tenacity wrote:

Your suggestions of a fence or a grid are steps in the right direction.
The author's concern is not hysteria, however, it's just caution.

I would say a fence is more dangerous as the kids are more likely to
try to climb it and hurt themselves that way. I guess it's easy to
have the "I used to do dangerous stuff all the time and I'm alright"
argument but those who weren't alright can't speak for themselves now.

wrote:
tenacity wrote:

Your suggestions of a fence or a grid are steps in the right direction.
The author's concern is not hysteria, however, it's just caution.

I would say a fence is more dangerous as the kids are more likely to
try to climb it and hurt themselves that way. I guess it's easy to
have the "I used to do dangerous stuff all the time and I'm alright"
argument but those who weren't alright can't speak for themselves now.

If the OP has the common sense to ask questions about what to use, if
anything, he has the commonsense to build a vertical fence high enough
to deter a child. If you give horizontal footholds then, of course,
you're merely providing a ladder. However, a child capable of climbing
a sturdy, vertical fence is unlikely to be of an age where it's at the
mercy of a pond. Surely the OP - and most anxious parents - are
talking about the toddler who finds its unsupervised way into the
garden and falls into the pond because it leans over to look at the
fish or get some water in its little bucket etc.
I may say that for a short period, our grand daughter was fascinated by
a water-filled granite trough we have on a lawn here. She was in no
danger of falling into it as there was no foothold and it was then
above chest height for her but she used to scoop the water out with her
hands and fling the pebbles onto the lawn. So we told her an octopus
lived in it and she kept well clear of it, asking one of us to fill her
bucket of mini watering can with water, if need be. When she was old
enough to know a bit better, we told her he'd gone to live elsewhere
but last year, I heard her tell a visiting child "Watch out for the
Octopus" and visiting (pestiferous) child backed right off.........
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon

"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
?

We have a small pond, with four goldfish in it plus a number of plants.

Dug a small hole (12 inches to the clay sub soil), fitted a plastic liner.
Surrounded it with a series of slabs on edge, then backfilled with soil.
So I have a raised bed of 12 inches, with a pond inside total depth 24
inches.

Around the outside of the bed is a chicken wire mesh fence 18 inches high.
So floor to top of fence is 2 ft 6 inches.
Adults can reach over easily.
Older children can see over easily and realise that there is not a lot going
on there.

The toddler who visists, hasn't even tried to climb up and over the fence.
But he does ask to be picked up so that he can see the fish.

Plenty of wildlife.
Lots of bog plants.

The dreaded child welfare came by to check the house because we were
thinking of childminding,
they were quite happy with the precautions.

I went and did it, YMMV

Dave

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...


Do you WANT your children to
grow up in a country without ponds, climbable/fallen trees and the
concomitant wildlife? God help us, that is what is happening in many
areas of suburbia.


Obviously the fate of Keith Richard and Brain Jones means
nothing to you.

Keith Richard was was doubtless encouraged to climb trees as lad.

As result he fell out of a tree last week, banged his head and
is currently undergoing a series of operations to remove blood
clots from his brain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4983890.stm

While as is well known Brian Jones died in his own swimming pool.

Thus pointing up the danger of all such water features in the garden
even for mature adults.


michael adams

....




Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


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.

False premise Hysteria may be widespread and common, but that does
not imply that "reasonable concern/caution" = hysteria.

Have you studied philosophy? A little knowledge can be dangerous.
--
June Hughes

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

Reasonable caution would be to ensure that no pond was the sort that
they couldn't get out of, even if they fall over.

....

People have drowned in 6 inches of water. In situations
where they were knocked unconscious and landed face down.

If you require "rational" i.e. empirical evidence.

One of the worst traumas that can be suffered by any parent
nowadays *, can be the loss of a child. More so when they feel
themselves responsible in any way. You would only have needed to
meet a parent fixated on a child who died years ago - and their
fixation on their lost potential, to realise this to be the case.
And that it isn't simply the result of tabloid slush.

*Nowadays at least. Given child mortality rates in the past this
clearly can't always have been so. In the past, the death of children
was more to be expected. Otherwise there would have been total
breakdown, with parents unable able to cope. Without the
consolation of religion perhaps?

There is no doubt that nowadays there is a case for saying
that many parents appear to be being over-protective of their
children. This also goes for escorting them to school in
4x4 tanks to the inconvenience of both pedestrians and other
road users. There are other aspects to this as well of course.

The question that needs to be addressed than surely, is
why is this happening now ? What is it about present day
society which causes it to be so unduly solicitous -
some might claim at least - of its children's welfare,
in such an "uniformed" way - less exercise more burgers
etc. etc. The point being of course, that this is a largely
emotional response - given that history and human affairs are
largely driven by emotion in any case. Rather than as some
uninformed individuals appear to believe, by reason.

Undue "uninformed" solicitousness towards our children therefore
can be shown to be an emotional response. And so the question
surely is - a response to what ?


michael adams

....

