It’s odd when journalists actually stick up for Lib Dems. It’s even weirder when they stick up for Lib Dems in error, too.
The controversy around the Adventure Playgrounds – that story where parents were banned from hanging around watching their kids – first caught my attention when The Heresiarch sent me a link to the Mayor Dorothy Thornhill’s comments. After contemplating suicide, I decided not to give it too much extra through. Life’s too short, isn’t it?
But, while I wasn’t paying attention, the story became huge and the Mayor’s comments on this subject were deleted. Luckily the Heresiarch had cut-and-pasted it into his own blog in full.
Here’s the relevant quote:
At one playground a few parents started to stay around for all the sessions, this increased to the extent that staff felt they were spending more time worrying about what the parents were up to rather than watching and supervising the children! They should not have been allowed to stay that’s never been the policy, so yes we were lax in allowing it and have now decided to tighten up.
Imagine what those same papers would say if a child was snatched from the playground and we were accused of allowing free access of adults onto our site. Or worse still one of those adults was using it to acquire knowledge of and groom other children – yes sadly it happens we all know that. Again, we would rightly be pilloried.
I’d say that’s a classic example of paedo-noia gone bonkers, starting with the staff (absolutely terrified) and then the politicians (absolutely terrified) and resulting in absolute stupidity.
John Rentoul, writing on his Independent Minds blog, draws our attention to a post over on Sadie’s Tavern – presumably because he wants to have a laugh at a rival over at the Observer. Oh dear. So, dutifully, I followed the link. What on earth could possibly have been written that would save that Mayor after what I’d read? Sadie writes:
Once again that tedious old high-Tory proponent of negative liberty, Henry Porter, heartens all would-be journalists by demonstrating that an inability to undertake the most basic research and a propensity to wilfully distort the facts through the medium of a writing style which would have a Key Stage 3 teacher weeping with horror, need not be a barrier to a lucrative column in a Sunday newspaper.
Oh no! Not a High Tory proponent of Negative Liberty!! Not an inability to undertake basic research and a propensity to wilfully distort facts!!
Here we go.. here’s the really great bit:
The Liberal Democrat Voice and the Liberal Conspiracy have comprehensively debunked the original Metro article that gave rise to Henry’s latest bout of apoplexy over ainshunt libertees which you should read in full. In summary: they are not “open access” playgrounds, they are supervised facilities in which the children undertake activities that could be dangerous if they are concentrating on making sure that their parents are watching them rather than watching what they are doing. And, in spite of the fevered imaginings of both Porter and the Daily Mail, there’s not a mention of a paedophile in sight.
Right. So an entirely different story to the one that came out of the Mayor’s mouth then?
Let’s see. Sadie has a quote from the Mayor!
“Quotes attributed to me have been taken out of context – I’m not saying adults shouldn’t be allowed on playgrounds – I’d go and shoot myself if this was the case – only on these specialised play facilities! We have 40 other playgrounds elsewhere in the Borough where parents are welcome to stay.”
WTF? Seriously? Hang on, let’s look again at what the Mayor actually wrote herself again:
Imagine what those same papers would say if a child was snatched from the playground and we were accused of allowing free access of adults onto our site. Or worse still one of those adults was using it to acquire knowledge of and groom other children – yes sadly it happens we all know that.
Hmm. Inability to undertake basic research and a propensity to distort facts? Fail, Sadie. Complete fail. I suppose, really, the original spin came from Lib Dem Voice though. Worrying.
UPDATE: The Mayor reposted the post here. I’m assured it’s word for word the same, although I’m not sure this substantially changes the story
Gregory Carlin said...
2 Nov 09 at 1:13 am
“Yet, when we take a positive decision to safeguard children, by ensuring that all children left at a supervised play session are only left under the care of qualified CRB checked and legit staff”
In 2005, the FBI or people @ Justice, worried about the rep of the FBI, were concerned a pedophile might kill a kid, and so the DfES were asked if it was nailed down,
(they skipped Belgium and went straight to the DfES!)
assurances (DfES) were piously sent back to the USA, & on the basis the Brits lie about everything, a paralegal was sent to check
“they are secretly putting FBI identified pedophiles into elementary schools”
Was the verdict.
