yougest child soon to be 10, told i cant claim income support

Oldernotwiser

sunnyone wrote: »

2 GCSE`s and they are let loose on our kids?

sunnyone

It's pretty appalling, isn't it? (Although better than it used to be.)

property.advert

bestpud wrote: »

At 7 years of age (uk) I would get me and my younger sibling up for school and feed us both, then get us to school (walking), pick her up after school and go home to cook tea for us both. We put ourselves to bed too.

Yes, we survived, but its not what I'd want for my child, or any other if it comes to that!

I definitely think a child of that age needs someone to be at home to see them off in the morning, or greet them in the afternoon, if they are going to walk.

Would they tend to have neighbours who'd look out for them, or others they could rely on in an emergency?

I do think a 10 year old can get themselves home though and would be fine for a few hours. As a parent, I would not want my 10 year old alone for the best part of every evening though tbh.

If I had a 10 and a 14 year old, I'd prefer them to look after themselves than have the 14 year old in charge tbh, as there is less chance of friction.

My older children looked after their little sister at that age but then there is a 9/10 year age gap so it is clear who is in charge and who needs looking after iyswim? A 10 year old may resent being told what to do by their 14 year old sibling.

Teens don't need babysitters here - or I've never heard of one who did!

I tend to agree and have actually talked through a few things on this and similar topics about the difference between by being a child in the 1970s and my child now in 2009.

We were always outside. At 6 or 7 (maybe younger ?) we'd get a bus 3 miles to school and then back again. If there was snow (and there used to be proper winters over 30 years ago in the North East) and the buses were off, we'd walk through snow drifts or over the fields through the snow to school and then back again because the school heating was off !!!

We'd play on the nearest piece of grass until after dark without watches and it was ok. We'd cycle for miles and we knew that cars would probably kill you if you fell under them so we made sure we didn't fall under them. It was called common sense.

But we also allowed nature to weed out the weaklings and the stupid as natural selection. They would be the ones who died falling out of trees when the rest just broke an arm or scratched their leg. We didn't sue the council for cash and now the trees are cut down so the kids can't climb them.

The reverse side is that there are more wierdos around nowadays and kids just cannot be given the same freedom we had. They don't need to be wrapped up in cotton wool for sure but adults need to think things through more carefully than a generation ago.

Kids can't and should not be forced to look after kids. It is wrong.

Sometimes you are faced with hard choices as a parent, I know that for sure and sometimes you have to break your rules but it isn't a long term answer. If the nuclear family breaks up, then maybe it is friends who have to fill that gap as kids cannot do it by themselves and we, as parents, should not force them to.

DX2

property.advert wrote: »

The reverse side is that there are more wierdos around nowadays and kids just cannot be given the same freedom we had.

Can you give us some links and stats to your claim, because I think you will find that you are incorrect about the above part of your post.

property.advert

DX2 wrote: »

Can you give us some links and stats to your claim, because I think you will find that you are incorrect about the above part of your post.

Don't need stats from any other source than me. I was around then and I'm around now. Kids were safer then than they are now.

What we could do then, kids can't today. Part of that is the number of threats to their safety and part of that threat is the number of threats to kids. For starters, we didn't have 10 year old kids raping 9 year old girls and so many people screwed up on drugs.

dmg24

property.advert wrote: »

Don't need stats from any other source than me. I was around then and I'm around now. Kids were safer then than they are now.

What we could do then, kids can't today. Part of that is the number of threats to their safety and part of that threat is the number of threats to kids. For starters, we didn't have 10 year old kids raping 9 year old girls and so many people screwed up on drugs.

That would be a no in response to DX2's question then!

MissMoneypenny

property.advert wrote: »

Don't need stats from any other source than me. I was around then and I'm around now. Kids were safer then than they are now.

What we could do then, kids can't today. Part of that is the number of threats to their safety and part of that threat is the number of threats to kids. For starters, we didn't have 10 year old kids raping 9 year old girls and so many people screwed up on drugs.

The biggest threat to children is from within the family. Nothing has changed over the years.

I remember my mother telling us that if we needed help when we were out, we were only to ask a woman, or a man who had a woman with him. Then the moors murders happened with Myra Hindley. We still played out though.

I allowed my children to have their freedom as I wanted them to be streetwise.

PolishBigSpender

dmg24 wrote: »

That would be a no in response to DX2's question then!

Oh dmg, how I love you Of course statistics can't be provided - becase that would ruin the 'man down the pub' factual basis of the point.

bestpud wrote:

Would they tend to have neighbours who'd look out for them, or others they could rely on in an emergency?

Generally speaking, yes. But that should hold true for children of any age - they can be perfectly safe alone, as long as they have somewhere to go to if they need help.

Teens don't need babysitters here - or I've never heard of one who did!

There's quite a few posts been made on this forum about people complaining that they can't find child care for teenagers!

property.advert wrote:

The reverse side is that there are more wierdos around nowadays and kids just cannot be given the same freedom we had. They don't need to be wrapped up in cotton wool for sure but adults need to think things through more carefully than a generation ago.

Is there really, or is this just a fact made up by tabloid newspapers selling the latest CHILD ABUSED BY !!!!!PHILE story to the hysteria masses? In fact, does this mean that despite all the measures brought in by the UK Government, they have in fact failed and there are more 'weirdos' about nowadays?

Yet again, this is a perfect example of where people will happily leave their child in the care of Grandad, who obviously wouldn't dream of touching the child in innappropriate ways. Yet they won't let the child walk home by themselves, even though statistically, they are far more in danger from someone known to them than from someone unknown to them.

I find it hard to believe that UK kids are somehow more at risk of being abused by random people than in Poland or Germany. It's just another case of overprotective parents which happily gobble up media sensation.

To relate a random point - it is a *very* well discussed point among many in the Polish expat community that while the UK is a fantastic place to work and live, it's a dreadful place to bring up a family. This is partially why many are returning - given the UK's paranoia about everything child-related, the quality of life of the child undoubtably suffers.

What kind of society has progressed to the point where a teacher is afraid to physically touch a child, even to comfort them?

DX2

property.advert wrote: »

Don't need stats from any other source than me. I was around then and I'm around now. Kids were safer then than they are now.

What we could do then, kids can't today. Part of that is the number of threats to their safety and part of that threat is the number of threats to kids. For starters, we didn't have 10 year old kids raping 9 year old girls and so many people screwed up on drugs.

ah okay then :rolleyes:

thorsoak

Personally, I think that children/need to be given responsibility from an early age - I'm not proposing that we send 7 year olds up chimneys, but that from early on, they can be taught to "help" - a three year old can lay a table for dinner - putting out knives & forks etc (oh-oh - maybe not - they would have to handle knives:rolleyes:) - they can use a duster and "help" and it should progress from there.

Little ones love helping and ideally, that should mean helping with younger children too - which leads on to older children knowing how to be responsibly left with younger children. It teaches responsibilty and caring for others.

We've evolved too far imo, and a teenager of 14 should be capable of looking after younger siblings for a few hours. There has been a poster on the board recently, frantically worried because the poster doesn't know how to cook/clean/wash clothes - at the age of 20+.

If there were more teenagers accepting some responsibility (however sulkily occasionally) we might find fewer gangs of them "roaming the streets"

bestpud

Whatever my views on childcare, I do not believe children are any more at risk now than they were in the 70s!

There were some awful people about when I was growing up!

Children are more at risk in the home, as said. !!!!!philes work hard at gaining trust and presenting a respectable face.

My views are not based on children being attacked at all!