13 year old non swimmer drowns

[billS]

Oh for goodness sake. I find the anti child and parent tone of the forum deplorable. Total lack of understanding of just how hard and expensive raising children includung teaching a child to swim can be. And please don't post, they shouldn't have them if they can't afford them. And don't post how little you had but you made sure your child could swim.

That poor boy, trying desperately to keep up with his mates.

 

I don't think it's anti child - everyone understands that children are children. It is only anti irresponsible parents who don't take responsibility for educating their children about the basic dangers in life. What has expense to do with it? It costs nothing but time to take your children out and show them the risks in their environment and explain consequences, and very little to teach them to swim yourself.

[Bewildered]

Oh for goodness sake. I find the anti child and parent tone of the forum deplorable. Total lack of understanding of just how hard and expensive raising children includung teaching a child to swim can be. And please don't post, they shouldn't have them if they can't afford them. And don't post how little you had but you made sure your child could swim.

That poor boy, trying desperately to keep up with his mates.

I think you will find the tone is not anti children or anti parent, it is in fact anti "not taking resposibility for yourself" and anti "it must be someone else's fault"

Why shouldn't I post that they shouldn't have them if they couldn't afford them? I couldn't afford them and decided not to have them rather than burden society with them. Instead I spent a lifetime paying taxes to support other people's offspring so that they can then blame society for their own shortcomings.

But if I did have kids I would make damn sure they could swim and knew how to cross a road; because it would be my responsibility to do so not any one else's

Edited November 24, 2016 by Bewildered

[Guest]

 

I don't think it's anti child - everyone understands that children are children. It is only anti irresponsible parents who don't take responsibility for educating their children about the basic dangers in life. What has expense to do with it? It costs nothing but time to take your children out and show them the risks in their environment and explain consequences, and very little to teach them to swim yourself.

Self defence is another good life skill for kids to learn.

[mross]

I was in a Yorkshire pub 20 years ago when a couple walked in and asked if they could bring their children in. The landlord said, "Yes but if children misbehave I throw the parents out!"

 

I hate having children in pubs. I guess children are not that happy to watch their parents getting drunk in a pub. Pubs are for parents and the rest of us to get away from demanding little monsters. It seems today that children are allowed to do what they want in shared spaces and it shouldn't be like this, it wasn't when I was I a child. Where's my revolver.

[Guest]

I was in a Yorkshire pub 20 years ago when a couple walked in and asked if they could bring their children in. The landlord said, "Yes but if children misbehave I throw the parents out!"

 

I hate having children in pubs. I guess children are not that happy to watch their parents getting drunk in a pub. Pubs are for parents and the rest of us to get away from demanding little monsters. It seems today that children are allowed to do what they want in shared spaces and it shouldn't be like this, it wasn't when I was I a child. Where's my revolver.

I respect your opinion, but feel that times have changed since we were kids, and so have pubs. Many pubs today are more like the retaurants we used to go into as kids.

I think it was Socrates who complained about "kids behaviour today" long before Christ himself was a lad.

[Jerra]

I hate having children in pubs.

 

I have no problem with well behaved children in pubs (well not too late) but the emphasis is definitely on the well behaved.

[Guest]

I have no problem with well behaved children in pubs (well not too late) but the emphasis is definitely on the well behaved.

Agreed. Anywhere in fact, not just pubs.

[David Mack]

Fat finger edit

Edited November 24, 2016 by David Mack

[Bewildered]

Whatever happened to those wonderful Public Information Films on the box?

 

They won't work now. It was easy back in the 70's and 80's when there were only 4 or 5 channels on the TV and no internet.

They were on about an hour after school on all channels simitainiously. Can't do that with all the TV channels out there and the fact that kids are more likley to be watching porn on line anyway.

Although if you want to watch them you can probably find them on YouTube

[Captain Pegg]

Nobody claims the accident was the fault of C&RT.

 

The assistant coroner isn't satisfied that C&RT have done all they can in relation to the risk; the police imply they are less than impressed with C&RTs response and the mother is exasperated that there are still no signs. I don't read her comments as referring to anything other than C&RTs response.

