Do you agree with tracking kids via implant chip?

[hongman]

There has been a spate of attempted and successful kidnapping in my small town recently and I started this debate with my peers - just wanted to see what the opinions on here were.

As a father of 2 young children (3 and 7) I would opt to have it done in a heartbeat. As far as I can tell any negative points are far outweighed by the benefits.

We spoke about GPS trackers which you can get commercially now, but the issue is they are portable and can be discarded/lost/forgotten about in day to day life, which would render them useless.

The next step was small implants. Nothing like this exists that I am aware of (at least to the general public). The stipulation was the parent/guardian(s) would have sole control over the device until X age when the then-teen could opt to have it turned off / removed if they wished.

So, would you or wouldn't you? If not, why?

[Messie]

Absolutely not, never, no way, not in a million years!

It is a total infringement on their rights as human beings, however little (as human beings) they may be.

It is our responsibility, no duty, to protect them from harm; it is not our right to treat them like animals. It is our responsibility as a society to ensure they are all in a safe environment. Tagging them or branding them with identities if you like, as someone's property, is not the answer and maybe reminiscent of earlier times.

I started writing a whole essay in answer to your question, but gave up. My feelings against it are so strong that it wouldn't be a considered answer.

[Geodude]

If they were 'chipped' the evil part of society would quickly find a way round it sadly.

[grimey121uk]

Maybe we should wrap every child up in bubble wrap as being knocked down poses a far greater risk to children than someone snatching them. Seriously though **** happens, if we were to protect everyone against everything the life would be pointless.

[hongman]

I do see your point (and this is not going to be a flame thread) - reality is its not even an option so I just wanted opinions so to speak, see if there is anything I am missing.

Sal, I get where you're coming from, and that is the one thing that has cropped up over and over again - human rights and big brother type society.

I also whole heartedly agree -it is our duties as parents to watch our kids and ensure a safe environment.

But sometimes it really does feel out of our control.

For instance, yesterday the school sent out letters warning parents that 2 men in a white transit van have been repeatedly reported to have tried luring children in. Not long ago there were several incidents of similar happenings to kids playing outside their own houses.

There is current uprage that the local plod haven't made an appearance even as a deterrent outside said school.

So, while we can do our best to keep eye to our kids, reality is short of stalking them every waking hour, sometimes they are out of sight (literally) where these evils may befall them.

Maybe my judgement is clouded by emotion but the thought of someone taking my kids is right up there with the worst things that could ever happen. If I knew I could if need be, track their location, why should I not be allowed to? Is that selfish? Is this intrusion of privacy not worth it for the sake of being able to save my child should it happen?

[hongman]

Maybe we should wrap every child up in bubble wrap as being knocked down poses a far greater risk to children than someone snatching them. Seriously though **** happens, if we were to protect everyone against everything the life would be pointless.

This is not wrapping them up in cotton wool imo. Not letting them play out in case they get hurt, that is.

This allows them normal freedom, with the added security that should something bad happen, chances of recovery is much greater.

We arent talking about a cut on the knee - this is abduction, seriously life threatening.

There are elderly with certain diseases which have trackers attached in case they go wandering. Already out and in use today.

Is this also wrong then?

[andrewsmith]

No no no!!

Ever read 1984?

[grimey121uk]

This is not wrapping them up in cotton wool imo. Not letting them play out in case they get hurt, that is.

This allows them normal freedom, with the added security that should something bad happen, chances of recovery is much greater.


We arent talking about a cut on the knee - this is abduction, seriously life threatening.

There are elderly with certain diseases which have trackers attached in case they go wandering. Already out and in use today.

Is this also wrong then?

You did ask for opinions so I presented mine.
In this situation I would wait outside the school and give these guys a good kick in.

Kids being run over is also life threatening and pretty common so the solution to save a few lives would be to not allow the remaining 10 million children play out!

[Sid Squid]

In the event of an abduction I suspect the only thing an implanted tracker guarantees is an injury from a home surgery attempt at removal, or possibly several if it can't be located immediately, plus maybe gangrene or perhaps bleeding to death, anyway I don't think a hospital visit will be on the kidnappers agenda.

One downside of mass media is the erroneous sense that rare occurrences are commonplace, and that extreme circumstances are realistic fears. We've never lived in safer times and as a society we've never been more paranoid.

[Messie]

In the event of an abduction I suspect the only thing an implanted tracker guarantees is an injury from a home surgery attempt at removal, or possibly several if it can't be located immediately, plus maybe gangrene or perhaps bleeding to death, anyway I don't think a hospital visit will be on the kidnappers agenda.

One downside of mass media is the erroneous sense that rare occurrences are commonplace, and that extreme circumstances are realistic fears. We've never lived in safer times and as a society we've never been more paranoid.


Totally agree with both points.

In addition it is our responsibility as parents/guardians etc to teach our children the skills that are necessary to keep themselves as far as possible out of danger. Even very young kids can learn that going off with strangers is the wrong thing to do.
If we've chipped our kids then it's something else to blame if something goes wrong.

[Fallout]

Hong, the 'spate of kidnappings' still accounts for less than 1 millionth of the child population (approx). So if you want to protect against all 1 in a millionth scenarios or greater, I will happily start a list:

- Getting run over (wrap in bubble wrap or put in inflatable sphere)
- Falling out of trees (permanent harness and rope attachment)
- Drowning when swimming (install bionic lungs)
- Getting struck by lighting (apply rubber skull cap)
- Being stabbed or otherwise murdered on the streets (flak jackets)

The list goes on ...

[Fallout]

Double post

[hongman]

You did ask for opinions so I presented mine.
In this situation I would wait outside the school and give these guys a good kick in.

Kids being run over is also life threatening and pretty common so the solution to save a few lives would be to not allow the remaining 10 million children play out!

Yep - and I'm not slating you for it! But could you really wait outside the school every single day in case it happens?

In the event of an abduction I suspect the only thing an implanted tracker guarantees is an injury from a home surgery attempt at removal, or possibly several if it can't be located immediately, plus maybe gangrene or perhaps bleeding to death, anyway I don't think a hospital visit will be on the kidnappers agenda.

One downside of mass media is the erroneous sense that rare occurrences are commonplace, and that extreme circumstances are realistic fears. We've never lived in safer times and as a society we've never been more paranoid.

Very good points - if it became common place then yes I'd imagine it could cause more issues if "home removal" were attempted.

