns have pubilically stated that the quilt will never leave them and the poor child is still missing this is a debate that should be had now as if some people can still say it's acceptable is worrying (to me) and I believe children are still at risk if this message is left unchecked

so where fdo you draw the line at risks wrt your children (we all know that as parents we have to take them)

That is the difference (well, one of many) between you and I mumoftwoangels. Whilst I always ensure my son is strapped into his seat, I would feel sorry for parents who hadn't strapped their child in and lost the child in a car crash. That's because I have empathy and try not to condemn other people. I'm not evangelical (an atheist ffs)I just think that if people supported eachother a bit more instead of judging/condemning, it would be a nicer place for all of us.

i do agree this would be impossible to legislate for.

There are too many variables.

I hope before taking our next risk we maybe just top and think for an extra minute. We may well decide to still take it, but at least we can say it was considered.

Oh and because the parents would have enough guilt without us adding to it.

Sorry the LOL wasn't directed at your comment MOTA. Obviously it wouldn't be a LOLing matter if little johnny got killed due to negligent parents.

I don't think anyone's arguing that one's sympathy in a case like that is slightly tempered by the "FFS why on earth didn't they strap him in?" feeling. But a lot of stuff on this thread has just been irrational. Now granted, we are irrational beings, so I don't have a problem with that and I accept that some of my non-negotiable risks are also irrational, but I'm not calling for the government to codify my hysteria into law. I recognise it for what it is - an irrational fear which as a parent, I'm entitled to have, but I'm not entitled to argue that every other parent ought to have. People on this thread have been implying that if you don't share their risk assessment, you are negligent and if you counter their arguments with rational ones, they accuse you of being insecure.

I think Frank Furedi is in general a bit of a nutter, but he is very good on the subject of paranoid parenting. this article has lots of food for thought on this subject.

i never said i would condemn them. Just not sympathise with them. Empathy maybe, but not sympathy.

"The very fact that we all use Mumsnet and that we are all contributing to this thread means that we are all conscientious parents."

That statement is totally illogical. Contributing to a parenting chatroom is likely to be the action of a parent, but of course it could equally be the action of a non-parent. Any old fantasist can pretend to have children. And yes I do know that there are more glamourous fantasies but the fact remains that parenthood is not proven by posting on a forum. Conscientious? Well that's not proven either. At least half the posters on this thread seem to be arguing that the other half are not conscientious.

((I promised myself I would never post on another thread that mentioned the McCanns. Sorry))

By the way my strongly (but totally illogically) held belief is that any parent of small children having a swimming pool or a garden pond is a disgrace to the name of parent ... That's judgemental of course. Sorry about that too.

plummymummy
look up true meaning of empathy and compassion and judging/condeming and tell me if you fit into those!

soemone with real emapthy and compassion can understand everyone's perspective and position. i have said on a previous thread that i would struggle to find empathy for people that leave their children and something then happens to those children. i was slated for admitting that told i had no compassion. yes those that were calling me such horrid things were just showing that they themselves were lacking compassion and true empathy.

would those that were shouting accusations at me 9and those that agreed with my posts) be able to forgive the person/s responsible for the child's harm? a truely compassionate/empathic person could - at least i don't try to profess to be something i'm not and nor it seems does MO2A

Good luck - although your point is eloquently made, I doubt it will penetrate.

LOL at there being more glamorous fantasies than being a parent.

Are you sure? You mean there's a whole other dimension out there?

MLI: the Dangerous Dogs act was a ridiculous, badly-thought out piece of tabloid-panic legislation that just wasted a lot of court time. The handgun ban has led to what anyone with half a brain predicted 10 years ago, far more guns in the hands of criminals. The carseat legislation is driven by the requirements of car seat sellers rather than common sense (yes a car seat decreases the risk of injury in an accident - but not by that much. You're safer staying out of cars.)

Laws made to appeal to dumbfuck sentimentalists or any and all laws that are campaigned for by the Murdoch papers are alwasy disastrous, badly-formulated, bigoted and stupid.

