1. The kid can be seen looking at the Guardsman before impact and was stationary—no push from sibling.
2. The kid was not stepped on.
3. Other kids shown in the video are consciously leaving sufficient space/not in a position to impede the Guardsmen.
4. The shout from the Guardsman could have been made earlier.
5. People who will feel offended by the actions of the soldier will feel offended, wring their hands, call for more health and safety protections and/or banning. Those who aren't, won't.

Hmmm, kind of reminds me of people and kids at an airshow. As stated above, common sense goes a long way, but common sense isn't so common anymore. I've done static displays at airshows and have caught people doing shady things to my jet. I've seen kids and adults hanging on structures, opening panels and shoving things down intake ducts😡. It's one of the reasons I've always wanted one of us at the jet during airshows. I know some peeps park it and just leave their aircraft sitting there. I've seen kids pulling and swinging on things while their parents are just there care free. Even when I'm just a spectator myself, I stroll up and tell the parents the kids may hurt themselves or damage the multi million dollar aircraft. In my early days before flying, I used to get nipped, bite and scraped by aircraft as a mechanic just walking/crawling around them. Unfortunately, there are no manuals with do and don't criteria for peeps at airshows. I wonder is it the same at these ceremonies. You would think the parents would investigate prior to find out expectations since this attraction is well known. I do a very thorough walk around/preflight when departing after an airshow because of these type of people. 

8 hours ago, martin-w said:

However... if the Queens/King's Guard are to be taken seriously as an entity that protects the monarch, 

I would have thought any body of men willing to trample children would make for a ruthless, determined guard, willing to take a bullet for Charles, no?

 

 

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

And of course red shirts are the last thing you need when dealing with armed bad guys. 

No kidding! Look what seemed to be inevitable for the security crew (aka: red shirts) on the Enterprise!

6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Perhaps not but a bit of common sense would have avoided the child being knocked over.

Along with a lot of things missing in society today is common sense and personal responsibility.

Attention in this matter should be directed at the party at fault...the child's parents or guardians.  Rather than putting the area off limits to tourists or halting the guards perhaps signage warning of the dangers and attention to monitoring children should be erected.

Noel

I bet the Queens Guards do have the powers to setup a cordon to keep tourists back (which is probably a good idea), but they are just choosing not to, which is valid as well, if they choose to make a cordon let them, if they choose not to that is fine too, it is their job leave it up to them

8 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

I bet the Queens Guards 

They’re the King’s Guards now. 😉

14 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

A parent shouldn’t be distracted in those circumstances. 

 

 

That's not how the real world works Ray. Everybody on this planet is a fallible human being. Every one of us is capable of making mistakes. 

 

Quote

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

 

The purpose of the Kings Guard is to guard the residence of the King and by extension the King himself. Those guards, in their ceremonial uniform, don't have the luxury of asking terrorists (who may be imbedded within the tourists) to hang on a second while they go and spend half an hour getting kitted up in more appropriate combat gear. Thus, they may well be called into play. Now, I'm sure there's a barracks nearby where there are Kings Guard, not dressed in ceremonial gear, and capable of acting in such a scenario but that would impose a significant delay in terms of the response time. 

14 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

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.

 

Nope, I dismiss nothing at all, and would be the first to chastise any parent not paying attention. What I also do is  accept that human beings are fallible, and that we all make mistakes from time to time. Parents WILL make mistakes from time to time, its inevitable, but if we find ourselves marching along and refuse to stop when a child is in front of us, we aren't exonerated because it was the a parent that made a mistake, not us. We are still responsible for not avoiding an impact and for the potential injury. If a child runs into the road because the parent wasn't being careful, do we slam on our brakes and avoid harming the child, or just keep driving because it "wasn't our fault"? We obviously slam on the brakes. "Not my fault" is no excuse when we have the capability to prevent an accident.

The child wasn't trampled, the child was knocked to the ground. Injury was a possible scenario. There was an incident a while back where an elderly man was barged out of the way. At that age, injury is far more likely. 

 

15 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

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 still not an excuse to not stop and barge the elderly and children out of the way. If people are less careful these days (unlikely) then its the way things are, regrettable, but the way things now are, in which case you adapt with the times. You don't knock them to the ground and chant "not my fault". In reality, rather than "nobody has common sense anymore" its probably more likely that there are greater numbers of tourists and a greater percentage who are from foreign lands and less cognizant of the Kings/Queens Guard, barge you out of the way tendency. 

