Is this really so controversial? If I want my toddler to understand that something is hot, then I will generally let her touch whatever it is she is reaching for. Each time, I calmly say the word “hot”, whilst standing next to her. This has probably only happened three or four times, without injury, and it has had significant long term benefits for all of us:

•  She already knows which everyday things tend to be hot – for example radiators, or certain foods – and is cautious about touching them with anything other than a tentative nail (she also says “h-o” when she sees them).
• If we now come across something new and I tell her it is hot, then she will not touch it all – for example open fires, or boiling tar.
• If, for any reason, I happened not to be with her, I would feel far more confident that she was able to make an informed decision about whether or not to touch something than if I had taken the usual approach of screaming and whipping her away from anything remotely warm from the moment she was born.

Because one of us is always watching what she does fairly closely and we know her better than anyone else, we are able to identify the relatively few risks that are significant to her as she grows and learns, and mitigate accordingly. So, for example, one of us would always sit between her and an open fire when she is tired because we know that she then has a tendency to stagger. If she is not doing something that’s going to kill her, maim her or probably result in a trip to A&E, then we’re pretty happy for her to do it. We don’t pre-emptively make a fuss if she does fall or bang herself, although we’re always on hand for a quick kiss and cuddle if the need arises. It rarely does.

Unsurprisingly, there are a few people we deal with on a day-to-day basis who refuse to think through the logic of this approach and are thus confused and horrified. We are constantly told: “Watch her-watch her- WATCH HER!”, “Oh my GOD she’s going to bang her HEAD!”, or “CAREFUL!” as though we are the archetypal blind leading the blind. Fingers are quite possibly itching to call Social Services as I type. Letters to the Daily Mail are in the offing, and I fully expect a prime-time, ITV documentary exposing negligent parents and their limbless children sometime soon. 

But cease your worrying on our behalf, interventionists, there is a legitimate movement afoot! 

Whilst we feckless young parents are obviously not capable of realistically managing our child’s exposure to risk, a body of experts has thankfully assembled itself, funded by a £1.6m government grant to – who would’ve thought it – manage our child's exposure to risk on our behalf!

Yup, that’s right. RoSPA, that trailblazer in the battle against slips, trips and falls, has now established the National Child Safety Education Coalition. This remarkable innovation:

“will promote practical safety education which will equip children and young people with the ability to reduce the severity of unintended injuries. But the coalition will also recognise that bumps, scrapes and disappointments are an important part of growing up.”

“But how,” I hear yourself asking, “how might these advancers of our children’s education possibly achieve such a radical step as this?”

Well, dear reader, it’s simple:

“Permanent practical safety education centres, plus a range of annual safety events, run across the country under the general banner of LASER (Learning About Safety by Experiencing Risk). They provide a powerful interactive approach to safety education and use realistic scenarios, such as road environments, water sites, smoke-filled rooms and unsafe kitchens, to help children and young people develop the skills, knowledge and confidence to keep themselves safe in a range of situations.”

Ah, LASER. Permanent practical safety education centres. Simple – but alternative realities are kind of costly too, don’t you think? I had been entertaining the idea of my child learning to navigate a real road in due course, but perhaps that’s taking LASER a step too far.

At least our feather-headed, naïve intentions have been lauded as vaguely credible by the people who really know where health and safety is at. But never fear, meddlers, you were right all along – we can't be left alone and trusted to make sure our child is safe – as rampantly individualistic 21st century parents, of course we’re not competent without expert guidance and instruction. We’re simply not meeting your standards - sorry about that.