Need an Adult to have a weeee

[SloughClarets]

Halfway through the 2nd half my 11 year old needed the toilet. Like many other times at Turf Moor, he gets up makes his way along the line towards the exit to go under the stand to use the facilities. Only to be turned away by a steward and sent back to me as wasn't allowed to go to the toilet without an adult.

In all my years going to Turf Moor, I've never experienced this.

Is this a new rule given to the stewards and has anyone else found anything similar ?

I was in the JML

[wilks_bfc]

There was a topic a while back about safeguarding of children at the match.

Unfortunately it's become a necessity in this day



Link found http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... en#p283344

[SloughClarets]

Fair enough, but absolutely no consistency then as we go on nearly every home game and this is the 1st time it's ever been challenged.

Well done to the Steward then, for actually doing his job and following the safeguarding guidelines. No problems with that.

[Rowls]

Seems daft to me.

Does anyone have figures on the number of children abducted or sexually abused in football grounds?

Is this kind of crime rampant in say, League One?

What next? A clampdown on bears at football games?

[Quickenthetempo]

They won't let any u13s be on their own in the cricketfield stand.

[wilks_bfc]

Seems daft to me.

Does anyone have figures on the number of children abducted or sexually abused in football grounds?

Is this kind of crime rampant in say, League One?

What next? A clampdown on bears at football games?

Safeguarding isn't just about preventing abduction or abuse. It's also there to protect against accidents. If child injured themselves whilst alone then it "covers" them for that as well

[ClaretTony]

They won't let any u13s be on their own in the cricketfield stand.

It is not just in the cricket field stand but all parts of the ground from my understanding. Also, the steward was absolutely correct regarding the child going to the toilet.

Whether people like it or not, safeguarding really is important. I know the club have had some difficult situations with children this season and it is good to know that they are taking things so seriously.

[Sean Dyche's Watch]

For something like this, that will affect many people attending games, I would have hoped (expected?) the club to have made a statement about it, so people are aware that this is being actioned by the club and the stewards it employs, and the reasons why.

[dpinsussex]

Simple solution go before the game starts or at half time

[ClaretTony]

For something like this, that will affect many people attending games, I would have hoped (expected?) the club to have made a statement about it, so people are aware that this is being actioned by the club and the stewards it employs, and the reasons why.

I thought they had, if not then I'd agree with you totally. Everyone needs to be aware.

[SloughClarets]

Another point, surely safeguarding should also cover kids (and adults I should add) from having to walk into the toilets at half time with people smoking. After all these years it still goes on.

[Rowls]

Whether people like it or not, safeguarding really is important. I know the club have had some difficult situations with children this season and it is good to know that they are taking things so seriously.

Safeguarding isn't just about preventing abduction or abuse. It's also there to protect against accidents. If child injured themselves whilst alone then it "covers" them for that as well

Internet Strawman sirens are sounding here guys!

Yes of course "safeguarding" is important. Nobody wants to see children tossed into dustbin lorries etc etc.

It's about balancing "safeguarding" with the inconvenience caused and accepting where the responsibility for looking after children lies. If a 10 year old can't pee by himself then it's a sorry state of affairs for all concerned.

Heaven only knows what kind of "incidents" the club has had to put up with to implement such a policy. I struggle to think of any hypothetical situations that cannot be either rank bad parenting or hysterical worrying.

"Taking things seriously" is not the same as approaching things sensibly.

That is all.

[taio]

To be fair I never see anyone smoking in the family stand toilets (upper tier) these days. Can speak for other stands though so may still be an issue elsewhere.

[Sean Dyche's Watch]

I thought they had, if not then I'd agree with you totally. Everyone needs to be aware.

I have just had a look in the official website, and searched for 'safeguarding'. A few articles were listed, including a bunch of philosophies and strategies published in June 2015, but nothing that is clear on how they affect supporters who attend with children and how it would affect them on match days.

[claretandy]

Both my kids go to the toilet on their own (together) aged 9 and 6, and have done for the past 2 seasons, they have never been told that they can't, in fact there are plenty of kids hanging about in the concourse area during the game in the Jimmy Mac upper.

[Foulthrow]

And presumably the steward has to make an arbitrary judgement on the age of the 'child' or do they ask for ID before you can go to the bog?

[TheFamilyCat]

I had just turned 11 when I went to my first game in 1987. I went with my brother who was still 12. Sad to think that this wouldn't be allowed now.

[dsr]

Does anyone have the official stats on cases of child molesting compared with, say, the 1960's? It's widely believed that children are in much more danger now than then, but do the stats back it up? I know that the number of children murdered by strangers was much higher in the '60's, principally because it's a very rare crime and Brady and Hindley were roaming free. But, discounting the semi-official paedophile rings like Rotherham, I bet the incidence of random molestation of children by complete strangers is no more frequent now than then.

It's the fear that's changed, not the danger. IMO.