While I agree on the second point, in this case I do so with reservation. Please explain if known abductors are roaming about looking for targets shouldn't be cause for fear/worry?

The main uproar so to speak is not about something happening in a town hundred of miles away, but within a small community in a town. I dont think mass media has much to play in this part?

Totally agree with both points.

In addition it is our responsibility as parents/guardians etc to teach our children the skills that are necessary to keep themselves as far as possible out of danger. Even very young kids can learn that going off with strangers is the wrong thing to do.
If we've chipped our kids then it's something else to blame if something goes wrong.

Yes Sal but kids are just that much more easily manipulated or misguided, however sensible they may normally be. Also physically weaker to resist being picked up and lobbed in the back of a van.

Am I coming across as an over-paranoid parent here?

[454697819]

Totally agree with both points.

In addition it is our responsibility as parents/guardians etc to teach our children the skills that are necessary to keep themselves as far as possible out of danger. Even very young kids can learn that going off with strangers is the wrong thing to do.
If we've chipped our kids then it's something else to blame if something goes wrong.

Do you not see it as a technological safety advancement, like sterilising, or stair gates or plug covers,

Ill sit on the fence on this one, but I couldn't blame parents for having it done, would I do it ... dunno I like my pointy fence..

[hongman]

Hong, the 'spate of kidnappings' still accounts for less than 1 millionth of the child population (approx). So if you want to protect against all 1 in a millionth scenarios or greater, I will happily start a list:

- Getting run over (wrap in bubble wrap or put in inflatable sphere)
- Falling out of trees (permanent harness and rope attachment)
- Drowning when swimming (install bionic lungs)
- Getting struck by lighting (apply rubber skull cap)
- Being stabbed or otherwise murdered on the streets (flak jackets)

The list goes on ...

I am fully aware that this is probably going to come across as clouded judgement but:

These reports from the last year til now are all from the same town, and the most recent happening at the school my son attends.

Stats dont look so pacifying now right?

[pookie]

Are you chipping to find them , in which case you would need some sort of power source that would be give a strong enough signal. If you intend to chip them for id purposes like a cat or a dog you would need people to scan each and every child out and about which would possibly cause invasion of privacy and data protection issues.

The idea of chipping / tracking children should not be a solution that absolves the parents / guardians of care and responsibility. There are risks out there no matter how small and as an adult its your responsibility is to assess the situation.

[hongman]

To all the people who say no, please answer this:

Is your opinion the same for the elderly or people who have otherwise reduced capability to look after themselves who already have these fitted? (not implants of course, but portable ones which can detect falls, locate, alarm, etc)

[hongman]

Are you chipping to find them , in which case you would need some sort of power source that would be give a strong enough signal. If you intend to chip them for id purposes like a cat or a dog you would need people to scan each and every child out and about which would possibly cause invasion of privacy and data protection issues.

The idea of chipping / tracking children should not be a solution that absolves the parents / guardians of care and responsibility. There are risks out there no matter how small and as an adult its your responsibility is to assess the situation.

We are definitely talking for location only in this scenario, and yes there are technological barriers I am aware of - I am merely hypothesising.

Not talking about ID'ing each child and scanning them, no.

[pookie]

As with the elderly do they not have a choice to have them / use them as opposed to chipping which is semi permanent. I guess tagging them like criminals might give children the wrong idea ;)

[Bibio]

there is a bit of a simple solution to this but it takes dedication from parents.

adult watch. adults are placed at points along the way to/from the school to watch the kids. adults are equipped with panic horns and mobile phones. you could even get your local neighbourhood watch to join in and look out windows.

also educating the kids to make as much fuss as possible in the event and to be made aware to look out for situations.

[hongman]

The choice would be there for parents as well. Would the kids have a choice? Put bluntly, in my scenario, no.

Parents make important decisions on behalf of their kids everyday. Immunisation jabs, etc. This would be no different in that sense.

When they were old enough they could opt to have it removed/disabled whatever.

I am really not talking about treating them like animals, or absolving parents of responsibility. That is not the goal here!

[_Stretchie_]

Not talking about ID'ing each child and scanning them, no.

But if each child is not ID'd as a result of the device then how would you know which one you are looking for?

[Drew Carey]

I don't have kids but think this is wrong to even be contemplated.

Technologically - until they develop a self powered beacon that has a power life of 16 years, is the size of a grain of rice and has no side effects.....not possible.

Legally - I very much doubt this is possible without worldwide changes to legislation.

Ethically - this appears to be the main argument here. I personally think it is the responsibility of the parents & schools to educate children correctly. It is then the responsibilty of local govt and the police to ensure there are relevant safety measures in place. Ie more Camera's outside schools, increased neighbourhood watch etc.

Will this stop this entirely, no, but we cannot live our lives permanently in fear etc. When I was growing up and the same goes for most of the young ones in my family now, I would never have been out "playing" in an open area etc with my friends at such a young age. If it means parents have to pick children up from school etc until a later age, then so be it. I always knew if I wanted to play with mates etc, it was always on the street I lived in view of my house etc. If I wanted to play further afield, I was walked there by parents or elder brother.

Is this approach always possible with peoples working hour's etc? No, the answer.....change your routine or working hours to make a safer environment for your child......after all, as has been said, they are your responsibility to keep safe - not that of some govt run detection team scanning all kids etc.

As per Sids comment, any system WOULD be mis-treated, would act as a homing beacon to all the deviants, helping them target children more. If you think such a system could be created which would never be abused, then that to me is simple naivety.

[Bibio]

just had a thought. the very same technology could be used to pinpoint children by these scum so it would make their job even easier.

[punyXpress]

There are elderly with certain diseases which have trackers attached in case they go wandering. Already out and in use today.

Is this also wrong then?

JUST what I want to save getting lost on rideouts!

The other end of the equation is how 'society' deals with the deviants:
The rate at which accusations come out of the woodwork appear to reveal decades of episodes being brushed under the carpet - even to the extent of very high officers in the Church, Police and Education totally ignoring the duty of their position and as a ( supposed ) human being.
If convictions are secured, sentences are ridiculously light, and have been for the last four decades.
Many years ago we were burgled and my feelings regarding the lads who did it would not bear repeating. A few years later it transpired that the 'special' school the attended was little more than a ready supply of young boys for the perverse delight of the staff. It was rotten to the core, and to this day, two branches of the Catholic Church argue incaoury that they are not responsible, passing the blame to each other, just as they did the little innocent children.
They are beneath contempt!

