Teenagers stealing food

ceridwen

Re Bitter and Twisted's comment - I don't think Raksha needs encouraging - having several times referred to this as "stealing" and the way her husband is threatening such a huge sanction (ie 1 year of no Internet access).

What I DO think is Raksha should bear in mind that she may be viewing all this in a MUCH worse light than it warrants because of all the other preoccupations she personally has got going in her own life.

What would be most constructive would be to find an objective, fair-minded person ITRW and ask them to tell her honestly how they think she would be viewing this/acting on this if she DIDNT have the problems she personally has going on in her life and then not "shoot the messenger" if they tell her.

Raksha really needs to be "in a good place" in her OWN life to see this objectively - at the moment it looks a lot like "My own life has many problems - so I'll go home and kick the cat (aka one of my own children)."

It is simply not fair to "kick the cat" because of anything going on in ones own life.

Oldernotwiser

ceridwen wrote: »

I don't think Raksha needs encouraging - having several times referred to this as "stealing" and the way her husband is threatening such a huge sanction (ie 1 year of no Internet access).

What I DO think is Raksha should bear in mind that she may be viewing all this in a MUCH worse light than it warrants because of all the other preoccupations she personally has got going in her own life.

What would be most constructive would be to find an objective, fair-minded person ITRW and ask them to tell her honestly how they think she would be viewing this/acting on this if she DIDNT have the problems she personally has going on in her life and then not "shoot the messenger" if they tell her.

Raksha really needs to be "in a good place" in her OWN life to see this objectively - at the moment it looks a lot like "My own life has many problems - so I'll go home and kick the cat (aka one of my own children)."

It is simply not fair to "kick the cat" because of anything going on in ones own life.

If the parents in a family decide that something is stealing then this is what it is. It doesn't need an outsider to correct their view, especially as it's one shared by many of us.

nads

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

"Must be fun living in OPs house :cool:"

Yes, every time the poor woman thinks about baking some lovely treat for the whole family some little blighter has snatched the ingredients after being told more than once not to.

Raksha I'd tan his bloody hide for him!

Clearly telling them off is not working.

Exactly what kind of ingredients is she buying for recipes that Raksha ends up having to replace?

If they'er going to eat it anyway then let them eat it in its current form. Saves Raksha time to concentrate on other things.

He's a teenager - it's what teenagers do - they will eat and eat and eat.

ceridwen

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

If the parents in a family decide that something is stealing then this is what it is. It doesn't need an outsider to correct their view, especially as it's one shared by many of us.

No. I disagree.

Stealing is what it is - or isnt (regardless of the view of one couple only). It is an objective fact - not a subjective opinion.

From my reading of the thread - the view is:
- the vast majority of people know it ISNT stealing and some others have expressed their surprise/horror that this couple are regarding it that way
- everyone accepts that boys have "bottomless pit" stomachs and if they are hungry they are hungry and must have some food accessible they can eat
- most people feel that a designated cupboard should be allocated for snack items for all the family that can be freely eaten
- a sizeable number of people feel that other members of a household should ask if its okay to take anything that hasnt been put in the designated "snack items for all" cupboard.
- most people feel that if its deemed particularly important to keep luxury items somewhere where they wont get used for snack purposes - then they should be kept somewhere else (eg carboot, garage, etc).

Doom_and_Gloom

monkeyfish9272 wrote: »

People are very tightfisted on here i buy £20 of goodies every week to put in the cupboard that the children and ourselves to snack on ive even seen people saying they have budgets of £20 for christmas and the parents buy them underwear and a few sweets and 1 toy for christmas.We have always bought our children alot at christmas and we spoil them rotten its the one day they can be spoilt i would spend in excess of £1000 per child and before people start saying they cant afford christmas.well i only work part time and i am on benefits.I save what i can and sell things on ebay especially for this time of year.sorry for the rant

Some people on here may be 'tightfisted' on here as you put it but that is because their budgets mean they have to. As for £20 of goodies a week that is very close to what my partner and I spend on our shopping. We certainly can't afford to spend say an extra £10 a week on extra 'goodies' ontop for the both of us! We do get treats but they go in the normal shop.

By the way £1,000 each for your children for Christmas while on benefits :eek:. We get help with benefits as my partner works part time and I am disabled and we haven't spent anywhere near that for everything to do with Yule! We couldn't afford to spend that kind of money even though we budget through the year. If we had children and had the money we wouldn't spend £1,000 on each child; there is no need for that kind of spend to be honest. It seems to me you are spoiling your children with material assets which isn't what children need...

ceridwen

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

If the parents in a family decide that something is stealing then this is what it is. It doesn't need an outsider to correct their view, especially as it's one shared by many of us.

BTW - I foresee a logistical flaw in that argument. One could use an argument like that to say "Okay - if the parents in a family decide that forcing a child into an arranged marriage is acceptable - then it IS acceptable". That is just to use one possible example of where we would all agree that "Our society knows best - rather than the parents" - as our society knows that conduct is abhorrent.

I honestly dont think Raksha and her husband are looking at this situation objectively.

LilacLouisa

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

"Must be fun living in OPs house :cool:"

Yes, every time the poor woman thinks about baking some lovely treat for the whole family some little blighter has snatched the ingredients after being told more than once not to.

Raksha I'd tan his bloody hide for him!

Sorry, but I cannot abide people who hit their children or their pets. IMO if you have to resort to hitting those weaker than you, it is your failure. The only time I find any violence acceptable is to defend yourself or family from attack.

Imagine being smaller and weaker, unable to defend yourself, life must be hell.

SugarSpun

nads wrote: »

If they'er going to eat it anyway then let them eat it in its current form. Saves Raksha time to concentrate on other things.

He's a teenager - it's what teenagers do - they will eat and eat and eat.

And so Raksha and her husband have to do without biscuits because the ingredients have all been eaten? Seems quite unfair.

I'd keep a free-for-all shelf and an ingredients shelf and let the kids know that the ingredients are not for eating. If the ingredients continued to go missing I'd impose sanctions that fit the [STRIKE]crime[/STRIKE] problem - perhaps I'd insist the boys cook dinner for a week or ask them to replace the missing ingredients out of their own money.

I'd be fuming though, it's incredibly disrespectful to keep eating something you've been asked not to by the person who buys the food - regardless of whether you want to call it stealing or not.

ceridwen

LilacLouisa wrote: »

Sorry, but I cannot abide people who hit their children or their pets. IMO if you have to resort to hitting those weaker than you, it is your failure. The only time I find any violence acceptable is to defend yourself or family from attack.

Imagine being smaller and weaker, unable to defend yourself, life must be hell.

I presume Bitter and Twisted doesnt mean that O.P. should literally "tan the hide" of her children:eek:. But one really really should NOT make a "tongue in cheek" comment like that to someone - because of the slight risk that they might take you literally and proceed to undertake violent action (in this case - against their own children).

Frankie231

Skimmed the thread, it has gotten rather serious!

I'm just wondering if it would be worth talking to your son to discover the reason behind him taking this food? I have an inkling it may be in retaliation to your other son being on the slim fast diet. Teenagers can act rather oddly especially when seeing, what they perceive to be, different behaviour been given to a member of the family who is the same 'status' (couldn't think of a better word, sorry!) as them. Slim fast milkshakes are quite expensive so perhaps he's thinking that if his brother is having that much spent on his diet, especially when the grocery budget has been downsized, he should have the right to whatever he feels like in the way of food that is in the house.