Now recommended no TV at all for under 3's

[Furball]

Just seen on BBC news it is now recommended no TV at all for under 3's but can't find any info about it on their website.

It seems that parents thse days can do nothing right. Every move we make is beset with problems and I think it's time the sodding media got off the guilt trip bandwaggon and let us get on with it.

Amen!

Yes, Peachy, if you hadn't let them watch tv and you'd got them a dog...
at the rubbish which is tripped out as scientific fact.

DS is 2 and watches about 40mins a day 4 or 5 days a week. Yes, I do use it as a babysitting service. No pretence of learning bollox here! I use it to enable me to BF his little sister at a time in the day when he's tired and wants me all to himself and also a chance to get some washing done. We spend almost every morning outside walking or playing in the garden so I think he has a good mix. He also plays happily by himself and can concentrate well enough to do age 3+ jigsaws.

And now that I've finished posting I can switch the telly off!

Yep, if only eh? OCurse our lease specifies no dogs so they're be homeless but you know, better living in abox than watching TV...

same old women beating, different generation. They can't keep us out thw workplace so they belittle what we do at home.

Flumpytina - I didnt mean that "off topic" thing to be directed at you.. I just meant it was meant for edam, as she had suggested that noone had suggested such a thing. Didnt mean to offend - find this all very interesting and everyones entitled to their opinion!!.
I am of the opinion that a doctor or scientist knows more than I do about these things and to be honest cant really grasp why so many would lie about the effects?

so called Scientists used to claim salvery was OK as Black people were inferior, and descended from the son of Noah who was doomed by god to servitude;

and that women had inferior brains and so could not work outside the hoe, or hold her own money

or that disabled and mentally ill people should be incarcerated in palces where people could pay to watch them as an amusement

or that children should be soundly beaten for their own good

I could go on.......

I am not anti Scientist at all tbh, however blindlya ccepting what anyone tells me because of professional status is not something i can agree with

Lets not forget that doctors took the word hysterectomy from the word hysteria.

no, I don't except everything a person tells me because of their professional status, but in this instance, I choose to accept this evidence because, studies aside Ive always believed that of course tv is not good for babies.. surely you agree that a doctor knows more about the brain than someone in a different profession does? - I beleive we all know tv is not good for children but perhaps some feel the need to justify allowing children to view? (guilt?) like someone said something in the line of: (sorry cant find it) "little johnny watched so much tv and it didnt kill him" - proving this parent knows its wrong! - you could get your child to smoke a cigarette, it wouldnt KILL them, but you wouldnt do it as you know its bad for them! anyway, think ill agree to disagree here, we dont seem to be getting anywhere with this!! thanks though, interesting debate...

barbielovesken - have you got children? or, if you have, are they a) too young to be interested in telly, or b) looked after by a full time nanny?

Well the "study" (unpublished) linking autism to TV watching was written by an economist. So not sure what his credentials for writing a pile of crap are.

"The brain does not cease to form new neural pathways at the age of 3. If you can give me a good explanation of how it does then I will shut up!!"

It does this every time you learn something new. It's the mechanism by which memories are passed into long term memories iirc (although have to admit its been a long time and my memory might be ropey).

Erm, are you suggesting I feel guilty that I amde my kids ASD???????? And thats why I 'justuify' letting them watch TV????

[shcok]

I'm no Dr, however I DO know my kids better than ANYONE. As it happens, i also did degree level Psychology last year, during which I learned that there is no conclusive, peer reviewed evidece that Tv is bad for you

nobody knows what causes ASD, there is some evidence of a gentic link that requires a tigger, and many suggestions what that trigger cam be. Irt probably varies, in all honesty. But somehow I think TV isn't one of them.

I'm not ging to suggest endless TV is great for kids- but they need wind down time just as much as we do

JimJams, yep that's what I learned in Psychology last year - although chemical links are involved too (dependant on which latest theory one adheres too)

drosophila- I bowed out long before the end of that article I diid very much enjoy the bit at the beginning about precipitation rates though and relating that to TV watching and therefore TV much trigger autism.

Actually I've always taken my autistic son outside far more when it rains (even pre-diagnosis) because the playgrounds were empty then, And as any parent of an autistic child will tell you- the only good playground is an empty one.

Pretty much spanners their theory then (I've actually met other autistic kids at playgrounds in the rain )

BLK, I have a degree and PhD in chemistry and can assure you that a lot of scientific misinformation trotted out to the public as fact is pure hogwash.

I kinda signed off from this but - I really do want to say that I personally don't know anything about autism, I do not have an autistic child so I really cant comment atall on this, I would assume the cause is genetic - but really I dont have a clue - I sincerely apologise if I have caused any offense to parents of autistic children, I was speaking about different circumstances.
Senorapostrophe, I do have a little girl - she is 16 months old, she is cared for by myself, her daddy and a childminder but I really do not understand how your question is relevant.

ah - 16 months. You wait until she's 2 and a half or so - or until she has a sibling -and then read back over this thread. That's all I'll say.

but anyway, I've just read the Times article. . it just doesn't make sense.

I think the only way we would not watch any TV at all in this household is if someone took it away. I remember at primary school lots of games revolving around TV eg pretneding to be wonder woman etc and there was one child who had no TV. We all thought her family was a bit odd - poor thing. Wouldn't want that to be my child either.

Ooh new word, pretneding! Meant pretending.

Oh, I see BLK!

I let my children watch tv because sometimes they enjoy it. I think it's nice for them to do things they enjoy. Tonight they ate pancakes they helped to make. They enjoyed that (particularly the Nutella ones!) now they are in the bath with their dad. They enjoy that. Soon I will read them stories. Ditto.
Sometimes they watch tv. Tbh they don't watch that much. And they prefer videos/dvds. We all liked watching Strictly Come Dancing though, thought the children did more dancing than watching.

I loved watching telly as an older kid. Would run home to watch Jackanory Playhouse and Tarot (which nobody ever remembers). And Sunday afternoon adaptations of stuff like A Little Princess, which I watched with the book on my lap.

What I don't get- DS2 doesn't watch less TV than the other 2, so how come he is NT??????

Doesn't add up imo.

But then neither does the research.

I mean you could draw an inference from the bit JimJams posted that there is a correlation between rain and ASD, then we'd all be berated for not buying a good enough raincoat- you can't win!

And at least it would be able to identifiy the funding source for that one@ brolly manufacturers