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

Original poster

To think that "celebrities" should NOT change a child's routine when they are caring for them on a TV show?

15 replies

Alambil · 16/01/2008 20:30

Just watching "So, you think you can be a single parent" or whatever it's called and that Jane woman has started a run of controlled crying (or rather - putting the kid to bed and leaving it to cry, no matter how long it takes - not timed like CC) at bedtime instead of sitting with the child until they fall asleep like the mother does.

It has just really riled me that she has taken it upon herself to change this area of his routine without parental permission! I'd be livid if she was treating my son (the kid is about 2yrs) like this.

AIBU to think there should be a clause to make the kids in these programmes have the easiest time possible when a complete stranger (and all the gumph of the cameras etc) takes the place of their mother??

OP posts:

Aitch · 16/01/2008 20:32

there should be a blimmin' law against using kids in these programmes, full stop.

MegBusset · 16/01/2008 20:33

Well, I'm sure the parents sign all kinds of legal disclaimers saying the production team can do what they want. The mothers are not forced to have their kids on TV. I'd rather there was legislation saying young children can't be on this kind of TV at all as they can't consent to it.

emkana · 16/01/2008 20:33

I think it's f*ing outrageous that Jayne whatshername thinks she can walk in and do this. The mother, if I am right, knows this is happening and is even happy for this to happen, which I really cannot understand.

mehdismummy · 16/01/2008 20:39

no to controlled crying full stop. No to this bloody programmes telling us to bring up our kids. If kids were meant to follow manuals we would push them out after we gave birth. The only people i was slightly interested in was tracey hogg and tanya byron. I would like to batter that bloody supernanny. Has she got kids? No. Annoying bitch

mehdismummy · 16/01/2008 20:40

JingleyJen · 16/01/2008 20:41

To be honest if the mother has put her child up for this in the first place then it is no ones concern but hers. If it is like the baby borrowers series on BBC3 the parents are watching on monitors so they can step in at any time.

I don't think it is right to use the children in this way in the first place but is up to the Mum to say enough is enough.

constancereader · 16/01/2008 20:41

Agree with Aitch. These programmes are exploitative and awful. WHY would you let your children in for it?

dooley1 · 16/01/2008 20:42

why was Rhoma Cameron holding a bottle when she was talking about the ironing pile when the youngest child is 5?

Desiderata · 16/01/2008 20:43

If no one watched these shite programmes, that would be the end of it.

Just a suggestion

Ubergeekian · 16/01/2008 22:00

Anyone who tried controlled (what the hell's controlled about it?) crying on The Boy would get a smack in the chops. But that said, routine is , let's face it, mainly for the parents' benefit. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but little people are pretty flexible - as evolution intended. Sabre toothed tigers don't run to a time table!

Original poster

Alambil · 16/01/2008 22:01

I was watching it to see how they protrayed single parenthood actually as I'd have written to them if they had made it look so simple/easy and portrayed us (SPs) in a bad light - I was hoping they would show the emotional/lonely side and money issues and they have. They could have made it look really cushy and I wanted to see if they did or not - that's why it interested me.

I do see why they did it but I think there should be a minimum age limit (for example, say around 5/6yrs when they could express their opinion on being looked after by someone else for a while - DS would love it I think!)

OP posts:

Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 22:13

OMG, please don't tell me that this happened?

We are very adaptable, but leaving a well adjusted and loved chiold with a stranger who does not love them or have their best interests at heart is abusive. It may not be prolonged and massivliy damaging abuse, but it is abuse non the less.

What the fuck do these tv producers think they are doing??

We have to put a stop to this idea that babies andkids can be abused like this just becasue they can't speak for themselves. It is inhuamne!

Who is the company, the producer????

Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 22:15

Sorry, should clarify..

"We are very adaptable (in evolutionary terms), but leaving a well adjusted and loved chiold with a stranger who does not love them or have their best interests at heart and fucking with their minds and expectations is abusive.

Monkeytrousers · 16/01/2008 22:18

What side is it on?

We should email offcom too to pressure them to protect children as MegB said above.

Thi sis the second programme like this at the expense of childrens best interests. It has to stop.

Original poster

Alambil · 16/01/2008 22:32

Channel errrr 5 I think - didn't pay much attention to that bit!

As I said - I have no issue with the other families because the kids (even the sibling of this child) were young teens/older kids (age 7 up) but this one particular bit got to me; I don't think he has had any long term mental abuse or whatever - just a shock! His mum had been discussing it with her so probably gave her the go-ahead anyway.

OP posts:

Flip