To have told a woman with her kids to mind her own business

[Woolythoughts]

Travelling on a train, sat at a table of four seats. Opposite me was a woman with one of her kids and her other one was next to me. Once next to her was a toddler and the one next to me probably about 6/7.

I was happily sitting there watching a box set on the ipad with head phones in. US drama with bits of violence (guns, shooting, fights etc) and a bit of sex (Homeland for those who know it).

She asked me if I could turn it off as it was unsuitable for her son sitting next to me to watch it. I think he'd been watching the screen and made some comment to his mother from what I could gather when I took my headphones out.

Told her not a chance as it was not my problem.

Then, about 20 minutes left to go, was killing time playing candy crush - again with head phones on.

This time she asked me not to as her kids wanted to play it and she didn't allow it and it would upset them.

At that point I politely suggested she pay more attention to what her kids were doing and less to what I was doing and I'd do what I wanted.

She seemed to think I should modify my behaviour because of her parenting choices.

You were a jerk for the first thing, if the candy crush really happened she was probably just enjoying winding you up since you’d been such a world class p**t re. the first request. (And happily it seems to have worked)

And to everyone saying the Mum should have switched seats, it’s quite likely that a toddler and a 6/7 year old wouldn’t have sat nicely next to each other, that probably would have resulted in the OP on here complaining that the Mum had let two siblings sit there fighting and bickering the whole way - or the toddler would have insisted on sitting with the Mum thus the toddler instead of the older child would have been exposed to inappropriate material.

YANBU. If he had his own screen, as well as crayons and books, he had plenty to look at. Not to mention it would have been a good opportunity for her to give him a little lesson on the basic good manners of not looking over at other people's things.

She could also have changed the seating positions and done her best to manage her kids so they DID sit nicely.

The Candy Crush thing is even more ridiculous than the Homeland thing. Parents are in charge of managing their children's 'upset' and desires, not strangers.

Why should other passengers rearrange themselves aroud the OP's viewing choices?

By that logic, it's fine for someone to watch hardcore porn on a train, openly and visibly to others, because those people who feel offended or uncomfortable can just swap seats with people who don't.

No, other people do not have to put themselves out, to accommodate your inconsiderate and unreasonable behaviour.

'WIBU to expose a 6yo to adult-rated scenes of sex and violence, against his mother's clearly expressed wishes?'.

I don't understand why posters are mentioning the headphones. They're irrelevant. If the 6-r-old goes into school and mentions they watched sex scenes, safeguarding isn't going to ask if the volume was muted. It's not like you can take a DC into an 18 film as long as they have ear plugs.

OP was absolutely in the wrong. Subjecting others to your viewing choices on public transport is selfish and I'm struggling that anyone would try to justify it.

Children have the right not to be exposed to films/TV programmes of a sexual nature, and if adults were allowing a 6 year old child to watch the sort of scene detailed by a poster above then safeguarding in the household would be a real concern. At the very least it’s anti-social to watch something containing lots of sex and violence in a public place, where other people can’t easily move away, and children should certainly not be exposed to it- you cannot expect a 6 yo to just look away.

Wouldn’t have an issue with the game, children do need to accept that other people will do things they aren’t allowed to do, but the two situations are very different.

children should certainly not be exposed to it- you cannot expect a 6 yo to just look away.
So move the kids around.

Why should other passengers rearrange themselves aroud the OP's viewing choices?
Because it would be relatively easy to do so and would mean the OP could continue watching. This way no one is disregarded and the OP gets to watch what she wants and the child doesn't have to see it. I'd also reiterate my point about explaining to the child about not looking over people's shoulders* at what they're watching.

*that's a turn of phrase, in case anyone is revving up to come on with a detailed explanation of why he wouldn't have to be literally looking over her shoulder to see the screen.

I can’t believe the posters who are saying that the OP was unreasonable for watching their show sat next to a random six year old. It’s not the OP’s child so it’s really not the responsibility of the OP to ensure that they are shielded from particular TV shows. WTH?? Why should a grown adult in a public space modify their perfectly reasonable behaviour for the benefit of one six year old?? It’s like the whole world revolves around children these days and it’s super unfair and unrealistic. If the mother didn’t like it she should take responsibility for her own children and rearrange the seating—swap with the kid or whatever. It’s not like the OP was engaging the kid in what they were doing. What a nonsense.

She could have sat next to you

I think it all comes back rather neatly to the thread title. Was OP being unreasonable to tell a woman with kids to mind her own business? Yes and a massive hypocrite - as the problem was that OP was failing to mind her own business. She was sharing her business with people who did not want to be exposed to it.

She’s redic.

She was sharing her business with people who did not want to be exposed to it.

Please. She was hardly handing round her iPad or propping it in the middle of the table so everyone couldn't avoid looking.

Why should anyone have to modify their behaviour in a public space, to take account of pesky children who happen to be in that space too? Well, because it is public space. Not your own private space, or an adults only space.

