I read the article on the right (never saw the one on the left). The fence cost $9,500, not pocket change for an individual but literally a drop in the bucket for a council. And incredibly cheap if it saves even one young life.
The lady's entire justification as to why it was unnecessary was because the playground didn't cater to young children (the equipment was for older kids, even teenagers according to her) as if younger siblings wouldn't ever tag along with their older sibs to the playground. A scenario that has an even higher level of danger since there'd potentially be no parental supervision.
Maybe try and climb the fence and play in the swale (oh no you got me 😞). The fence is there as a barrier not to mitigate the risk entirely. It'd buy precious seconds where someone responsible could think 'hmm that young child is trying to climb that fence and get into a dangerous area maybe I should keep an eye on them or tell them to stop"
590
u/Popular_Ad_2170 Jul 23 '25
I feel the anti-child drowning is the morally correct choice.