GSS looked at the link and it doesn't really cover the age group/scenerios that have been discussed about pre-schoolers being 'home' alone. love and security preschool is not smothering them as it would be an older child.

Thanks for such a frank discussion.I am going to bed now listening out for every passing noise so i can jump up and protect my children! Or think about the pictures from the Jonny Depp Cap Jack thing earlier Tough Call!!

I know i tend to be cautious. Yes i do tie my girls hair up when at school, I spray with tea tree oil mist too! (Nothing like belt and braces). But i do it for them!

And if we all do what we as parents think is best, to hell with what anyone else thinks. At the end of the day no matter how nice people are or are not if anything (god forbid) should happen it is us as parents who will be the ones to live with it for the rest of our lives.

madamez - had to be someone that lowered the tone - not really necessary if you want to be taken seriously?
personally i don't understand at all where you are coming from as the scenarios you describe just suit selfish people

wrt children - everyone is entitled to make their own choices but with that freedom comes consequences.

Your desire to bring in a law that affects all families and not just your own - a law that would be either useless due to having too many caveats or overly restrictive - makes it difficult for me to empathise with you in relation to that particular topic. Yes that much is true. To empathise with that would be plain potty imo. However, I did say that your decisions on how you raise your own kids is up to you and no one would criticise you for that, which is showing empathy at some level - non? Empathy is a subjective emotional response. When and to whom it is shown will vary from one person to another. I wasn't suggesting she has none at all - just that she didn't in the scenario she illustrated. Equally I was saying I would have empathy in the case of that scenario. I am not a martyr (god forbid) so it is impossible for me to be empathic all of the time. I enjoy being a normal, flawed human being as it makes for an interesting life. Maybe you could try it some time. You might have some fun.

Yawn at repetition - going to bed now.

mylittleimps, you're wasting your breath here

plummymummy wants to make fun at your expense and anyone who may agree with you have given up and left this thread, only the piss takers left

your opinion as as valid as anyone's but again on a McCann thread you get shot down for having it.

Toomuchtodo - I really don't understand you at all and you are annoying me now. Who are the piss takers? I have argued with reason I think and have already said in my last post that no mother should be shooting the other down for different opinions, we all have our own parenting styles and I don't see why there is such need for arguments. My bone are those mothers who feel that their parenting methods are somehow better than others and whilst in the one breath they try to claim that they are not judgemental, the other breath is accusing mothers of neglect.

Of course it is easy for us all to sit back and point the finger of blame. Far harder it seems to have compassion. How you can judge someone without knowing them or their circumstances is beyond me.

But as I also said, no-one here is going to be converted to the others argument. We have had lots of these discussions on Mumsnet and some of them have been very interesting. So if you really do want to discuss this in an intelligent manner then feel free, but if you start condemning the McCanns who are already suffering beyond comprehension, then yes you do deserve contempt.

Rhubarb, LadyMuck, Plummy mummy Thanks yu for the voices of reason. Without I think I wouldhave spontaneously combusted reading the sanctimoneous drivel spouted by mum oftwoangels, mylittleimps eyc......

Just one question for the sanctimoneous ones.... Just suppose we all agreee that leaving very small children is a sin worse than murder and anyone who does such a thinkgdeserves all the disaster that happens to them, think about that......

NOw do you feel better ? hermitically sealed in your little bubble - everyone agrees with me so I must be right. Nothing bad can happen to me or my children because I am a 'GOOD parent' unlike those awful parents who leave their children alone.

ok??

now get on with your life

Lemon - you might not have seen this post - which I think is first class. It came from another thread and I think it is quite a brilliant summing up. Hoping it helps to reconcile two opposing points of view ...

"I actually think though that there are two arguments here. One of responsibility, and one of deserved consequence.

Let?s say I walk to school every day with my ds. Every day I have to cross a busy road, and some days I?m in a hurry, so we hurry across the road without looking properly, and usually, there are no cars, or those cars that are coming stop to let us cross. Is that responsible? Absolutely not. Then let?s say one day I hurry across the road and a car coming doesn?t stop and my child is hit and sustains serious injury, or worse, is killed. Did I deserve for that to happen? Absolutely not. But it doesn?t take away from the fact that the way I acted in not looking properly when crossing the road was irresponsible.

