"Paul Kelly" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Barton" wrote in message
...
David wrote:
More children drown in the bath than in garden ponds and most children
who drown in ponds are between 1 and 2 yrs old who shouldn't be out
unsupervised anyway, supervise then educate, don't childproof the
world

Quite. Exposure to some degree of danger is part of the way all
children
learn about the world and its hazards. Education, no matter how young
the child, is a more responsible attitude to take than removing dangers.
You aren't going to be able to remove the dangers for ever, start, now,
to
realise that, and you'll all be better off as the child grows up.

Trev

So, you have a hot iron and need to leave the room to get something, so
you
say to your 2 year old "Don't touch" ?

In the garden, you have a bonfire. You go away and leave it while your 2
year old plays in the garden?

You have a garden pond and take no physical precautions to keep your 2
year
old out of the pond?

Of course. Both points of view have some validity.

It is unwise to be overprotective, and to bring up children without
educating them in personal safety strategies is foolish, but sensible
precautions *should* be taken until children are old enough to act on their
own behalf.

Be nice if each child came with an indicator as to when this point had been
reached, but they don't.

--
Brian
"I know about kittens and knitting. Will that do?"

In article ,
Chris French and Helen Johnson wrote:

We have a couple of small ponds and haven't done anything in particular
to them. But parents have different tolerances towards these sorts of
dangers for their children, I certainly wouldn't criticise someone if
they did want to cover or fence it off.

No, but that is no excuse for hysterical over-reaction and abuse, which
is precisely what the term "irresponsible drivel" is.

A recent death in Cambridgeshire was because a toddler had cross the
road and drowned in a neighbour's pond. If it had been killed while
crossing the road, it would have had a one-line report, but garden
ponds are dangerous, you see, so it got headlines.

Sure small children shouldn't be left unsupervised in the garden, but it
may only take a few moments for a child to get them selves into a sticky
situation

Unfortunately, yes. The same people that get hysterical about minor
risks often ignore far more serious ones, such as access from the
garden to roads, household chemicals, sharp objects, glass and so on.

We have already seen semi-official bans on yew hedges near primary
schools, evidently by people who regard Hamlet as a toxicological
handbook. Yet the same idiots who promulgated such a ban neither
checked what the actual danger is (negligible) nor whether there are
far more dangerous and common species (there are).

There is similar incredible hysteria about wild animals, especially
from species which have never killed a human in recorded history.
And so on.

It isn't helped by the lunacy of the so-called safety lobby and the
irresponsibility of the bureaucrats, who produce guidelines that are
completely impossible to follow, with the intention of making simple
accidents into the victim's fault (the parents, in this case).

Given that a reasonably intelligent two year old will observe when
a key is used and where it is put, is quite capable of dragging a
chair and standing on its back, childproofing a house is quite
impossible unless everything is locked up at ALL times, and the only
keys are around an adult's neck. And this includes glassware, both
clean and dirty, of course.

Similarly with gardens. Any reasonably determined two year old can
climb most fences and gates, crawl through most hedges and so on.
I know that the modern generation is a a spineless bunch, but some
children still have some initative before it is suppressed in them.
And initiative in the inexperienced and ignorant is dangerous.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

In article , Paul Kelly
writes

"David" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Peter Hughes
writes

More children drown in the bath than in garden ponds and most children
who drown in ponds are between 1 and 2 yrs old who shouldn't be out
unsupervised anyway, supervise then educate, don't childproof the world


I'll try to calm down before responding to such irresponsible drivel.

Feel free to respond without calming down, which bit do you think is
"irresponsible drivel"?

I'm in the position of having brought up two eminently sensible children
who are very aware of the dangers around them, I organise safety
training courses for the local children and supervise the local youth
club where I regularly give sensible safety advice talks, you? I also
have a 3' deep garden pond...
--
David

In article , Kay Easton
writes
In article , David david.simp
writes

More children drown in the bath than in garden ponds

hardly surprising ... more houses have baths than have garden ponds ;-)

I know :-) its statistics innit

and most children
who drown in ponds are between 1 and 2 yrs old who shouldn't be out
unsupervised anyway,

yes

supervise then educate, don't childproof the world

I agree there. Though a physical barrier in front of something that can
kill, rather than simply injure, seems sensible until you are sure the
education has been successful!

agreed
--
David

In article , Paul Kelly
writes

"Trevor Barton" wrote in message
.. .
David wrote:
More children drown in the bath than in garden ponds and most children
who drown in ponds are between 1 and 2 yrs old who shouldn't be out
unsupervised anyway, supervise then educate, don't childproof the world

Quite. Exposure to some degree of danger is part of the way all children
learn about the world and its hazards. Education, no matter how young
the child, is a more responsible attitude to take than removing dangers.
You aren't going to be able to remove the dangers for ever, start, now, to
realise that, and you'll all be better off as the child grows up.

