Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Forgive my ignorance osem, but... I don't see the issue?
The term cage is an emotive one with regards to housing people. Whatever you call it, it has to keep him enclosed, presumably for his own safety as well as others. At least he can see through it. Much better than if it had been 4 walls made of brick? That would be worse. OK, the 'cage' isn't the most asthetically pleasing structure but it does the job. They could spend more on bricks and wood and it would look more pleasing the the eye, but wouldn't be any more functional? Put some pictures up, some toys in and it would be more comfortable?
If he was forced to live, eat and defecate in there I can see the issue, but it's a just a temporary outdoor play area?
|
... and I thought I'd summed that all up...
The cage has since been removed and all involved now seem to agree that a serious mistake was made so there's the issue. If you were able to see the sort of thought, effort and design that goes into properly designed safe indoor/outdoor play areas for children like this then you'd understand some of what's wrong with this 'effort' and why it would never be considered appropriate. Yes it is an emotive issue but I think most of us accept that it's important that children such as these be treated with dignity and respect and that the facilities provided for them are conducive to that. This 'effort' clearly wasn't.