Just a quick note: this all comes from an article in the Telegraph. This paper is like the National Enquirer in the USA (does it still exist?). In other words, headlines and stories have to attract attention, but do not necessarily have to be true.

It turns out that balloons aren't really going to be banned. They just have to carry a warning that adult supervision is recommended for children under 8.

Much ado about nothing...

At my son's preschool, I am responsible for bringing in group snack once a month. I cannot bring in anything homemade; everything must be in the original, unopened packaging so that the teacher can read the label and see if there are nuts lurking within. (Kids have nut allergies, and I get that, but I also know how to make baked goods that do not contain nuts, and I also am very careful about cross-contamination because I watch a child with nut allergies.)

I also cannot bring in pretzels, grapes, popcorn, carrots, or anything that is on the list of potential choking hazards (and the list is long!). For safety, I am considering pre-chewing all of my kids' food for them and regurgitating it into their mouths so they don't have to worry about that pesky chewing anymore....

Amy, I know that this topic is one that you bring up in many forms here on your site: at what point is there too much safety and not enough freedom? I don't think that we should all be bubbble-wrapped and gently rolled through life, and I resent the way that "society" is pressuring me to bubble-wrap my kids. For now, I'm trying to fight the good fight, but too many people are just willing to lay down and submit. I worry that teaching my children common sense is going to backfire on them, because I don't see it being used in a lot of places these days.

The primary cause of this is that government bureaucrats, when left to their own devices, will make up shit to keep themselves busy, much like your dog does when left home alone all day.

Another horror story, another odious rule. Since we'll never run out of new horror stories, we'll never run out of new odious rules. That works out well for the ones who get to make the new odious rules.

I worry that teaching my children common sense is going to backfire on them, because I don't see it being used in a lot of places these days.

That's because common sense ain't so common anymore. I don't believe it's something you can "teach" anyone; it has to be learned through experience. And if we're not going to let kids experience life, they're not going to gain much in the way of common sense. Kinda like personal responsibility - if the government steps in and insists on doing everything for you, why would you take any initiative on doing things for yourself? Those of us who actually practice personal responsibility are losing the battle when is comes down to insisting that others take responsibility for themselves. Why should they? They've been conditioned to believe that they're "owed" whatever they want.

We're going to hell in a bucket and the ride is no longer enjoyable.

You know what they say… the first child is made of glass and the rest are made of rubber. Watching Henry (3rd grandchild) eating dirt on the playground this weekend, his mom looked over and said, “He’s building his immune system.”

"I know that this topic is one that you bring up in many forms here on your site: at what point is there too much safety and not enough freedom? I don't think that we should all be bubbble-wrapped and gently rolled through life, and I resent the way that "society" is pressuring me to bubble-wrap my kids." Marie

I think there needs to be a distinction between your own kids and when you are tending/ providing for OPK (Other People's Kids).

Choices and risks you deem acceptable for your own kids are different. This is the society we live in today. When other parents have entrusted their children's care to someone, it behooves that someone to be prudent and cautious. The alternative is to be negligent and irresponsible to allow known hazards to be ignored (at least it is according to the lawyers).

For example, my son is in the Boy Scouts. We had a backpack trip planned about a month ago. We ended up cancelling the trip due to the fire danger in the area. No actual fire, mind. Just the potential. Dry weather, dry grasses and the less than 50 percent chance of thunderstorms. Thunder means lightning and our guidelines for safety tipped us over into the cancelling mode.

My son, husband and myself went on the trip by ourselves to the same destination the same weekend. We determined that the danger as an acceptable risk. Two adults and one 17 year old were less likely to be in danger since we are all smart and careful. 3 adults and ten knotheads would have been more problematic.

Another example is that I let my son chew on dog toys when he was a toddler. I would not have let a visiting child do the same thing. Nor would I appreciate if my child were allowed to do that at someone else's house. BTW, my son has no allergies and only has ever had one ear infection his entire life. He has a kick-ass immune system.

I get more upset when the regulations are intrusive between parents and their own kids.

"I know that this topic is one that you bring up in many forms here on your site: at what point is there too much safety and not enough freedom? I don't think that we should all be bubbble-wrapped and gently rolled through life, and I resent the way that "society" is pressuring me to bubble-wrap my kids." Marie

I think there needs to be a distinction between your own kids and when you are tending/ providing for OPK (Other People's Kids).