[hongman]

Drew, yes I am really only talking about ethically here, at this point little or no interest in legality so to speak, how it would be funded, etc. Technology doesn't exist as far as I know.

Just wanted people's thoughts on the concept of an idea.

[Viney]

Absolutely not, never, no way, not in a million years!

It is a total infringement on their rights as human beings, however little (as human beings) they may be.

It is our responsibility, no duty, to protect them from harm; it is not our right to treat them like animals. It is our responsibility as a society to ensure they are all in a safe environment. Tagging them or branding them with identities if you like, as someone's property, is not the answer and maybe reminiscent of earlier times.

I started writing a whole essay in answer to your question, but gave up. My feelings against it are so strong that it wouldn't be a considered answer.
You're unsure, i can tell ;)

[yorkie_chris]

Absolutely not, never, no way, not in a million years!

It is a total infringement on their rights as human beings, however little (as human beings) they may be.

It is our responsibility, no duty, to protect them from harm; it is not our right to treat them like animals. It is our responsibility as a society to ensure they are all in a safe environment. Tagging them or branding them with identities if you like, as someone's property, is not the answer and maybe reminiscent of earlier times.

I started writing a whole essay in answer to your question, but gave up. My feelings against it are so strong that it wouldn't be a considered answer.

Holy sh*t I agree with Messie. :o



When would this tracking thing go on till? 18? How are you supposed to have a bit of a laugh going where you're not supposed to and actually grow up!? "No of course we're not going to the pub", you want to try and make your kids into zombies?!

[gruntygiggles]

No, I don't think there would be any point in this whatsoever.

Would it be a deterrent? No. The kind of people that do this sort of thing will still do it. What you may find as a result of the possibility that a child has a tracking device implanted is that the child will be "used" and killed in a much shorter time frame. Would it make it easier for the family through the expedited finding of the body? Probably, but that won't make it any better in the long run for them.

Should the kidnapper want the child to keep and raise as their own, the possibility of an implant will only mean that it would be likely that you, as a parent have taken a step that would mean that your child would be subjected to having that implant removed, probably by untrained hands...it's not as if a kidnapper could have it done at the local outpatients centre is it?

Would it be easy to locate the child using the device if the child should be kidnapped? No. Not necessarily. Again, the kind of people that will do this, will do it regardless of the measures put in place to protect against it. It would not be that difficult for them to scramble any signal being sent or received by any implant, rendering it useless anyway.

What worries me most about this idea though is that whilst Hong, you and other responsible parents would be doing it for all the right reasons, where there is a perception of protection, complacency can set in. We are all aware that there are less than great parents in the world and for them, a device like this could mean an excuse not to have to bother getting off the sofa to collect their child from school etc. In that respect, such a device could actually help the scum of society that pray on these children as it may mean that more of them are left to walk alone.

Parents are responsible for their children, period. No device can replace good parenting. Yes, occasionally a child slips through the gaps and the most awful things happen, but the chances of that are so small that no such drastic action should be warranted.

It is awful for the families of children that have been taken, but there will never be a time on this earth where it will not happen on very rare occasions. The best we can do as a society is take responsibility for our children, animals, loved ones etc and not expect anything or anyone else to replace that in any way, shape or form.

[hongman]

If there were a like button, I would have clicked it.

[davepreston]

if god forbid i ever have children, they WILL be lowjacked

[BoltonSte]

Hong, I'd say no personally...although I do have certain fears about my young son...however, as this spate of attempted abductions has evidently bothered you, are you sure it's actually going on?

We had similar many years ago, yet it was always at another school and someone's cousins sister nephew...like yours it even went as far as letters home. But it was a load of ******** and was an urban myth that had been perpetuated by over protective parents that had lobbied the schools enough wondering why nothing had been done.

Try and find someone it has suposedly happened to, and then ask again and see if it's really the case and not just some scare mongering and the local authority having to be seen to do something.

Ste

[Spank86]

I'd say no, I dont have kids but when I do I'd like to think I'll give them a sporting chance and microchips would make hunting them too easy.

[Messie]

Hong - I do understand you are only contemplating this out of deep love and care for your children. I'm only arging the opposite point of view because (as well as being wrong, in my view) I think it may be harmful to the quality of responsibility we take for our children if we start thinking about relying on technology for their safety.

For the record, I also believe it is equally wrong to do it for adults who are vulnerable due to disease or condition. I hate the idea that trackers are used on them. It's the same scenario - it is up to the responsible adults to provide the utmost protection

[Messie]

Oh and YC - I knew you'd get there one day ;) x

[Biker Biggles]

I dont agree with it either.Despite this sort of technology offering some huge benefits(especially with whats all over the news today)I feel the 1984esqe implications are so great as to make it a big no no.

[missyburd]

Parents are responsible for their children, period. No device can replace good parenting. Yes, occasionally a child slips through the gaps and the most awful things happen, but the chances of that are so small that no such drastic action should be warranted.

It is awful for the families of children that have been taken, but there will never be a time on this earth where it will not happen on very rare occasions. The best we can do as a society is take responsibility for our children, animals, loved ones etc and not expect anything or anyone else to replace that in any way, shape or form.

Well said that woman.

For every unfortunate child who ends up in a kidnapper's hands there are many more who sail through life none the wiser about what could have happened to them. It is your duty as a parent to educate your child. The old "never accept sweets from strangers" was imprinted on my brain from a very young age. My mother was hugely overprotective, I wasn't allowed to play out as a child and could only go to other kid's houses if she was there. I don't hold it against her, that was how she chose to bring me up and it's all part of how I am today. I can't see that she would ever have condoned a chipping idea, it was bad enough getting her to agree to have me vaccinated against certain diseases because of what they were and weren't putting into me through the needle. Of course as a parent you can let paranoia get the better of you and go too far, I think this chipping would be an example of that. If you let yourself be ruled by fear it will consume you and nobody will benefit from that least of all the child you are trying to protect.

No family should live in fear but there are plenty of steps that can be taken to ensure the safety of your children. It is only because families appear to have become complacent that it appears abduction is on the increase, the b*stards will take advantage of any weakness that a parent has, they prey on the weak like any other predator out there. Look at how animals behave in the wild. A mother wildebeest who turns her back for a second will have her calf snatched from under her nose, yet with safety in numbers in a herd the risk is massively reduced. Bibio's adult watch is a great idea, many eyes will see off the feckers.

