I was actually talking 10% as an aim, a target - acceptable losses and such. Do we think a 10% casualty rate is about right? Should we aim for more, or less? Provide your reasoning for a different figure.
It is quite interesting to see the way that anyone who tries to exercise adult judgement and reach a balanced compromise position between excessive risks and excessive protection is promptly accused of shooting people down and painting them as lunatics. Is it going too far to suggest taking a step back, and carefully considering both sides of the issue reasonably? Incidentally if being concerned for the health and welfare of children is 'typically leftist', some of us should take that as a compliment.
Agreed. Banning it is over-kill, and not in a good way. Choice for parents is essential though. Do you have a choice whether you step off a kerb? Is the kerb trying to tackle you? Do you have a choice whether you bathe/shower/etc? Is the bath trying to tackle you? This is a left/right issue? Anyone not overly concerned about their kids is a Tory and anyone trying to wrap them all in cotton wool is a Trotskyite? Is this an economics issue? Are you saying that because you were OK, every other child else is protected? Thanks! How does that work exactly? I spent my childhood covered in scrapes, cuts, bruises (not all of them inflicted by my Dad), sprained ankles, concussions and holes in my hide you could hide your little finger in. As an adult, I have crashed more than one motorcycle whilst in the pursuit of excellence. But now I am really worried - I never played rugby. Am I going to self-destruct, or will I be OK?
I was referring to various previous emotive assertions that lacked any numbers or attempt to offer quantitative substantiation
I don't suggest banning rugby but those teachers supervising need to make sure that the game is being played properly and avoiding accidents Just because you or anyone else hasn't been severely injured doesnt make it right that others are. Proper supervision could mean the difference to one persons life and save them from serious injury I don't mean a scrape or a bump I mean a significant injury I know what a dislocated shoulder feels like and a fractured one I watch my son in pain some days from his neck and shoulders he was 6ft in school being jumped on I told him to get on with it, would I have said that if he had been paralysed I would have gone mad and sued the pants off whoever With proper supervision and guidelines damage is limited and that's really what we should be concerned with we should be asking why 8 boys are injured ranging from broken leg ankle wrist arms shouldn't we?
Some would argue that the health and welfare of a child would be enhanced by playing supervised sport in schools. I would, would you?
There are no statistics they go unrecorded or not recorded how they should be concerning school children Now that's concerning in itself isn't it?
indeed - 'not uncommon, rarely and plenty ( and points in between)' get an airing here, but there don't appear to be any stats proffered to support these bases.
cool.. you lot ban tackling in rugby, the kiwis will carry on as per and good luck in future world cups.. i know we may wind up with more injured kids than we have sheep but try telling a kiwi kid not to play. If a child is being forced to play any sport he/she doesnt want to or is clearly not cut out for, then an adult (be it parent or teacher or who ever) is to blame not the sport. to say a child should stop doing something because of its potential dangers (within reason.. obviously eating broken glass aint too clever) is the same as telling an adult to a large degree... after all there is a huge sector of society that think we are mad for riding bikes and that option should be taken away from us.
