Drinking alcohol

The Experts have put their foot in it again! Don’t let children anywhere near alcohol! It will encourage them to be alcoholics! What absolute rubbish!

Of course, easy access to excess alcohol, without restraints, would tend to encourage a child to drink more and more, because of the associated wellbeing that this could engender, and in some family units this behaviour may be prevalent. However this could also apply to other subjects, such as where there is an over abundance of food this could make a child obese if there are no restraints. There are numerous situations where a child could go ‘over the top’ if on a totally free rein. A child is a child, and he shouldn’t be left to bring himself up, he needs advice and encouragement to grow into a responsible full member of society.

A child has the right to be trained to be a responsible sociable adult. If this is perceived to require an ability to handle alcohol at a sensible social level, then a child has that right to be so trained. It must surely be agreed that a planned and controlled introduction to drinking alcohol is the only safe way to go, with a view to developing a sensible alcohol appreciation with regards to the effects of alcohol, both adverse and beneficial. Not training them is almost certainly a route to the risk of disaster!

This alcohol introduction needs to be within the family unit, where controls can be maintained. If it occurs outside such a unit, then peer pressure comes into play, where his friends can so easily be prone to goad him to take on more, and not be ‘chicken’. The chance of a child having enough courage to resist such pressure amongst such a group is not very great, unless already of very strong character. It must not be forgotten that peer groups have enormous power.

The great advantage of learning to drink within the family group is that it can also be observed what effect drink has on the parents, and how the parents approach to their children can change when under the influence, and from this the child should be able to learn how tolerance can affect the overall result.

The other very important lesson that can be learned from within the family unit is that where the reins are relaxed over time, how it is that the extra drink can affect their behaviour. Most of the time, because they are not in their peer group where there are external laddish pressures, they can learn from it and develop their own tolerance levels, much to their benefit later in life.

A child has the right to be brought up to appreciate how alcoholic drink can effect them in a family unit where outside pressures are not prevalent, and where they can be guided to develop their future acceptable tolerances in a loving environment. Of course, this reasoning falls flat if the family unit is not balanced or loving. Nevertheless the child has that right.

The starting age of having an alcoholic drink is relatively irrelevant, as the quantity offered would be dependant upon the age and the resultant effect on the child, the quantity being altered as they grow, always keeping the effect on the child to a bare minimum whilst of sufficient strength not to go beyond that which is acceptable, but also bearing in mind that they need to learn what effect just a little too much has on them. It should all be part of the learning curve towards being a responsible adult.

Where a member of the family unit is often ‘plastered’ then a child of that unit may well consider that that is normal, and follow the same pattern. In this situation it has to be accepted that it is very difficult! That child could either be similarly often ‘plastered’ or could go totally the opposite way and become tea total. A child has the right to be steered between the two, if possible.

A child has the basic right to be alcohol trained, starting in his early years, in order to be able to keep within, and not exceed, the tolerances accepted by society. A child has that right!

Smacking

Smacking is an emotive subject. Why? Because there are some who object to any view anyone else has on any topic, and on the subject of smacking, for the best effect, they relate this as being the same as beating! To the ordinary layperson, smacking is a mild form of physically rebuke. The definition of ‘beating’ in the dictionary is thrashing, This is totally different to smacking, and to suggest that smacking could be classified under the same label as beating suggests that the objectors to smacking just want to cause a problem in society until thay have totally stopped smacking without properly thinking of the consequence should they be successful. In the dictionary a ‘smack’ is defined as a blow with the flat of the hand.

There are a number of rules that should be applied to the act of safe smacking. The safest area to smack is on the rump, concentrating on the fleshy part of that area, this ensuring that no damage can come to the body but can nevertheless carry a sting. For safety, it is also important to use the flat of the hand, or an object like the sole of a slipper, these not able to cause any physical damage when applied to the previously suggested target area.

The biggest advantage of smacking is that if applied immediately upon that form of punishment being justified then it is over and done with, with the affected child not having had time to forget what they did or didn’t do that caused such a reaction. The time that such a course takes might have been only a few minutes, after which they can get on with life, but with the knowledge to try and avoid such a confrontation in the future. Psychologically, that gets the package of misbehaviour, awareness of the objection to the deed done, and the retribution all accomplished in a very short period of time.