Thereafter the Guardian ran with that story, leaving out most of the facts, as per Nick Davies.
Gregory
JuliaM said...
2 Nov 09 at 8:20 am
“At one playground a few parents started to stay around for all the sessions, this increased to the extent that staff felt they were spending more time worrying about what the parents were up to rather than watching and supervising the children!”
I haven’t seen anything anywhere on this story that explains why the staff were so worried about the parents. Has anyone else?
Heresiarch said...
2 Nov 09 at 10:04 am
There are several interesting things going on in this story. The first concerns the decision itself, which was sprung on parents (who had been “hanging around” – in the mayor’s strange phrase) and suddenly found themselves barred. They were upset by this. As far as I can see, it is this fact that started the story running. To listen to Lib Dem Voice or LibCon, the story derives from newspapers picking up and distorting a council’s updated “guidelines”. Wrong. In other words, it’s a real story, not (as Sunny Hundal etc would have you believe) one of these “PC gone mad” myths. Not that they are always myths, of course.
Either this was the real reason (in which case the council’s later explanation is an arse-covering lie) or they made it up because they thought a child-protection justification sounded better than a staff-convenience justification. Perhaps they thought that if you say “paedos” you can justify anything, however batty, and no-one will question it. If so, they’re wrong. In some ways, this is the most important part of the whole fiasco.
The second point is the council’s explanation, citing Ofsted guidelines (which said no such thing) and the need to “safeguard” children – which, seeing as only parents with children could get into the venue, was offensive as well as being inaccurate. This (along with the mayor’s reported phrase that “in the current climate we can’t have unchecked adults”) is what made the national press interested in the Watford Observer’s little story. A couple of days later, the council and the mayor both changed their tune. The mistake (deliberate or otherwise) by those who wish to propogate the “PC gone mad myth” myth is to take the council’s second explanation as the true one, and completely ignore their initial claims about Ofsted (given to the WO) – not to mention the mayor’s bizarre blogpost. By accusing the press of distorting a straightforward administrative decision, they are guilty of a much worse distortion. It’s sad to see Sadie, a blogger I respect, joining the LibCon lynch mob.
The third point concerns the mayor’s suppressed (and now apparently reinstated) blogpost. It really is quite bizarre. It represented, moreover, her initial response to the press coverage. Summarised, it says (“The press ask why we made this decision. It was to save the children from paedos!!!!!!”) This is conveniently forgotten by all the anti-Mail bloggers who will have it that it was a sensible decision, misleadingly reported, or that the mayor’s words were “twisted”. Even Thornhill seems to be claiming that her words were twisted. But of course you don’t have to twist them, merely quote them in full.
Dick Puddlecote said...
2 Nov 09 at 11:16 am
“In summary: they are not “open access” playgrounds, they are supervised facilities in which the children undertake activities that could be dangerous if they are concentrating on making sure that their parents are watching them rather than watching what they are doing”
This is nonsense too. Nationwide, climbing centres such as Craggy Island happily allow parents to supervise their kids while climbing 5 metre high walls without ropes or harnesses. Infinitely more dangerous than anything Watford’s centres offer.
So whether it’s paedohysteria, or overweening risk-aversion, it’s still a failure of common sense for Lib Dem Watford.
Scott said...
2 Nov 09 at 12:04 pm
I’d hazard a guess that the staff don’t do much and with parents hanging round, they had to do their jobs! Now they can go back to gossiping while supposedly “watching” the children!
Stu said...
2 Nov 09 at 12:47 pm
I don’t think there’s a problem with asking parents not to stay. You can’t stay on at Scouts, or at Football practices, or a variety of other activities. If these Playgroups are set up like that then I don’t really think there’s a big problem with it.
The real issue, as Charlotte and Heresiarch both alluded to, is the use of emotive language and the spectre of paedophilia to justify the change. If they have a case they should argue it, not just peddle lies about OFSTED and grave warnings about the possibility of children coming to harm. Hopefully, the backlash against this will teach them not to use such obvious scaremongering in the future, although there isn’t any evidence so far that this is the lesson they’ve taken from it.
JuliaM said...
