Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Would I have been unreasonable to buy two kids an ice cream and leave two out?

29 replies

sandyballs · 28/07/2013 19:15

Been away for a few days with friends and our four kids, two each. Packing up today the kids wanted one last swim in the pool and they weren't allowed without an adult. So I offered to take them whilst other three adults packed up the car.

They had a good hour in there and I gave them a ten minute warning to get out and changed and go back to help the others. Ten minutes passed and two refused to get out the pool, one of mine, one of friends. Pretending not to hear me, shaking their heads when they did hear, getting out and jumping back in. Shouting no (friends kid). Took me ages and gave me the right hump, I was so tempted to treat the two well behaved ones to an ice cream to prove a point to the other two but know my friend wouldn't like it all and her kid would have had a meltdown seeing his sister with an ice cream,

Am I a pre menstrual ragey spoil sport?

OP posts:

pictish · 28/07/2013 19:16

I don't think that would've been the way to deal with it, no. Unless you wanted absolute mutiny on your hands.

lovelyredwine · 28/07/2013 19:18

I can understand why you would have wanted to do that, but think you were right not to!

I don't understand why it took 3 of the 4 adults to pack 1 car, but you were left alone with 4 kids - that would have annoyed me more to be honest.

smokinaces · 28/07/2013 19:19

I would have used it as a bargaining tool I admit, as in, if you get out the pool now we can all grab an ice cream on way home. Then if they hadn't done as said I would have bought the two who did behave one but not the others.

I wouldn't have done it without that warning though, that's a little unfair without a warning as to being the result of their bad behaviour

girlsyearapart · 28/07/2013 19:23

If I had promised everyone an ice cream then two had behaved badly I would have given a no ice cream warning then if they carried on would v said no but still bought the other two ice cream.

thebody · 28/07/2013 19:26

yep agree with smokin, for me it's the 2 minute last swim, the warning to get out and then get out now followed by the reward/ not as case may be.

I wouldn't care if friend liked it or not to be honest. if you are in charge then your rules and it wasn't your kids v hers was it but one if each who would loose out.

JollyHolidayGiant · 28/07/2013 19:27

I agree with smokin too. A warning would be required first.

Original poster

sandyballs · 28/07/2013 19:27

True better to use as a bargaining tool really. There were two cars and we were camping so lots of stuff to pack away.

I think I'm just a bit sad that these are great friends and our kids didn't gel like they used to, the whole weekend was a bit stressful on and off whereas it didn't used to be. I suppose they change and we don't necessarily.

OP posts:

NoComet · 28/07/2013 19:29

Last day, smile and get four ice creams. No one wants to travel home with two sulking DCs and two smug point scoring ones, it's just not worth it.

I'd always swap a last swim, DC watching or not, with packing.

NoComet · 28/07/2013 19:32

Hugs for the kids not getting on as well as they once did. I haven't seen a DF for ages as my DDs and hers find each other hard work. Really really irritating as there is no very good reason, they just can't find anything they both want to do.

deleted203 · 28/07/2013 19:39

I'd have been furious with the kids - but you did the right thing! No one wants to shut a wailing child who has missed out on an ice cream into a car and drive home with them.

I'm with the '2 min warning and if you don't get out then you get NO ICE CREAM! Make a sensible choice here...'

oldgrandmama · 28/07/2013 20:17

Well, I can sort of see your point, about teaching a lesson ... but no, SOME battles are worth fighting, but not that one! Ice-creams for all!

RatUpADrainpipe · 28/07/2013 20:20

So......the 2 that got out when asked get an ice cream.

The 2 that refused to get out and carried on mucking around for ages.......get an ice cream.

No way jose !

lougle · 28/07/2013 20:23

If you told them beforehand that if they did x,y,z they'd get an icecream, then they didn't - fair play.

But I don't think it's fair to introduce a 'good behaviour clause' after the event of bad behaviour.

HildaOgden · 28/07/2013 20:25

Well done for resisting the temptation to do it,I'd have wanted to go one step further and bought 3 (2 for the well behaved kids,and a huge one for me ).

BellaVita · 28/07/2013 20:28

Depends how old they are I suppose.

I would have given them a couple of warnings of what might happen if they didn't get out in two mins.

I would have no problem with it if a friend had done it when mine were smaller.

Viviennemary · 28/07/2013 20:31

Warning first. And then I think it would have been quite reasonable to not buy the kids who ignored you an ice-cream.

Original poster

sandyballs · 28/07/2013 21:11

I wouldn't have a problem if a friend did this with mine. Forgot to say their ages, mine 12, hers 9 and 11 so not little kids.

OP posts:

BellaVita · 28/07/2013 21:33

Well in at case Sandy, they are bloody well old enough to understand the consequences. I would have probably got myself one too

SaucyJack · 28/07/2013 21:33

I would gleefully do it if it were just mine, but I take a namby pambier approach with friends' kids so would not in those particular circs.

I do disagree with the whole 'warning first' thing. I think a bit of random rewarding/sanctioning teaches kids to behave all the time, and not just whenever they feel the consequences merit it.

Beastofburden · 28/07/2013 21:37

Well, not ice cream just before a car journey or they will puke up. But in normal circs, I would have given warning and then given treat to good kids if possible.

5madthings · 28/07/2013 21:43

Had you set it down as you need to get out and then we can go get an ice cream and given them a warning then it would have been fine and if it were my kids not getting one i would have told them it was their own fault and that they shoukd apologise for messing around and not doing as they were told.

But if you didnt lay out the consequences clearly then it would be a bit mean to reward the good two without the other two being given the opportunity to improve their behaviour.

Tobyturtle · 28/07/2013 22:42

Just wondering did you go to Sandy Balls in the New Forest?! Not really answering your question but just wondered from your name! Used to go there as a kid every year... Loved it!!!

deleted203 · 29/07/2013 01:21

Oh crikey - I thought they were toddlers! 12 years old and pretending not to hear me, refusing to get out the pool, holding us all up? Serious consequences! Never mind missing a ruddy ice cream. And shouting 'No!' at me when I told them to get out? I'd have been having strong words with their mother about what behaviour I considered rude and unacceptable. You were doing them the kindness of letting them have a last swim - you don't need that sort of attitude.

My little love's feet would not have touched the ground, I can tell you.

Edendance · 29/07/2013 09:08

I think they should have gone without the ice cream tbh. At those ages they don't need warnings that they may miss out. They should realise that non compliance and rudeness has consequences- in this case it meant missing out on ice cream. They should have done as they were asked- end of.

shewhowines · 29/07/2013 09:15

Yep ice cream for the well behaved ones at that age. Couldn't have done it if they were both her kids but no problem for one of each.

Just out of interest are the friends kids rude to their mother generally? Can't imagine the saying no. I'd have been fuming.

Flip

1 2