Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

little girl at 18 film

87 replies

bruffin · 31/12/2011 23:37

Went to see The Girl With a Dragon Tattoo tonight.
Thought the person in front of me was little but when she stood up we saw she was a little girl of 8 or 9 with het parents.
How they got her in I don't know, but the film had so much that I would be uncomfortable my 14 yr old dd seeing.

OP posts:
BertieBotts · 01/01/2012 08:21

Zombi has a good point. The way both of our local cinemas are set up they have staff covering the doorway which leads to the screens, but not the door of each screen. So parents could just as easily buy tickets for Winnie The Pooh's Snuggly Wuggly Day and then once they were past here just waltz into any screen they feel like. If they picked one where the times matched up they could easily sneak a child into an 18.

changingnicknameforxmas · 01/01/2012 08:59

If she was 8 or 9 that's totally ridiculous

BUT I have a DD who is 9. She is of very small stature and very baby faced - she wears clothes for aged 5 (and even jeans are long sometimes) and really really looks like a 4 or 5 year old. She is always taken to be much younger than she is.

I am foreseeing huge problems for her when she does reach 18 as there is no way on earth she will be treated like her age and it will cause problems.

I have already been castigated for letting her go into the local shop on her own with her pound for sweets on the way home from school - I had a man rip into me for not holding her hand in the car park.

BTW there is nothing wrong with her, no medical condition, she's just very very small made

changingnicknameforxmas · 01/01/2012 09:00

Posted too soon -

So, what I am long windedly saying is are you sure there's no way she could have been a very small and young looking 17 or 18 year old?

Tee2072 · 01/01/2012 09:02

I have never been to a movie theatre where they check your ticket before you enter the particular theatre after the barrier. Do some actually do this?

Her parents thought it was okay. She's their child (if she was a child). Stop helping the Nanny State. They do just fine on their own.

NewYearFestiveCheer · 01/01/2012 09:10

Dragon tattoo does have some pretty feuding bits. I saw it the other day and had to look away from parts of it.

gazzalw · 01/01/2012 09:21

DW went to see Slumdog Millionaire - a couple with a son of about 9 appeared about 15 minutes into the film and then about an hour later one of the cinema staff came in very purposefully, went straight up to them and ushered them out.....DW said she didn't understand what was going on initially, but then realised that the couple must have paid to see another film and then sneaked out of that one and into Slumdog instead, subjecting their child to some scenes of grim violence....

Cinema complexes do have CCTV so somewhere someone should have been watching....they obviously were at the Cineworld that time! I guess it depends on the vigilence of the cinema staff.....
In the 'olden day's when there were ushers/usherettes for each screen such a thing wouldn't/couldn't have happened!

fifitot · 01/01/2012 09:28

Yes - with multiplexes it is pretty easy to sneak into different films. I know this as my mate always makes sure he sees 2 films every time he goes, after paying for entry for just one!

BTW - 'nanny state' - who is quoting this worn out cliche? Yes lets leave everyone to their own devices because we really KNOW everyone is very responsible and noone is unreasonable, treats their children badly or exposes them to violent films etc. That is a pretty pathetic argument. If you follow it through to it's conclusion then we should pretty much get rid of safeguarding laws and let parents beat their kids cos after all, it should be left to the parents. Sheesh.

xyfactor · 01/01/2012 09:33

If you think that this is the same as beating a child you're part of the problem and not the solution.

Tee2072 · 01/01/2012 09:34

Yes, fifitot. We should. The government has way too much say in our lives. He's my son. I'll do with him what I want.

Disclaimer: I have never and will never beat my son. That's taking your side of the argument to the extreme. But if I think he is mature enough at 9 (or whatever age that child, if it was a child, was) to see a violent film, why should the government get to disagree with me? They can't tell me he's too young to stay home alone, why can they tell me he's too young to see a film I think he isn't too young to see?

fifitot · 01/01/2012 09:36

I didn't say that though did I?

Tee2072 · 01/01/2012 09:39

"Yes lets leave everyone to their own devices because we really KNOW everyone is very responsible and noone is unreasonable, treats their children badly or exposes them to violent films etc."

Yes, you did, actually...

fifitot · 01/01/2012 09:39

The government has too much to say in our lives? Maybe, on some issues but there are clearly many many people who don't have a reasonable approach to looking after their kids and the state should have say.