2 Nov 09 at 1:17 pm
“Hopefully, the backlash against this will teach them not to use such obvious scaremongering in the future…”
Oh, Stu, you hopeless optimist…
JuliaM said...
2 Nov 09 at 1:18 pm
“I’d hazard a guess that the staff don’t do much and with parents hanging round, they had to do their jobs! Now they can go back to gossiping while supposedly “watching” the children!”
Hmmm, I wonder…
Niklas Smith said...
2 Nov 09 at 10:44 pm
I think Stuart has made a very sensible point. I agree entirely that politicians and journalists have a nasty tendency to over-sensationalise risks to children.
But I’m curious that the response to Dorothy Thornhill’s comments has been much more vociferous than the media response to the truly Orwellian Independent Safeguarding Authority. I think an organisation that wants at least 11 million people to prove that they are not paedophiles is a much greater danger to liberty (and indeed trust between people) than a spat over access to playgroups. The only really good thing I have seen in the press on the ISA was Jenni Russell’s article in the Sunday Times yesterday – it’s well worth a read.
P.S. Who on Earth could describe Henry Porter has a High Tory?!?!
Niklas Smith said...
2 Nov 09 at 10:46 pm
P.P.S. With apologies to Ronald Reagan, I think his famous quote could do with a facelift under the circumstances: ‘The ten most frightening words in the English language are: “I’m from the ISA and I’m here to vet you.”‘
Rankersbo said...
3 Nov 09 at 12:38 pm
I agree with Stu- here. Which is odd because I disagreed elsewhere.
Gregory Carlin said...
3 Nov 09 at 7:59 pm
“I think Stuart has made a very sensible point. I agree entirely that politicians and journalists have a nasty tendency to over-sensationalise risks to children.”
Driving a cab in New Orleans, that’s risk.
I’d rather be posted to Afghanistan with a wooden rifle. Also, Nimrods, that’s risk, I had a model of a Comet (Nimrod for first jet-age tourists) when I was about 6, contemporaneously I was reading the Wolf of Kabul, about earlier wars in the usual impossible to win places.
You wouldn’t believe how many school nurses have administered super-glue to the eyes of pupils by mistake.
Also a single school ( Humberside) was competing with if not surpassing all the 800 brothels in the UKHTC’s media junkie fest re: child sexual exploitation.
List 99, that’s risk.
Gregory
How many cases were referred to the List 99 Teachers Misconduct Team in England and Wales in 2003, 2004 and 2005; and [HL2654]
How many letters of written warning were issued in England and Wales to teachers for inappropriate sexual behaviour towards pupils in 2003, 2004 and 2005. [HL2655]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis): The number of cases in England and Wales referred to and concluded by the department’s List 99 team in the relevant years is set out in the table below:
Cases Referred Cases Concluded
2003 1,147 1,047
2004 1,362 1,370
2005 2,092 2,554
The department may issue written warnings to school staff in connection with a range of misconduct—for example, impropriety and theft— and inappropriate sexual behaviour towards children. The number of written warnings issued to staff in schools by the List 99 Teachers Misconduct Team in each of the relevant years was as follows:
2003: 79
2004: 198
2005: 81
Due to the way in which information is currently recorded, it is not possible to indicate the number of these cases where staff in schools were issued with written warnings for inappropriate sexual behaviour. The department does not maintain records of written warnings issued to staff by employers as a result of local disciplinary proceedings, as this is a matter for the employer concerned.
Matt Wardman said...
4 Nov 09 at 12:48 pm
There’s another angle to this that I might cover now I’m out of hospital: what the commentary tells us about the sites doing it.
What to do? Daily Mail bash? Tory blogger bash? Lib Dem Mayor bash? Safeguarding gone bonkers bash? And how to do it without swallowing the other account of the whole?
LC is gradually increasing the anti-Tory content (some justfied – such as the Human Rights Act repeal, some not – such as the Kaminski obsession). On this one it was a tough choice – Mail bash and Tory blogger bashing won.
LDV seemed to be slightly torn between defending a Mayor who got her story in a sozzle and her knickers in a knot – she was left defending a “your children are in our care, under our supervision, so parents can keep OUT”, while the booking form requires parents specifically to sign up that they understand it is an “open playground”, and children can come and go as they please.