Trev

So, you have a hot iron and need to leave the room to get something, so you
say to your 2 year old "Don't touch" ?

In the garden, you have a bonfire. You go away and leave it while your 2
year old plays in the garden?

You have a garden pond and take no physical precautions to keep your 2 year
old out of the pond?

The physical precaution is don't leave your 2 yr old unsupervised in any
of the above, I take the first two are your analogies, what would you do
in the second one? build a fence around the bonfire
--
David

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:31:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul Kelly wrote:

So, you have a hot iron and need to leave the room to get something,
so you say to your 2 year old "Don't touch" ?

No, say "Hot" or "Hot, don't touch." but it may be best to avoid the
"don't touch" part as that makes said 2 year old curious, "Why
shouldn't I touch it?". By saying "Hot" or "Hot, don't touch" you are
telling the child *why* they shouldn't touch.

By 2 both of my children knew what hot meant and touching things that
are hot was a bad idea. They learn't that mainly by the repeated
verbal association of hot and don't touch and very occasional
encounters with hot objects.

In the garden, you have a bonfire. You go away and leave it while
your 2 year old plays in the garden?

No, two year old would come with me.

You have a garden pond and take no physical precautions to keep your
2 year old out of the pond?

Not required as the child would never left alone in the garden, see
above. However our "garden" is a non flat, rough paddock of just under
an acre, tripping on tussuck grass or a rock is far bigger hazard than
the water trough. Or simply looseing them in the 6' high grass or a
dip!

In a more traditional garden I'd have put up an 18" high barrier of
garden mesh well supported on stakes. But again at 2 they wouldn't be
left alone there would be constant verbal education when near the
pond/it's fence.

I suspect that the reason that the stats show that most drownings
happen away from the home are due to the kids being unaware of the
danger either because they don't have a pond at home or the adults
supervising aren't vigilant enough. A 2 year old needs *constant*
watching, they have no fear or awareness of danger.

--
Cheers
Dave. Remove "spam" for valid email.

Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.rec.gardening:167359

In article . network,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 09:31:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul Kelly wrote:

So, you have a hot iron and need to leave the room to get something,
so you say to your 2 year old "Don't touch" ?

No, say "Hot" or "Hot, don't touch." but it may be best to avoid the
"don't touch" part as that makes said 2 year old curious, "Why
shouldn't I touch it?". By saying "Hot" or "Hot, don't touch" you are
telling the child *why* they shouldn't touch.

By 2 both of my children knew what hot meant and touching things that
are hot was a bad idea. They learn't that mainly by the repeated
verbal association of hot and don't touch and very occasional
encounters with hot objects.

I was more brutal. I left a hot metal kettle on the ground, told
them "hot - don't touch" and didn't stop them. Yes, I was watching
closely, to ensure they didn't pour it over themselves.

The elder grabbed once, was comforted, tried with one fingertip the
next day and never again. She was WELL under two. The younger was
more naturally conservative and followed the behaviour of her sister.

They were both handling sharp kitchen knives by four, under careful
supervision - and both had been shown how "sharp hurts" in a way that
would cause no permanent damage. Yes, I did prod them with a knife
tip - and would now be regarded as a cruel parent.

The methods of Professor Pavlov work as well on children as on dogs,
except that human children are more intelligent and learn much faster.
Well, most do ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679

I was more brutal. I left a hot metal kettle on the ground, told
them "hot - don't touch" and didn't stop them. Yes, I was watching
closely, to ensure they didn't pour it over themselves.

The elder grabbed once, was comforted, tried with one fingertip the
next day and never again. She was WELL under two. The younger was
more naturally conservative and followed the behaviour of her sister.