 

15 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

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.

 

Traditions being maintained is fine. I was referring to the uniforms in terms of whether they compromise the Guards performance in a combat scenario, a scenario where terrorists are imbedded within the tourists for example. If they were called into action on short notice, while wearing such uniforms, combat would be compromised. Red jackets make an excellent target, and those hats nothing but a distraction. Now I'm not sure how likely such a scenario would be, but I would imagine its feasible. 

 

15 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

t's what the tourists expect and why millions of them come to London from around the world.

 

And here I see a contradiction.  If you mention the fancy uniforms, they say "its tradition" and "for the tourists". And if you mention how they harshly barge people to the ground, including children and the elderly, they say "they are the Kings Guard, real soldiers, protecting the monarch, serious business". Which is it? In reality its both, and in my opinion that's the crux of the matter, "both" is often a compromise. Tradition is fine, claiming to defend the monarch is fine, but perhaps changes that better reflect the reality of todays world would be a good idea? 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

That's not how the real world works Ray. Everybody on this planet is a fallible human being. Every one of us is capable of making mistakes. 

 

 

The purpose of the Kings Guard is to guard the residence of the King and by extension the King himself. Those guards, in their ceremonial uniform, don't have the luxury of asking terrorists (who may be imbedded within the tourists) to hang on a second while they go and spend half an hour getting kitted up in more appropriate combat gear. Thus, they may well be called into play. Now, I'm sure there's a barracks nearby where there are Kings Guard, not dressed in ceremonial gear, and capable of acting in such a scenario but that would impose a significant delay in terms of the response time. 

You know perfectly well that the Guards are mainly ceremonial. You cannot have failed to notice the armed Police, who are doing what? Guarding against attacks.

1 hour ago, IanHarrison said:

You know perfectly well that the Guards are mainly ceremonial. You cannot have failed to notice the armed Police, who are doing what? Guarding against attacks.

 

See the following...

 

Quote

“The Queen's Guard” comprise of various soldiers tasked with guarding the residences of the Queen and, by extension, the Queen herself. Consisting of soldiers (mostly) hand-picked from five elite regiments within the British military, the Queen's Guards are internationally renowned for their stoic dedication to duty.

https://qrius.com/a-sneak-peek-into-terribly-harsh-life-of-a-queens-guard/#:~:text=“The Queen's Guard” comprise of,their stoic dedication to duty.

 

You see, this is the contradiction. If you complain that they are too harsh and barge children and the elderly out of the way, then supporters claim that its because they are elite soldiers with an important task, namely protecting the monarchs residence and by extension the King/Queen. And when you point out the difficulty of functioning as an elite force, protecting the monarchs residence, dressed that way, they say, "oh no, its just ceremonial, just tradition. 

Here's the point, if its just ceremonial, or mostly ceremonial, then there is absolutely no excuse for behaving aggressively and barging the elderly and children out of the way. You could of course understand that behavior if they were indeed an elite force dedicated to protecting the monarch, but then in that case, all civilians should be kept clear. . 

As with all things lost in the 21st century, the concept of personal responsibility has been lost.  Plus, if you don't like it then don't go and see it in order to get in the way and putting yourself in harms way.  Let's put up a cordon instead?  Who's going to provide the resource for that? Let's put up massive health and safety tape instead and spend unnecessary resources so people can  ultimately do what they should be doing instinctively and staying out of the way.  Hate this attitude of blaming other people for your own mishaps and the fact that we have to move at the place of the slowest member of society.

Edited March 7, 20233 yr by phileypoo1

20 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

These ceremonial events have gone on for hundreds of years, and until recently, there were almost no incidents

I expect there were always incidents. It's just that modern technology allows the incidents to be recorded and posted on the internet.

15 hours ago, birdguy said:

Rather than putting the area off limits to tourists or halting the guards perhaps signage warning of the dangers and attention to monitoring children should be erected.

It's human nature not to pay attention to warning signs and to be distracted at tourist sites so, if you can't change human nature and you can't change the ceremony, the only thing left is to change the public access.

Edited March 7, 20233 yr by dmwalker