Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this is wrong for an 8yr old to be asked to say in assembly?

202 replies

gingerbiscuitandacuppatea · 09/06/2014 21:16

DD (age 8 in yr 3) is doing a UNICEF assembly soon about child labour. They are reading out some examples of children's experiences, like carrying rocks up a hill, looking after cows etc.

my DD's lines include

"She used to slap me and shout at me. One day she poured petrol over me and set it alight. I rushed to the sink and splashed water over myself so luckily I wasn't too badly burned. They gave me cream for my burns and locked me in my room."

Would you be happy about your 8 year old being given those lines? I'm not happy that she now knows about people doing something so horrible, surely children this age do not need exposing to this at school?

OP posts:
phantomnamechanger · 10/06/2014 17:19

when a child reads a headline or hears a snippet on the news you can water down your explanation in an age appropriate way - if they ask what chlamydia is you can say its an illness, you don't have to explain exactly what it is, or how it's caught, at 7. If your child knows about sex you can say its passed on by sex if they are worried about catching it.
If I was listening to the radio and an item about a gang rape or a someone being butchered came on the news I would turn off if my kids were in the car. There is no need for them to be exposed to graphic detail. There is no need for a child to know that sometimes adults poor petrol on children and burn them. Gosh I wish I did not have to know this! Once it's known it can't be unknown. There is a lot of other stuff that goes on that children do not need to know the detail of. For the same reason mine do not play violent video games or watch inappropriate films or read graphic books like "a child called it" (I read this as a 20 something and felt sick to my stomach.)

CecilyP · 10/06/2014 17:24

As a PP said, there will have been lots of preparation for this. Yes, it's horrible to say but it's even more horrible that it happens.

There may have been plenty of preparation for this for the UNICEF group, but for the children listening in the assembly this story will be given to them cold. Where will they go with this information if they are upset. From the UNICEF booklet, it looks like a true story where the child was attacked by another child in the family where she was a servant. A child who will have got off scot free with what she had done. The UNICEF materials look as if they are targetted at a wide age range. The teachers running the group could easily have been adapted the story for younger children by cutting out the more graphic detail without losing the overall picture. The fact that they didn't is worrying.

phantomnamechanger · 10/06/2014 17:27

Has anyone considered that being upset by upsetting things is absolutely fine?

of course, no one is saying they don't want their kids to learn compassion and empathy or hear about upsetting things at all - but there are levels of detail that are just not necessary for children to know. They can be taught about all sorts of sad & unsavoury things that happen, but in an age appropriate way. What do they gain by knowing that some people actually burn others like this? It is enough to say they are bullied and hurt. Mine know about slavery for example, have studied it in history, but even my 12 and 14 yr olds would be very distressed by the content of the film 12 years a slave, it was hard viewing for me and DH as adults who knew the facts. We did not hide my kids from the fact that FIL was dying of cancer - we also did not explain to them in graphic detail everything that was going on in his poor body in those last weeks - they knew he was going to die, they did not need to know the details.

Hakluyt · 10/06/2014 17:37

I would have thought that the way the OP's dd's script was phrased was sufficiently euphemistic - luckily I wasn't too badly burned- I got to a tap- they gone cram for the burns.......

Delphiniumsblue · 10/06/2014 17:40

I am surprised that some children never see the news, they must be at a huge disadvantage in General Knowledge. If they are curious, and can read well, I would think it impossible.

Retropear · 10/06/2014 17:41

What Phantom said.

My dc have spent many hours sitting with mil in ICU when she was in due to cancer complications.They didn't need anything more graphic to have empathy.

Children differ and parents often know best.I doubt such details would have passed cinema certification for a child that age.

My children are very aware re many unpleasant things in the world and they have managed to gain that without graphic images and info.Beating etc fine,torturing with petrol not fine.

Childhood depression is on the increase and tbf I think graphic images and info constantly in their faces don't help with such figures.

Ragwort · 10/06/2014 17:41

I agree with Hakluyet - I think being 'upset' is part of life, upsetting things happen and we shouldn't expect children to live in some Disney type fantasy world where everything is wonderful all the time.

