The Horrors of a Nanny State

[FMJ]

If this is all true, I feel for you fellow shooters and citizens of Britain.

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com/


British parent bashing

It all stems from an elite loathing of the working class -- from what was once allegedly the party of the worker

All the main political parties in Britain seem convinced that government should assume the role of a supernanny and train mothers and fathers to be responsible parents. Former UK children's minister Margaret Hodge is unapologetic about this idea, arguing that government has a `powerful' role to play in family life.

Parent-bashing is not confined to the domain of politics. Back in 2001, hectoring parents about their inability to manage their children's behaviour or to provide their kids with a nutritious diet had not yet become a popular way to entertain the public. There were no TV shows such as Supernanny or The House of Tiny Tearaways to remind parents of their congenital defects on the childrearing front. Over the past five or six years, however, the notion that parental incompetence is quite normal, even widespread, has become deeply entrenched - especially in the TV schedules. One intelligent 36-year-old mother wrote to me recently: `I know it exploits my emotions, I know that I should not watch these shows - but I do, even though they make me feel s___.' Sadly, the images and arguments that haunt her imagination have been embraced by significant sections of British society.

The perpetual politicisation of parenting has two destructive outcomes. The constant labelling of parenting as some kind of `problem' undermines the confidence of mothers and fathers. Although the target audience of politicians is a minority of so-called dysfunctional parents, the depressing message our leaders communicate about the problems of childrearing has a disorienting impact on everybody. Consequently, the numerous helpful initiatives designed to `support' parents do anything but reassure us - they simply encourage the public to become even more paranoid about parenting. The second regrettable outcome of the politicisation of childrearing is that it has intensified our sense of insecurity and anxiety about virtually every aspect of children's lives and experiences.

At the turn of this century, it was evident that children had become subject to an obsessive culture of childrearing. At the time, Paranoid Parenting documented the growing tendency to extend adult supervision into every aspect of children's lives. It was apparent that `outdoors' had become a no-go area for many youngsters, and that the majority of parents did not even allow their offspring to walk to school on their own.

The idea that children were too vulnerable to be allowed to take risks had already become entrenched. Many readers of my book shared with me their hope that the regime of child protection would gradually give way to more relaxed and balanced attitudes. Little did they suspect that paranoia towards the safety of children was about to expand even further and encompass even children's experiences that it had hitherto not touched.

Who would have imagined that British children would be prevented from pursuing the age-old custom of conkering? Many adults were rightly shocked and bemused when a few local authorities introduced a new policy of `tree management': a euphemism for preventing children from climbing on chestnut trees or playing with conkers. More than any other bans introduced in subsequent years, the attempt to discourage children from playing with chestnuts symbolised the relentless drive to diminish young people's experience of the outdoors. At the time, many people sneered at the busybodies who decided that children were not fit to go near conkers. Today, however, when local authorities chop the branches off horse chestnut trees to save children from this terrible danger there is barely a murmur of protest.

In recent years, banning children from activities that appear remotely adventurous has become an institution of British political life. It seems that kids are so feeble that we must protect them from everything. Earlier this month, a teacher informed me that children in her school are actively discouraged from running around or playing ball games during break time. Her rationale for promoting this anti-activity ethos was that `someone could easily get hurt'.

Traditional children's games are disappearing because experts claim that they are too dangerous. Some primary schools have banned tag during break time, while some have got rid of contact sports. In January 2007, Burnham Grammar School banned impromptu football in order to prevent young people being hit by stray balls. The headteachers argued that pupils were `kicking balls quite hard at each other'. In February 2007, St John's primary near Lincoln banned games like kiss chase and tag because staff felt that such activities were too rough.

Suspicion towards adult motives has become a pathology in British society. Numerous informal rules have been introduced to prevent adults from coming into direct physical contact with kids. Even nursery workers feel that their actions are under constant scrutiny. Adult carers have not been entirely banned from applying suncream to children; some still follow their human instinct and do what they believe is in the best interest of the child. But frequently, such practices require formal parental consent: it is now commonplace for nurseries and schools to send out letters to parents asking for their signed consent to allow teachers to put suncream on their child.

Some schools would rather that teachers had no physical contact with their pupils at all, and insist that either the parent or the child applies the suncream. Schools now state in their handbooks for parents that `it is most helpful if children are able to apply their own suncream'! Some nurseries have sought to get around this problem by asking their employees to use sprays rather than to rub suncream on children's bodies. One former nursery worker told me she packed in her job after she was `banned' from taking the kids in her care to the toilet on her own.