Any other form of retribution involves a period of wait, following the objectionable deed, before the matter gets resolved, during which time the child could have forgotten what they did which produced this adverse reaction. Now what is the point of stretching the period of worry for the child, which can only adversely affect him emotionally and psychologically, and also cause him to become more tense and less able to relax and get on with his life whilst awaiting punishment, these predictably risking affecting his whole life in an adverse manner albeit at that particular time it may only seem a small period for the parent.

To look at it from a slightly different viewpoint, how will a previously happy child react to a delayed punishment, such as not going to see a film which had been previously approved and for which he had been looking forward to seeing? There can surely be little doubt that this will be in the mind of the child for the whole period from his misbehaviour to the showing of the film. The logical effect of this would be for the child to be very upset over this period of wait, this affecting his general demeanour and his general wellbeing with his previously happy character being slowly altered to a possibly more sulky and less likeable fellow. That is not a good way to go!

There should be no doubt that a parental guardian should be able to apply a form of retribution to the child who misbehaves which is instantly appreciated by the child before he has forgotten the reason for the reaction to his behaviour. He is then in a position to forget the possibly perceived humiliation, as it was of such short length, but not forget what caused the problem, to the benefit of his future life.

The child has the right to receive a form of retribution that is instantly applied, such as a smack, so that that phase of his life doesn’t drag out over a long, to him, period of time, with the possibility that he will have forgotten the reasons for the reaction when he receives it. The child has that right!

Smacking can only be a course of action that can sensibly be applied to the youngest, when the basic standards need to be ingrained into his being. When reasoning takes over a possible course of action, then that may be a sensible way forward, but that depends on the moral and mental age of the child at the time.

Caring profession

Children have different interests and talents when born, hopefully refined when being brought up, the results of this being dependent upon their parents and their life time experiences up to that time. Some of them are brought up in an environment that encourages looking after animals or people in a caring capacity, they only being concerned with the health of their recipients and their welfare. In many cases their whole life is concentrated on being in a caring role in all its aspects, this not involving anything intellectual, but entirely practical. Nothing that involves the brain, but only a desire to be helpful. This is considered to be part of the nursing profession, rightly so.

The ‘powers that be’ have now decided that all nurses should get a University degree, and they will not be employed in that capacity unless they have one! What an absolute farce!

This has now put a barrier up to those who just wanted to care and look after people in need, because they may be either not prepared to work on a lot of theory which could be totally irrelevant to the job which is of fervent interest to them, or because they are incapable of learning the intellectual process meant to be relating to what they want to do. This is not to downgrade their inability to deal with the theory, but should be used to accentuate their expertise and desire to being more practical, and this is the route down which they should be encouraged to go. If this is to work, there should not be a block on their dreams by insisting that such a career needs a period of intellectual learning before being of any use. It’s a practical process and should be developed in an apprenticeship environment.

What will now undoubtedly develop will be many degree qualified nurses who will declare to being above the basic caring role, and being only interested in doing the least menial tasks, these being considered by them as the most intellectual challenging. This will result in the most important aspect of nursing, the caring role, to be understaffed, to the great detriment of the normal patient in their recovery period.

It is a great mistake to insist that all nurses should have a University degree. Society needs nurses who just want to be in a caring and loving role possibly receiving training in an apprenticeship.

In practice, you can’t teach someone to be caring and considerate if that is not their nature. They have to be born or to have developed such an attitude during their early existence on this planet.

A child has the right to be encouraged in an environment where caring is the main subject without insistence that a long period of intellectual study is necessary to be able to enter such a profession. A caring child has that right!

Loving and caring environment

When a child is introduced into this world, at a very vulnerable age, it would expect to be treated in a loving and caring manner such as to provide a good base for his development until he is old enough and proficient enough to fend for himself, though mothers rarely ever consider their offspring mature enough to be able to take off on their own. Fathers generally think otherwise, considering that their children will be well able to look after themselves as soon as they decide to make the break, though their daughters may be considered by many to be less able. The thinking behind this may be the thought that girls might be taken ‘advantage’ of, with the possible inability to resist such unusual (to them) attention.

The problem with trying to define what is meant by a loving and caring approach is that it so much depends upon the personal him or her self, this being dependant upon his or her upbringing, and experiences up until that moment of time. Their thinking would have been affected by the treatment they have experienced with other persons, as well as hearing or reading what alleged experts on the subject have to say. These other contacts would themselves also have been influenced by their own upbringing and experiences up to that date, or their thoughts may have been developed just from unproven theory. The whole subject can be very complicated!

