4) The right to roam

For once, I commend an article from the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462091&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
What I liked was the map that showed the geographical area over which 3 generations of children were allowed to move around unsupervised. For this generation it had diminished to almost nothing.
I’ve seen many interviews with parents who when asked as to why they restricted their children’s liberty to roam, usually cite three things: the growth of traffic, making roads more dangerous, the growth of crime and in particular the increasing threat of abduction and murder of children by paedophiles. Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand how children can wheedle their way into your affections and how parents and guardians will want to do all they can to keep them safe. However, when one looks closely at these expressed parental fears then some interesting facts seem relevant.
First, the peak year for children killed in traffic accidents was 1922. I’m not playing with numbers here, I’m not saying relative to the increase in traffic, I mean in absolute numbers; half as many children are killed each year in road accidents today as there were in 1922, despite a 25-fold increase in traffic. The parents of the grandfather in the Daily Mail example should have been more fearful of traffic than the parents of today. Child mortality rates have consistently fallen since 1900 and continue to fall http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=952
In 2002 there did seem to be evidence of increasing child abduction. It jumped by 45% in a single year. However, as a Home Office briefing subsequently explained http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r225.pdf this was closely linked to a change in the way the Police understood and recorded this crime. According to the NSPCC child murder has been constant, for at least 30 years, at the rate of 79 per year.
Why don’t these facts influence parents? I can well believe that panic is stoked by a sensationalist national press and TV. For example, the coverage of events such as the disappearance of Madeline McCann is probably part of the reason for this besieged mentality.
But, for me it still leaves open the question as to why people are apparently so susceptible? I think it has something to do with a changing consciousness about death. In short, I don’t think our modern consumer society can cope with it. I’m not saying it was a trivial matter to loose a child a hundred years ago, but it was not unexpected or unbelievable. Whether through disease, warfare or childbirth, the death of your children was part of life. You didn’t welcome it but you prepared for the possibility and then coped when it happened. I know from my own family history this was why ordinary Victorian families began giving their children two or more forenames; so that in the event of a child’s death the family forename, as well as the family surname, would continue. For example, my great grand father’s name was William Thomas Twineham, his older brother William Albert Twineham died in 1916 at the battle of the Somme. Consequently, despite the older son’s death, a William Twineham went on to the next generation. Compared to them, the modern western consumer seems ill prepared. When faced with the possibility of unwanted outcomes we panic and barricade the doors.
The result seems to be a generation of children who will be less prepared to cope in the world when they eventually have to take flight. Also, keeping children locked up in the home might not even work in the short-term. Remember, most sexual abuse of children is carried out by adult male family and friends. As a child you might well be better off taking your chances, with other children in the woods, than being home alone with your uncle!