"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article .com,
"tenacity" writes:
|
| I work as an EMT, and unfortunately, worrying about kids and water
| isn't hysteria, it's wisdom learned the hardest way.

It is hysterical to make a huge fuss over an unlikely cause of death
while neglecting much more serious ones.

....

People in general are very bad at judging relative and absolute
probabilities.
The dangers of cigarettes as against terrorist attacks for instance.
But as far as is known, that's a general feature of human nature, and
always has been. Which hardly makes it "hysterical".

I suppose you're next going to suggest that if people were rather less
"hysterical" and spend rather more time contemplating the inevitability
of their own deaths, and the improbabilty of an after-life, they'd lead
much happier lives all round.

....


It is hysterical to prevent small children being exposed to limited
dangers, so that they are more endangered overall by being unprepared
for more serious dangers of the same type.

This over-reaction about the danger from shallow ponds is hysterical.

....

Whether it is or not, offering advice on the safety of other peoples
children, or using the topic to score debating points, either on Usenet
or in real life is about as unwise as its possible to get IMO.

It's a lose lose situation with no Brownie points either way. If there
are no accidents, then people won't thank you for your advice, and if
there are they'll try and shift part of the blame on you instead.


michael adams

....








Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"kenty" wrote in message
...
I want to create a wildlife pond like in the link below
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/2000_1...tcm3-23191.jpg

I am put off because i have a 5 & 3 year old.They would also love a
shallow wildlife pond,i dont think a shallow pond with long pebbled
beaches would trouble them.I know kids can drown in inches of water. i
know you also need a deeper centre ,i was going to go 18 inch
deepest.Should i wait till they are older , i could erect a cheap fence
around the pond.My daughters school has done this,but they have more
space.I am trying to talk myself into doing the pond ,but dont want to be
constantly worried for them everytime they pop into the garden.Have any of
you combined pond & kids or is this a leathal combination best left alone
until the kids have grown up.What is a safe age ?
Thanks Keith


My suggestion is to build the pond you want in terms of shape, depth etc and
fill it with cobbles and rocks amongst which you can have the odd water
feature. At a future date you can start to remove the odd cobbles etc etc.

I think this is the best idea. But if you really want a pond, put a
sturdy fence round it with vertical palings, not horizontal ones which
can be used as a ladder. We have three ponds here and I am always
horrified at how cavalier some parents are when bringing their children
to the nursery. They leave them alone to run off and several times a
year I have to take a child by the hand and find its parent. The other
day a father was racing about in a panic because his 3 yo son had gone
'missing' and I did point out to him that in a working nursery it was
not safe to leave a child to his own devices. Luckily, he turned up
safe within seconds but seconds is all it takes.
Our grand daughter is 5 and is now perfectly sensible about the ponds,
though I'm touching wood as I say that! However, a visiting dog fell
in the pond the other day and had to be fished out by me because there
was no exit for him! Last year, a woman stood on the coping stones of
the fishpond - heaven knows why - the stone's cement seal to the edge
of the pond was broken by her tilting forwards to peer at the fish and
in she went! People do daft things near water and children are
absolutely fascinated by it. I think a 3yo is much too young to be
trusted to be sensible - in fact that's the very age at which they are
most curious and least able to reason! I'd follow Rupert's suggestion,
put up a fence or wait a couple of years.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

"Sacha" wrote in message
ups.com...

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"kenty" wrote in message
...
I want to create a wildlife pond like in the link below
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/2000_1...tcm3-23191.jpg

I am put off because i have a 5 & 3 year old.They would also love a
shallow wildlife pond,i dont think a shallow pond with long pebbled
beaches would trouble them.I know kids can drown in inches of water. i
know you also need a deeper centre ,i was going to go 18 inch
deepest.Should i wait till they are older , i could erect a cheap
fence
around the pond.My daughters school has done this,but they have more
space.I am trying to talk myself into doing the pond ,but dont want to
be
constantly worried for them everytime they pop into the garden.Have
any of
you combined pond & kids or is this a leathal combination best left
alone
until the kids have grown up.What is a safe age ?
Thanks Keith


My suggestion is to build the pond you want in terms of shape, depth etc
and
fill it with cobbles and rocks amongst which you can have the odd water
feature. At a future date you can start to remove the odd cobbles etc
etc.