They were both handling sharp kitchen knives by four, under careful
supervision - and both had been shown how "sharp hurts" in a way that
would cause no permanent damage. Yes, I did prod them with a knife
tip - and would now be regarded as a cruel parent.

The methods of Professor Pavlov work as well on children as on dogs,
except that human children are more intelligent and learn much faster.
Well, most do ....


Maybe working on your principal Nick, giving a young child a surprise
dipping in a pond might do the trick ;-)

The cat from next door misjudged her jump from next door's shed and landed,
all fours, into my pond...wish I'd had a camcorder to record her reaction!

Natalie

In article , Brian Watson
writes
Which gets me thinking more seriously, what are the chances of fencing off
the area with the pond/s in and fitting a self-closing childproof lock to
the one and only gate entrance?

Some friends of ours have one to keep the grandchildren out of the pond.
It looks a bit like a fancy version of those things you see at road
works. Uprights on heavy plinths joined together by removable mesh bits.
Looks quite attractive, actually.
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

I was more brutal. I left a hot metal kettle on the ground, told
them "hot - don't touch" and didn't stop them. Yes, I was watching
closely, to ensure they didn't pour it over themselves.

Like me and the hot tea!!
Similarly, my toddler was climbing up and down stairs by the time she
was nine months old. I taught her to come down backwards as soon as she
could crawl. It wasn't long before she would turn round, straighten her
body and treat the stairs as a slide - feet first on her tummy. The only
problem was the 'babygrows' - by the time she reached the bottom of the
stairs they were tight round her feet and soon wore into holes ((
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com

In article , Natalie
writes

Maybe working on your principal Nick, giving a young child a surprise
dipping in a pond might do the trick ;-)

Absolutely - a bit of smelly slime and a few creepy crawlies in the hair
.. . . works wonders!!!
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com

"Natalie" wrote in message
...

I was more brutal. I left a hot metal kettle on the ground, told
them "hot - don't touch" and didn't stop them. Yes, I was watching
closely, to ensure they didn't pour it over themselves.


but the issue is not simply what you do with your own children, from the Dti
site I quoted earlier:

Only 18% drowned in their own gardens.
29% drowned while visiting, or being cared for, at a relative’s home.
10% drowned while their parents were visiting a friend’s home.
The largest percentage (39%) drowned in a neighbour’s pond after wandering
away from their own home or the home of the people they were visiting.


pk

In article , Paul Kelly
writes


but the issue is not simply what you do with your own children, from the Dti
site I quoted earlier:

Only 18% drowned in their own gardens.
29% drowned while visiting, or being cared for, at a relative’s home.
10% drowned while their parents were visiting a friend’s home.
The largest percentage (39%) drowned in a neighbour’s pond after wandering
away from their own home or the home of the people they were visiting.

I will take responsibility for my own children. I do not see why I
should take responsibility for other people's.

That's not to say I wouldn't help a child in distress - but I am not
going to fill in my pond in case someone else lets their child wander
round it unattended.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/garden/

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...

I will take responsibility for my own children. I do not see why I
should take responsibility for other people's.

Nice attitude.

That's not to say I wouldn't help a child in distress - but I am not
going to fill in my pond in case someone else lets their child wander
round it unattended.

The issue is about taking reasonable precautions.

If you have let people with children onto your property and you are aware
there is a hazard, and it appears from the postings so far that "other
people's ponds" are a hazard for children, it makes sense to tell the
visitors about it.

I wonder if you would be as cavalier about your children when they were on
other people's property?

I would have been grateful if someone had pointed out such hazards when my
children were young enough to make such potentially- dangerous errors of
judgement.
--
Brian
"posting from Sutton, Winner of the English and Welsh Village of the Year
award"

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul Kelly
writes
.

I will take responsibility for my own children. I do not see why I
should take responsibility for other people's.

That's not to say I wouldn't help a child in distress - but I am not
going to fill in my pond in case someone else lets their child wander
round it unattended.


not what I meant! More a case of, if I have young children, I might well be
able to train them to be safe around my pond, but as it is certain that
there will be other children in my garden whom I do not control, it would be
irresponsible of me to have an unprotected pond.

Also, personally, if I had a pond in an area where there are lots of young
children, I would ensure that access to the garden was properly fenced and
locked.

pk