"Safeguarding" - I don't get it.

[Bold Seagull]

I have a security problem with this safeguarding at the Amex, where we are all body searched on entrance. All except those I believe who are under 16. Now if I was one of these nutter terrorist, I have always thought what a great way to get whatever it is the stewards are searching for, into the ground, was to take a youngster under sixteen with you and let them take whatever into the ground. That could even be with some of these fanatics a bomb strapped to the kids body.

Try a couple of pints of Harvey's by the bandstand before you go in, and I guarantee you'll worry less...

 

[surlyseagull]

Kids can be allergic to suncream, could bring on a separate condition in an individual child etc. therefore a school cannot apply a generic bottle of sun cream to every child - medically inadvisable.

So, do the school then hold an individual bottle of suncream for each child? Again, logistically is a teacher seriously supposed to apply sun cream to each of their 30 pupils during a hot day? How do they determine which child had it applied at home?

Parents seem to want to shift responsibility and blame institutions. Apply sun cream before they leave home, send them in with a hat and suitable covering of clothing. Shouldn't be too difficult.

Exactly right ,my wife is a teacher and they cant do right for doing wrong .The school has to constantly contact parents who have not updated their childs medical forms or contact forms and then get abusive parents asking why this or that wasn't done .The responsibility lies with the parents not the teacher to advice what and what shouldn't be given or applied .Her school has a non hand out paracetamol rule, so what do parents do they ring up and give grief to the school or teacher for not giving little Johny or Jilly a tablet that could clearly be bad for them even though they are not sure what they have taken previously...can you imagine the fallout if a child overdosed or became ill .
Re the suncream now this would open up a whole can of worms if the child had a skin infection or was allergic, and believe you me if someone had applied it and the child was hospitalized the teacher would be the first port of call for an abusive parent and then probably the authorities .
A lot of parents are totally irresponsible and couldn't care less ( only have to watch them parking up dangerously ) which in turn makes it bad for the parents that do care.
Parents need to take more responsibility and not take the view that out of site out of mind .
I have seen my wife and other teachers in tears because of abusive parents just because they have followed protocol .....now that makes my fkin blood boil .

 

[Jimmehh]

Is the correct answer.

It's not really is it... How about you re-read the OP...

Clearly says another child at his youngsters school...

 

[bn1&bn3 Albion]

I work in primary schools and as staff (especially male staff) we can't win. We have had parents moan at us after their child fell ill after participating in an after school football club during the winter. Only problem was they sent their kid with no hat, gloves, or a proper coat

I also used to do after school football clubs, half the parents complain because you made them play in the rain(it's football and it's f*cking England..) and the other half would complain if you brought them inside because they paid for their child to play football(which I understood)..

"Safeguarding" really isn't there to protect the child, it's there to protect the adult from being in a situation where they can be accused of something.

 

[fosters headband]

Try a couple of pints of Harvey's by the bandstand before you go in, and I guarantee you'll worry less...

Good idea Bold Seagull, lets not worry about the fact that all major football/sports grounds are on Severe terrorist attack alert warnings and ignore possible ways terrorists can achieve their goals and just have another pint of Harveys. Cheers.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Good idea Bold Seagull, lets not worry about the fact that all major football/sports grounds are on Severe terrorist attack alert warnings and ignore possible ways terrorists can achieve their goals and just have another pint of Harveys. Cheers.

If you are going to worry about an event that is statistically less likely than you dying in your kitchen making your lunch, or in travelling to the stadium, then I will just enjoy the pint (or 3) of Harvey's thanks. I'm honestly more worried about a tit in a van texting while driving than any would be fanatic strapping explosives to a child at the Amex.

 

[fosters headband]

If you are going to worry about an event that is statistically less likely than you dying in your kitchen making your lunch, or in travelling to the stadium, then I will just enjoy the pint (or 3) of Harvey's thanks. I'm honestly more worried about a tit in a van texting while driving than any would be fanatic strapping explosives to a child at the Amex.

Good idea so lets stop all body searches of people going into grounds then. Why do the clubs think it is worth wasting the money on stewards to carry out this function if people have more chance of dying from eating their lunch?.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Good idea so lets stop all body searches of people going into grounds then. Why do the clubs think it is worth wasting the money on stewards to carry out this function if people have more chance of dying from eating their lunch?.

Making their lunch too, although choking on food accounted for over 5000 deaths in 2015, so worry about chewing properly more than terrorists.

The stewards carrying out searches is a show of security to make people feel safe. It demonstrates that you would be taking a risk getting through the turnstile with something you shouldn't be.

To suggest we need to search kids on the way in though, well overboard in my opinion, and completely disproportionate to the risk.

 

[drew]

Good idea so lets stop all body searches of people going into grounds then. Why do the clubs think it is worth wasting the money on stewards to carry out this function if people have more chance of dying from eating their lunch?.

It's surely done for two reason, reassurance to the crowd and as a deterrent. Remember that the Paris bombers failed to get into the Stade de France.

 

[fosters headband]

It's surely done for two reason, reassurance to the crowd and as a deterrent. Remember that the Paris bombers failed to get into the Stade de France.

I do get all that Drew. But what I am saying is that due to safeguarding a determined terrorist could use someone around 15/16 to smuggle anything into the ground. Remember Britain's youngest known terrorist was 14 when he first started. Complacency is always a risk.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...anned-to-behead-his-teachers-court-hears.html