I think this is the best idea. But if you really want a pond, put a
sturdy fence round it with vertical palings, not horizontal ones which
can be used as a ladder. We have three ponds here and I am always
horrified at how cavalier some parents are when bringing their children
to the nursery. They leave them alone to run off and several times a
year I have to take a child by the hand and find its parent. The other
day a father was racing about in a panic because his 3 yo son had gone
'missing' and I did point out to him that in a working nursery it was
not safe to leave a child to his own devices. Luckily, he turned up
safe within seconds but seconds is all it takes.
Our grand daughter is 5 and is now perfectly sensible about the ponds,
though I'm touching wood as I say that! However, a visiting dog fell
in the pond the other day and had to be fished out by me because there
was no exit for him! Last year, a woman stood on the coping stones of
the fishpond - heaven knows why - the stone's cement seal to the edge
of the pond was broken by her tilting forwards to peer at the fish and
in she went! People do daft things near water and children are
absolutely fascinated by it. I think a 3yo is much too young to be
trusted to be sensible - in fact that's the very age at which they are
most curious and least able to reason! I'd follow Rupert's suggestion,
put up a fence or wait a couple of years.

A further alternative would be to fit a pond protection system, at or just
below water level, which would reduce the risk. The grid could be removed,
if desired, when it is thought garden visitors are old enough to take
sufficient care.

http://www.safapond.com/

I know people who purchased a property with a couple of ornamental ponds,
and they installed this or a similar system, because they had previously had
a pond incident with one of their children, the alternative being to remove
the ponds, and they were very pleased. The grid was set at just below water
level, so they retained the appearance of the water surface, plus peace of
mind over a matter which was very worrying to them.

Our children had great fun with our pond which we had a cover made for. The
cover was simply strong 2" wire mesh on a frame with a padlocked trap door
in it so we could get access. It was reinforced so I could jump on it. Kids
loved it and spent hours "fishing". Mesh did not seem to bother wildlife at
all. We just rang around local metal workers describing what we wanted until
we got a reasonable (£150) quote.

--
Hayley
(gardening on well drained, alkaline clay in Somerset)

H Ryder wrote:
Our children had great fun with our pond which we had a cover made for. The
cover was simply strong 2" wire mesh on a frame with a padlocked trap door
in it so we could get access. It was reinforced so I could jump on it. Kids
loved it and spent hours "fishing". Mesh did not seem to bother wildlife at
all. We just rang around local metal workers describing what we wanted until
we got a reasonable (£150) quote.

Thinking of that, I knew I'd something advertised recently and I did a
quick Google and found this. It looks excellent:
http://www.pondsafety.com/
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

"BAC" wrote
A further alternative would be to fit a pond protection system, at or just
below water level, which would reduce the risk. The grid could be removed,
if desired, when it is thought garden visitors are old enough to take
sufficient care.

http://www.safapond.com/

I know people who purchased a property with a couple of ornamental ponds,
and they installed this or a similar system, because they had previously
had
a pond incident with one of their children, the alternative being to
remove
the ponds, and they were very pleased. The grid was set at just below
water
level, so they retained the appearance of the water surface, plus peace of
mind over a matter which was very worrying to them.

Great idea, but looks hideous!
Probably better to wait a couple of years :~))

Jenny

"Sacha" wrote in message
oups.com...

H Ryder wrote:
Our children had great fun with our pond which we had a cover made for.
The
cover was simply strong 2" wire mesh on a frame with a padlocked trap door
in it so we could get access. It was reinforced so I could jump on it.
Kids
loved it and spent hours "fishing". Mesh did not seem to bother wildlife
at
all. We just rang around local metal workers describing what we wanted
until
we got a reasonable (£150) quote.

Thinking of that, I knew I'd something advertised recently and I did a
quick Google and found this. It looks excellent:
http://www.pondsafety.com/
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Thanks all for the advise,its been interesting.I will be leaving the pond
idea for now.I would not be able to rest when my kids are in the garden if i
had a pond.So i may as someone had the excellent idea of digging the pond
hole but filling with cobbles.
Thanks Keith

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"kenty" wrote in message
...
I want to create a wildlife pond like in the link below
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/2000_1...tcm3-23191.jpg

I am put off because i have a 5 & 3 year old.They would also love a
shallow wildlife pond,i dont think a shallow pond with long pebbled
beaches would trouble them.I know kids can drown in inches of water.
i know you also need a deeper centre ,i was going to go 18 inch
deepest.Should i wait till they are older , i could erect a cheap
fence around the pond.My daughters school has done this,but they
have more space.I am trying to talk myself into doing the pond ,but
dont want to be constantly worried for them everytime they pop into
the garden.Have any of you combined pond & kids or is this a leathal
combination best left alone until the kids have grown up.What is a
safe age ? Thanks Keith


My suggestion is to build the pond you want in terms of shape, depth
etc and fill it with cobbles and rocks amongst which you can have the
odd water feature. At a future date you can start to remove the odd
cobbles etc etc.

