Do we do enough to protect our innocent children?

Answers:
I have just watched something on TV about children and the tight hold upon them by their parents. Parents fear allowing their children to go out on their own.

Frankly I am astounded at the restrictions placed upon children today, what with being driven to school and all.

In my childhood in the 1940s children roamed freely, sometimes miles away from home and were quite safe. On Saturdays I used to go out with school mates and not return home until early evening. I'm talking when I was five or six years old.

By the time I got to 14 I was expected to have chosen a career and by 15 left school and gone away from home. I did exactly that and joined the British Army aged 15 in 1957.

If you so much as glance at a child today you are thought to be some kind of pervert.

The world [UK anyway] has gone mad. If a person is not free as a child, that person will never be free.

---

I do with my own children - but I can't speak for the majority

---

No I do not think so, protection of our children also means giving us the leeway to discipline our kids how we see fit, taking away their playstation isnt discipline, they would simple laugh at us behind out backs. With what our kids can be exposed to in school on the bus, even at a friends house we cant protect them from that,.

---

This is an age old question.

The short answer is no.

Laws do not protect children. Parents do.

Focus on being the best parent you can be. Don't let work or life in general get in your way.

If you can't be a good parent, then don't have children.

Most importantly, don't teach your children fear or suspicion. They will grow up with nothing but both as core values.

It's just that simple.

---

Tha can be an idividualized issue. It kind of is the childs responsibility to be strong willed and protect themselves mentally from other people. Physically, they will gain confidence through sports.

---

Modern society, in the US and UK any way, do way too much. Dred is correct. Kids should be running loose in the street after school and if they don't come home by dinner then they should get a spanking.

---

No, and while they are treat as property instead of as individual people, with the same rights as adults, they will always be second class citizens with second class rights.

---

In short no. I'd rather have cops trailing kids to school instead of writing traffic tickets; I'd rather have vice divisions redirected to investigating and prosecuting child porn cases, I'd like to see life sentences for child pornographers, child rapists, and anyone selling dope to a minor. Once I had my son, my views changed dramatically to mostly intolerant of any actions that are contrary to raising respectful, disciplined and protected children. Even the public schools don't offer enough protection for our kids while they have them in their care. And contrary to some other opinions posted here, I can't teach my son "protection" through ideals. Protection is an external entity that is typically provided to you by someone or something else. Police, a fence, guard dog, neighborhood watch, laws, etc. All I can teach my son is to be aware, avoid dangerous situations and people, and perhaps some self defense.

---

The vast majority of children do not need protecting because they are not in danger! There is no molester on the street corner, there is noting wrong with falling from a tree, or rough housing with friends. Children are now protected too much and we risk raising a generation of babies

---

In some ways, no. When my children were very young, I was shocked to see a woman appearing on a TV programme aimed at the under fives talking about family relationships. She was somebody's wife, somebody else's mum and.wait for it! somebody else's mistress! From their earliest years children are having information thrown at them which it is very hard to cope with. There is no way in which a parent can explain such a relationship to an innocent child without entering into realms which would destroy the child's innocence. At the same time, children are cossetted, discouraged from enjoying what I look back on as the freedom of childhood to explore the world around and protected from the most extraordinary things which from time immemorial children have been able to take in their stride. The latest casualty is the word "c-ock" when applied to a male bird. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...
When I was at school, and long afterwards, children used to sing "Who killed C-ock Robin?" without anyone taking offence. In fact, until the RSPB took this amazing step, it had never occurred to me that there was anything untoward about the word, any more than it occurred to children generally. It strikes me that as a society we are failing them in some areas and being over zealous in others.

I see that Yahoo agrees with the RSPB. Never mind!