Skip to main content

The Frietag Method

There has been some debate in the media recently about children and delivering leaflets. Now and again I take my own children out delivering leaflets as I did with two this morning.

There is an interesting question as to how old a child has to be before they actually do more to help than hinder. My 5 year old, who said today that she had not been to the park for "ten years", is very close to being about to do more work delivering leaflets than it takes me for to wait whilst she runs around. Sadly, however, she has not actually got that far. I suppose her enthusiasm for going delivering leaflets will wane when the work done exceeds the time it takes for me to wait for her.

I think the threshold is probably at about 7. It does also depend upon whether the leaflets are addressed (and from time to time I deliver a road with leaflets only noticing part way down the road that they are addressed.)

Comments

TonyF said…
Considering the fact that there have been attempted child abductions in the midlands and the possible dangers to a child on the doorstep, aren't you being a bit thoughtless letting a 5 year old 'run around' delivering leaflets. Are you that short of adult lib dems in that area?
john said…
It is me that she is orbiting.
PoliticalHack said…
Anybody who has delivered leaflets thinks very hard before letting young children deliver leaflets. The number of letterboxes with sharp edges, fierce springs or vicious dogs lurking behind should give any parent second thoughts.

Mind you, I'd have second thoughts about letting John out with the kids, given that he can't even keep control of his bike.
john said…
The dogs are an issue for children and adults.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…