Now THAT sounds like a great idea.
--
ßôyþëtë

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article .com,
"tenacity" writes:

I work as an EMT, and unfortunately, worrying about kids and water
isn't hysteria, it's wisdom learned the hardest way.

It is hysterical to make a huge fuss over an unlikely cause of death
while neglecting much more serious ones.

It is hysterical to prevent small children being exposed to limited
dangers, so that they are more endangered overall by being unprepared
for more serious dangers of the same type.

This over-reaction about the danger from shallow ponds is hysterical.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I pity any children you have, now or in the future.
--
ßôyþëtë

kenty wrote:
Thanks all for the advise,its been interesting.I will be leaving the
pond
idea for now.I would not be able to rest when my kids are in the garden if i
had a pond.So i may as someone had the excellent idea of digging the pond
hole but filling with cobbles.
Thanks Keith

Good. For you, that is definitely the best option. The time will pass
quickly, as it does always when children are growing up and then you'll
all be able to enjoy your pond with peace of mind. There is absolutely
no point in having what is meant to a pleasurable facility in your
garden if it worries you half to death.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

Thanks all for the advise,its been interesting.I will be leaving the pond
idea for now.I would not be able to rest when my kids are in the garden if
i
had a pond.

Responsible parenting :-))

Congratulations.

Enjoy your children :-)) We do and we have four wonderrrrrrrrful
responsible grown ups to keep us company :-)) Taking them all, and their
respective wives/husbands/children on a cruise on the new Cunard Queen
Victoria for our Golden Wedding December 2007, may you do the same later
:-))

Mike



--
------------------------------------------------
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
International Festival of the Sea 28th June - 1st July 2007

kenty wrote:
I want to create a wildlife pond like in the link below
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/2000_1...tcm3-23191.jpg

I am put off because i have a 5 & 3 year old.They would also love a
shallow wildlife pond,i dont think a shallow pond with long pebbled
beaches would trouble them.I know kids can drown in inches of water.
i know you also need a deeper centre ,i was going to go 18 inch
deepest.Should i wait till they are older , i could erect a cheap
fence around the pond.My daughters school has done this,but they have
more space.I am trying to talk myself into doing the pond ,but dont
want to be constantly worried for them everytime they pop into the
garden.Have any of you combined pond & kids or is this a leathal
combination best left alone until the kids have grown up.What is a
safe age ? Thanks Keith


have a look at:

http://www.pondguardonline.co.uk/htm...ey_shapes.html

pk

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| People in general are very bad at judging relative and absolute
| probabilities.
| The dangers of cigarettes as against terrorist attacks for instance.
| But as far as is known, that's a general feature of human nature, and
| always has been. Which hardly makes it "hysterical".

Witch-hunts, lynch mobs and pogroms are a general feature of human
nature, and always have been, but remain evil. Sorry, the fact that
hysteria is widespread and common doesn't stop it being hysteria.

....

Describing people's general inability to accurately judge
probabilities as amounting to "hysteria", is itself
verging on hysteria, IMO.

The very fact that the human race has survived for so long
in this supposed "state of ignorance", might suggest that erring
on the side of caution - when making the sort of subconscious
probability judgements which we're apparently making all the time
- has proved positively beneficial. Rather than hysterical.

IMO Witch hunts, lynch mobs, and pograms are a sufficiently
infrequent occurances so as to not qualify as general features of
human nature. Game theory might suggest reasons why this would be
the case. Large social groupings, tribes, nations, or whatever
which constantly engaged in such practices would most probably
lose cohesion and destroy themselves in a fairly short time.


....


| It's a lose lose situation with no Brownie points either way. If there
| are no accidents, then people won't thank you for your advice, and if
| there are they'll try and shift part of the blame on you instead.

That is true, but may I quote Burke? "The only thing necessary for the
triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."

....

You can quote who you wish providing you provide a citation.

On the "Interweb" that particular quote - which doesn't appear in the
ODQ to the best of my knowledge, although many others from the
1777 letter do, appears in at least 2 different forms -

Your own, without the brackets

quote

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."

and -

"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and
by parts ... the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good
men to do nothing."