Imho the big issue is probably the outworking of Vetting and Barring, and the nonsense of the “only our staff and segregation are safe” position. It may be legally implied if not mandated, but it is bullshit.
Matt Wardman said...
4 Nov 09 at 12:50 pm
>LDV seemed…
add “and bashing Tory bloggers” at end.
Stephen Tall said...
4 Nov 09 at 3:33 pm
Charlotte – apologies for belated reply, have been head-down at work, but a couple of points:
1) Sara Bedford, a LD blogger who’s a parent who’s used the Watford facility, explains the background here: http://tiny.cc/hPW6f
2) what LDV did was present the facts of the story, which had been notably lacking from Metro, Henry Porter and Iain Dale et al, who spun it that Watford LDs were seeking to ban parents from all public playgrounds – categorically not the case, even though both have allowed these falsehoods to stand without apology. Personally, I do not agree with Dorothy’s original comments – but they don’t alter the facts of the story.
I have to say, I’m slightly surprised at your stance on this issue, Charlotte.
It seems to me the Council is doing entirely the right thing in ensuring parents and children have a choice of facilities: public playgrounds for unsupervised play where parents are welcome; and supervised facilities where children are free to play safely but also free from the parental gaze. That choice strikes me as a Good, Liberal Thing to encourage.
I don’t think all play should be supervised by parents any more than I think all play should be supervised by the council/state.
Mo koyejo said...
4 Nov 09 at 7:22 pm
I am one of the parents that was staying at the facility, because my child, is under five four and half to be exact…..
The prerequsite always was that a parent/carer should always be around, if your child was under five, so to suggest, that parents just started hanging around for no reason is not true……
I will provide a link to the ofsted report conducted in 2007 that sums up, what this adventure playground is all about, everything else is just spin, to get oneself out of hot water
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxcare_reports/display/(id)/30504
Gregory Carlin said...
4 Nov 09 at 7:29 pm
“the big issue is probably the outworking of Vetting and Barring, and the nonsense of the “only our staff and segregation are safe” position. It may be legally implied if not mandated, but it is bullshit.”
I hate this topic, however, the idea of vetting 11 millions, or whatever, is generally viewed by real police agencies as perverse.
The crisis began with the FBI asking very simply for the Brit govt. to desist from placing pedophiles the FBI had targeted or detected, in British schools.
the FBI feared the day, children are found in a mass grave and the suspect was protected by a client state. THat wouldn’t look good for the FBI, it would make them apprear complicit.
Vetting millions is not required, commonsense was required, a small number of people, who if they were banned, would have greatly reduced etc.
“the truly Orwellian Independent Safeguarding Authority. I think an organisation that wants at least 11 million people to prove that they are not paedophiles is a much greater danger to liberty (and indeed trust between people) than a spat over access to playgroups.”
Particularly as convicted criminals compete for jobs on exactly the same basis as everybody else, and they are getting them.
Smoke & mirrors
Gregory
Matt Wardman said...
4 Nov 09 at 9:39 pm
@Stephen
>2) what LDV did was present the facts of the story, which had been notably lacking from Metro, Henry Porter and Iain Dale et al, who spun it that Watford LDs were seeking to ban parents from all public playgrounds -
But it didn’t – LDV essentially presented the line put forward by the Mayor of Watford, which has just as many consistencies as that put forward by Iain (who has the excuse that he was reporting rapidly), by Lib Con, or by anyone else.
The Mayor changed her story a couple of times, and ended up claiming in one aspect the exact opposite of the statement made on her own Council’s booking form. Not convincing, and certainly not “the facts of the case”.
Imo the only one with a reasonable overall summary on this is Heresy Corner.
@Gregory
>I hate this topic, however, the idea of vetting 11 millions, or whatever, is generally viewed by real police agencies as perverse.
I agree with that, and I’ve written extensively elsewhere. The perversity is already proven, but it will take massive damage to our caring professions before anyone notices.
ISTM that “protecting the children” is going to become the same sort of generic excuse used by management to justify whatever they want to justify, as currently happens with “Health and Safety” when used by non-H&S professionals as an excuse (ask the H&S pros what they think about that).
Stephen Tall said...
