Eggs protected from breakage by the use of 'polystyrene helmet'.

Paulmouk

Folks,

I turned the radio on (BBC 4) at 1650 today and heard the
end of a program so don't actually know all that was in it.
However, the bit I did hear was referring to brain damage
and children were expressing their amazement at the fact
that an egg in a 'polystyrene helmet' could be thrown
repeatedly at the floor and not break. Implied that the
skull could be similarly protected but as I didn't hear the
start, I've no idea if head protection of any form had been
discussed.

Will be repeated on Sunday.

16:30 The Learning Curve Libby Purves presents a guide to
the world of learning, with education news and practical
advice. [Rptd Sun 11.00pm]

Paul.

Just Zis Guy

Paulmouk wrote:

> I turned the radio on (BBC 4) at 1650 today and heard the
> end of a program so don't actually know all that was in
> it. However, the bit I did hear was referring to brain
> damage and children were expressing their amazement at the
> fact that an egg in a 'polystyrene helmet' could be thrown
> repeatedly at the floor and not break. Implied that the
> skull could be similarly protected but as I didn't hear
> the start, I've no idea if head protection of any form had
> been discussed.

This is Angie Lee's party trick.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Zog The Undenia

Paulmouk wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I turned the radio on (BBC 4) at 1650 today and heard the
> end of a program so don't actually know all that was in
> it. However, the bit I did hear was referring to brain
> damage and children were expressing their amazement at the
> fact that an egg in a 'polystyrene helmet' could be thrown
> repeatedly at the floor and not break. Implied that the
> skull could be similarly protected but as I didn't hear
> the start, I've no idea if head protection of any form had
> been discussed.

A cracked skull isn't particularly serious. It's the
movement of the brain within that is the problem.

Just Zis Guy

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:51:52 +0100, Zog The Undeniable
<hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote in message <40ead740.0@entanet>:

>A cracked skull isn't particularly serious. It's the
>movement of the brain within that is the problem.

And a skull is fractionally stronger than an eggshell.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Nigel Randell

"Paulmouk" <paulmo2004junk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jmBGc.693$j21.366@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> Folks,
>
> I turned the radio on (BBC 4) at 1650 today and heard the
> end of a program so don't actually know all that was in
> it. However, the bit I did hear was referring to brain
> damage and children
were
> expressing their amazement at the fact that an egg in a
> 'polystyrene
helmet'
> could be thrown repeatedly at the floor and not break.
> Implied that the skull could be similarly protected but as
> I didn't hear
the
> start, I've no idea if head protection of any form had
> been discussed.
>
> Will be repeated on Sunday.
>
> 16:30 The Learning Curve Libby Purves presents a guide to
> the world of learning, with education
news
> and practical advice. [Rptd Sun 11.00pm]
>
> Paul.
>

I heard the item, it was about educating children about
brain injuries, their implications and avoidance. The
avoidance of injury bit was itself avoided, I was waiting
for the lecture about helmets on bikes but it never came.
The only reference to helmets was the aforementioned egg
experiment, the same sort of setup can give a convincing
demonstration of the effect of a seat belt. Talking of
which, the importance of protecting children in cars was not
mentioned either.

--
Nigel Randell

Burt

"Paulmouk" <paulmo2004junk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jmBGc.693$j21.366@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> Folks,
>
> I turned the radio on (BBC 4) at 1650 today and heard the
> end of a program so don't actually know all that was in
> it. However, the bit I did hear was referring to brain
> damage and children
were
> expressing their amazement at the fact that an egg in a
> 'polystyrene
helmet'
> could be thrown repeatedly at the floor and not break.
> Implied that the skull could be similarly protected but as
> I didn't hear
the
> start, I've no idea if head protection of any form had
> been discussed.
>
> Will be repeated on Sunday.
>
> 16:30 The Learning Curve Libby Purves presents a guide to
> the world of learning, with education
news
> and practical advice. [Rptd Sun 11.00pm]
>
> Paul.
>
I heard the whole thing, and the point of the article was
to tell you how they were informing children about the
potential for head injuries and how to avoid them. Only one
way of causing such a head injury was mentioned on the
programme: no prizes for guessing what it was. Their
website is marginally better, but still has undue emphasis
on cycling.

I have tried complaining, writing to programmes, but the BBC
continues to act in an extremely biassed manner, practically
putting out propaganda for BHIT. Has anyone ever got a
response from them?

