Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

WA thinks of the children

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Deadsy, Oct 15, 2010.

  1. Source.

    My initial reaction was something like "****ING ****S". Then I decided to actually think about it, and I wondered why the Crusty Demons need a six year old? I guess what I am getting at, or what it comes down to, is was he chosen because it would attract attention (and does that justify the risk?) or was he chosen for more appropriate reasons (as in, he can do some awesome shit for a six year old). What do you think about this?

  2. I'm sure he was chosen for a bit of both. That said, if the kid's happy to do the stunts, his parents are happy for him to do the stunts, and the Crusty Demons (who are professionals who know what they're doing) are happy for him to do the stunts. I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to.

    I'm really starting to get rather fed up with the govt's intrusions into citizens' decisions. We're quite capable of making our own decisions.
  3. probably just a midget.
    theres ****ing midgets everywhere these days and quite frankly i find them annoying.
    at least this one is working in some sort of modern day freakshow/sideshow, because that's where they belong.
  4. Your early morning posts are hilarious, dude.
  5. Annoying ..... BAH ..... Im more worried about their evil powers ..
  6. Pathetic.
  7. Sad reflection on the nanny state we live in.
  8. fixed it for ya
  9. Is it really that bad.

    If your job was to protect children and you recieved a call from a family member...

    --> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/mp/8136962/young-daredevils-bike-stunt-jump-safe/

    Would you put your job on the line for it??? I'm not sure I would
  10. I hear what you are saying, the problem lies not with 1 person, but with the whole system.
    The kid wants to do it and the parents are happy for him to do it. It should be no-ones business but theirs. We have too many people and authorities wanting to run other peoples lives the way they think it should be run.
  11. Isn't it he's 6 he's probably thinks eating worms is ok... some people think shagging 6 yr olds is cool too.

    Society has to set boundary's the question is where...

    I you read the article they haven't said he can't jump at all, they've said he can't jump in the show...
  12. It also comes down to informed consent. I'm not sure a 6 year old would understand the ramifications of a stunt like that going wrong. Let's face it there is quite some risk in doing a jump like that despite having 'lots of padding'. I would suggest his consent is uninformed.
  13. The difference being there is no malice or harm intended by the parents by letting him jump, so its quite a bit different to someone wanting to have a "fiddle".
    Neither are they being negligent, IMO.

    I read the article. I still say its their business where he jumps, be it their back yard or a show.

    The bottom line is, we are becoming a society were "no" and "banned" are the norm, instead of "give it a go", etc. If our forefathers had the same HiViz approach we have on life today, we would all still be sitting in Europe.
  14. Children and consent is a tricky one. Do you believe a six year can accurately assess the risks involved and conceive the possible consequences? Does the child really, in full knowledge of the consequences, genuinely enjoy this activity, or are they acting under the influence of persuasive adults and peers?

    The issue relates to duty of care, whether the parents have acted reasonably to prevent negligence occuring. It's not as simple as 'parent and child express a desire to do X, so allow X'. There are circumstances where some parents, for whatever reason will allow their children to take risks without giving appropriate consideration to their duty of care and the child's best interests. It would be preferable for the state to act preventatively rather than responsively in cases concerning child welfare.
  15. the first words the kid learnt were "hold my milk and watch this"
  16. perhaps it has more bearing that the 6yo is getting paid for doing it, rather than a supervised hobby or sport.

    Perhaps the grandmother is a meddling old coote in the same way that mothers in law in general reckon you're no good for their daughter.

    Or perhaps "Cloistered kids make terrible adults " amd "Parental fear breeds cotton-wool kids"


  17. When I first saw this, I suspected there might be some family strife going on behind the scenes. My own guess was divorced parents, but I think the fact that it was the intervention of a grandmother confirms my general theory.

    I suspect that the Dept of Child Protection weren't too chuffed at being in the middle of a family row in this way either. They've got more pressing matters to deal with. However, on being notified, the poor buggers had two options. One: Ignore the daft old bat and let the jump go ahead. Possible consequence: kid gets hurt, Worst Australian, Sunday Crimes and local tabloid TV absolutely do their nuts, head of department gets major roasting, unfortunate underlings who made judgement call get sacked. Or Two: Step in and prevent jump. Certain consequence: kid and parent(s) very disappointed, a few people whinge on internet forums, possible couple of column inches and a few minutes of attention on talkback radio complaining about nanny states, whole thing blows over in a matter of a day or two at most, everyone gets to pay their mortgage next month and Chairman (or his local equivalent) is deprived of some material for another pants wettingly funny account of a Crusty Demons show.

    For any public servant (or anyone else for that matter) who lives in the real world, as opposed to some fantasy place where some vestige of common sense survives, the decision is a no-brainer.

    Save your bile for the family, who are unable to sort things out without recourse to already overstretched government departments.

    IMHO, it's a perfect argument for my own approach of never, as an adult, telling your parents anything about your life and certainly preventing them from having any contact with your kids. Worked perfectly for me for 20 years.
  18. The kid does the same jump at home, its not like Crusty are pushing him to do out of his comfort zone.
  19. +1 Great summary.
  20. I think this is where the problem is and where kids need boundaries....

    He loves doing this...... great, no reason why he shouldn't do it.
    Does it at home.......... great and as long as it's supervised, keep it going.
    He's a natural............. even better.

    But putting a 6 year old kid in front of thousands with the pressure and expectation to perform something that has the potential to be dangerous?
    That's the problem.
    It's a marketing scheme with a fee.
    He's not old enough to make genuine desicions at 6 about the level of risk that's acceptable to him and that other's (adults) will be profiting from.

    Hmm, wonder what difference is this to those crazy feral mothers, putting their 4 year old daughters in those full blown beauty pagents....

    Let kids have their fun, but let them be kids while they're kids..