Ethics regarding Instamums and huns

[BurberryIsSo2000]

Homeisthecalm here, I think it's suitable to start a new ethics thread.

Since clearly, the one from yesterday isn't really about ethics but Clemmie.

Thanks all,

Keep it as nice or as stingy as you like

I'll start off by saying things should be clearly marked 'ad' or 'gifted'

Although the term gifted gives me the rage

@wearelocal I'm not sure now, I assumed it due to MOD's saying she had 3000 odd posts, but actually I think maybe C+C deleted all her photos. Until last week c+c had 1 post detailing her leaving due to an email.
Perhaps they are both deactivated, I'm not an expert lol.

Oh that's interesting. I can't see mod's account at all.

@wearelocal I happened upon it by chance, if you look at a photo she's tagged in or post and click the tag you see that. Same with c+c. I was looking at a photo of FOD's I think that had Clemmie tagged in it.

How odd. This is what I get on tagged photos.

I think if you leave it on that it changes to loading and what I had. I remember this from people discussing Peaches Geldofs account as they were worried all her photos and videos had gone.

I've no idea otherwise. I had a poorly child trying to sleep on me and was just browsing it. That's what came up. Mysteries of Instagram!

Ah ok, thanks. It seems mad that anybody would want to delete all their photos - unless they had them stored elsewhere, I suppose. (And lose their followers, if they were returning). I hope your poorly child is ok.

&wearelocal thank you nothing major but aside from cuddling was just lying there aimlessly and stumbled across the c+c blog which I just found interesting.

Some of the responses might be genuinely useful to others...or some people might like to engage just for the sake of it too. No harm done there really, no?

Agree.I do this, I comment on stuff because I am genuinely interested and like to engage.
If anyone gets to glean anything new or helpful from my comments, then that's a bonus.
People should look outside their bubble of their own thought process, see what others might think.

so the meldrums are going on their 3rd holiday in 2 months taking their eldest child out of school again..they are saying that children learn much more traveling etc which is laughable as they go to identikit resorts and appear to have zero contact with local culture whilst the kids...even the baby are in kids club....but that's another matter. The point from an ethical perspective is, are they justified, morally in taking their child out of school frequently if advertising neilson holidays is how they make their living/pay the bills?

But are they advertising Neilson holidays? They don't mention #ad - but they tag them in everything which makes me suspicious.

I think some schools can be tolerant of a holiday now and again. But the Meldrums seem to be taking the p!ss recently. I think they know this themselves, despite trying to play it cool. Surely with their following they could blag a holiday during the school holidays. There are plenty of holiday companies who would entertain that.

Apparently the deputy head agreed Safiyah would learn a lot. On one had I have absolutely no problem with children of this age going on holiday, she's very young and has years ahead of her in school. It may be that they do get fined, but £60 is probably worth it. What seems strange is given he's given up rigging work to do SM work, it's odd they need to go in term time so often, as they can literally do whatever they want! Browsing through the comments starting to dislike some of the responses from Mr Meldrum. I've also seen them post screen shots of people who ask things.
They make out the school supports them taking the child out, but I doubt this. And given what they share (which I know is a snapshot) I'm guessing for it to be that much of a learning experience, they don't show any actual exploration of the local area and cultural learning. So they must be very busy around kids club and the pool side.

I think with the meldrums, as with other accounts that become large and become a "business", they become unrealistic and yes smug. Not very many families can afford 3 holidays (especially 2 neilson ones) in the space of 4 months not forgetting the fact that if at least one parent was working out with the home they wouldn't have that much annual leave!

but if it's what pays the mortgage is it ethically ok for kids to miss school? like when kids used to work in the family shop coming up to christmas or take time off to help with harvesting on the family farm........is it acceptable?

It's like taking them off to help with the harvesting?! BEST ARGUMENT EVER!

Yep, because if the kids don't go on holiday the family will literally starve and end up in the workhouse.

jeeez...i was trying to make a point!!!!!!! does it make missing school exceptable if they are helping with the family business, that was my question.

I like the harvesting thing . Because now why wait you can make your 2 year old work harder for you - better returns ;

and mr m has left his job, maybe they do really need the money

Stilldazed probably not

I actually do like the question just shows how silly this new form of earning money as a family is

Can't stand any of the Insta Mums / Dads (especially FOD) - smearing their kids all over the internet for free stuff and holidays? Shameful

If they 'need' the money, then there are other ways to do it than putting your kids in the spotlight and taking them out of school.

I don't for one second think that the school has let them go on the provision they will be learning more on a package holiday stuck in a kids club than they would in lessons. It's total bullshit.

I noticed FOD's book was only in the top ten non-fiction books on the first week it came out. I wonder where it is now...

I am definitely taking my DC out of nursery to help with the harvest this autumn.