The Mccanns absolutely did not deserve for their child to be abducted, but that doesn?t mean that it?s wrong to say that leaving three small children unsupervised in an apartment with the door unlocked and going to eat in a place where you can neither see nor hear them is irresponsible. Laying blame on the parents is not going to bring Madeleine back, but having the discussion as to whether it is/isn?t appropriate to leave small children may make some people stop and think and prevent someone from doing it which may prevent something like this, or even a child wandering out of an apartment happening in the future. "

Rhubarb-I have at no point condemned the McCanns, for whom I have the utmost sympathy. They have said themselves, I believe, that they acted with naivity, and I am sure have wished a million times that they could turn the clock back. No-one should ever have to go through what they are going through.
My argument is with those who refuse to recognise that it places children at risk to leave them alone despite what has happened. It seems to be a "hear no evil, see no evil" sort of attitude to enable them to continue doing what they want to do.
I would have said the same things before the Madeleine case and my comments are in no way aimed at her parents, but as part of the general debate.

But my main argument with people who drag the McCanns into this is that they do not know the McCanns, they more than likely do not know the resort they were staying at, they do not know the circumstances. They might have had a baby alarm - just because it doesn't say so in the media reports doesn't mean to say they didn't. They could see the apartment door - but Maddy was taken from the window. The site is supposed to be so secure that you need a pass to get in there. Because we were not there on the night no-one could possibly pass comment on their actions.

As for the wider debate about leaving children unattended. Yes of course you are responsible as their parents. You make the decisions for them. As I've said I've no quarrel with parents who choose not to let them out of their sight for an instance. I'm not one of them, but I don't think that my parenting is anyone else's business.

What makes me laugh is when posters call the opposing side negligent and then accuse that side of being the aggressive side! How much more aggressive can you be than call a mother negligent?

This could be an interesting debate, but unfortunately unless you post something derogatory your post gets ignored. Some people are just spoiling for a fight.

If you are so confident with your parenting skills, why are you on Mumsnet? A place for advice for parents by parents. And in the lovely speel on the Talk page it goes on about respecting each others parenting choices even if they differ from your own. Show me where the respect is on this thread?

A lot of you still seem to have trouble with the concept of "risk", don't you. You cannot guarantee a life free from risk, you just look at the odds and act in the way that suits you. And sometimes shit just happens. You could all be sleeping peacefully in your beddybyes (parents having gone to bed sober at 9pm because, after all, they are Parents and therefore must never do anything that actually pleases or entertains them) - at which point a frozen block of piss from an aeroplane toilet plummets through the skylight and kills someone. Life is eventually fatal, no matter how virtuous you think you are, and the trouble is with thinking that so long as you are a "good" person, (self-sacrificing, obedient to the tabloid mindset, dumbly superstitious) nothing bad will happen to you is... not only does it make you smugly callous, but it renders you totally unable to cope when things do go wrong.

i don't come on here much and its not becoming easy to see why. At no point have i said the McCann's deserve what happen to them. Of course they do not. But i do not see why i should suddenly change my opinion on parenting because THEIR desicion has had terrible consequences. What ever way you dress it up it has. They have to live with it.

My dc do not live in sealed bubble, they live a full and active life. No i don't let them play in the street, Yes i do ask my daughter to hold my hand when walking down the street. I do not and would not leave my children asleep alone and go out for dinner.

This does not mean anyone can't or won't have a different opinion. But don't say i'm wrong coz its not your view.

MOTA we have heard your view, loud and clear. I do not think you should change it. How you parent is your choice.

Just as how I parent is mine.

I am NOT trying to change your POV but you and some others have called 'me' ( and by 'me' I mean anyone who does not share your POV) negligent, and implied - if not actually said , that any harm that ever bafalls my childremn will be due to my bad parenting.

that is the issue