 

Neither can I reach the conclusion that the mother was an irresponsible parent based on her 254 words on the subject of the tragic death of her son.

 

JP

[Alan de Enfield]

They won't work now. It was easy back in the 70's and 80's when there were only 4 or 5 channels on the TV and no internet.

They were on about an hour after school on all channels simitainiously. Can't do that with all the TV channels out there and the fact that kids are more likley to be watching porn on line anyway.

Although if you want to watch them you can probably find them on YouTube

 

Being relatively 'recent' (Hiroshima) the world was troubled by the atomic bomb - we were given lectures at school by the 'Civil Defence' on what to do in the event of hearing the 4-minute warning.

 

If outdoors - lie in a ditch and the pressure wave will pass over you, if indoors build a shelter - here is their suggestion for an indoor 'atomic bomb' shelter.

 

[ditchcrawler]

I have seen more kids swimming in and around EA locks than anywhere else on the system and the EA have more signs than I have seen anywhere else saying don't do this and don't do that, danger etc.

[Bee]

Oh for goodness sake. I find the anti child and parent tone of the forum deplorable. Total lack of understanding of just how hard and expensive raising children includung teaching a child to swim can be. And please don't post, they shouldn't have them if they can't afford them. And don't post how little you had but you made sure your child could swim.

That poor boy, trying desperately to keep up with his mates.

 

Absolutely agree. Too many comments trying to attach the 'blame' to someone, anyone, parents schools, doesn't matter who it is so long as we can blame somebody else. If you watch 'You've Been Framed' and every similar show its all about young men doing ill advised, daft, dangerous things, its what we do when we are young, 99% of the time we end up bruised or looking foolish, sometimes it goes very wrong, Poor kid, poor parents.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

Absolutely agree. Too many comments trying to attach the 'blame' to someone, anyone, parents schools, doesn't matter who it is so long as we can blame somebody else. If you watch 'You've Been Framed' and every similar show its all about young men doing ill advised, daft, dangerous things, its what we do when we are young, 99% of the time we end up bruised or looking foolish, sometimes it goes very wrong, Poor kid, poor parents.

I don't think anyone's really trying to dump blame onto anyone. Half the stuff you see posted on FB (and in the Daily Mail) is complaining that kids today don't do anything like what we used to but just stay at home playing with gadgets and they should go out and have adventures. All you can do with kids is tell them to be careful (knowing that they won't be) and then hope they come home at the end of the day, as any parent knows. There are always kids jumping off bridges into the canal and not many of them die. The fact that some do is just that, a sad fact. Some do other things and manage to kill or hurt themselves. Most don't.

All children think they are indestructable, and all parents know they aren't.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[Flyboy]

Which part of the national curriculum covers this? It is the parents job to teach their offspring about the realities and dangers of life. To try to pass the buck to the schools every time something needs "got over" to kids is a cop out. To me it is yet another step in the parents stepping back from their responsibilities and expecting others to bring up their kids for them.

 

I was once harangued in a pub by a parent because his 7 year old din't know what a fire shovel was along with the quote "I don't know what they teach them these days".

Swimming is part of the national curriculum up to Key stage 2.

 

//www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study

[Jerra]

Swimming is part of the national curriculum up to Key stage 2.

 

//www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study

I am well aware that swimming is part of the curriculum (having taught it) but the context of your statement was the schools should be educating the kids about hazards and the dangers of swimming in locks. I am fairly sure that locks and the dangers thereof aren't mentioned in the National Curriculum anywhere.

 

Your mention of swimming was in a different paragraph and not conected in anyway to the "education" aspect.

[Carrera]

Every once in a while the gene pool needs a little chlorine...

Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for rank stupidity; the fact that the boy was only thirteen is irrelevant unless he was mentally handicapped, in which case he shouldn't have been without an adult minder. Any thirteen year-old of normal intelligence can work out the simple formula 'immersion in water + inability to swim = disaster'.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Carrera

[Captain Pegg]

Every once in a while the gene pool needs a little chlorine...

Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for rank stupidity; the fact that the boy was only thirteen is irrelevant unless he was mentally handicapped, in which case he shouldn't have been without an adult minder. Any thirteen year-old of normal intelligence can work out the simple formula 'immersion in water + inability to swim = disaster'.

Is there is a soul alive who hasn't done something daft that had the potential to end badly?

 

That's a horrible sentiment to direct at a child.

 

JP

[pophops]

Every once in a while the gene pool needs a little chlorine...

 

Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for rank stupidity; the fact that the boy was only thirteen is irrelevant unless he was mentally handicapped, in which case he shouldn't have been without an adult minder. Any thirteen year-old of normal intelligence can work out the simple formula 'immersion in water + inability to swim = disaster'.

So that's it? It was the kid's own stupid fault?

I can't believe anyone could be so cold-blooded as to make comments like this.

[Jak]

As a father of 5 boys I agree. And we did teach them how to swim. Sure you are old and wise now, but 13 year olds aren't!

[Guest]

Speaking for myself I did many stupid things as a kid, and some as an adult. These stupid mistakes have been part of my learning in life, and have taught me much. Thinking back, many of them could have ended in disaster. I doubt if this is a unique position.

[WotEver]

Not unique at all. I echo everything you said with bells on.

 

I was indestructible. Then I got to 30 and began to believe that perhaps I wasn't immortal. Then as time moved on I knew I wasn't

[Bewildered]

Self defence is another good life skill for kids to learn.

 

A few years ago my brother and I taught a women's self defence class. The numbers in the class were initially quite high but each week less people would turn up until there were only a couple left. It didn't make any difference that we pointed out early on that only you can be responsible for your own safety. It seems people really don't want to take responsibility for themselves, and would rather live a blinkered existence.

All though to be fair a lot did stop turning up after the lessons on eye gouging and finger breaking; I think they wanted to do a self defence class where you are nice to your attacker. People are strange!

[NickF]

I have only just read this thread , how sad, I was moored at the aqueduct below that lock (Coney Green) a couple of years ago when a couple of the local youths came down and asked me to fill the lock so they could swim in it! I refused saying it was not safe to swim in it, they were not overly impressed but I did spot them later jumping into a lock a few locks further up the flight. It's clearly a regular pass time of the local kids to swim there, ........ I do love The Rochdale but to voluntarily get into that water is just crazy!

 

Having met them I can confirm that they were not the sort of kids that would be influenced by a sign telling them not to swim!

[mayalld]

Nobody claims the accident was the fault of C&RT.

 

The assistant coroner isn't satisfied that C&RT have done all they can in relation to the risk; the police imply they are less than impressed with C&RTs response and the mother is exasperated that there are still no signs. I don't read her comments as referring to anything other than C&RTs response.

 

Neither can I reach the conclusion that the mother was an irresponsible parent based on her 254 words on the subject of the tragic death of her son.

 

JP

It is impossible to definitively state much about this particular case. It is too easy to extrapolate to the wrong conclusion based on what the mother has said. We need to make some allowance for her grief here, and accept that in that grief she will be looking for ANYTHING that might have stopped her child from drowning there.

 

She isn't seeing the bigger picture that unless you can predict where a kid is going to swim you end up with signs every 6 feet.

 

She also isn't analysing whether a sign would work.

 

1) are 13 year old kids out unsupervised with their mates well known for obeying signs, or would a sign saying "no swimming" be a red rag to the 13 year old brain that just HAS to be disobeyed?

2) how long would the sign last before it was vandalised?

 

We can extrapolate from the particular to the general, and say that signs erected by the authorities will have little effect. Talking to kids and making sure they know what is and is not safe will have far more effect.

 

So, we don't know if mum had done all the right things here.

 

If she had and the lad ignored her then he wouldn't have taken a blind big of notice of a sign.

 

If she hadn't then Why is it CRTs job to do what she hadn't.