The result of pondering on all these complications, on paper, is to consider that the parents must decide themselves how to bring up their child, possibly weighing up all the advice they can glean, but perhaps mainly concentrating on the basic principles of what the child should be able to expect, as a right, during their development, if that is possible.

It is considered that listening to their own parents and grandparents, where available, possibly together with friends who have children whose behaviour and principles are admired, would be a very good starting point. Perhaps the only problem with this is that some of the actions that the admired parents adopted when dealing with their children might not go along with some of the principles and approaches that the new parents have acquired and adopted on their own initiatives. It is almost inevitable that their will be some aspect of the upbringing that would not be acceptable to the new parents, yet the problem point may well be critical for the new child’s upbringing.

Unless the father is unable to find work, it is generally considered that the mother is the best person to look after the children, possibly because they have what is colloquially called a natural mothering instinct. Is this important?

Research has shown that the mothers who stay at home to look after their children, full time, produce the healthiest children. Is this important?

Likewise, the more reading that is done to the children early in life, so that they develop a yearning to read themselves, and by reading themselves then develop a yearning to want to know more and more, they will then make the greatest development progress. If the mother is at home full time, then it is she who has the greatest opportunity to do the reading during the day. Is this important?

It is considered that children need boundaries so that they know what is acceptable. If they go beyond those boundaries then they need to be aware that there will be a downside to their actions which will not be beneficial to them in some way. This is necessary for any group of people, and the children need to be aware that such a regime will be in existence when they reach adulthood. For this to be efficient, it is important that there should be one person at home who is constantly in the background, so that the parameters of the boundary stay constant. More than one person, such as a childminder and the like, will almost certainly have different values, and they may have difficulty following the new parent’s requirements where they differ from their own. But is this important?

Traditionally, there would be a full time mother at home to look after the children, to the child’s benefit. The child has the right to be brought up in loving and caring environment, this giving them the best chance in life. A child has that right!

It is generally considered that a loving and caring mother puts the child first, herself second. Is this considered imporant?

Further education

The further education policy of the UK government is in a shambles. It has been decreed that as many students as possible should attend University for the sake of the reputation of the Country! There is no regard here for the many students who would be better served  by going to a Technical College.

The Government has no right to force a child to go to a particular type of college of further education just for the Country to be able to boast that a higher proportion of UK children are going down a University route, when compared with other cultures or countries.

A child has the right to be offered encouragement to undertake training, in whatever sphere that might be, either physically or intellectually, in an environment of their choice, for their future benefit when an adult, provided that those interests are not in conflict with civilisation generally. A child has that right.

A further problem has evolved in persuading a student to go to a University. The costs cannot be borne by the country funding their attendance, and in many cases neither can their parents, so a scheme has been set up to make it easier for the students to borrow the funds with a view to paying the money back when they are earning more than a specific salary when finally at work, this being related to the average wage at that time. This is perceived by many to be a sensible approach, but an unreasonable number of the students see this as an excuse to borrow more than they actually need with a view to being able to have a good social life whilst in attendance. They view the paying back when earning, if they earn enough, as not a problem, and this is quite acceptable.

Then the organisation supposed to be providing the funding gets into a position where they can't supply the monies, even though the Government had promised that the funding would be available, the result of this in some instances being that the students cannot afford to continue on their university route and they drop out!

A child has the right to be treated by the Authorities with honesty, and if a promise is made, that should be kept. What signal does this behaviour give to the students for when they are adults? And how will it affect how they treat other members of society? This is not something that should be experienced by youngsters whilst in their training years.

The child has the right to be treated with honesty, and if a promise is made to them by an adult, then they have the right to expect that promise to be upheld.

Babysitting between friends

Two women are undertaking part time work. They both have a child of about the same age. They organise their work time so that neither is at work at the same time. They are friends. They know each other well. They know how the other child has been brought up, and each would be happy for their own child to be looked after by the other mother should the need arise. The children have played together in the past and get on well.

The parents would not, after all, be in favour of the two children being forced to play together if they didn’t get on. The parents would not be interested in the children getting together if it was bad for their child. It would just cause each parent grief if the result of such a get-together was for their child to emerge with hassle and upset.

These parents have organised their working life so that they can each look after the other child, in rota, to allow the mothers to go to work. This is the logical way of dealing with the problem. The ‘powers that be’ have determined that this is not acceptable and that mothers should be thoroughly checked before being allowed to look after another child on a regular basis such as this.