'He's my son. I'll do with him what I want'. Yes am sure Peter Connolly's parents felt the same. Yes that is an extreme statement but still believe it's the logical conclusion to that line of argument of being able to do what we want with our kids.

Exposing a young child to a violent film is potentially damaging. Any fool can see that. The parents might think it's OK but it doesn't mean they are right.

Tee2072 · 01/01/2012 09:39

Exactly, xyfactor. The comparison is ridiculous.

Tee2072 · 01/01/2012 09:42

Doesn't mean they are wrong either. The key word you've used is 'potentially'. It is not automatically damaging. There is no proof either way.

Beating a child is damaging. Full stop. And please note I said 'beating', not hitting. Not that I hit my child but I know plenty of people who think nothing of a slap on the wrist or bottom. And that's their choice. And their right.

And it should be my choice and my right to take my child to any movie I think he's old enough to see. Or play any game I think he's old enough to play.

So, yes, Nanny State. A state that doesn't believe we have the ability to make our own choices.

fifitot · 01/01/2012 09:48

No the comparison is not ridiculous. The range of harmful things we can do to children may start at mild neglect and end with physical harm.

BTW there is lots of information about the potential impact of violent and sexual imagery on the developing young mind. WTF do you think we have certificates attached to films? It's not based on some whim of government.

fifitot · 01/01/2012 09:51

BTW - you totally lost me at the statement that it is a parent's 'right' to hit their child.

It is no one's right to hit anyone. If you hit me in the street you would be arrested for physical assault so why is it OK to do it to a child. Makes no difference if you are the parent or not.

andaPontyinaPearTreeeeee · 01/01/2012 09:53

If the parents really don't mind their child seeing it they could just wait for the DVD

EdithWeston · 01/01/2012 09:53

If we do not want a nanny state in terms of what children are permitted to view, then let us take the logical and honest position about it: remove the age restrictions (and the TV watershed) and leave it all to the individual (expecting parents to take care of children).

Whilst we have the system in place, then having it properly enforced is the right thing to do. That does involve staff at venues, who should be upholding all regulations relevant to their workplace.

andaPontyinaPearTreeeeee · 01/01/2012 09:57

And YANBU I think - the individual parent's opinion of their DC's maturity is irrelevant IMO, the rules are there whether they like it or not and the cinema isn't enforcing them.

Tee2072 · 01/01/2012 10:08

Edith, I think that's a great idea. Maybe I'll start a campaign to remove all government ratings. Let parents be parents and not enforcers of arbitrary rules set by other people.

Also a good point, Ponty.

fiffot there are no laws against a parent hitting a child. Check the books. Spanking and wrist slapping are perfectly legal in the UK.

BTW there used to be a lot of information about the potential good of letting children sleep on their tummies, feeding them solids at 3 weeks and all sorts of other things we would never do today. So don't quote me studies. Studies show what the studier want them to show until something better comes along.

ChaoticAngel · 01/01/2012 13:37

I have the Swedish version of this. I bought it when DD was 16 and I wouldn't feel comfortable with her seeing it at that age. If this version is similar then 8/9 is way too young.

Birdsgottafly · 01/01/2012 13:45

"It's the parents' responsibility IMO."

No it isn't in this case as the cimema, as a service provider has to work within the law, just as a licencee of a pub is.

Most multi screen cinemas allow you to enter without any screen but they should have staff checking regulary who is in there.

If it was ignored then those doing the ignoring is aiding and abeting child abuse. Children going through sexual abuse are usually shown porn/violent sex scenes by their parents, to normalise the behaviour.

Seeing sexual violence at such a young age does change our perception of what is healthy behaviour.

Birdsgottafly · 01/01/2012 13:48

"The government has way too much say in our lives"

Tell that to Denise Bulger, the killers of her son regulary watched porn at home. I don't think you realise how low society would desend, if the government stepped back.

I don't want my children living in that society, thankyou.

Moominsarescary · 01/01/2012 13:54

I knew a guy years ago , can't remember what condition he suffered from but he was 18 and people were always stopping him in the street to lecture him about under age smoking, he looked about 10

festi · 01/01/2012 13:56

was about to pst the exact same birds. The comparision of harm is potentially the same IMHO