Climbing trees

This weekend, Mrs Bishop escaped to England for a girly shopping weekend, leaving Mr Bishop with three baby bishops. Since Granny Bishop was on holiday too, this could have been a struggle, but the possibility of having to entertain the nippers single-handed was averted by dint of inviting lots of schoolfriends and their parents round.

Amazing fact though - both of the families invited were surprised, nay shocked, that Mr and Mrs Bishop allowed their children to climb trees, and freely admitted that they were far too fearful to allow such dangerous behaviour. I wasn't aware of any other uses for trees, myself. I didn't tempt fate by letting on that one of the baby Bishops rides his bicycle without a helmet, and once managed to ride at high speed into a brick wall in the process. I will probably be reported to social services any day now.

On a similar theme, Instapundit has been blogging regularly about the Dangerous Book for Boys, which looks set to be  a bestseller over on that side of the pond, and if Glenn Reynolds has it right, the start of a pardigm shift in the way boys are raised.

Comments

[Mark Adams]

I'm confused. It's not Mrs and Granny Hill? Are the Scottish like the Japanese, with the first and last names reversed; or has your entire family been ordained?

[Bishop Hill]

Well they sometimes behave like they're the Almighty himself, but no, it just came out that way.

[James Pickett]

"bicycle without a helmet"

There seems to be a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that cycling helmets can make the practice more dangerous. This seems to be a combination of extra perceived safety on the part of the cyclist and a similar perception on the part of motorists, who give them less room when overtaking. Also, the sort of impact that would crush your skull is unlikely to be prevented by a foam cover.

As ever, the law of unintended consequences is ready and waiting to make its presence felt...