[Spank86]

For the record, I also believe it is equally wrong to do it for adults who are vulnerable due to disease or condition. I hate the idea that trackers are used on them. It's the same scenario - it is up to the responsible adults to provide the utmost protection
I've got a tracker in my work van ostensibly for my own safety.

To make sure I'm not dead in a ditch somewhere when I'm supposed to be working hard. There have been the odd report of motorcyclists and other road users who've vanished and been found days (or more later) in ditches, alive or otherwise.

To be honest it's like most technology, it'd depend on how it's used but from a purely voluntary perspective I'm all for its availability to give parents an option.

[yorkie_chris]

I've got a tracker in my work van ostensibly for my own safety.

Yeah reet!

[Spank86]

They ring me up occasionally to ask why I'm stopped on the motorway not at my customer.

I ask them if they've ever heard of this thing called a bridge, marvellous invention.

[widepants]

They ring me up occasionally to ask why I'm stopped on the motorway not at my customer.

I ask them if they've ever heard of this thing called a bridge, marvellous invention.
BB is watching you , tracking your every move , speed , etc .The next step will be a hidden cam to count the amount of times you pick your nose

[hardhat_harry]

When I read the OP it made me feel slightly sick that someone would contemplate such a thing, what a society we have become.

Searching for the bogeyman round every corner is the way goverment control the masses.

[widepants]

or the way religion has done it over the years

[missyburd]

They ring me up occasionally to ask why I'm stopped on the motorway not at my customer.

I ask them if they've ever heard of this thing called a bridge, marvellous invention.
Lol. I believe bus drivers have a similar device installed in their buses to make sure they are not stopping too long and having breaks when not permitted, as well as fuel monitors (and no, not the fuel gauges) to determine whether or not they are wrongfully using too much fuel. Not too sure on the last bit, I had a conversation with an irate bus driver once who was ranting about how regimented it all was.

[hongman]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm not as steadfast on the idea now, having read what other people have to say with some very good points.

Ste, I'll see if I can find some definite proof. although I fear that might make things worse ;)

[hardhat_harry]

There are approx 60+ million people in this country and roughly about 5 - 10 abductions per year. I would imagine the %age per head of population abducted is about the same as in the 70's, 80's and 90's but we were allowed to go out unsupervised and play until dark.

Now with the 24hr news media sensationalising every story many in the population are paranoid therefore control is increased and liberty is reduced, goverments and big business like this, easier to control.

[davepreston]

i can see some of the problems people have with it, but id defo have it done
happy 16th birthday here is the code to get your tracker turned off
30 if its a daughter

[Biker Biggles]

There are approx 60+ million people in this country and roughly about 5 - 10 abductions per year. I would imagine the %age per head of population abducted is about the same as in the 70's, 80's and 90's but we were allowed to go out unsupervised and play until dark.

Now with the 24hr news media sensationalising every story many in the population are paranoid therefore control is increased and liberty is reduced, goverments and big business like this, easier to control.

Now thats a very cynical view.
Completely correct though:(

[widepants]

whats next....tracking our other halves .














hang on!!! thats actually one for Mr Kyle

[davepreston]

whats next....tracking our other halves .














hang on!!! thats actually one for Mr Kyle

what you dont already?
the sat time was going to cost a fortune but a case of whisky squared way a mate at box so all is well

[flymo]

This is a really interesting thread to consider, in my opinion there are strong benefits to both chipping and not chipping.

From the point of view of locating something of great value to you, what could be more valuable than your children. I wouldn't think twice about chipping a valuable car, why not my child?

But, there are a couple of things that are important here;

How would the technology actually work?, in practice these things are far too big for human insertion. As mentioned, today pet chips etc require close scanning to locate them as they are not self powered and they do not transmit over any distance. Outside of Spooks and James Bond these miniature trackers do not exist in a small enough form factor yet. This prevents them being used to locate a person over a wide area. Who would have access to the information if they did exist? Is there any risk to them being tracked or altered by an unauthorised person?

Fear and over reliance on the safeguards. I do not think that the world is packed full of people roaming around looking to abduct children. I do not want my children to grow up thinking that they cannot trust anybody, but personally I try to equip them with the skills necessary to make the right decisions about who to trust and who not.

A tracker cannot replace the parental responsibility to supervise children. If the child is young enough that they need constant supervision then that should be the job of the parent.

I'm pretty sure that one day there will be improvement in the technology, and changes in attitude towards the risks of tracking such that we will see use of this type. We already have apps that can do this on our smartphones, some people even use them.

[Spank86]

I seem to remeber reading something about a wifi SD card?

One day might not be so far off as all that.

[flymo]

I seem to remeber reading something about a wifi SD card?

One day might not be so far off as all that.

Wifi SD cards exist today, but they are plugged into devices like cameras etc for power and have limited range. The cards themselves in isolation do nothing.

[Spank86]

Wifi SD cards exist today, but they are plugged into devices like cameras etc for power and have limited range. The cards themselves in isolation do nothing.

my point was that these things shrink pretty quickly and the main stumbling block seems to be the space required for power.

If there was for some reason a massive demand for it I could see it becoming reality within a few years however since I doubt there would be I'm sure it'll take a little longer to be viable.

[flymo]

yep, totally agree. I wasn't suggesting that it isn't possible, more that there is a belief that miniature satellite tracking devices exist that are small enough to be inserted under the skin and that just isn't true yet.

[Spank86]

yeah, I think satellite tracking would be a LONG way off.

a miniature mobile phone might be a bit closer though. I remember how small pagers were although they only had to receive.

[Sid Squid]

I wouldn't think twice about chipping a valuable car, why not my child?
Because a car, (however dear to you it may be :D), is property, children aren't.

[Lozzo]

Because a car, (however dear to you it may be :D), is property, children aren't.

Until they are are 18 you own their bodies within the law, but you never own their minds.

[-Ralph-]

Hong clearly stated in the OP that the technology wasn't available and that this was a hypothetical discussion if it did exist, and so any discussion on the technology is just unnecessary derail IMO.

I also find this isn't a good forum to discuss these things as the majority of regular posters are not parents.

A few questions if I may...

What human rights / civil liberties would a child, let's say for sake of argument less than 12 years old, loose as a result of this hypothetical technology? I haven't done much thinking, but I can't think of any just now.

Why is it different to the thousands of parents who already use smartphone GPS technology to track their kids (and the kids are instructed by their parents to keep the phone with them and switched on at a times)? Should these parents be stopped?

