I say most definately not acceptable.

Now you could argue that the parents are at fault for not keeping the child close to them. However... if the Queens/King's Guard are to be taken seriously as an entity that protects the monarch, and not even avoid trampling a young child... then NO civilians should be allowed in the area.

I think this Queens/King's Guard mingling with tourists, civilians, men women and children has gone on enough.

So much emphasis these days on health and safety and yet this potentially dangerous scenario continues. 

Keep civilians away!

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 20233 yr by martin-w

Agreed.

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

then NO civilians should be allowed in the area.

How would that work and still keep public access to the various tourist attractions? They march all the way from Waterloo Block in the north part of the grounds to Byward Tower at the southwest corner of the grounds:

"At 15:00 The Officer of The Guard and escort, march to the Byward Tower to collect the Word. The Word is the password, which is changed daily, for after-hours entry to the Tower of London. The Word used by Tower staff, residents and the soldiers on duty."

 

40 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

How would that work and still keep public access to the various tourist attractions? They march all the way from Waterloo Block in the north part of the grounds to Byward Tower at the southwest corner of the grounds:

 

Then don't allow access to this particular tourist attraction. No trampled child, or any civilian at risk, is worth a "tourist attraction". I don't car how far they march.

If armed guards marching back and forth are required to protect the monarch, then obviously civilians shouldn't be there.

Get rid of the guards and allow the police to patrol. The police could do the job without the elaborate marching back and forth in fancy dress, trampling kids. 

 

44 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Get rid of the guards and allow the police to patrol. The police could do the job without the elaborate marching back and forth in fancy dress, trampling kids. 

It’s ceremonial. They’re the Monarch’s guard. The parent is at fault for not keeping hold of the child.

10 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It’s ceremonial. They’re the Monarch’s guard. The parent is at fault for not keeping hold of the child.

 

As I said above...

"Now you could argue that the parents are at fault for not keeping the child close to them. However... if the Queens/King's Guard are to be taken seriously as an entity that protects the monarch, and not even avoid trampling a young child... then NO civilians should be allowed in the area."

If a child runs into the road, we don't think "well the parents were at fault so I wont stop", we brake hard to save the child. Likewise, the Kings Guard shouldn't have the attitude, "the parents were at fault so I'll trample the child". 

There was a similar incident not long ago, an elderly gentlemen was barged out of the way, no consideration for age, or an inability to move rapidly. 

Soldiers on duty, plus members of the public doing a bit of sightseeing, don't mix! 

17 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Soldiers on duty, plus members of the public doing a bit of sightseeing, don't mix! 

Perhaps not but a bit of common sense would have avoided the child being knocked over. Given he/she got up straight away I don’t think any harm was done.

19 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Perhaps not but a bit of common sense would have avoided the child being knocked over. Given he/she got up straight away I don’t think any harm was done.

 

Yes, common sense is always beneficial. But we are all fallible human beings. Parents make mistakes, get distracted and elderly people don't have the senses and reflexes they once had.

No great harm was done but it could have been. 

Not quite sure how effective they would be if they were called into action to protect the monarch. The 19 inch tall caps are hardly piratical when dealing with bad guys, a relic from when the British defeated Napoleon, they thought it was a good idea because it made them look taller. The entire uniform is pretty much unchanged since the 1800's. And of course red shirts are the last thing you need when dealing with armed bad guys. 

Edited March 6, 20233 yr by martin-w

11 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Yes, common sense is always beneficial. But we are all fallible human beings. Parents make mistakes, get distracted and elderly people don't have the senses and reflexes they once had.

No great harm was done but it could have been. 

Not quite sure how effective they would be if they were called into action to protect the monarch. The 19 inch tall caps are hardly piratical when dealing with bad guys, a relic from when the British defeated Napoleon, they thought it was a good idea because it made them look taller. The entire uniform is pretty much unchanged since the 1800's. And of course red shirts are the last thing you need when dealing with armed bad guys. 

A parent shouldn’t be distracted in those circumstances. Personal responsibility seems to be lacking with some people. Imagine if those soldiers reacted every time someone moved in front of them? People would impede them deliberately. It would become unsustainable.

That is a ceremonial uniform. You don’t imagine that’s their standard battle dress do you?

11 minutes ago, martin-w said:

"Now you could argue that the parents are at fault for not keeping the child close to them. However... if the Queens/King's Guard are to be taken seriously as an entity that protects the monarch, and not even avoid trampling a young child... then NO civilians should be allowed in the area."

The child wasn't trampled. The Guardsman very clearly stepped over him, not on him. You are entitled to your concerns for health and safety, but you choose to dismiss parental responsibility. These ceremonial events have gone on for hundreds of years, and until recently, there were almost no incidents, because people, even children, used to have something called common sense, and didn't get in the way of the soldiers. That behaviour pattern was in the past instilled by parents and schools, before the current attitude that the little dears must be allowed to do whatever they want, without due care..

2 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Not quite sure how effective they would be if they were called into action to protect the monarch. The 19 inch tall caps are hardly piratical when dealing with bad guys, a relic from when the British defeated Napoleon, they thought it was a good idea because it made them look taller. The entire uniform is pretty much unchanged since the 1800's. And of course red shirts are the last thing you need when dealing with armed bad guys. 

You appear not to appreciate traditions being maintained. Of course the uniforms are old fashioned. It's what the tourists expect and why millions of them come to London from around the world. To quote a common American expression, 'Nobody does ceremony like the Brits'.  It is not the responsibility, of the military to change such ceremonies to protect careless individuals, or appease those who want every conceivable risk removed from day to day life, when it would cause a great loss to those who enjoy these events.

Unacceptable.
If that was my child I’d be trampling the guard….I don’t care how silly that’s sounds aloud, I would have. Prison-able offence or not!
Clearly the child wasn’t aware of the situation, and from a child’s point of view being about 3 ft tall, may not of even seen them coming with the adults stood about…and the guard didn’t even acknowledge what he’d just done!

as said, if they don’t like people there then don’t allow them to be. 

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It’s ceremonial.

I would hope ceremonies can be subject to review. This particular ceremony is a case in point, marching from one end of the grounds to the other just to get a password.

Just now, dmwalker said:

I would hope ceremonies can be subject to review. This particular ceremony is a case in point, marching from one end of the grounds to the other just to get a password.

It’s part of British Army ceremony. Why would someone who doesn’t live in the UK be concerned?

I wouldn’t dream of commenting on any military ceremony in a foreign country. It’s their business.

2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Why would someone who doesn’t live in the UK be concerned?

Because someone was born in the UK and is still a British citizen as well as Canadian. However, I'm not really concerned: I just got caught up in all the excitement generated by this topic.

Look at all those other children and adults moving out of the way and not interfering.  Who would have thought that that would be a good idea?