Does it take a village to raise a child or is each man an island?

[Solopower]

Should people who blame parents for not controlling their children, try to help them instead?

I was wondering what other Mumsnetters would do if they saw a child who was going off the rails.

And how would you react if a neighbour or family member tried to give you some well-meant advice?

If a child comes to my house and makes a pest of himself, making my other guests feel uncomfortable, I would tackle that child (assuming his parents weren't). I wouldn't expect my other guests to do do. Same situation as the KFC.

Ian Duncan Smith gave an excellent interview on R4 this morning. I'm definitely not a tory, but I have always noticed that he seemed to have been the only person who actually listens to those who have ended up on the scrapheap. Somehow he gets people to tell them the truth. He had a TV programme a couple of years ago I don't know if anyone remembers it.

Many of these disenfranchised people have too much to hide to ever open up to anyone, if there's a bit of benefit fraud, a touch of bad parenting, too many fathers, recreational drugs or illegal immigration (not all at once of course) going on they are not going to seek help and support from outside, so parenting programmes and such just preach to the converted, or those willing to convert.

There are far too many people slipping outside the state's social radar, they get stuck there and their dcs then never get out of it either because they would then be betraying their own family.

I am always reprimanding (or just loudly glaring at) parents for abusing their children in public. Where I live I see it a LOT. Most of the time these parents are from a different culture and seem to think that what they do is perfectly acceptable. More than likely they go to a church where their pastor (or whoever) would do the same. People create their own social structure to suit them, and if there is none imposed on them from outside, and their style of parenting is vaguely within the legal system, anything goes.

Intervening is essential, but it takes a very strong person to do it. It makes me sad to see people disrespect their own children to the extent that they physically or emotionally harm them, but it goes on ALLTHE TIME. There's nothing more beautiful than seeing a happy parent with a happy child, engaging together but you very rarely see it out there in the REAL world of Tottenham and the like.

But I would never say that those parents with hostile and abusive parenting styles actually want to never have those beautiful moments with their children. So even if they think they don't want help, they actually do.

The way I read it, that fine-sounding sentence means "we are all in this together". We can either become jobsworths and say "it's not my place to interfere, we need a qualified social worker / policeman" or we can say "oi! that's not on. pack it in".

If a friend was contemplating drink/driving would you let "authority and hierarchy" aka the police sort out the mess after the event or would you intervene yourself (social contract) to avoid the problem in the first place?

I think that we need to revert to the mentality where we do a bit more judging of others and their behaviours.

It would help if the police were more supportive. Recently, a friend of mine arrived home from work to find that a group of young teens had broken into his building, and were smoking in the stairwell. He told them to stay and told them off for being in the building (he's ex military, so not a scaredy cat like I am) and called the police, hoping to scare them a bit.

Police turned up, and what did they do? Considering people were trespassing and had broken into a building? Told my friend off for wasting their time.

That is pretty much it Purits. I would also add it's not just (or even mainly) about saying "oi that's not on". It also means helping out where you can, not just judging and condemning.

Ah but Prospects, I think that saying "oi! that's not on" is helping out. It's being Jiminy Cricket and telling them that decent people don't behave like that. We all need a bit more positive reinforcement.

I agree it's helping, it's just a much smaller part of the helping that's needed. If "oi! That's not on" was all the helping that people did it would be a nasty society to live in.

Abs that's just it, there is an endemic situation where no-one is being accountable, not even the police. It's their job to deal with disorder, when you call them they should blimmin well deal with it. But it's hard to do that kind of work, it's so much easier for them to not bother.

That attitude among professionals has got us into all sorts of trouble - baby P was the culmination of a long series of 'professionals' paid a fortune, but actually just doing it for the money and a quiet life, more than happy to go with maintaining the status quo. The whistleblowers are penalised, just like your friend.

And that attitude is ours too, when we don't intervene, we stand by. My limit is kids. I don't care if people loot JD Sports - they treat their workers like cr*p anyway. But if someone messes up their kids heads in front of me I will intervene.

Exactly Purits. This discussion is about if it's the job of adult's as a whole to all help raise kids rather than leave it just to parents.

Solo, whilst yes in my example you could say "it's the manager's job", it's exactly this sort of buckpassing being debated.