I understand the arguments over it making some parents complacent, but if that's the case then the child is probably not properly supervised already and is at some level of higher risk already.

Never mind abductions which are very rare, I remember how often as a child I ended up on a strangers shoulders touring a shopping centre searching the crowd for my mummy. I know how often now I hear, 'could the parents of little Johnny please come to the information desk' over the tannoy. I also know as a parent the horror/panic that pulses through you when you turn around from talking to a shop assistant for 20 seconds and they've gone.

I also know how often it goes quiet outside and I have to interrupt my work and leave my desk go to the windows of my house to check my son hasn't left the property through the front gate posts (which is set as his boundary but they don't always do as they are told! I will put electric gates on eventually but I haven't lived in the property for long)

Overall, especially for a younger child, I'm seeing more benefits than disadvantages.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[Sid Squid]

Until they are are 18 you own their bodies within the law.
I appreciate that, still doesn't make them property as such.

[Messie]

Until they are are 18 you own their bodies within the law, but you never own their minds.

I'm not entirely sure about that: a) you 'own' their bodies? and b) until 18?

In Law children are morally responsible for their actions from the age of 12 (given certain limitations), although parents can still be held responsible for things like attendance at school.
As for their bodies, well, it's not simple. If a parent of a certain type of belief decided, on the basis of that belief, to withhold lifesaving treatment, then the courts would take over the 'ownership of that child's body.

But, fundamentally, children are not property. They are living thinking things entrusted to our care until they can take care of themselves (or not, as they wish)

[Biker Biggles]

I own my dogs,but its still illegal to mistreat them.
As for what human rights might be infringed I take the point,but perhaps forcing a pseudo medical intervention on a child without need?
The real issue here though as with most new technology is where it leads.Preventing children being molested now rapidly becomes Orwellian surveillance for all as it becomes possible.

[Messie]

No, I'm not talking about a pseudo medical intervention. I mean when a parent refuses a medically necessary blood transfusion, for example because of religious beliefs

[-Ralph-]

My child at his current age 'belongs' to me and my wife, and until we deem him old enough to make his own decisions, he will only do what we decide is appropriate. At the age of 5 we deem him old enough to make such decisions as whether he wants fish fingers or chicken nuggets with his happy meal. He is actively encouraged to have his own views, to make certain decisions, and to have his own personality, so he is absolutely an individual in his own right, though I may influence and mould that personality as I see fit and it's my responsibility as a parent to do so - but he is not feral, he is still 'belongs' to me and he still lives under my roof, by my rules and he does not have a choice in the matter.

Does that make him 'property'? I don't know, I'd need to Google a definition of the word property. It certainly gives me the right to GPS track him, if that's what I saw fit to do.

I already know where he is at all times, and I have a right to know. If technology was used as tool to assist with that, I what's the problem?

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk

[Bluefish]

There are approx 60+ million people in this country and roughly about 5 - 10 abductions per year.
Numbers are a bit low there i reckon. What about the teenagers abducted for sex work, the parents that take the kid/s to other countries without the legal carer's permission and never get them back?

[Spank86]

Property's probably a bad word however accurate just for the image it puts in people's minds.

Unfortunately I can't think of a more accurate one.

There are other things that are property which the government can remove from our possession or restrict our rights to so that doesn't necessary change things.

[-Ralph-]

The government can remove or restrict our rights to our children if we don't look after them properly.

[missyburd]

Never mind abductions which are very rare, I remember how often as a child I ended up on a strangers shoulders touring a shopping centre searching the crowd for my mummy. I know how often now I hear, 'could the parents of little Johnny please come to the information desk' over the tannoy. I also know as a parent the horror/panic that pulses through you when you turn around from talking to a shop assistant for 20 seconds and they've gone.

That's just brought a memory back, when my mum lost me in Morrisons (I must have beeen what, 6?) and I was running down all the aisles looking for her...someone ended up taking me to the desk and calling over the tannoy. I still remember that fear.

[Spank86]

The government can remove or restrict our rights to our children if we don't look after them properly.

Exactly, and I was thinking some people might see that as a reason not to consider them property.

[Bibio]

just get the kids to commit crimes then they will get their own little tracking device for free and if the one of them goes missing you can bet your hat that the police will be interested in finding them :-)

[flymo]

Because a car, (however dear to you it may be :D), is property, children aren't.

I see your point, but I meant that question in a way that implied we were referring to something of high value to me, not just financially either.

My point was that if I value a car enough to consider tracking it somehow, then I certainly value my child at a higher level and that this somehow might cause me to want to track it should it leave my side.

I don't think I would expect my child to have anything medically inserted, especially given todays technical limitations. But think about it, how different is this from say wearing a name tag or tracker bracelet in hospital as is sometimes done in maternity units?

[Owenski]

I agree with Harry, I agree with messie both your reasonings seem well formed even pre considered I don't fault the views at all but some how I'd still do it though if the option were there to have it done.
2 reasons:
1, it'd be 'the norm' no child would be traumatised by it and still the 99.99% who never get abducted would ever give it a second thought but for those 0.01% who do go missing and pray mommy and daddy will find them you can bet your **** that mum and dad would have paid a million times what ever it cost in the first place if they'd have known one day it may actually be vital to reuniting them with their child.
2, my duty is to protect my children both from physiological threats and physical ones. In the same way I've chipped my dog I do not think it paranoid or over protective, I never expect her to run away or be dognapped but with the option to have it or not I would consider it irresponsible of me to opt out.

[BoltonSte]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm not as steadfast on the idea now, having read what other people have to say with some very good points.

Ste, I'll see if I can find some definite proof. although I fear that might make things worse ;)

It would be interesting to see what you dig up...I hope it is what I think or you'll end up following your kids everywhere tooled up just in case:D

[MisterTommyH]

Just had a conversation in the chip shop re this. Local kid has been knocked over and hurt, and conversation turned to the current search in Wales with someone commenting "What are they doing letting a kid out until half 7" (I think it's relevant to this).

I took issue with the comment.

"We played out until that time just down the road from this chippy"
"yeah but it's not the same now"
"why isn't it?"
"look at whats happening in Wales".

There was a report on TV recently that was saying how kids these days don't get to play and explore like we all did. In it they quoted research that stated that statistically there are no more incidents of abduction, molestation, dis-appearance, injury etc than there were when 'we' were all playing out. It's just that we all hear about it in the media now, and far more quickly with rolling 24 hour coverage.

