After about 10 or 15 mins you could have notified the store and had them page him over the PA system.

Perhaps the boy was not the man's son. Maybe he was a stray who followed him to the store. No wonder the man gave you a funny look. That's funny.

Missed opportunity! You could have snatched that kid and forced him to play soccer.

The photo makes me cringe. If I were there my attention would be on the kids. I would be uncomfortable for sure.

Here's a picture I took a few years ago in California.

Just beyond the railing is about a foot of grass, then a long drop to the ocean.

The sign next to the boy says:

The parent's weren't paying any attention.

Thats even worse than the original photo, to me.

They were probably looking for some apostrophes to add to the sign. Looks like you had all the extras, though ;)

I stole it from classicman's post, below mine.

aha. sneaky.

In reference to lookout's post, "over-sociable" kids bug the snot out of me. I like kids, in theory. I have two of my own, and this fact seems to make other people think I'll like theirs too, which is usually not the case.

But the point is, when a child does like the one in lookout's post, tries to talk to strangers, touches them, tries to climb into their laps, asks them for stuff...it really creeps me out. Makes me wonder what kind of life they've had up to that point that eliminates their natural shyness and wariness. Been cared for, in the absence of mom or dad, by too many total strangers? Don't people teach their kids not to talk to strangers anymore? Are they taking Hillary's statement "It takes a village to raise a child" far too literally?

hahahahaha.

Perhaps they've been brought up in a large family (or community) where they have never had reason to mistrust the adults around them, and are used to the fact that adults generally value them.

Mum told me a story last night from when they were on holiday recently. A little 8 year old girl (guesstimate) was struggling in the pool - Mum only noticed it when the life guard called out to the child and then made a move. The child actually went under in the few seconds between the life guard diving in and reaching her.

He pulled her out, checked she was okay and (crying) she ran round to the bar area - not far from where my parents were - to her Dad. He listened, put a towel round her and then went back to drinking with his friends. Her Mum returned to the bar a while later, listened to what the little girl was saying, then effectively did the same thing - left her sitting in her chair and started drinking.

Anyway, when my parents went in to lunch, Mum made a point of reporting the incident to Reception, so that the lifeguard at least received some recognition. She didn't say anything about the parents of course, just that in her opinion he had saved the little girl's life. Perhaps he could have reacted sooner, but Mum believes the girl had been happily swimming for a while and simply tired herself out while out of her depth. Comfortable to distress is something that can happen very quickly when you go to put your feet on the bottom.

Mum said the parents were obviously of the "Well, you can't watch them 24 hours a day" school of parenting. A view she sums up with, "You shouldn't have kids then." She also thinks it was horribly rude of the parents not to thank the lifeguard - even though neither saw their daughter go under (bad enough) at least one saw her come back crying and obviously having been removed from the pool.

Then again, Mum's opinions probably have a lot to do with why I have chosen not to have children. I see that as a good thing (I really can't face the 24 hour responsibility) but perhaps if she didn't have those opinions I wouldn't judge other people so harshly.

This is not a defense of the pool idiots. SG, the other side of the coin is being so involved as to cripple your child. It is hard if not impossible to hit the sweet spot where the child is supported but not stifled. Bruces' picture makes the point well. Lil' Pete could stand on that post all day and not hurt herself, while Lil' Griff would "put her eye out " in one unguarded moment.

It's funny, too, how generational we are in our attitude towards child-safety. My nieces have a great deal of freedom in many ways. My brother trusts them to take risks, often physical risks (in terms of sports and rock-climbing and the like)and has done from them being quite young. So, they're in no way over-coddled. But what they don't do, not because they've been stopped, but because it was never encouraged as a practice, is hang around outside, or go off places by themselves.

Now, when I was Soph's age I was usually in the park or playing around the old bomb shelter with my mates. Same with my bro. You'd get home from school, grab some food and then bugger off with your mates and instructions on what time to be home. This is something that doesn't seem to happen so much now, especially with middle-class kids. There's seems to be a general consensus that children should be 'somewhere' not just wandering about at risk.

Kids now don't seem to explore the world outside without supervision, as freely as they once did. Although, thinking about it, part of that might be because parents these days are generally more interested in doing the exploring as well. My brother and the girls go climbing and walking and building dens in the back garden.

Too bad a person couldn't print out the shot and present it to the parents.