Just Zis Guy

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:35:14 GMT, "burt"
<burtthebike@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
<S9DGc.31274$eK2.25832@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>I heard the whole thing, and the point of the article was
>to tell you how they were informing children about the
>potential for head injuries and how to avoid them. Only one
>way of causing such a head injury was mentioned on the
>programme: no prizes for guessing what it was. Their
>website is marginally better, but still has undue emphasis
>on cycling.

I didn't hear it, so maybe you would like to go to their
feedback discussion board and mention that over half of
child head injuries are due to trips and falls, and there
are more child head injury admissions due to assault than
due to cycling; and that the major factor in deciding
whether there will be a serious head injury is not
whether the child is cycling, but whether a motor vehicle
is involved.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Zog The Undenia

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> there are more child head injury admissions due to assault
> than due to cycling

Ah...but that's all been cured because we can't beat our
kids any more ;-)

Richard Corfiel

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Ah...but that's all been cured because we can't beat our
> kids any more ;-)

I was reading the front pages of some papers today - and the
war cry and reasoning behind the smacking ban did go
something like "Think of ???? murdered child". I can just
picture the scene...

"Hello little child. I'm afraid I'd better not smack you as
its
illegal. I'll just stick this knife into your ribs instead
as thats OK"

I can see this law causing more harm than good, as I
can't see how it will stop people who really assault
children, unless perhaps by providing a means to arrest
anyone who even slightly bruises a child, you may include
the abusers in your net. Its like increasing the gain to
detect something more easily - and getting more noise
into the bargain.

What would happen if a child went to school and mentioned
that they'd been smacked or threatened with smacking? Would
it be taken out of context? How much would it take before
they send in the social workers and accuse you of being a
bad parent?

What alternate immediate punishments are there for children?
(out of interest, as I'll hopefuly soon enough be in a
situation to need to know this kind of thing). It must have
immediacy, as I wouldn't expect a small child to relate
cause and effect across large spans of time. Is the Stern
Voice enough? How long before the Stern Voice is classed as
mental chastisement? Bribing with sweets is not an option.
Does "distracting them from doing the bad thing" really
teach them? I can't

implies ???? - will have to find out when this
distraction goes".

To be fair - I was rarely if ever smacked as a child, though
the threat existed. It seems from this, and other comments
in the group, that the environment that existed when I was a
child just doesn't exist now. We're so "safety concious" to
avoid the risk of litigation. Has the threat of mugging
really increased dramatically, or is it a case of too much
media hype? There seems a lot more talk of different ways of
being accused of child abuse - if some MPs have their way
even light smacking would become another. Also I hear of
more and more kids on various kinds of chemicals to deal
with "Attention Deficit".

Even physical factors have changed. There are a lot more
cars on the roads, though I used to live in a village, and
now I live in the suburbs. I'm not sure mobile phones were
even invented when I was that kind of age. We had lots of
interesting places to play, and reasonable free roaming
whilst respecting other people's land. May have to move out
to a village some time in the future.

- Richard

Just Zis Guy

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:49:18 +0100, Richard Corfield
<rcnews2@littondale.dyndns.org> wrote in message
<2l0hifF7ae3cU1@uni-berlin.de>:

>I was reading the front pages of some papers today - and
>the war cry and reasoning behind the smacking ban did go
>something like "Think of ???? murdered child". I can just
>picture the scene...

I thought it was ludicrous. It's OK to smackj them as
long as you don't injure them - but if you injured them
you'd be committing an offence anyway. Madness. The whole
thing is an obvious stitch-up by the control freaks who
want to prescribe and proscribe every element of our
daily lives, watered down to appease the "damned good
hiding never did me any harm" brigade. In my view it's an
utterly pointless idea.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Simon Brooke

in message <2l0hifF7ae3cU1@uni-berlin.de>, Richard Corfield
('rcnews2@littondale.dyndns.org') wrote:

> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>> Ah...but that's all been cured because we can't beat our
>> kids any more ;-)
>
> I was reading the front pages of some papers today - and
> the war cry and reasoning behind the smacking ban did go
> something like "Think of ???? murdered child". I can just
> picture the scene...
>
> "Hello little child. I'm afraid I'd better not smack you
> as its illegal. I'll just stick this knife into your
> ribs instead as thats OK"
>
> I can see this law causing more harm than good, as I can't
> see how it will stop people who really assault children,
> unless perhaps by providing a means to arrest anyone who
> even slightly bruises a child, you may include the abusers
> in your net. Its like increasing the gain to detect
> something more easily - and getting more noise into the
> bargain.