Choices and risks you deem acceptable for your own kids are different. This is the society we live in today. When other parents have entrusted their children's care to someone, it behooves that someone to be prudent and cautious. The alternative is to be negligent and irresponsible to allow known hazards to be ignored (at least it is according to the lawyers).

For example, my son is in the Boy Scouts. We had a backpack trip planned about a month ago. We ended up cancelling the trip due to the fire danger in the area. No actual fire, mind. Just the potential. Dry weather, dry grasses and the less than 50 percent chance of thunderstorms. Thunder means lightning and our guidelines for safety tipped us over into the cancelling mode.

My son, husband and myself went on the trip by ourselves to the same destination the same weekend. We determined that the danger as an acceptable risk. Two adults and one 17 year old were less likely to be in danger since we are all smart and careful. 3 adults and ten knotheads would have been more problematic.

Another example is that I let my son chew on dog toys when he was a toddler. I would not have let a visiting child do the same thing. Nor would I appreciate if my child were allowed to do that at someone else's house. BTW, my son has no allergies and only has ever had one ear infection his entire life. He has a kick-ass immune system.

I get more upset when the regulations are intrusive between parents and their own kids.

This paper is like the National Enquirer in the USA (does it still exist?).

It do. And some (many?) times it does a better job of getting a story than the Lamestream Media does. See: John Edwards baby-momma story.

There is a difference between taking children into an area where there is a known fire danger and allowing children to eat pretzels. I understand that caretakers must be "prudent and cautious." However, I think that there is being prudent and cautious, and then there is being overly cautious to the point of being ridiculous. Anyone eating any type of food can choke--does that mean that preschools should no longer offer any snacks? I fear that we are heading towards a nanny state, where we try to protect everyone from every potential danger, and instead end up in a world where no one can protect themselves from anything.

As for not being able to teach common sense...well, I teach my kids to sit while they are eating, so that they do not choke. That, to me, is common sense; you're more likely to choke if you're jumping around. If they choke on a pretzel while they're jumping around, once I make sure that they are okay, I will point out that perhaps they wouldn't have choked if they hadn't been jumping around. I teach them that their actions have consequences--common sense. If they choke for no apparent reason, well, then that is life sometimes, and again, I make sure that they're okay, and tell them that sometimes you just choke, and you just do what is reasonable to prevent it. Sometimes, sh#% happens--again, I think it's common sense to know that. But if they are never given the opportunity to experience natural consequences or anything bad, then how will they learn these common sense lessons? Like I said, I'm fighting the good fight to try to give my kids the opportunity to experience failure and other aspects of life, but my kids aren't with me 24/7, and too much of the world seems hell-bent on overprotecting them.

I don't think that we can be safe all the time. Yes, we need to cushion our little ones to an extent, more so than we do adults. But I think that the same group of people banning pretzels in preschool is the same group promoting the TSA, because they think that we need to be safe at any cost. If we save one child from choking...if we stop even one terrorist....I just don't agree with that mindset. Life is not always safe. We do the best we can to protect ourselves, and just live.

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/

The OWS kids are overprotected turdlettes.

Nonetheless, this is plainly sad. The woman is a gifted and striving comedienne... She should be approaching the pinnacle of her productivity, whatever that may be. We need creatures like this to pay taxes.

What a miracle that we all survived to adulthood!

In my case, yes!

It turns out that balloons aren't really going to be banned. They just have to carry a warning that adult supervision is recommended for children under 8.

But bradley13, this is precisely the point. Shouldn't parents already know that? It seems like a small thing, but if you were running a business in that area the compliance costs can be incredibly onerous. But then again, even stuff for adults can carry ridiculous warning labels. I haven't yet seen a coil of rope with a label "do not wrap around neck" but I expect to soon.

Anyway, there was this bit

party games including whistles and magnetic fishing games are to be banned because their small parts or chemicals used in making them are decreed to be too risky.

So, without trawling through the actual directive (spare me) it looks like some things are going to be banned.

Most EU countries hand out welfare to the middle classes in the form of jobs--thus, too many people with too much times on their hands. So they pass laws like this based on bogus state-funded studies.