/quote

with refences to a letter of 1777 to the Sheriffs of Bristol.

The point being, that if the quote had a definite source, and could
be found in the likes of the ODQ, then there would be no controversy
over the wording.

This wasn't a "Ronnie Reagan Speechwriter's Special" by any chance?

1777 being such a special year across the pond, as well.

...

Unfortunately, as far
as the UK's attitudes to living with nature, life and death, and even
child development are concerned, the forces of evil are triumphant.

....

Nope. Death is inevitable. I think there's general agreemant on
that one.

Even for those who subscribe to the idea of an after-life, I think
there's general agreement that you actually need to die first.

....

Mike the ex-sailor doesn't realise the consequences of what he is
saying, but he and people like him are actively paving the road to hell.

God help our children, and the future ecology of the UK.

....

I think many people will agree with the likes of John Ruskin, that
the rot really set in with the advent of Industrial Revolution,
at around the start of the 19th century.

It's only really the fact that computers aren't coal fired, and don't
have clouds of toxic sulphurous smoke belching out of the top - under
normal consitions anyway - that help disguise that fact. And that instead
all the smoke is being belched out of the chimneys of power stations
situated many miles away.


michael adams

....



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| Describing people's general inability to accurately judge
| probabilities as amounting to "hysteria", is itself
| verging on hysteria, IMO.

So what? Nobody on this thread has done that.

The erroneous judgement becomes hysteria when its users claim that it
is irresponsible to be rational, as well as when they mount a "hunt and
destroy" campaign against ponds.

| IMO Witch hunts, lynch mobs, and pograms are a sufficiently
| infrequent occurances so as to not qualify as general features of
| human nature. ...

Then you are ignorant. They are frequent, even in the UK, usually in
non-fatal forms though several deaths occur a year, usually indirectly.

| That is true, but may I quote Burke? "The only thing necessary for the
| triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."
|
| You can quote who you wish providing you provide a citation.

I can quote anyone I wish, in any case. However, as I am well known for
my patience with the ignorant, I quoted the name of the author. But I
suggest that you use Google on "The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil", which gives:

http://www.tartarus.org/martin/essays/burkequote.html


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| Describing people's general inability to accurately judge
| probabilities as amounting to "hysteria", is itself
| verging on hysteria, IMO.

So what? Nobody on this thread has done that.

The erroneous judgement becomes hysteria when its users claim that it
is irresponsible to be rational, as well as when they mount a "hunt and
destroy" campaign against ponds.

....

Only unprotected ponds, which are likely to be visited by
occasionaly unsupervised small children. Not all ponds.

I'm sure if you looked hard enugh you could find far worse
outrages being committed on a daily basis which really
are crying out to heaven for vengeance.

....



| IMO Witch hunts, lynch mobs, and pograms are a sufficiently
| infrequent occurances so as to not qualify as general features of
| human nature. ...

Then you are ignorant. They are frequent, even in the UK,

....

Would you give some examples please ?

....

usually in
non-fatal forms though several deaths occur a year, usually indirectly.

....

So these deaths are attributed indirectly to witch hunts, pogroms or
lynch mobs by the Coroners Inquests. And you have documentary evidence
for this claim do you?

...




| That is true, but may I quote Burke? "The only thing necessary for
the
| triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."
|
| You can quote who you wish providing you provide a citation.

I can quote anyone I wish, in any case.
However, as I am well known for
my patience with the ignorant, I quoted the name of the author.

....

No. You gave the name of the person, who numerous people on the
Internet, along with yourself, claim to be the author of that quote.

But you're wrong. All of you.

I myself find "wrong" so much more unequivocal than "ignorant" somehow.
Much more satisfying. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong.

What do you think?

....

But I
suggest that you use Google on "The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil", which gives:

http://www.tartarus.org/martin/essays/burkequote.html

....

Try reading it yourself.

It states categorically that the attribution to Burke is totally bogus.

"But if anyone can trace this quote back to the authentic writings
of Edmund Burke, email your findings to , and
I will remove this web page forthwith. "

/quote

Oops!

As was already explained to you, that quotation isn't featured in the
ODQ, or just for your benefit - "The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations".

Whereas many passages from Burke's 1777 Letter to the Sherrifs of Bristol -
a popular citation for that particular quote are.

So why are you still attributing that quote to Edmund Burke when
this is so obviously wrong ?

Wrong, wrong, wrong.


michael adams







Regards,
Nick Maclaren.