This is all extremely silly. Firstly there is in effect no
change to the law in England and Wales, as whereas before
you could only use 'reasonable chastisement' now your
chastisement can be as unreasonable as you like but you
can't cause injury. And secondly hitting children has been
illegal in the civilised parts of the United Kingdom for
years with no obvious ill effects. Indeed, some obvious good
effects - you no longer see parents walloping their three-year-
olds in supermarket aisles.

As an aside I fear that the BBC may have done real damage to
children in Scotland by failing to make it clear that the
legal license to assault weans only applies among the
vicious and uncultured barbarians south of Gretna.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --

Tony Raven

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>
>
> Ah...but that's all been cured because we can't beat our
> kids any more ;-)

Before some of the residents here pipe up I'll say it for
them - you can in Scotland.

Tony

\ Dave

"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4rjrr1-d9q.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <2l0hifF7ae3cU1@uni-berlin.de>, Richard
> Corfield ('rcnews2@littondale.dyndns.org') wrote:
>
> > Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> >> Ah...but that's all been cured because we can't beat
> >> our kids any more ;-)
> >
> > I was reading the front pages of some papers today - and
> > the war cry and reasoning behind the smacking ban did go
> > something like "Think of ???? murdered child". I can
> > just picture the scene...
> >
> > "Hello little child. I'm afraid I'd better not smack
> > you as its illegal. I'll just stick this knife into
> > your ribs instead as thats OK"
> >
> > I can see this law causing more harm than good, as I
> > can't see how it will stop people who really assault
> > children, unless perhaps by providing a means to arrest
> > anyone who even slightly bruises a child, you may
> > include the abusers in your net. Its like increasing the
> > gain to detect something more easily - and getting more
> > noise into the bargain.
>
> This is all extremely silly. Firstly there is in effect no
> change to the law in England and Wales, as whereas before
> you could only use 'reasonable chastisement' now your
> chastisement can be as unreasonable as you like but you
> can't cause injury.

If I understood this right, it was visible injury, i.e. cuts
'n' bruises. Is this not the sign of a master torturer - to
apply maximum pain with minimum visual evidence?....

And secondly hitting children
> has been illegal in the civilised parts of the United
> Kingdom for years with no obvious ill effects. Indeed,
> some obvious good effects - you no longer see parents
> walloping their three-year-olds in supermarket aisles.
>
Please feel free to come to the supermarkets round these
'ere parts...someone forgot to mention it to certain
individuals hereabouts...
:-(

> As an aside I fear that the BBC may have done real damage
> to children in Scotland by failing to make it clear that
> the legal license to assault weans only applies among the
> vicious and uncultured barbarians south of Gretna.
>
> --
> simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)
> http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> -- mens vacua in medio vacuo --
>

In response to the OP and his query about the way to
chastise a child....don't!!... Generally children aren't
naughty, it's only the parents perception of what
constitutes naughty at that particular moment in time, i.e.,
I don't want you to do that, I've told you so and still you
persist, therefore you are being naughty and need a good
hiding to teach you a lesson. Mostly children are curious
and enjoy interaction. That is to say they are great big
sponges that absorb information at a phenomenal rate. If you
pay them attention and answer their questions from the
beginning, they will respond to reason and logic better than
you could hope for. Again, around these 'ere parts the usual
response to a child exercising its curiosity is
"shurruporI'll'itya!!"..and if the child persists in
irritating its parent they just shout it louder and continue
to ignore the child's needs. I think you probably get the
idea of the direction I'm coming from. I've got three
perfectly well adjusted children who've never been struck
and are model citizens, thoughtful and caring, which is
certainly unusual for the area in which they live.

I have a theory that in a thousand years, if we survive, or
an alien race comes across evidence of our 'civilisation',
we will be judged and found wanting. We will most certainly
not be viewed as civilised because we beat our children. I
think that fact will be sufficient to warrant the
judgement.......

Dave I'll get me coat.......

Graeme

Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in
news:2l0pvmF7iomeU1@uni-berlin.de:

> Before some of the residents here pipe up I'll say it for
> them - you can in Scotland.

Yeah, but think of how inconvenient that is. If, for
example, you live in Newcastle, it's a good hour or two in
the car up to Scotland. By the time you've got up there both
you and the child have forgotten what the smack is for.

I can just picture a lot of people reaching Lamberton,
getting out looking confused and then driving back
home again.

;-)

Graeme