To lie about DD2s age

[princessparty]

Went to a big climbing wall today.You have to be 6 to climb and DD2 is nearly 5 but would have been really bored watching the other DC.
She is a tiny little thing who actually looks younger than her age anyway but they didn't question it.Was glad I did lie as she climbed all the beginner walls very quickly ( although she didn't bother with sticking to just one colour holds as she just wasn't physically large enough) She then moved on to bigger walls which are about 4-storeys high and she even had a good go at overhangs in the bouldering section.There is no danger really as DH was supervising and belaying for her.
So is it unreasonable to ignore age restrictions ?

No, it wouldn't have covered her, babyicebean - her being underage would invalidate the insurance cover. Worse, the resulting health and safety investigation could well have led to the centre losing its licence and having to close (either temporarily or permanently).

Pixie - you are right - debate in PrincessWorld means everyone telling Princess how right she is, what a wonderful parent she is, and how she can never put a foot wrong.

AIBU wouldn't exist in PrincessWorld, simply because she is the soul of sweet reason.

Of course, if princesspetty had wanted a debate, she could have posted this in chat, or as a What would you have done question in WWYD.

Actually thinking about it I would be a little concerned about the climbing place's management. The general levels of supervision must have surely been quite low not to have noticed an obviously too small ("tiny little thing" too small to manage the beginner walls properly) child on advanced walls. I'd wonder what else wasn't being managed properly, as I woudl have thought that PP and her dh should have been challenged (and asked to leave).

Actually even if you felt you were totally safe wouldn't that be enough to deter you - the possibility of being highly embarrassed at being asked to leave, and the likelihood of the older children being very upset.

In any case surely as "experienced climbers" you phone ahead/look at the website and check the restrictions before going somewhere new? Or did you plan in advance to flout the rules?

Does anyone actually know for a fact that younger kids are not insured there?

It might be that they, understandably, prefer working with kids who are at least 6, but are happy to let younger ones on, if they seem ready?

It sounds to me like the staff at the climbing centre were ok with the whole thing and didn't even ask about the child's age, so maybe there is a small possibility that it was ok insurance-wise?

Does it really matter what the facts on insurance were? The rule clearly stated the minimum age was 6 yrs-it isn't up to someone to make their own interpretation.
6 years is quite reasonable-my local wall only has DCs over 8yrs (it holds a session for 5, 6 and 7 yrs at what they call breakfast time session, no one else is on the wall, instructors take them and parents wait in the cafe and they don't go on at other times).

am really confused:

pp marches into classroom demands her children are released second the bell goes at end of school so she can take them to a gymnastics class for 4 - 6 year olds however she lied to get her dd into a climbing place for 6+'s so she would not be bored watching her sister climb

I find it strange that her dd1 is 8 years old so why would she need to get her to gymnastics on time. Does she lie and say she is 5 so she can do gymnastics too and not have to watch her dd2 she specifically says their ages here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/898587-gymnastic-leotard-pants-or-not

I can't see why a climbing wall would insure under-6s if they are specifically not allowed to use the walls. And even if the insurance does cover under-6s who the staff think are ready to climb, surely they would only do this if they had assessed the child and stated that they were happy for that child to climb. Since princessparty never had that conversation with the centre staff, neither she nor the staff could argue explicit consent to use the wall, and as such, I am pretty sure the insurance would refuse to pay out.

Sorry - hit post too soon - for example, you may have insurance to drive any car, but unless you have my permission to drive my car, surely your insurance wouldn't cover it if you crashed my car?

the climbing wall our kids use is 8+ for insurance/safety.

So up until last week dh took dd1 climbing and I took the other 2 swimming.

Now dh takes dd1 and ds climbing and I take dd2 swimming.

Or, if we are more time restricted, I take books/nintendo ds/other stuff for dd2.

She frets and moans that she isn't allowed to climb yet, but she knows she can when she is 8, just as ds had to wait.