There is now an informal ban on adults taking pictures of children. Although taking photos is not against the law, many petty officials have decided to take the law into their own hands. As a father, I resent the climate of hysteria that makes it difficult for parents to take photos of their children during school plays or concerts and sporting activities. I would love to have a shot of my son Jacob running with the ball, but after four years of competitive football I still don't have a single picture of him in action.

In January, a friend of mine who decided to take a photo of his son during a Saturday football match was accused of gross irresponsibility. He was lucky, however: the referee at least allowed the game to continue. There are numerous reports of officials stopping play when they spot a parent taking pictures. One referee stopped an under-15s match in Ashford and instructed both team managers to confiscate parents' cameras. `You can't take photographs, it's child protection', he lectured a parent.

When it comes to sport, many parents have given up on the idea of taking snapshots for the family album. They don't want to end up in the same predicament as a married couple who took pictures of a junior rugby game on a sports field in Surrey: they were detained by club officials and were later visited at home by the police.

The promotion of paranoia in relation to every aspect of children's lives accomplishes the very opposite of what it sets out to do. When youngsters are protected from risks, they miss out on important opportunities to learn sound judgments and build their confidence and resilience. The promotion of suspicion towards adult behaviour seriously undermines the ability of grown-up people to play a constructive role in the socialisation of youngsters. The estrangement of adults from the world of children has the perverse effect of leaving youngsters to their own devices and diminishing their security.

We do not have to abide by the rules concocted by self-appointed experts intent on policing how we engage with children. Nor do we have to acquiesce to a culture that denigrates parental competence and fuels suspicion about adult motives towards children. Although none of us can opt out of the culture that we inhabit, we can challenge it. We can challenge it in small ways, by protesting against the many idiotic but all-too-insidious bans that aim to restrict children's freedom or adults' access to youngsters. We can challenge it by encouraging our children to develop a positive attitude towards the outdoors and the adult world. Most important of all, we can challenge it by working together as active collaborators committed to providing more opportunities for children to explore their world.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Have you hugged the Constitution today?

[Splodge Of Doom]

Re: Most of the above.

Welcome to my world. 

[FMJ]

'Tis a sad thing mate.I hope one day you will get your country back.

Is it true that British Airways removed the Union Jack from their corporate logo for the sake of being politically correct?

[Irwin]

I just cant believe how much things have changed from when I was in school, its sad we are going to have kids growing up getting everything done for them not ready for life. My dad runs the local beavers and cubs and he has noticed a massive change in the kids who go now compared to when I went to cubs, kids are softer and cant handle simple things like loosing a game of football. When I was younger me and my mates would climb trees run around play rugby, fight with other kids from the village, play at the harbour, simple things really never did me any harm and if me or my brother or sister step out of line my parents wouldnt hesitate to smack us and for that I thank them as it has helped me stay out of trouble and be a constructive member of society. Its going to be a long uphill struggle to change it back to what it was but its not impossible. Irwin

[FMJ]

I am no expert, I am not even 18 yet.
BUT
I have a prediction that because of the way my generation and following generations are raised, the males will all grow up to be soft, sensitive, girly men.  I think that it is truly a shame.  I never played football (soccer) when I was young, but it is a rather common sport for children in the USA.  Apparently many of these kids' clubs have a certain mentality that is summed up by "Everybody plays, everybody wins, and you get a trophy for being on the team."  My only problem with this mentality is that then these kids will grow up with a sense of entitlement even though nothing was really accomplished.  Credit is given where it is not due.
The problem is that truth hurts.  Reality hurts, it cares for no one. 

kids are softer and cant handle simple things like loosing a game of football.

And when "everybody wins" those who really lost get to miss out on important lessons on life.  For example, there will always a winner and because there will be a winner, there must be a loser; it's the cold, hard truth.  This is the part where the football coach would then teach the losing team that when you fall off your horse, you get back up. Recognize what you did wrong, learn what you need to do right, and train hard.

To me all of this politically correct "sense of entitlement" is like some kind of emotional welfare.

SARCASM:  "Everybody is a winner!  There is no such thing as losing, and if you ban guns, crime will go away!

[armoredman]

If I am at a school event with my son, and take a picture of him, any busy body, school employed or not, will nt be getting my camera or film. I am not a terrorist taking pictures of volnerable locations, I am snapping memorabilia of my only son. And anyone attempting to take them will be arrested for attempted robbery.