Why would anyone imagine that 'public' does not encompass children?

I have asked OP whether she was watching discreetly enough that the child couldn't see (while using his seat and looking around normally), or not. She hasn't replied.

She did say something about not being able to angle her screen away because of glare from the window. That is the point at which a considerate person would think 'shall I carry on watching this unsuitable content in such a way that a 6yo can easily see / can't avoid seeing it? Or, given the light prevents me from doing so discreetly, perhaps it's time to find something else to do'.

I can't believe your post Junkmail

"Why should a grown adult in a public space modify their perfectly reasonable behaviour for the benefit of one six year old??"

Why not? Where do you draw the line? What would consider inappropriate?

You seem to totally lack social awareness of what is appropriate and what isn't

Opinions on whether the OP was unreasonable or not aside, this does raise some interesting points.

At the moment we have a watershed on television meaning that certain shows can only be broadcast at certain times of the day in order to take account of the fact that young children could be exposed to them. Bearing in mind the comments from some people on parents moving their children out of sight rather than the onus being on others not to watch, does this not also then mean that the watershed should be disregarded and that it should be down to parents to be responsible for what their children watch, not the responsibility of the television channels to broadcast at more appropriate times?

Separately from this, the fact that people can now buy some of this inappropriate viewing on demand and can broadcast it on tablets and devices which are portable and therefore mean that they can essentially broadcast inappropriate and age restricted material in a public place means that actually, the watershed may have had its day and the onus may well need to fall more and more to the parents to ensure that their children cannot view certain inappropriate material as it is impossible to police the behaviour of others when out in a public place. Either that or perhaps this opens up discussion as to whether the law needs changing to incorporate film and television programmes in public places into our indecency laws in order to protect more vulnerable individuals and to ensure that people do not have to be exposed to inappropriate material without their knowledge or consent.

*How many people have gone into a pub where the TV is on and found that they can't help looking at the screen even if it is something boring like football or horse racing?

There is something about a screen that makes it difficult to never look at it, especially if it is if you are sitting next to someone with a screen on a train. It is so unrealistic to expect a 6 year old to never look.*

Exactly. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I used the phrase "orienting response." It's why "Well, just don't look at the screen!" is not a good responseflickering screens get into people's headspace of those exposed to them whether they choose to engage or notit's like telling someone to "just ignore" noise pollution.

A book or online text is not the same thingit does not create the same orienting response. A child who has a moving screen of images in front of them will find it very difficult to take their eyes awayit is simply not the same as a book.

The OP needs to learn some manners and stop showing sexual and violent content on screens that can be viewed by other people (of any age).

Yabu for the movie you not gif the candy crush game. Would you like sitting next to a man watching porn on a train?

Those are good points SummerGems. It does seem that the watershed is rather redundant these days.

An excellent post.

@Junkmail Mon 10-Sep-18 12:28:17
I can’t believe the posters who are saying that the OP was unreasonable for watching their show sat next to a random six year old. It’s not the OP’s child so it’s really not the responsibility of the OP to ensure that they are shielded from particular TV shows. WTH?? Why should a grown adult in a public space modify their perfectly reasonable behaviour for the benefit of one six year old?? It’s like the whole world revolves around children these days and it’s super unfair and unrealistic. If the mother didn’t like it she should take responsibility for her own children and rearrange the seating—swap with the kid or whatever. It’s not like the OP was engaging the kid in what they were doing. What a nonsense.

Hear, hear.

Lack of social awareness about what is appropriate in public still abounds on this thread I see

I am curious to understand what feelings would be if this happened on a plane whilst watching something on the IFE? You would not necessarily need to be sat next to the child but they could see the screen through the seat behind you, across the aisle etc. Screens could not be fully moved to shield a child. I understand that certain films are probably not chosen to be shown on flights but some would definitely be considered not age appropriate.

I might be going against the grain but I don't think the OP was in the wrong.
She wasn't watching anything loud. The Mum should teach her children not to look at somebody else's screen or into their book. Not sure how about now but when I was a kid, reading somebody else's book or magazine while they were reading it was considered bad manners.
Should they now stop showing movies with some degree of adult content on planes? Why should the whole world revolve around children? Shouldn't the children be taught manners instead?

Do people really think it’s ok to watch a programme with violence and sex scenes in a public place?

Freedom and choice come with respect and responsibility.

I wouldn’t have put on an unsuitable box set with a child next to me. If she’d asked me to turn it off I’d have been understanding
But then again I’m not a dick

Hope that halo doesn't give you too many headaches!

She could have moved the child or you could have said you didn't like sitting next to nosy children who invaded your space and privacy!

"The Mum should teach her children not to look at somebody else's screen or into their book"

Yes she should, but be realistic. If you were sat on a train next to someone watching something on an iPad can you honestly say that you would not even have seen even part of one scene if the screen was in full view, even if you were trying not to look?