Image via WikipediaA small inconvenience but likely to be supported by public. (no need to go to consultation). The costs are 'just an investment in our youth'. Stiff compliance penalties to encourage support for the safety initiative is suggested. Unfenced walls are just premeditated 'child abuse'.
Urban Health Research Initiative commentator, Blair Anderson acknowledges "that these walls were originally built to protect kids from themselves, but the evidence shows it is the walls themselves that place kids at risk"
The experienced consultant in civic policy when pressed for comment said "A lot of folk think walls should not be solid, rather 'see through' to prevent stranger danger." Some citizens on talkback are pressing for Brick walls to be phased out if not banned altogether. "we wouldn't tolerate such 'obstruction' in a public space, why should the public have to put up with such barriers on private land. If they have nothing to hide they must be, at a very minimum, transparent".
Some city councillors supported a precautionary principal-led 'trial' forbidding climbing over brick walls. The danger 'in this tragedy' has been obvious for all to see.
Whereas public sentiment has been quiet, an unnamed CYPS psychologist has been reported saying that Children must be protected from illusionary 'otherside' thinking, ('grass is greener') as risk taking is associated with propensity to drug abuse, truancy and deviancy and when mixed with 'walls', even solid ones, to self harm, often [ even mistakenly] attributed to gravity.
The Commissioner for Children's spokesperson for quality parenting notes that the unforeseen and potentially tragic consequences have been known about for some time laying the blame at the feet of nieve parents and ignorant officials, noting "it all started with clearly immature young people making 'bad choices'.
The horse has bolted, we have to fence off these walls immediately."
--
Blair Anderson ‹(•¿•)›
No comments:
Post a Comment