Yes, parents have a duty to protect their children, but does this have to be at the expense of letting them live their lives? Exploring the next street. The den in the woods (which now turns out to be about 3 trees). We all moan about kids these days being lazy, just playing computer games. And we've all seen the reports about increased obesity etc..... is this due to u being more careful?

Of course there should be control/limits. At one age I was allowed to the corner of the street. Then at another to the next street. Then to the top of the the hill but never over the main road. And there was always a time to be back by, and god help me if I wasn't. I also got my **** tanned for walking off in Newquay once.

Without these freedoms, how will kids learn about adventure, how to look after themselves.... how to look after their kids?

At this point it's worth pointing out that I don't have any kids, but I'd hope I stick to these views when I have.

[Spank86]

Just had a conversation in the chip shop re this.

See flymo, I told you the technology would catch up!

[yorkie_chris]

I agree with Harry, I agree with messie both your reasonings seem well formed even pre considered I don't fault the views at all but some how I'd still do it though if the option were there to have it done.
2 reasons:
1, it'd be 'the norm' no child would be traumatised by it and still the 99.99% who never get abducted would ever give it a second thought but for those 0.01% who do go missing and pray mommy and daddy will find them you can bet your **** that mum and dad would have paid a million times what ever it cost in the first place if they'd have known one day it may actually be vital to reuniting them with their child.
2, my duty is to protect my children both from physiological threats and physical ones. In the same way I've chipped my dog I do not think it paranoid or over protective, I never expect her to run away or be dognapped but with the option to have it or not I would consider it irresponsible of me to opt out.

But there's a point where it starts to infringe in freedom, if some mental had tried to electronically tag me at 12-13 years old then it would have been a big FU and probably been dug out with a screwdriver!

All the grammar school kids I knew with mentally over protective parents engaging in surveillance... were the biggest nutters and problem cases, as soon as they got any freedom went nuts.
You must have seen all lads on their first nights away at uni/6th form partys/whatever making nuggets of themselves where everyone who had had a decent upbringing had got decently well practiced at binge drinking by the age of 14 or so.

[Spank86]

Kitkat wrapper over the implant area if my parents had done it.

[missyburd]

There was a report on TV recently that was saying how kids these days don't get to play and explore like we all did. In it they quoted research that stated that statistically there are no more incidents of abduction, molestation, dis-appearance, injury etc than there were when 'we' were all playing out. It's just that we all hear about it in the media now, and far more quickly with rolling 24 hour coverage.


There was an interesting bit in Countryfile week before last about this very same thing and how the National Trust are planning to introduce schemes whereby kids can enjoy the outdoors while still under some supervision. It is very sad indeed that kids cannot play outdoors as freely as used to be the norm. It's a great shame that an abduction has occurred in mid Wales, in a place well out in the sticks where you wouldn't think it would happen but perhaps those are the very same grounds for why it took place anyway.

[widepants]

I'm not entirely sure about that: a) you 'own' their bodies? and b) until 18?

In Law children are morally responsible for their actions from the age of 12 (given certain limitations), although parents can still be held responsible for things like attendance at school.

According to the police officer that came round mine last week the age is 10 and not 12 .

[Spank86]

I think the age of criminal responsibility phases in depending on the crime or something, was reading something the other day that suggested it wasn't a clear cut age for all things anyway.

[Owenski]

But there's a point where it starts to infringe in freedom, if some mental had tried to electronically tag me at 12-13 years old then it would have been a big FU and probably been dug out with a screwdriver!

All the grammar school kids I knew with mentally over protective parents engaging in surveillance... were the biggest nutters and problem cases, as soon as they got any freedom went nuts.
You must have seen all lads on their first nights away at uni/6th form partys/whatever making nuggets of themselves where everyone who had had a decent upbringing had got decently well practised at binge drinking by the age of 14 or so.

I indeed know the kids you mean, I went to a Grammar School and as one of the "free to roam" kids I saw how clueless the "not allowed off the drive" kids were. I honestly don't disagree with the core of the 1984 argument but in honesty if the tech was readily available I still know I would opt to use it.

Perhaps its because I know I wouldn't be the sort to use it to stalk my kid, I wouldn't turn it on at 9.01 if they were meant to be back at 9.00. I wouldn't turn it on if I get a phone call saying "Dad can I stay at Jasons tonight" just to check he is actually where he said.
I appreciate the need for kids to push the envelope and learn the limits. I know they need to fall out of trees and have the fear of death put into them when they forget to check the road before crossing and a car beeps.
I know this and I understand the importance of it for taking a child and turning them into a young adult.
Like I said with the chip in the dog having it doesn't mean I expect to ever need to use it, however its nice to know that should I ever discover they were not where they were meant to be. Within a reasonable time frame of when I expected them to be there then my chances of been reunited with them become significantly increased by having chosen to have the chip implanted.
Or to look at it another way, lets pretend its 20years from now and these tracker chips are common place. A kid goes missing and on the news 2 parents hold a press conference asking for safe return of their baby, when asked if they had the kid chipped and they respond "We didn't want to be seen to be over protective"... que collective sucking of air through teeth of an entire nation.

[yorkie_chris]

when asked if they had the kid chipped and they respond "We didn't want to be seen to be over protective"... que collective sucking of air through teeth of an entire nation.

Aye but this is the problem, the majority of "the public" are effectively just warm meat.

They watch football and give it importance to their very soul, they actually CARE about something on eastenders. They watch big brother and Xfactor. Their brains are the consistency of month-old milk.

It's wrong to connect any mass-opinion with morality... the majority of the public don't have the capability for such abstract thought, or indeed thought.

[widepants]

Aye but this is the problem, the majority of "the public" are effectively just warm meat.

They watch football and give it importance to their very soul, they actually CARE about something on eastenders. They watch big brother and Xfactor. Their brains are the consistency of month-old milk.

It's wrong to connect any mass-opinion with morality... the majority of the public don't have the capability for such abstract thought, or indeed thought.
sometimes I wonder if we were sperated at birth .You say what I think but are just more eloquent at saying it Chris.Ps , tank is here and safe

[-Ralph-]

12-13 would be about the right time to remove such technology IMO. They are not going to get abducted, or wander off somewhere they shouldn't at that age, and if you can't trust them to be where they say they're going to be 99.5% of the time, then you've fecked up somewhere in the last 12-13 years. Younger kids need freedom to go and play within the territory you set but they are not going to feel shackled by you knowing where they are, but come 12-13 they need some freedom from a physiological point of view as well and just being able to be monitored by a parent would be an issue IMO. As YC says he'd have dug it out with a screwdriver.

