Do you agree with tracking kids via implant chip?

[flymo]

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

Because a car, (however dear to you it may be ), 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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.

Originally Posted by MisterTommyH

Just had a conversation in the chip shop re this.

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

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by MisterTommyH

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]

Originally Posted by Messie

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 .

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.