Mumsnet Talk

I have some concerns about some of the proposed changes to benefits and how these may adversely affect people. So this is NOT a thread about that. But I am getting increasingly fed up at some of the frankly ridiculous reasons some posters are giving against the proposed changes. Examples include:

1. That children 12 and over will be traumatised if both parents work - even if second parent only works 20 hours a week.

2. That a parent with children 12 and over shouldn't have to commute up to 90 minutes each way to work. Far from ideal I know and if someone is on low wages this might not be affordable. But perfectly doable.

3. That childcare is impossible to get for teenagers. Ignoring the fact that many parents, myself included use a combination of kids home alone and afterschool activities.

AIBU to think some people need a reality check? Plenty of people with children already work, many with both parents working full time by the time their kids are teenagers. Plenty of people have long commutes, struggle with childcare, etc. Things might not be "ideal", but these are things that many many working parents already do.

There are no fooking well jobs.

And things are not always that simple. All of these cost money, you can have two parents working and still be poor. After school activities are not covered CTC payments towards childcare, so if you are skint and have no family close by who are willing to help you have no childcare options. Not all 11/12 year olds are capable or responsible enough to be left alone for long periods of time in an empty house.

I agree with you, OP. There are too many posters who try to 'shout down' others with their own circumstances, which aren't even all that relevant.

This is becoming less and less of a discussion board. I hide threads that talk about benefits mostly because it's impossible to get a balanced view and I'm sick of reading the abuse to posters.

Reality checks all around, I think.

YANBU.

If certain people put as much effort in to improving their lives as they do defending benefits they'd all be a lot bloody happier.

Life isn't perfect.

I am bored to the back teeth of endless bloody benefits threads though.

Couldn't you have stuck all this on one of the four billion threads already hashing this out?

It's like holding jelly without a bowl trying to have the same conversation in 17 bloody places.

<grumpy>

I think that's a bit of an over-simplification TBH. That's not how I interpreted some of the concerns raised on that other thread.

<recognises that she would say that>

Who has said that children will be traumatised? I think that in an era where we keep hearing about anti-social behaviour being due to inadequate supervision by parents, it's very pertinent to ask questions about how many hours teenagers will be free to roam the streets.

Likewise, a 90-min commute. Don't have a problem with the time element of it myself and I have done it, but whether you're talking public transport or car, you'd have to be earning some sort of salary to make that workable in costs. That means we're not talking about the vast majority of people. I spend £200 a month on travelling to and from work and in my area that's considered a lot, yet it's a third of that commute in terms of time. Treble it and ask who can afford £600 in commuting costs?

3. Agree childcare isn't impossible to arrange for after school but what about people working shift patterns? OK to let a 13-year-old be in the house overnight on their own? SS have made visits to people for less and the NSPCC advise firmly against it.

YANBU

Although I think that point number 2 is a real obstacle for some single parents.

(And before someone criticises my comment I'm not a single parent myself)

dooingmecleaning - This is not a thread asking if the proposed changes should happen or not. And yes sometimes parents can't afford afterschool activities. But to say it is impossible to get childcare for teenagers and therefore any second parent shouldn't be made to work, is frankly ridiculous.

Oh, does this relate to an actual thread which is running now then?

I always think it's a bit shit off to start another thread rather than arguing your point on the thread that exists - it's sneaky.

<wonders if OP is "losing" the debate on the other thread>

probably

I agree, im sick of hearing 'I caaaantt do this job, I caaannt travel, the dog needs me' etc etc bullshite excuse for people to excuse themselves from making an effort to support themselves. Those who can SHOULD make every effort to find work no matter if the job and the specifics are not ideal, that would leave more for those who genuinely cant and really need it, that way everyone is a winner.

Of course it's not impossible to find childcare for older children, but nor is it as simple as you seem to think it is and it is very much dependent upon the child. A child with behavioural issues or SN should not be left unsupervised and depending upon the behaviours it would be hard to leave them in after school activities too.