4 Nov 09 at 9:50 pm
@Matt – what LDV did was put out the Council statement, which flatly contradicts the stories put about by Metro etc. For all the acres of comment since then, I’ve not heard anyone say the Council’s statement is incorrect.
And it’s simply not good enough to say that Iain was blogging in haste. He’s had ample chance to correct his story, but is happy to let the false version stand.I think that’s poor.
As for the Mayor’s statement, I suspect she ‘mis-spoke’ in her first article. Fair enough to have a go at her for that – but it doesn’t alter the facts of the case.
Matt Wardman said...
4 Nov 09 at 11:02 pm
OK Stephen, Chapter and Verse:
>What LDV did was put out the Council statement, which flatly contradicts the stories put about by Metro etc. For all the acres of comment since then, I’ve not heard anyone say the Council’s statement is incorrect.
But there is no indication that the Council Statement can be regarded as “the facts of the case”, any more than can the Metro article.
And *I’ve* said that it is incorrect.
1 – The Council (from LDV):
“The press have inaccurately reported what Harwoods and Harebreaks are; they are not open public facilites. They never have been. They are closed, fully supervised facilities.
They are no different to other fully supervised facilities, like schools, playgroups or nurseries – where adults are not allowed to stay.”
2 – The Mayor (from LDV):
“This is about our adventure playgrounds, which are closed-off, fenced-in, fully supervised facilities for over 5s. Parents drop off their kids and leave them in our care – no different to playgroups or schools where adults are also not allowed to stay. We have a responsibility to those parents to safeguard their kids, and provide the best possible environment for them.”
3 – The form parents are required to sign up to to attend Harwoods, including a checkbox confirming their acceptance that their children can come and go as they please:
“The Adventure Playground is an ‘Open Access’ Facility. This means that children can come and go as they please, without restriction. If you are unsure of the meaning of ‘Open Access’ please discuss it with a member of staff. Please indicate if you understand and accept the ‘Open Access’ principle.”
http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=15363020
So, which is it? Are these closed, fully supervised, facilities, like a school – or are 5-10 year olds allowed to wander in and out as they please?
The Mayor and the Council are spinning a line that contradicts their own previous and current policy, and some people are trying to call it “the facts of the case”. That is not so.
There’s more to this than meets the eye, regardless of any inaccurate reporting on the part of papers or blogs.
There are also the various points that the Council have not been able (or have been unwilling) to explain
- What sort of quality of professional management is it when they had allowed a coach and horses to be driven through their own “rules”? Or are they making it sound more stringent than it was to justify the change?
- They mention “incidents”, without explanation. What incidents? Serious? Trivial? Do they justify the actions taken? I’m not inclined to believe it until I see the details.
There’s something fishy here, and not a little diversionary arsecovering.
Jack Hughes said...
4 Nov 09 at 11:04 pm
LibDem council: ‘all your childrens are belong to us’
Matt Wardman said...
4 Nov 09 at 11:05 pm
On your other point:
>And it’s simply not good enough to say that Iain was blogging in haste. He’s had ample chance to correct his story, but is happy to let the false version stand.I think that’s poor.
When I checked, he had drew a distinction between the two playgrounds and the other 40 – but I’ll agree that wrong accounts should be corrected.
I suppose that it could be that children in Watford Primary schools are allowed to come and go as they please, but I’d suggest we would have heard by now.
Stu said...
4 Nov 09 at 11:12 pm
“it could be that children in Watford Primary schools are allowed to come and go as they please”
I can tell you that when I went to a Watford primary school, this certainly wasn’t the case. But then, that was while the Tories were in power. God only knows what might have Changed under Labour…
Mo koyejo said...
5 Nov 09 at 9:40 am
Please i wish we could all focus on the point of all of this, an example for instance of my little boy, who has been happily playing at this wonderful facility since he was three and not breaking any rules……
He is now 4 and half,and now cannot go in and play, he watches his friends play everyday now, outside of the facilty, and i have to tell him, he no longer allowed in, beacuse he is not five yet, and i am not allowed to accompany him, as was always the case…..
He attends a school next to the facility,…. so he is going to get a constant reminder of this until he is five in march, when he will be “officially allowed in”