Are Young People Put at a Disadvantage

[said]

Young people in growing up in each of the European member states do so under conditions of protection. Health and Safety regulations, protection against insulting behaviour, protection in the environment etc.,

Does such protection act against these people since they would not capable of facing real life issues when they are confronted with them? That people are no longer able to stand on their own two feet when it is necessary to do so?

[Albion102]

Health and safety, environmental protection and insulting behaviour are completely different things. The first two are essential safeguards against organisations putting safety or the environment above profits. The first major safety act was in 1974 and as a result, workplace deaths have reduced by 85% from over 700 per year to less than 100 per year. You might want to put that in the context of terror related deaths. It is not just young people, virtually everybody of working age has spent their whole lives working under "'elf and safety". I don't see how that is a bad thing.

I'm not sure that there is a European context to protection from insulting behavior, safe spaces, it's something that the far right likes to conflate with the EU, because they associate a certain kind of liberal mindset with both pro-European and the whole non-platforming, safe space thing.

The whole safe space thing is largely confined to Universities. Sadly as the recent ridiculous fuss over a picture of Theresa May at Oxford (celebrating its most eminent geography graduates) shows that it is a problem at our best Universities as well as the former polys.

I'm inclined to agree that we are over-protecting our young people. They seem much less resilient than earlier generations.The truth is that you really shouldn't take anything that an adolescent says too seriously, once you do - you are on a slippery slope.

[said]

Health and safety, environmental protection and insulting behaviour are completely different things. The first two are essential safeguards against organisations putting safety or the environment above profits. The first major safety act was in 1974 and as a result, workplace deaths have reduced by 85% from over 700 per year to less than 100 per year. You might want to put that in the context of terror related deaths. It is not just young people, virtually everybody of working age has spent their whole lives working under "'elf and safety". I don't see how that is a bad thing.

I'm not sure that there is a European context to protection from insulting behavior, safe spaces, it's something that the far right likes to conflate with the EU, because they associate a certain kind of liberal mindset with both pro-European and the whole non-platforming, safe space thing.

The whole safe space thing is largely confined to Universities. Sadly as the recent ridiculous fuss over a picture of Theresa May at Oxford (celebrating its most eminent geography graduates) shows that it is a problem at our best Universities as well as the former polys.

I'm inclined to agree that we are over-protecting our young people. They seem much less resilient than earlier generations.The truth is that you really shouldn't take anything that an adolescent says too seriously, once you do - you are on a slippery slope.

I never take anyone seriously. Perhaps it is just the times we live in where few young people have sufficient knowledge on how to make sensible decisions and experience having to make a choice for themselves and dealing with the consequences. At one time young people were out on their own making their own entertainment and experiencing various problems that they needed to overcome - legally, that is. This may have included being bullied by others verbally or physically, walking across difficult plains, climbing precarious hills, crossing fast flowing waters - all manner of things - yet all of which meant making decisions and prepared young people for adult life. Nowadays, it is illegal to verbally bully other people, almost every area that may pose the slightest risk is closed to the public - but that is only in the UK. When they are old enough many young people go adventuring to other countries and explore unsafe and unprotected areas - are they really equipped to do so? This is in reflection of the number of European back packers/explorers who have suffered or died abroad.

[Albion102]

I think that the issue is that Schools are simply doing less extra-curricular stuff than they used to, particularly around physical activities rather than one of over risk-averse behaviour. In my various families, the kids have all gone on ski school trips, which at one school included the stupidly dangerous "last to turn" competitions - but there is very little else. You can access fun stuff, - my partner's son does climbing and free-running with local clubs. You have to join a local club to do this.

We'll probably not agree on the underlying reason, but I definitely agree it is a bad thing if kids do not do potentially dangerous things in a risk controlled environment.

I'm not sure the backpackers thing is connected, it's just nobody did it in our day. We had overpowered small learner motorcycles to kill us !

[Hamble]

I would call it a false sense of security.

It is difficult to counsel young British travellers abroad.
They have this view that if one is non racist or judgemental and keen to experience 'multiculturalism' with their charitable time they will be safe.

I know from experience and do suffer stress every time my child go's off
the package tourist piste.