[Thernlund]

And anyone attempting to take them will be arrested for attempted robbery.

They hope, eh? 


-T.

[FMJ]

From the same source:

British father arrested and locked in a cell for smacking son

The same police often fail to attend burglary scenes and refuse to respond to complaints about youth gang activity

Mark Frearson said he told off his son Harry because the seven-year-old walked off alone after dark while they were out shopping. Three hours later four police officers and a specialist child support officer arrived at his house, took Harry away in a police car, arrested Mr Frearson on suspicion of assault and locked him in a cell. After about an hour he said officers told him they could not carry out an interview as the witness "was not in a condition to give a statement".

Mr Frearson, a director at a parcel company, had to spend the night in the cell and was released the next day at 10am after the witness was interviewed and withdrew their accusation. The 47-year-old has made a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission about the ordeal.

He said the police reaction was "massively over-the-top" and the experience was traumatic for his son. Mr Frearson, from Plymouth, Devon, said: "I find it shocking how easy it is to have someone arrested. To think that all this happened on the back of one allegation. "I appreciate the police's concern but even if they felt they had to take Harry away I don't understand why they felt it necessary to arrest me and lock me up before interviewing me or the witness. "I want an apology, I wasn't given any after being released without charge and I am still angry and bewildered at the events of that night."

Mr Frearson said the incident happened last Tuesday at around 6pm. He said it was dark and he told Harry to stay with him. When he realised he had left the shop there was a ten minute search and he was found outside in a nearby park. He said he smacked Harry once on the back of his leg and the two returned home.

At around 9pm police arrived saying a witness had reported Mr Frearson for "assault". The officers then took Harry back to his mother's and Mr Frearson was arrested and taken to the police station. He said: "They never even interviewed me, all they did was ask a couple of questions at the house. "My ex-wife Kate also told them the accusation was ridiculous. "There were about 20 people around at the time I told Harry off and CCTV but they still locked me up."

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall police said as a formal complaint had been made they could not comment on the incident.

[stephendutton]

Now it seems that we need to be protected from things that may be loud enough to make children cry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3530912/Town-mayor-fires-400-year-old-gun-firing-tradition-because-it-might-scare-children.html

 

[FMJ]

Here is the article:

Wimborne council in Dorset has told the town's Militia, which re-enacts traditions dating back to the 17th century, that it can no longer fire muskets over the Christmas tree.

The council said the noise of the blank shots would be too loud for children and would keep families away from the annual event to mark the switching on of the lights.

But members of the Militia said the council was "mollycoddling" children.

The town crier, Chris Brown, a member of the Militia, which performs in 17th century dress, said the ritual of scaring spirits from the town's Christmas tree "added a bit of pomp, colour and history to the ceremony and makes us special and almost unique from any other town in the country".

He added: "Being told we cannot do it because it might scare children is very sad and almost a bit daft.

"We understand the loud shots can make children jump but we give plenty of notice.

"Mollycoddling children will not help them cope with the unexpected, which might not necessarily be in their best interest in the long-run."

The Militia comprises 30 volunteers who take it in turns to perform at events in the town throughout the year. They carry wooden match-and-lock reproduction muskets to fire.

Mr Brown, 53, said: "We are one of only two towns in the country who have a Militia so it makes us almost unique.

"At the Christmas event there are usually carols and then a countdown to the switch-being thrown. We then simultaneously fire a blank shot with our muskets into the air.

"Prior to this, I go around the crowd giving them a warning and safety advice on how to protect their ears.

"Occasionally a baby will cry, but babies cry at the sound of fireworks. Most people enjoy it."

John Burden, 62, the deputy mayor, said he had taken the decision in the absence of the mayor Robin Cook, who is on holiday.

Mr Burden said: "I cannot speak for the mayor on what he would do, but before he went away he told me the decision on whether to have muskets was up to me.

"Last year there were children who were very upset and crying for some time after the muskets were fired.

"Numerous people have stopped me in the street and said they will not be bringing their children if the Militia was there again.

"To me, the switching on of the lights is an event for children and if we fire the muskets, it will stop a good number of people from coming to the town."

The custom dates back to 1680 when the local militia group would fire their live muskets over the town's Christmas tree.

The re-enactment group was formed 10 years ago to revive the custom.
 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

What is the next thing that I should expect from British legislators?
That they ban life to protect children from the ups and downs of it? Because the truth hurts.