paedophilophobia

Part of my end of term resolution is to have lunch every day and, instead of eating it whilst working (dropping crumbs into my keyboard as I go), I have decided to take half hour actual break. The problem is what to actually do with the break. There is a staff room but it's like going to the kind of waiting room you might expect when waiting for bad news from a doctor or lawyer. If it's busy you just have to sit there and do your best to avoid colleague's spit on your lunch while they blither on about something you are trying to get a break from. Walking and eating are out as that's bad manners apparently. The 'refectory', with its plastic seats and fixed tables, has all the charm of a hospital cafeteria. Also it's full of screeching students, awful food and really annoying signs that overuse quotation marks. We hope you enjoy your "food" and "have a nice day". The quotation marks around "food" make me wonder what the hell it actually is. At least they seem to realise that naming it thus is quite possibly an infringement of the trades description act. It's funny how often i and other people invoke the trades description act. To be honest I only have the vaguest of notions about what it says.

My desk, then, is the only reasonable place to eat lunch so I have tried to get a paper, listen to the radio or do a similar diverting thing that's not work while I eat. Today I watched part of 'Child of our time' the BBC 'experiment which charts the lives of kids from various backgrounds then layers on a bit of real and a lot of pseudo sociology and psychology. (Link to BBC site). The bit I found interesting was how since 1987 the zone within which we allow our children to play has shrunk by 90%. The graphic they used really did the trick. i found it quite shocking. It's easy to recall my childhood and ramble on about how I used to go out in the morning and come back only when it was time for my tea. What really struck me though was explanations offered for this. Of course the perception of danger in the form of paedophiles or cars or, even worse, paedophiles in cars was there and the contrast between this perception and the reality. The more subtle explanations though was about how there is a self perpetuating cycle exacerbated by smaller family sizes. Perceived danger = some parents getting panicky. Some parents getting panicky= fewer kids on the streets. Fewer kids on the streets= perception of isolation which in turn = even fewer kids on the street. Hardly any kids on the street= remaining kids have nothing to do on the street so don't want to go on it any more.

Best mate is looking for a project. Granted he is interested in human rights and 'big' stuff but a 'reclaim the streets' for kids campaign could be something that got swift, tangible and life changing results. When I was watching it it made me want to get all the kids in my block outside, give them a football or something and see how they got on (locking the doors so they couldn't get in until they'd had a fight or something). However a 40 + bloke knocking on doors and inviting kids out to play may not be the best way to go about this.

There is a counter view that says that although kids sit in front of TV and PC screens a lot that this is nevertheless simply another way of preparing them for the big wide world. They still discover, they still play, they still interact. As much as I'm an enthusiast for technology and enjoy a slovenly evening in front of the footy, I can't help thinking that the loss of rough and tumble real world discovery could be having a big impact. If nothing else we're turning our kids into a bunch of nerdy jessies.