Suchprospects, I understand what you are saying and I think you are right. I'm not scared of a few prepubescent teenagers but the fact is that nowadays the police's inability to use discretion means they are more of a threat to me than the unruly kids. And you have to ask yourself, is that the sort of society we want?

And I'm not talking about beating them senseless. I'm talking about giving them a gentle push to be on their way or taking their bike off them and wheeling it away etc. Whatever was appropriate at the time.

My point is that adults nowadays cannot intervene without the fear of the police will be on the wrong side.

niceguy I don't assume everyone who thinks a clip round the ear is reasonable is a violent monster who really means they want to beat people senseless.

I don't believe physical chastisement is particularly effective at producing good citizens, but I don't think smacking or a clip round the ear damages children or adults either (absent other abuse). Doesn't mean I think it would be an appropriate way for you to tell me as an adult that I shouldn't push in a queue or smoke in a restaurant. In these sorts of situations I don't see why we need to treat 14 year olds much differently to adults who are doing something anti-social, except perhaps to realise they have more excuse for not knowing how inappropriate it is.

I agree NG2. A friend of mine tells a story that happened to his dad many years ago. He could see that there was some problem about to kick off (think it might have been foorball hooligans) but there was only him and a few other pedestrians on the street to try to contain the situation. He kept his cool, spotted a policeman in the distance and shouted to him for help. The rowdies scarpered.

The catch in the story is that there was no policeman - but the miscreants thought that the balance of probabilities was (a) it was plausable that there was a bobby on the beat and (b) he would definitely intervene, so they didn't wait around to find out the truth.

That's what we need: a presence on the street to prevent trouble (not watch it happening on a screen and decide to arrest someone after the event) and the certainty that the police will act for the benefit of the law-abiding majority.

I think the problem is mainly urban - anonymity and isolation.

Had the youths in the examples given above been known, and the other people around at the time were friends or neighbours then dealing with them may have been easier.

There are a few cheeky / agressive youths in my village but they are well known and any trouble is fairly quickly dealt with by us.

Pendeen I think that can be a big part of it. But some of the worst areas for anti-social behaviour in cities is in estates and neighbourhoods where everyone does know everyone else. So I don't think it's enough to not be anonymous, there needs to be some community cohesion, a feeling of belonging, and a shared belief about the way we ought to be behaving and treating each other.

"there needs to be some community cohesion, a feeling of belonging, and a shared belief about the way we ought to be behaving and treating each other"

I think someone coined the phrase 'Big Society' for exactly that and, ironically, I think it's already happening. Witness the sweep-up teams, the people donating money to help an eldery barber or clothes to a family that lost everything, the peace rally in Birmingham, the street parties in London.... those people have always been there, they are community minded and they do feel they belong. It may have taken being threatened by a relatively small number of yobbos to get them talking but they have been there all along, quietly getting on with life.

SuchProspects

You are right in what you say about cities and neighbourhoods.

I deliberately said "urban" because in a village, especially one in which most residents have roots stretching back for several generations, the "community cohesion a feeling of belonging" you describe does happen and it actually works.

Actually Cogito you are right. Obviously press attention has focused upon the riots themselves but it was lovely to see communities coming together to clean up the streets. We need to publicise more events like this and I think that will help foster the sense of community we need.

Suchprospects - a clip round the ear is no laughing matter. I've seen kids with partial hearing loss from a clip round the ear.

But details aside, the physical and emotional hostility that children receive from their parents for minor misdemeanours is what eventually breaks the bond between parent and child. In some families this is seen as 'tough love' but what actually happens that the love is lost and the bond is broken. More often than not those parents had the same kind of upbringing. Children stop expecting love from their parents and find it elsewhere, or just learn to live without it.

Standing by in KFC is another thing. I wouldn't cross a group of teenagers even if there were several adults because the chances are they would be carrying knives. Far better to give them what they want and then prosecute the hell out of them.

singforsupper I wasn't laughing, and I'm not in favour of it. But no one I know (well enough to discuss the matter with) who does think physical chastisement is a good way of dealing with kids thinks it appropriate to cause disability. So I don't assume when people say "a clip around the ear" that they mean anything that would cause hearing loss.