Before you can use commonsense, you need information, if you don't know smoking or drinking is harmful to the unborn baby, you don't know it's commonsense not to do it.

Leaded paints were not the problem, you have to ingest an awful lot of lead, over  a very long period, to become ill,

But not much has to be ingested to cause mild or medium mental retardation

As for childproof lids, well they had something better in those days, it was called common sense. Medicine and harmful substances were kept out of reach, and the problem was solved.

So it was just too bad for those children who were made ill or died because of a lack of commonsense by an adult or sometimes a small lapse of concentration, mustn't introduce a simple way of avoiding that as it would just be mollycoddling.

How on earth can you say that relying on commonsense was better than a simple method of avoidance?

If you were having an operation in hospital, would you be happy to know that you were relying solely on commonsense to still be alive afterwards or would you prefer that safety procedures were in place?

seatbelts became a necessity because of the increased speed performance of cars, and the increase of the number of cars on our roads.

Nonsense, seatbelts were introduced after research showed their effectiveness at reducing death and injury at all speeds, 10 - 20mph was enough to put a driver's face through a windscreen.

http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/HowEffective/vehicles/seat-belts

There was absolute shame, and the Parents of these  juveniles had to live with it.

I can assure you that not everybody felt shame, not all parents were fine upstanding citizens

I'd say it depends on a lot more then social class. Accidental deaths may have halved, (you say that, and I haven't managed to get any data to support or deny it)

http://www.poverty.org.uk/23/index.shtml

It would seem that the golden haze of nostalgia is rather apt to cloud minds.

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

Before you can use commonsense, you need information, if you don't know smoking or drinking is harmful to the unborn baby, you don't know it's commonsense not to do it.

RB: My point exactly, so here, we do concur.

 

RB: Leaded paints were not the problem, you have to ingest an awful lot of lead, over  a very long period, to become ill, 

BH: But not much has to be ingested to cause mild or medium mental retardation,

RB: That is as maybe, but there was virtually no danger, because of blankets, and covers etc., and your first point applies here too "if you don't know that lead paint is harmful, then you don't know it's common sense not to use or manufacture it."

 

RB: As for childproof lids, well they had something better in those days, it was called common sense. Medicine and harmful substances were kept out of reach, and the problem was solved.  

BH: So it was just too bad for those children who were made ill or died because of a lack of commonsense by an adult or sometimes a small lapse of concentration, mustn't introduce a simple way of avoiding that as it would just be mollycoddling.

How on earth can you say that relying on commonsense was better than a simple method of avoidance?

If you were having an operation in hospital, would you be happy to know that you were relying solely on commonsense to still be alive afterwards or would you prefer that safety procedures were in place?

RB: Nope, you are replying out of context, read again, childproof lids were not around in those days, and therefore commonsense was of course vital, it still is today, but with all the increases in child safety that are around, and which I heartily support, tragedies still happen.

RB: seatbelts became a necessity because of the increased speed performance of cars, and the increase of the number of cars on our roads. 

BH: Nonsense, seatbelts were introduced after research showed their effectiveness at reducing death and injury at all speeds, 10 - 20mph was enough to put a driver's face through a windscreen.

http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/HowEffective/vehicles/seat-belts

RB: Yes of course, but research only started when cars got numerous, faster, and more dangerous, resulting in more traffic/road accidents and fatalities. 

 

RB: There was absolute shame, and the Parents of these  juveniles had to live with it. 

BH: I can assure you that not everybody felt shame, not all parents were fine upstanding citizens

RB: Of course I agree, just as you must agree that not nearly every parent filled the juvenile halls, or courts, as you said earlier, protesting their offsprings innocence.  etc., etc.,

 

RB:I'd say it depends on a lot more then social class. Accidental deaths may have halved, (you say that, and I haven't managed to get any data to support or deny it)...

http://www.poverty.org.uk/23/index.shtml

 

BH: It would seem that the golden haze of nostalgia is rather apt to cloud minds. ( by the way, you only printed a very small part of my quote there, BH)

 

RB: Is  that a statement intended for me, or you? Because, I've lived through some of those days (though Tommy can give me nearly 2 decades) and I don't hanker for them, they were tough, compared to today. 

---

Truly excellent debate BH, I've enjoyed this discussion, and the exchange of views.

 Careful Ronny, Lola will be having a go at you for using a red font

What hasn't been mentioned in any of the above was the amount of child abuse inside the family, in schools and state institutions that was swept under the carpet.

Nor how violence in the family was treated by the police as "a domestic" and no action taken.

Nor how disabled children were institutionalised in 'special' schools or asylums.

Absolutely Creeky...

I only commented on what  the OP was stating, not what it wasn't!

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

 Careful Ronny, Lola will be having a go at you for using a red font

 

What hasn't been mentioned in any of the above was the amount of child abuse inside the family, in schools and state institutions that was swept under the carpet.

 

Nor how violence in the family was treated by the police as "a domestic" and no action taken.

 

Nor how disabled children were institutionalised in 'special' schools or asylums.

 

---

Careful Ronny, Lola will be having a go at you for using a red font

Excusez moi, Monsieur Creeky, I don't 'have a go' at anyone for using red font but I do take the pee out of the way 'some' people use it.. because it's funny  

Anyway, I'm sure the OP was only intended to be a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek trip down memory lane not a sworn affidavit claiming that everything about the good old days was better!!

When being in a gang meant sitting in a barn telling ghost stories!

When being in a gang meant choosing between cowboy and Indian or British soldier and German soldier LOL

Although mostly, I just got told that I wasn't allowed to play cos I was only a girl... ahhh the good old days    

Lucky you, Sam.. it was usually my older brother who wouldn't let me play.. although sometimes he would grudgingly let me be the nurse or the tea lady if I threatened to tell on him LOL

---

@saasher2012 wrote:
Mine used to bet his mates sixpence I could beat em in a scrap, brothers , what are they like!

---

And..could you?

LOL

Ha ha love it  

Ah!!

Childhood games....  nostalgia!!

Doctors and Nurses, when I played, it was usually   "Patient & Nurses"

Coalman's Knock, .. like Postman's Knock, only dirtier.

Blind man's buff or blind man's bluff is a children's game a variant of tag. The traditional name of the game is "blind man's buff", wherein the word buff is used in its older sense of a small push. The game later also became known as "blind man's bluff"

Blind man's buff is played in a spacious area, such as outdoors or in a large room, in which one player, designated as "It", is blindfolded and gropes around attempting to touch the other players without being able to see them, while the other players scatter and try to avoid the person who is "it", hiding in plain sight and sometimes teasing them to make them change direction.

Girls can be devious, I was always "it", and they told me I had to be "it" in the buff, because that is why it's so called.  

Me...

You is bad, innit. 🙂

I agree, Sam although sometimes, completely blanking them can be much more infuriating (for THEM) ergo more fun for us heh heh heh