Nowt wrong with teaching them that they can do certain activities as they get older (ds went go-karting for his 8th birthday 2 weeks ago!! He had anticipated it for about 8 months as an idea as he had to be 8 to do it - not a bad thing to learn!)

'And even if the insurance does cover under-6s who the staff think are ready to climb, surely they would only do this if they had assessed the child and stated that they were happy for that child to climb.'

I think that you are missing the point. PP's DH has been climbing for 30 yrs therefore the rules are not for PP's DD-only for lesser mortals! (I think she failed to put this argument to staff because the rule would still have been 6 yrs and she knew it).

I don't know why any of us are bothering with this selfish silly childish woman anymore. She has no consideration for the fact that she could get someones business shut down and employees their jobs lost. She has no shame that if her DD was to have an accident / fall etc, that she may not be the only casualty. And she resorts to nasty bitchy comments about psychomum drinking wine when she says something she doesn't like.(Don't you have any bad habits Princess and are you teetotal?) I detest people like this silly silly poster who obviously thinks she is better than everyone else and that normal rules don't apply. Why don't you eff off back to your princess castle Princess because you have made it obvious no-one elses opinions count so I don't know why you bothered asking in the first place other than to show off about how fantastic your daughter is. Don't trip on your way out

notalone......I don;t care about her bitching at me (well, I do....can;t drink any wine at the moment due to being so damn seriously poorly), but it was a tad below the belt her spouting that bit off to try and make herself feel better, when, in all fairness, it wasn;t as tho I was at any point on my profile boasting about drinking wine, and giving it to the children, and then taking them on a climbing wall underage was I.....

she knows she's wrong, she picked on me as I clearly hit a nerve, and she thought I might run away with tail between legs after being told off for what was actually a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment on my profile, and then picking on pics of my DDs, without actually taking into consideration that they were, in fact, in dance costumes.

which is fact confuses me a little seeing as her darling princesses go to gymnastics, so surely she would spot a leotard type costume from a mile off going on her 'experience'.

anyhoo.....I think we all agree that princess needs to totter off back to her party and hope that the ugly sisters and wicked witch blast her into netmums oblivion

at least in netmums they will appreciate her fluffy-pink-yay-me name and attitude

"I wish there was a debating forum , some things don't really fit either into AIBU or into chat...."

How is this not a debate, Princess? You stated your case and argued it, and we did the same - that's debate. Frankly I would have told you how unreasonable your actions were, and why, wherever you had posted this!

Anyhow, judging by your total inability ever to see that you might possibly be even a tiny bit in the wrong, I seriously doubt you really want debate.

It has been a debate with lots of interesting points, but PP isn't listening, and never intended to.
It all comes back to she couldn't see the point of the rule, she wasn't lying by withholding the truth, her DD didn't get hurt.
I must stop reading it-I just have a horrible fascination at how far someone can go to justify actions that are plainly unreasonable!
PP wants it- and PP gets what she wants- is the plain message.
I predict it will come back to haunt her one day when her DCs learn by her example.
It isn't a good idea to always get what you wish for-many a princess in a fairy tale has found that out to her cost!

"It's ok for me to take the car, princess-mummy, even though I am only 15, because the rules don't apply to me!!"

"I didn't fancy going to school today, so I went shopping instead - I used my judgment and decided that was a good use of my time."

"I know the rules say no mobiles in exams, but I only made one call, and I was ever-so polite and smiley, and didn't really disturb anyone else, and surely that rule doesn't apply if you are just checking you got something right, not actually asking for the answer...."

yabu
rules are there for a reason.
you broke them and if your dd had an accident it would be your fault

Lesbianmum-'I find it strange that her dd1 is 8 years old so why would she need to get her to gymnastics on time. Does she lie and say she is 5 so she can do gymnastics too and not have to watch her dd2 she specifically says their ages here:'
Tuesday gym classes are
4-5pm age 4-6
5-6.30pm age 7-11
They have actually let DD2 do the 5-6 class if we have got there too late for the little ones warm up and there has been someone away in the older class (wonder about their insurance )

piscesmum 'It all comes back to she couldn't see the point of the rule, she wasn't lying by withholding the truth'and 'oh the joy, you FINALLY agree you were lying, and therefore being unreasonable'
Um have you read the title of the post, I freely admit I was lying (by omission)

Notalone and psychomum ROFL at citing me being bitchy in this unmitigated bitchfest !!