[-Ralph-]

I honestly don't disagree with the core of the 1984 argument

With reference to primary school children and younger, I do.

Nobody making the 1984 argument has answered any of my questions yet.

What human rights / civil liberties would a child, let's say for sake of argument less than 12 years old, loose as a result of this hypothetical technology?

Why is it different to the thousands of parents who already use smartphone GPS technology to track their kids (and the kids are instructed by their parents to keep the phone with them and switched on at a times)? Should these parents be stopped?

I already know where he <5 yr old> is at all times, and I have a right to know. If technology was used as tool to assist with that, I what's the problem?

[yorkie_chris]

Re, those 3 questions

None

The smartphone thing is for nosey parents, the first thing any nonce would do is take a hammer to the kids phone or chuck it out of the car window! It's for spying and prying and no other good...

I'd still say chipping is for dogs and not children.

12-13 would be about the right time to remove such technology IMO. They are not going to get abducted, or wander off somewhere they shouldn't at that age,

Unless they learn French eh

[hardhat_harry]

What human rights / civil liberties would a child, let's say for sake of argument less than 12 years old, loose as a result of this hypothetical technology?

Im sure there is quite a few but I would have to look at the childrens act and I cant be bothered

Why is it different to the thousands of parents who already use smartphone GPS technology to track their kids (and the kids are instructed by their parents to keep the phone with them and switched on at a times)? Should these parents be stopped?

Just means there are thousands of paranoid parents and yes someone should sit down with them and give them a good talking to

I already know where he <5 yr old> is at all times, and I have a right to know. If technology was used as tool to assist with that, I what's the problem?

At a fundamental level you are using technology to make the job of parenting easier for yourself at the bereft of the rights of the child. Just as councils and the police use technology to make their life easier to monitor the populas at the bereft of their rights, is that equally right?

You also seem to be suggesting that a child isnt allowed rights until a certain age; under law they aren't your property but you have a duty of care which is a completely different thing.

[-Ralph-]

I'd still say chipping is for dogs and not children.

I know you think dogs not children already, but you haven't given me any logical reasons why.

Unless they learn French eh

Or indeed Mathematics. But if a 15 yr old girl is going to run off to France with a teacher, then she'll do it anyway.

There always seems to be, rightly or wrongly, some questioning of parental skills going on in these cases. Why was Madeline McCann left unsupervised in a hotel room? Why was a 5 year old kid playing in the street unsupervised at dusk on a school night? Why is a 4 year old boy standing on the end of a jetty, without his parents having a damn good grip on him? Why if a 15yr old girl didn't come home at night, was she not reporting missing until she failed to turn up for school next day? Was her being away overnight without communicating that to her parents so common that they didn't worry about it?

If these things happen to your kids or your teenager, you are either very unlucky, or a bit irresponsible, or you've fecked up in bringing up your teenager.

[gruntygiggles]

The point of having such a chip implanted is to help get a child back right?

All I think that would happen if these chips were used is that they would either be located and found with a bit of flesh and blood in a bin or gutter somewhere, or in the dead body of the host child.

The kind of person that will take a child is the kind of person that will not let a chip stop them, instead, it will force them to be even more careful, potentially meaning it could take longer to locate that child.

How would you feel as a parent if your child was taken, you had faith in a device to locate your child only to learn that your child had been cut into to remove it???

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have an option to allow me to locate my children when I have them, but I just don't think anything would be safe from the lengths these kinds of people would go to to get their fix.

[yorkie_chris]

I know you think dogs not children already, but you haven't given me any logical reasons why.

You're talking about body modification, surgically augmented parenting, the violation of your childs body with technology to speed recovery of a corpse in case of the incredibly unlikely unthinkable happening.

While I may be struggling to put that in terms of a logical argument it's just gut-level instinctively wrong.

[-Ralph-]

What human rights / civil liberties would a child, let's say for sake of argument less than 12 years old, loose as a result of this hypothetical technology?

Im sure there is quite a few but I would have to look at the childrens act and I cant be bothered

Why is it different to the thousands of parents who already use smartphone GPS technology to track their kids (and the kids are instructed by their parents to keep the phone with them and switched on at a times)? Should these parents be stopped?

Just means there are thousands of paranoid parents and yes someone should sit down with them and give them a good talking to

I already know where he <5 yr old> is at all times, and I have a right to know. If technology was used as tool to assist with that, I what's the problem?

At a fundamental level you are using technology to make the job of parenting easier for yourself at the bereft of the rights of the child. Just as councils and the police use technology to make their life easier to monitor the populas at the bereft of their rights, is that equally right?

You also seem to be suggesting that a child isnt allowed rights until a certain age; under law they aren't your property but you have a duty of care which is a completely different thing.


Still no answers there Harry.

"at the bereft of the rights of the child" - Really? At the bereft of what rights exactly?

You need to back up your arguments mate, and if that means looking up the childrens act then that's what you need to do. Childrens Act is law is it not, are you saying that a GPS tag would be illegal?

I'm not saying a young child has no rights at all. I'm asking what rights would they loose as a result of a GPS tag? What freedoms does a young child have in normal day to day life, that they wouldn't have if they had a GPS tag? Yorkie Chris is the only person to have answered so far, he thinks 'None' and I can't think of any either.

Anything that makes parenting easier IMO is a good thing. Are bottle sterilisers a bad thing? No they are just a new technology that made parenting a little bit easier. I'm not suggesting that a parent should have a lower level of responsibility as a result though. I would still need to make the same checks I make now. But if one day I go out to the garden and he's not there, I go round the front of the house and he's not there either, the first thing I do is s**t myself, the second thing I do is go check his GPS tag, and find that actually he's hiding in the dog kennel, or he's up a tree, or he's disobeyed my instructions and taken himself off to the local playpark where I can promptly go myself in hot pursuit to bring him back and give him a bollocking.

[punyXpress]

There always seems to be, rightly or wrongly, some questioning of parental skills going on in these cases.
.
Over the last 20 years or so, 'society', with the backing of government has encouraged both partners ( where that applies ) to work.
The absence of a parent at home when the child returns from school would lead to them being more vulnerable.