To say that a
normal 5 year old (or even a normal 3 year old) can't get out of a
shallow pond is simple nonsense. OBVIOUSLY, you don't want one with
sides that they can't crawl out of or one that they would have any
difficulty standing up in. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

For heaven's sake, by the age of 3, they are quite capable of running
a bath and climbing into it on their own - and I know several that have
done just that. And observing where you have put keys on high shelves,
and dragging chairs to get at them. And doing that to run out onto the
road, too, which is FAR more dangerous.

There is yet another article in the paper today about trees being cut
down 'on safety grounds' and, in many areas, the MAJORITY of ponds have
been filled in for the same bogus reason. Do you WANT your children to
grow up in a country without ponds, climbable/fallen trees and the
concomitant wildlife? God help us, that is what is happening in many
areas of suburbia.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| One of the worst traumas that can be suffered by any parent
| nowadays *, can be the loss of a child. More so when they feel
| themselves responsible in any way. You would only have needed to
| meet a parent fixated on a child who died years ago - and their
| fixation on their lost potential, to realise this to be the case.
| And that it isn't simply the result of tabloid slush.

Actually, yes, it is. And that is one of my main reasons for posting.

There is an immense amount of propaganda to the effect that parents
are irresponsible if they expose their children to ponds, tree
climbing, etc., and that makes the parents who do so responsibly and
are unluck feel unnecessarily guilty. In fact, they are often
pilloried by the press and others.

Yet exactly the opposite applies to parents who drive their children
more than is absolutely necessarily, which accounts for a hundred
times as many deaths. But, of course, being killed in a car crash is
a natural accident, whereas drowning is unnatural.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote
snipped
There is yet another article in the paper today about trees being cut
down 'on safety grounds' and, in many areas, the MAJORITY of ponds have
been filled in for the same bogus reason. Do you WANT your children to
grow up in a country without ponds, climbable/fallen trees and the
concomitant wildlife? God help us, that is what is happening in many
areas of suburbia.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Holland has masses of open water, canals, ditches, ponds, lakes etc etc
Children are ALL supposed to take swimming lessons before they are 5
They have classes for babies.........

I only learnt to swim in England when I was about 11.
In an outside pool in the winter (it seemed!).
Jenny

"michael adams" wrote

While as is well known Brian Jones died in his own swimming pool.

Thus pointing up the danger of all such water features in the garden
even for mature adults.
michael adams

Or the use of too many mind expanding substances :~))
Jenny

In article ,
Janet Baraclough writes:
|
| Abuse by implication is a low trick - try polishing up your ethics a
| little.
|
| It is you who repeatedly implied that anyone who expressed simple
| concern or caution , (or disgreed with your view of it) was taking part
| in mass hysteria. Y

I will give you credit for not being a liar, so I will request you not
to jump to erroneous conclusions due to your poor comprehension.

| Nowhere have I claimed that reasonable concern/caution is hysteria.
|
| To my reading, that's exactly what you did.

That is YOUR error.

| Here's you in response to
| Kay and the OP's rational, non-hysterical query
|
| "K writes:
|
| |
| | To stop you worrying, there's two ways 1) a fence 2) probably more
| | secure - a weight-supporting grid over the whole pond
|
| There is a third way: be a little more rational, and resist the pressure
| to join in the mass hysteria. "

Yes, it was a rational, non-hysterical query and his plans were for a
rational, non-hysterical solution. Were :-(

| Here's you in response to an EMT
|
| " | 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. "

You have snipped a considerable amount of the context. I agree that I
could have been clearer, because THAT poster was not being hysterical;
the hysteria was on the part of a previous post in the thread.

| You have no reason to suppose the OP, or any other contributor, is
| "neglecting much more serious risks". That was a red herring you
| introduced to discredit any opposition to your own opinion..

Yes, I do have, but I am disinclined to chase up the statistics now.
I do agree that I have no SPECIAL reason but, as something like 99.9%
of the population do that, my assumption is pretty reliable.

| FYI, your assumption that shallow ponds are safe and a three year
| old can just extricate themselves from a fall face first into shallow
| water up to 18 " deep, is wrong. Such immature children have a different
| physiological reaction to shock, fear, etc. Sudden stress can easily
| stop their breathing momentarily. ....

Your assumption that I was assuming that is wrong. Again.

Yes, OF COURSE, you should ensure that the child falls into the pond
at least once while under your eagle eye. Why on earth did you imagine
anything different?

As I have posted more than once before, I did that to my children with
kettles, knives, garden plants and even the road. It is part of a
RESPONSIBLE parent's job to TRAIN their children to handle life, and
not to shield them from dangers until they are adults. And it is
complete crap that you can't train young children, in general, though
I do agree that some need special attention.



What you have missed is the likelihood (it is more than a possibility,
but there is no hard evidence) that a large proportion of UK children
that drown do so PRECISELY because they have not been exposed to water
dangers before and do not recognise the danger for what it is. So why
are you assuming that not having a pond will reduce the chances of a
child drowning before adulthood?

