Well done all.

Wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t have a bunch of picky and technical points to make, though.

”we want to remind people that the most important thing about play space is that it is where children can get to it”.

Crucial point. Nice counter to the nature fad.

The vast majority of humans live in cities and don’t have Range Rovers to sweep us off to the Cotswolds. I can see several dangers with all this nature play malarkey:

(tongue firmly in cheek as he makes serious points in a ludic fashion)

1. it seems free, but is actually more managed and adult-mediated
2. unfashionable and annoying equality issues related to transport, race, parental income, class, etcetera. Not many kids on the Mandela estate have 2 parents who are National Trust members. Sorry to get all Dave Spart on you.
3. it does nothing to address issues of children’s access in the public realm. Bernard Spiegel has written compellingly on his blog on this topic recently.
4. comes across as needing ‘experts’ with intimidating skills and qualifications to manage ‘risky’ things.

Whereas PUPS*:

1. remind the whole ‘public’ that children are citizens,
2. and that play is part of everyday life
3. advocates for play in spaces that are often contested (or controlled by corporations – shopping centres are not public rights of way in the main)
4. sends positive messages about play, to counter the NO lists (no skateboarders, no heelies, no wheelies, no fun, just buy stuff)
5. doesn’t present as ‘expert’ with intimidating skills and qualifications, it’s ‘just kids playing’.

(BTW – *PUPS – I’m so pleased they dropped the A in Pop-up Adventure Play. I love what they do , but it is not adventure play, it is just play, and very fine, a point I have previously annoyed Morgan with.)

And

Really pleased that you got the evaluation gig, Adrian.

I expect you will widen the focus to include the socio-politics of the public realm, children’s rights, privatisation of public space and all that, as part of a broad evaluation of positive effects in a societal context, innit.

Fair Play to you all!

Yes, overdue, say I.

Yes, a legal opinion would be interesting, although Gerison Lansdown (who you may remember from her time at CRAE), who drafted the general comment, doesn’t believe the legal weight of the UNCRC is changed, if I understand her rightly (she refers to it as a Quasi legal document because there are no mechanisms for enforcement or redress).

The moral authority though is surely strengthened, as is the framework for policy. And linking this to existing statutory duties, as you have suggested, may well be the way to go.

I think all right-wing governments claim to dislike Quangos; as the epitome of the bloated bureaucracy and waste that they like to blame for economic woes (it’s easier than reforming the banks…).

On closer examination, though, they tend to keep, bolster even, the ones that are delivering the policies they like (it’s easier than getting the civil service, which they also dislike, to do it…)

I tend to keep my powder dry about Play England as I am unlikely to be seen as an objective voice. I will say though, in relation to your comment about a Play Council with similar functions to the Arts Council, that I didn’t copy the name from Play Wales and Play Scotland, as is often assumed. In many ways, Play England was the obvious choice of name, but it was Frank Dobson who first coined it – suggesting, similarly to yourself, that if there was a Sport England charged with distributing money to grassroots sport, then there should be a similar body for children’s play.

Well argued.

We need an early discussion/convention around the General Comment. It has clear legal implications and we maybe need some guidance/tuition etc as to exact ramifications. I am no lawyer, and we need some advice/counsel on this.

We can also look at this in conjunction with existing legislative responsibilities, e.g. for LEAs. I have been aware for some years of the s508 duties under the 1996 Education Act on LEAs, some of which are mandatory and others are enabling. There is a duty to consider working with the voluntary sector.

In 2006 that Act was amended and a new s507 added. s507b expands the requirements re services for 13+ age range. s507a deals specifically with the under-13s and there are some quite specific requirements which will impact on play provision, to the good, if carried out. There is Statutory Guidance on s507b but not on 507a so that is maybe an area for pressure and real input.

Coupled with A31.1 and A31.2, these items may well help us hone tools for prompting advances in provision and resourcing.