Fair point Shirley. No I am not losing the debate - just really frustrated about the level of "debate". I frankly do have concerns about the cap - I just think some of the reasons being posted arguing against it are ridiculous - and I have posted this.

I have read some good reasoned posts arguing about the problems a cap will create. But frankly some of the posts just make me wonder if these posters actually know any working parents on low incomes and understand that many many parents already do all these things that they are saying are impossible for anyone to do. I'm not stupid, I know there may be individual circumstances, but these are blanket statements being posted.

So in short my frustration is really about the very poor quality of "debate" by some posters.

Oh Shirley stop being such a misery and telling people what they can and cant post

No Eau, I won't. Sorry about that!

People will post what they want where they want anyway...

I don't need to be made to go to work, but...

I can't find any childcare for teenagers

Oi Eau stop telling Shirley what she can and can't post about what posters can and can't post.

<head explodes>

The reason there is no childcare for teenagers is that by and large teenagers do not require it. (Excluding teenagers with SN obviously)
After school any 11 year old should be able to safely let themselves in to their home and get a drink and a snack without setting the place on fire or becoming clinically depressed. Granted holidays are more complicated but in most urban areas schemes are available most of the time and you do not need 9-5 care. My dcs can get themselves to and fro from their activities.

I think what people usually mean is they can't find free childcare.

I have 4 teenage kids. By teenage stage they let themselves in and manage until I get home. During the holidays I try and get the younger ones signed up for some kind of summer activity for part of the week. No there isn't formal childacre because I agree at this age they don't need it - excluding sn obviously.

People who say their teenagers are not responsible enough to be left tend to be the same parents who going into melt down at the thought of a 8 year old making a cup of tea or using the microwave and a bread knife.
Teenagers dont get to be responsible just by virtue that they have started secondary school, they need to learn it over time starting with the little things like a cup of tea and a sandwich.

nope, I mean there is nothing in my area once they hit 12, paid or not, not after school or in holidays.

We're also a bit bereft of after school activities - the only ones I know of are far to far away to get to alone.

See my issue is that my 15 yr old DS has AS, he's actually fine after school - alone...I can't however leave my 11 yr old DD with him and absolutely definitely not through school holidays. That's not going to change overnight on her birthday.

So which one do I turf out? lol

There is a strange grey area between when a child starts secondary school at 11 and when they reach the age of say 13/14 where they obviously can be left alone during the day. I'd say it's ok to leave an 11-year-old for a few hours but 10 hours is pushing it. So after school may be ok but what about weekends or the 14 weeks' worth of school holidays?

People keep assuming that we're talking about mon-fri 9-5 jobs here (or within those hours). But that's increasingly not the case, and the lower down the salary scale you go, the more so. Shift patterns become very difficult to work childcare around.

yabu
you can't make a blanket statement like the op, it is too full of holes.
I have a 16 year old that I can't leave, no I am lucky that she has sleep issues so she is on HR DLA, but if she was on MR and I was on benefits I would be expected to work.
HOW?? ffs

Erm. Just to interject. This rule is NOT just about 12yo's. For children born before 5th April 1999 it is age 12yo. For children born between 6th April 1999 and 5th April 2010 it is age 7yo. For children born after 6th April 2010 it is 5yo. And there are currently discussions to change it so that any children born after 1st January 2011, the age that this will affect you being 3yo.

So it is NOT just people 'whingeing'about leaving their 11/12yo home alone. Which, BTW, Social Services would see as being neglectful if anything happened to your dc. So if you have an immature 11/12yo, leave them home alone, and they set the grill on fire or whatever, and they call the fire brigade - you can be investigated for neglect. And you wonder why not everyone is willing to leave their 11/12yo's unattended.

And for those whose dc are younger - it means paying for childcare. Which you will only get a MAXIMUM of £210 for TWO OR MORE DC paid. When you consider that a holiday club at my DC's primary costs £50 a DAY...can you see where I am going??

I'm considering setting up as a childminder..... But only for teens!