If you don't want to accept to acknowledge or have the courtesy to respond to other people's comments why not just accept that you will find little condonement of your behaviour here and call it a day PP?

well pp how does your poor dds cope with watching each other then? You stated dd2 would not be able to cope with watching dd1 climb and not joining in

Yes, I have read the title. The difference is that you think it is reasonable to lie and I don't.

Sorry to keep this thread going but today at work I had to do some prep paper work for a resi that I'm doing in a few weeks time.
I was writing out the programme and was on the briefing session. As most of you know on residentials there are 'ground rules' and the young people are encouraged to write out a group contract but there are some rules that as instructors we insist on and 'guide ' the young people into coming up with them.

The usual ones
Stay out of other peoples bedrooms (this rule is if incase things go missing, inappropiate behaviour and so on)

No head phones on while in a session (rock climbing biking whatever!) This is clearly for safety as well as enjoyment. You can't here warnings or instructions with iPods on.

Don't leave the building grounds without permission (again saftey- we need to know where every one is. No i'm not expecting a fire, or the building to collapse but I'm supposed to be caring for you therefore I need to know where you are!!)

I was imaginging PP DD in a few years time saying she doesn't have to follow these rules because she has judgement because her mum told her. 'Rules are,like, sooooooooo unreasonable!
Any way if anything happened to me mum is going to sue you ANYWAY!! COZ IT'S YOUR FAULT! Mum said what's going to happen any way? She can't think why anything should happen to me so why should I wear my cycle helmet!! It's not fair!!'Anyway my dad has riden a bike so he knows all about it so I'm safe then!!

The thing is I really do get kids that hav this mentality and after reading this thread it is clear where it comes from.

FGS you are getting pretty offensive now upahill.
My 2 secondary school aged boys (15 and 12)are the model of good behaviour.'Respectful to adults and their peers' springs to mind from their reports.i see no reason why mt DDs are suddenly going to go off the rails
I have never told any of my DC that 'rules are soo unreasonable' as you put it .But I certainly believe that equipping children with sound judgment is much better than mindless following of rules.If, as you insist on doing,I extrapolate things to ridiculous lengths
'I let my teacher put his hand down my pants because the rules are that you must do what the teacher says.'
BTW I very much doubt DD was even aware that the minimum age was 6.

I think that most of us agree with you Upahill, it's seems a sad fact that PP will not have the decency to acknowledge your expertise publicly or admit that she is wrong but maybe (secretly) something will have hit home somewhere...hope so for her children's sake!

PP Your DC may be model citizens. BUT the attitude that you display here is mirrored in RL by other parents and consequently that attitude rubs down on to their children, the sense of entitilement and why should they miss out on anything? Why should they follow rules they are pointless???!! This is what I hear. I have to deal with this on a weekly basis (more often in summer when I have more groups)

Princessparty - what if your dd decides that, in her judgement, she doesn't have to obey a specific rule (for example no headphones whilst climbing with a group), and the group leader excludes her from the group?

Will you back up the group leader or will you be storming in to the leader's office to have a go at her and tell her your daughter's rights?

What if your daughter is rude to the group leader when she's told she can't do the activity if she keeps the headphones on - will you condone that because she was using her judgement?

And what about all the drivers who, on a daily basis, use their judgement to decide that the speed limit shouldn't apply in their case? If one of your dc does that, do you approve or disapprove? Do you fight their speeding conviction or pay the fine for them or do you make them face the consequences of their actions.

Upahill - I think you deserve an apology for princessparty's rudeness, and for her inability to acknowledge your very real experience and knowledge in this area.