[widepants]

there is a 7 year old oik that lives near me , that I have mentioned in another thread . He used to roam the village like a feral dog all night untill at least 10 pm .Now he has been permanently excluded from school so roams about all day aswell.His dad leaves everyday at 7.30 to work(even though he signs on) and his mum leaves to tend her horses most days . They have 3 younger kids who are now starting to roam as well .A couple of weekends ago , I saw the the 18 month old wondering down the street at 8 am looking for the oik who had escaped even earlier . It took untill 10 am for the parents to drag their sorry arses out of bed and realise he was gone .
This happens all the time and I used to keep an eye on him , but now Im starting to think " why the **** should I parent some other lazy ****s kids.
I sometimes think some parents are too stupid to remember to wipe their own arses

[gruntygiggles]

Still no answers there Harry. You need to back up your arguments mate, and if that means looking up the childrens act then that's what you need to do. Childrens Act is law is it not, are you saying that a GPS tag would be illegal?

I'm not saying a young child has no rights at all. I'm asking what rights would they loose as a result of a GPS tag? What freedoms does a young child have in normal day to day life, that they wouldn't have if they had a GPS tag? Yorkie Chris is the only person to have answered so far, he thinks 'None' and I can't think of any either.

Anything that makes parenting easier IMO is a good thing. Are bottle sterilisers a bad thing? No they are just a new technology that made parenting a little bit easier. I'm not suggesting that a parent should have a lower level of responsibility as a result though. I would still need to make the same checks I make now. But if one day I go out to the garden and he's not there, I go round the front of the house and he's not there either, the first thing I do is s**t myself, the second thing I do is go check his GPS tag, and find that actually he's hiding in the dog kennel, or he's up a tree, or he's disobeyed my instructions and taken himself off to the local playpark where I can promptly go myself in hot pursuit to bring him back and give him a bollocking.

So long as the reason he could get to the play park was not because proper supervision was lacking due to the comfort of knowing you could find him if he went?

You, i am sure wouldn't, but some parents would get complacent. This could actually make it easier for children to be picked up and snatched...then, your tracker would be useless as it would most likely be cut out or found in a dead body.

I really do like the idea on a basic level, I just can't see it doing any good other than saving parents a few minutes of panic from time to time. Those moments of panic are no bad thing IMO. They are the moments that remind us how quickly kids can run off.

[-Ralph-]

but I just don't think anything would be safe from the lengths these kinds of people would go to to get their fix

to speed recovery of a corpse in case of the incredibly unlikely unthinkable happening

I agree with this 100%, which is why I put in my first post on the subject

Never mind abductions which are very rare

You're talking about body modification, surgically augmented parenting, the violation of your childs body with technology

While I may be struggling to put that in terms of a logical argument it's just gut-level instinctively wrong.

You're struggling because I'm not sure there's a logical argument there (happy to be corrected if someone gives me one).

It's an emotional, moral, argument. It's down to how you feel about it.

Emotions and moral standpoints vary from person to person.

[widepants]

Monday evening my 6 yr old went round the neighbours without asking , so tuesday night she was grounded .Lst night she made sure she came and told me exactly where she was going .They soon learn the boundaries.Why go somewhere and get grounded ,when she can ask , be allowed to go and not get grounded .
Dont let then just sod off around the area without you having a clue where they are ffs

[-Ralph-]

So long as the reason he could get to the play park was not because proper supervision was lacking due to the comfort of knowing you could find him if he went?

You, i am sure wouldn't, but some parents would get complacent. This could actually make it easier for children to be picked up and snatched...then, your tracker would be useless as it would most likely be cut out or found in a dead body.

I really do like the idea on a basic level, I just can't see it doing any good other than saving parents a few minutes of panic from time to time. Those moments of panic are no bad thing IMO. They are the moments that remind us how quickly kids can run off.

That's a reasoned and logical argument. But if in that 5 minutes of panic when a child is 'lost' something happens to them (they get run over by a car, they fall in a pond, or even if after 5 minutes of wandering an opportunist sicko does pick them up, what if you could have found them in two minutes and prevented it from happening?

[-Ralph-]

Monday evening my 6 yr old went round the neighbours without asking , so tuesday night she was grounded .Lst night she made sure she came and told me exactly where she was going .They soon learn the boundaries.Why go somewhere and get grounded ,when she can ask , be allowed to go and not get grounded .
Dont let then just sod off around the area without you having a clue where they are ffs

Not sure if you're talking to me on this one, but I don't let my child 'sod off round the area'.

Did you realise she was gone? How did you find her?

Have you never told your child before that she has to tell you if she wants to go round friends? Have you never set her boundaries? I'm sure you have, but she did it anyway didn't she? And although she did it Monday, was grounded Tuesday, and told you Wednesday, give it six months and she'll forget in her excitement to go play, she'll do it again and give you another panic attack. That's what kids do.

[-Ralph-]

there is a 7 year old oik that lives near me , that I have mentioned in another thread . He used to roam the village like a feral dog all night untill at least 10 pm .Now he has been permanently excluded from school so roams about all day aswell.His dad leaves everyday at 7.30 to work(even though he signs on) and his mum leaves to tend her horses most days . They have 3 younger kids who are now starting to roam as well .A couple of weekends ago , I saw the the 18 month old wondering down the street at 8 am looking for the oik who had escaped even earlier . It took untill 10 am for the parents to drag their sorry arses out of bed and realise he was gone .
This happens all the time and I used to keep an eye on him , but now Im starting to think " why the **** should I parent some other lazy ****s kids.
I sometimes think some parents are too stupid to remember to wipe their own arses

Such a shame this. What chance does the kid have in life?

I know a couple of kids who can turn up and play at my house for hours, and the parents have no clue where they are. If they get to the point where they want the kids back for something (dinner), they turn up and say "are they with you?". Whilst they are at my house they are supervised, looked after, and fed & watered, and if I need to get rid of them I take them home and hand them over, if they want to leave of their own accord I'll make sure they get safely home again, but I'm not going to phone the parents every time they turn up and tell them where they are.

[widepants]

wasnt talking to you about kids " sodding " off but to the generic parents that do allow it to happen.
Because of the "oik" that lives across the road , I leave the front door open when georgina is playing in the front garden and so knew with seconds when it went all quiet .I realise that they all push the bounderies but at her age Id rather keep on my toes and know where she is .She is generally a good kid and appart from Monday , always asks but the way that I look at it is this .Im the parent not her , she does as I say or she lumps it .Id rather her fall out with me than be allowed to wander . She may sometimes think she knows best , but I know she doesnt