We did watch '12 Years a Slave' recently with our 13 year old and it was good to watch and discuss it together. We watched 'Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' when he was 9 and yes, we cried through it but it led to the opportunity to talk about what happened.

My son's cousin died a horrible death a few years ago, we didn't shield him from the truth, he had to learn that someone not much older than him was very seriously ill and wasn't going to get better.

I personally don't think we should hide things from our children.

Ragwort · 10/06/2014 17:43

I also can't understand how children don't hear/see the news unless you live a very insular lifestyle. We have a daily newspaper delivered - about the only reading our DS ever does is to read the headlines Grin.

Delphiniumsblue · 10/06/2014 17:46

There is no way my parents could have kept up with my reading when I was 8 yrs. I suppose it was possible if they didn't have a newspaper or if they read it when I was in bed and destroyed it afterwards!

Delphiniumsblue · 10/06/2014 17:47

It must hold you back educationally if you are clueless about what is going in in the world.

Retropear · 10/06/2014 17:48

I don't like watching hours of news.I watch News24 when they're in bed.

My dc read First News.They handle tricky subjects well,the Second World War being a case in point.Good coverage of the holocaust without graphic details or pictures.

Ragwort · 10/06/2014 17:48

To be perfectly honest I would much rather my 8 year old participated in a Unicef assembly than watched BGT/X Factor or any of that other rubbish that so many children seem to think is 'real life' Hmm.

Retropear · 10/06/2014 17:51

I'd rather my dc didn't watch either.

UNICEF assembly fine,graphic UNICEF assembly with images of torture not fine.XFactor not fine.

chocoluvva · 10/06/2014 17:51

I think it's horrifying and unnecessary.

And very unkind to tell posters who have sensitive children that they should just get on with it and be less precious. You can't just tell a child to not be upset.

Delphiniumsblue · 10/06/2014 18:04

The huge advantage of being an early reader is that you are not just restricted to what your parents decide you can read.

Retropear · 10/06/2014 18:05

Well all mine were free readers by the end of rec and I managed to restrict their reading material.

MarshaBrady · 10/06/2014 18:26

Why do people think that if you don't watch TV news you are mainlining grand theft auto and xfactor?

No grand theft auto here, no violent games, zero Xfactor and reality shows, no rubbish.

Radio 4 news and choosing where to consume information. I'll teach the dc that, where news comes from is important. News is as sensationalised in many places.

Fideliney · 10/06/2014 18:35

My eight year olds didn't know the graphic details of torture OR watch rubbish gutter 'entertainment' telly. Not sure where that either/or sprang from.

And the whole characterisation of children fortunate enough to be allowed to be children for a few short years as pwescious/litte darlings/over sensitive is just pathetic.

Fideliney · 10/06/2014 18:37

Well all mine were free readers by the end of rec and I managed to restrict their reading material

Exactly retro. Capable readers is hardly the same thing as independent travellers.

HumphreyCobbler · 10/06/2014 18:52

I get most of my news from a paper and the radio.

I cannot understand why not wanting your child to hear GRAPHIC descriptions of cruelty is being conflated with wanting your child to be ignorant of the world. That is like saying to know about sex you have to see hardcore pornography, or you don't properly know.

HumphreyCobbler · 10/06/2014 19:01

Also, I do TALK to my children about what is happening in the world. You could not describe them as ignorant.

Delphiniumsblue · 10/06/2014 19:04

I expect that my mother thought she restricted my reading- if I knew she wouldn't have wanted me to read it I made sure she didn't notice! My favourites were the problem pages in my aunt's women's magazines!

Delphiniumsblue · 10/06/2014 19:06

I agree that you don't want graphic detail- I am just saying that once they can read you can't definitely know what they are reading. You can hide particular news, you can't hide it all.

Retropear · 10/06/2014 19:07

Well you're different to my children.They're far too busy reading War and Peace to be interested in magazine problem pages.

Retropear · 10/06/2014 19:10

And I manage hiding the broad sheets very easily.It's not exactly hard.

They get The Beano,The Phoenix and First News alongside devouring a shed load of books.

Believe me they're not interested in the broadsheets,anything I don't want them to see go at the bottom of the composting bin just incase.