The BBC (and just about everyone else) is carrying the same story but none with the same headline-grabbing hysteria. They've tried to frame it so that readers with low attention spans will get the impression that parents giving another child a lift will need to be registered, which is a stupendously idiotic notion. With the rhetoric removed, the proposals all sound fairly sensible. Maybe there's a debate still to be had on this, particularly on the costs, I don't know, but what I do know is that the approach taken by the Mail is, as always, far from helpful in that debate.
Here's a recent comment (of the 500+) from someone who clearly hasn't understood:
Not sharing the driving will mean hundreds more cars on the school / sports runs; not good for the environment either. I wonder what other knock on effects there will be becuase people cannot afford this or refuse to be a party to it? Will some kids miss out on going to football practise and dance class because there is nobody to take them?
Ridiculous, absolutely ludicrous
- Anna Rack, Devon, UK, 11/9/2009 11:26
As always, click on the 'Worst rated' tab to see the most sensible, measured comments. Some are verging on the paranoid, but are perfectly valid nonetheless.
This is the worst rated with -226
If this saves even one child from abuse, then surely it's a small price to pay?
- Jim, London, 11/9/2009 0:57
Mail readers obviously consider this to be an extreme view, but is it really? A child being abused vs minor inconvenience to those adults who regularly work and volunteer with children. It's surely a debate worth having is it not?