(I suppose the stewarding thing is protection for the club against insurance claims rather than protection of the child, really. Because why on earth should a random steward be better able to look after a child than his own father?)

[Rileybobs]

Does anyone have the official stats on cases of child molesting compared with, say, the 1960's? It's widely believed that children are in much more danger now than then, but do the stats back it up? I know that the number of children murdered by strangers was much higher in the '60's, principally because it's a very rare crime and Brady and Hindley were roaming free. But, discounting the semi-official paedophile rings like Rotherham, I bet the incidence of random molestation of children by complete strangers is no more frequent now than then.

It's the fear that's changed, not the danger. IMO.

Still, going to the loo with your child is a very small price to pay to ensure that they don't get molested or kidnapped. From the club's point of view it ensures that they won't be held liable for an unaccompanied child slipping whilst running and cracking their skull open. Sure, it may be a case of 'health and safety gone mad' but it's hardly unreasonable or particularly inconvenient.

[DCWat]

Still, going to the loo with your child is a very small price to pay to ensure that they don't get molested or kidnapped. From the club's point of view it ensures that they won't be held liable for an unaccompanied child slipping whilst running and cracking their skull open. Sure, it may be a case of 'health and safety gone mad' but it's hardly unreasonable or particularly inconvenient.

Come on, it's a load of nonsense really. A parent with any sense will only allow their child to go to the toilet unaccompanied, if they believe that they are able to do so. A nine, ten or eleven year old should be more than able to go for a slash on their own at a football match.

If a child slips on some stray spray or worse, it happens! In the unlikely event that there's a roaming paedophile, assuming the stewards are all CRB checked, is there really a risk that prevents a child nipping to the loo on their own? It's OTT safety concerns from a society scared of litigation.

Might as well ban hotdogs because there may be a child with a peanut allergy and there's a chance that the hotdog has come into contact with nuts!

[Cirrus_Minor]

When I was around the age of 10 or 11 I usually used to go on the Turf without an adult, just with a few mates. If I had to rely on an adult I would have not been able to see most of the games.

Never really occurred to me before seeing this thread that young lads (and lasses) would not be able to do this nowadays.

[dsr]

Still, going to the loo with your child is a very small price to pay to ensure that they don't get molested or kidnapped. From the club's point of view it ensures that they won't be held liable for an unaccompanied child slipping whilst running and cracking their skull open. Sure, it may be a case of 'health and safety gone mad' but it's hardly unreasonable or particularly inconvenient.

We're talking about an 11 year old. Do you think an apparently kind old man is going to offer him sweeties, which will so beguile the little lad that he leaves the match and goes home with him? Or perhaps that someone is going to drug him and carry him out unconscious with a little nod to the steward and a wink at the CCTV?

[Rileybobs]

We're talking about an 11 year old. Do you think an apparently kind old man is going to offer him sweeties, which will so beguile the little lad that he leaves the match and goes home with him? Or perhaps that someone is going to drug him and carry him out unconscious with a little nod to the steward and a wink at the CCTV?

Not at all, but I guess there has to be an age limit. Maybe 11 is too old but at what age would you suggest that a child is safe to be unaccompanied?

[john'sroseyspecs]

I know it's very very unlikely but there is a precedent for awful things happening. Was a case in the last couple of years in a department store toilets. Think it was Debenhams in Manchester. Sad times we live in

[dsr]

Not at all, but I guess there has to be an age limit. Maybe 11 is too old but at what age would you suggest that a child is safe to be unaccompanied?

Very much depends on the child. But I'd trust the parents to make that judgement.

[Rowls]

Not at all, but I guess there has to be an age limit. Maybe 11 is too old but at what age would you suggest that a child is safe to be unaccompanied?

This is easy to answer. The parents decide and the steward can then get on with stewarding or whatever they do.

This works best because the parents will know the child better than anyone else. It also happens to be the legal and moral duty to decide these sort of things.

The steward remains free to walk up and down the steps, get in my way of the match and look out for anyone who may be about to commit a thought crime.

[Imploding Turtle]

There was a topic a while back about safeguarding of children at the match.

Unfortunately it's become a necessity in this day



Link found http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... en#p283344

Has it? Or does it only seem like it has?

[JohnMac]

All this assumes the parent is the same gender as the child does it? What about a child who is at the match with a limited mobility Grandparent, do they both need escorting?

It's definitely a dilemma and until anything happens, heaven forbid, nobody will ever be right or wrong.

[Falcon]

Reading between the lines I expect that someone's child has hurt themselves going to the toilets unaccompanied, and the club have received a letter from an ambulance chasing solicitor firm, for which they have no legal defence for so have had to put this procedure in place to avoid it happening again.

Don't blame the club, blame the litigious society we live in.

[CnBtruntru]

Would be handy if a note was sent out/given with every season ticket to inform people of the safeguarding that has been put in place and why, a small piece of paper would suffice, also maybe a sign near the turnstiles for walk ons informing them of same, not rocket science is it.