No, I don't know whether it does or not, but I do know that the answer
to the question isn't at all obvious.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
K writes:
| michael adams writes
|
| Obviously the fate of Keith Richard and Brain Jones means nothing to
| you.

He got that right :-)

| Clearly we should all avoid any activity which has been known to cause
| death or serious injury.

Quite. And no child should be exposed to such risks until they are
released into the world as adults, with the responsibility of protecting
their own children from the risks that they have never been exposed to.



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"JennyC" wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote

While as is well known Brian Jones died in his own swimming pool.

Thus pointing up the danger of all such water features in the garden
even for mature adults.
michael adams

Or the use of too many mind expanding substances :~))
Jenny


Nobutt if the pool hadn't been there, but grass instead, and he
fell onto that, he'd have probably have played in Hyde Park with
a plaster on his nose, and Jagger wouldn't have got the chance
to read the poem*.

Looks like there was no grass where Keith fell out of his
tree either. Apparently grass can make a big difference
if you fall out of a tree.


michael adams


*"Adonais" P.B. Shelley

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| One of the worst traumas that can be suffered by any parent
| nowadays *, can be the loss of a child. More so when they feel
| themselves responsible in any way. You would only have needed to
| meet a parent fixated on a child who died years ago - and their
| fixation on their lost potential, to realise this to be the case.
| And that it isn't simply the result of tabloid slush.

Actually, yes, it is. And that is one of my main reasons for posting.

....

It isn't. I happen to be speaking from personal observation from
30 and more years ago. Not immediate family but I'm not prepared
to discuss details.

That woman certainly wasn't moved by tabloid sensationalism.
Whole marriages can be built around the prospect of a child
and children aren't always easily come by for all couples.
I really do suggest you get a clue.

....

There is an immense amount of propaganda to the effect that parents
are irresponsible if they expose their children to ponds, tree
climbing, etc., and that makes the parents who do so responsibly and
are unluck feel unnecessarily guilty. In fact, they are often
pilloried by the press and others.

Yet exactly the opposite applies to parents who drive their children
more than is absolutely necessarily, which accounts for a hundred
times as many deaths. But, of course, being killed in a car crash is
a natural accident, whereas drowning is unnatural.

....

You haven't actually addressed the question I proposed in the
remainder of my post.

A totally rational person, as you claim to be, would surely want
to ask themselves, why it should be right now that people are
being made subject to these irrational fears about the
welfare of their children ? Who is propagating these particular
myths, and why ?

That would be a useful approach.

There are also plenty of studies about attitudes to danger,
etc which might usefully be cited.

But instead, you yourself are similarly voicing inarticulate
irrational fears. You see these things as undesirable - as you
see them as a threat to some golden age of tree climbing, pond
visiting, school walking, children.

Rampant golden ageism, and the dread of loss of the past, is just
as emotional and non-rational, as is undue solicitouness for the
welfare of children. Except that the latter has a more direct
and legitimate biological basis, than does love of fading aspects
of one's supposed culture.


michael adams

....






Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"K" wrote in message
...
michael adams writes
Obviously the fate of Keith Richard and Brain Jones means nothing to
you.

Keith Richard was was doubtless encouraged to climb trees as lad.

As result he fell out of a tree last week, banged his head and is
currently undergoing a series of operations to remove blood clots from
his brain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4983890.stm

While as is well known Brian Jones died in his own swimming pool.

Thus pointing up the danger of all such water features in the garden
even for mature adults.

Clearly we should all avoid any activity which has been known to cause
death or serious injury.
--
Kay


Swimming pools and climbing trees aren't a good idea if you're stoned
out of your mind.

I don't think too many people would want to argue with that.



michael adams

....

In article ,
"michael adams" writes:
|
| It isn't. I happen to be speaking from personal observation from
| 30 and more years ago. Not immediate family but I'm not prepared
| to discuss details.

And I can speak from personal experience where a couple blamed
themselves completely irrationally for the loss of a child, for
precisely that reason. I am not basing my statements on that alone.

| A totally rational person, as you claim to be, would surely want
| to ask themselves, why it should be right now that people are
| being made subject to these irrational fears about the
| welfare of their children ? Who is propagating these particular
| myths, and why ?

Your are seriously deluded. I have never claimed to be completely
rational.

| That would be a useful approach.

And has little to do with gardening.

| There are also plenty of studies about attitudes to danger,
| etc which might usefully be cited.

Preferably not here.

| But instead, you yourself are similarly voicing inarticulate
| irrational fears. You see these things as undesirable - as you
| see them as a threat to some golden age of tree climbing, pond
| visiting, school walking, children.

Crap. I am basing them on observation of my children's friends, where
a significant number were so badly cocooned in cotton wool that they
were unable to judge risks or handle the most trivial dangers at the
age of 14. Nobody rational expects a child of 14 to be able to do those
WELL, but it is horrifying that they were completely unable to.

As anyone with a clue will know, there is no way that I regard the
past as a golden age. But, as Thurber said, you may as fell fall flat
on your face as lean too far over backwards.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.