Ofsted have apparently decreed that caring for another person’s child ‘for reward’ should be classed as childminding, and therefore both mothers must be registered with Ofsted and follow the same regulations as normal childminders, their financial ‘reward’ being that they receive free care for their children. There is, of course, a financial cost to registering with Ofsted, together with various checks being made to ensure that they are ‘proper’ persons to be undertaking the task.

Why don’t the ‘powers that be’ think sensibly? Most of child abuse occurs within the child’s own family unit – not with persons from outside. The risk of abuse from friends is minimal, and therefore to target that freely offered help such that there will be a deterrent to such a gesture with cost implications is absurd, especially when the more likely threat from the families themselves is ignored. We will discuss the threat from the child’s own family another time.

Children have a right to expect the general public to be properly interested in their wellbeing, and in this respect they have a right to know that their mothers are able to organise their lives such they can earn money effectively for their own benefit, without costly enforced legislation being applied that can only deter them from doing so, especially when the friends’ involvement is the best approach for their safety. The children have that right!

Bribing

There is many a parent who goes for bribing a child to do what they want him to do because the child may initially be very adamantly refusing to oblige or just going into a tantrum as a gesture of defiance, much to the parent’s discomfort especially if out in the public domain at the time.

Bribing a child invariably works because the parent is giving in to the child’s demands, much to the child’s satisfaction. Is this a wise move? Many will say that it is the only way to get the child to ‘behave’ himself, and by this is really meant that this is the easiest way that they have found to be successful in bringing the child up with the least hassle. There is little doubt that a child, if facing a reward for doing a specific job, will usually be glad to do it. Because bringing up a child is the most difficult of all life’s tasks, the parent, from the other side of the fence, will be glad to ease that burden of difficulty by bribing. Does it do the child any good?

The benefit of bribes for the child is more money, more time watching TV, more sweets, being allowed to undertake some previously banned fun activities, to name but just a few. At that stage of the child’s life the child feels good. He has managed to control his parent into doing what he, the child, wants, by bartering to his advantage.

The child has a right to be brought up in a manner that is consistent with training him for his future period of adult life where he should be able to integrate with other people hopefully with reasonable ease, and where he will feel able to help someone in need without thinking of benefitting himself, but thinking only of the other person. If the child is always insistent upon a reward when young, and the parent is party to it, then it may be very difficult, when he is an adult, for him to think about assisting anyone without wanting some tangible reward, such as a bribe, then there is a great risk that he will not be able to absorb the fact that assisting someone, and not relying on a reward, can be very rewarding in itself.

A child has the right not to be put in a position where in the future he wants a reward for an activity that is required of him. He has the right to expect to be brought up such that he gets satisfaction from doing the task asked of him, without the need for a consideration of any material advantage from it. He has that right, but it can be very difficult for a parent to consider that that should be the aim when such a course as ‘no bribing’ needs more effort on his part.

Tied child

I was in the supermarket today, shopping of course (what else?), when I saw a shopper with a child strapped to her wrist with a tie about 1 metre long. It was secured to the child such that he had no chance of escaping, and as I approached he was sitting on the floor, causing a rumpus, saying that he didn’t want to go any further. His Mum dragged him to his feet and said if he didn’t behave himself he wouldn’t get any sweets. This didn’t seem to make any difference to the lad as I passed by though I did get the impression that he might be showing some small signs of succumbing.

This suggested that the person, who I am going to assume was his parent, was unable to deal with the lad in any other way than physically restraining him. This could have serious implications on the development of the child in not allowing him to stretch the boundaries of acceptable behaviour at an early age. The parent is effectively saying that she can’t cope with him. This is very sad when one considers that the child was born because the parent wanted a baby. I am again assuming that the child was wanted, especially when there are easily available ways of avoiding pregnancy, and if it does happen unexpectedly there are ways of negating the pregnancy as soon as thought possible to be pregnant. If a person continues with the pregnancy, then I think it reasonable to consider that the child is wanted. This may change later on, but in the first instance the baby is wanted!

Therefore, if we can safely assume that the baby is wanted, if planned or not, then it is surely reasonable to consider that the parent would want the child to reach the outside world in a prepared state for adulthood. Again I am thinking that that parent is capable of and is thinking of the future, though it has to be accepted that this may not be a reasonable line of thinking. One of the prerequisites of this is to be able to understand what acceptable behaviour is. In order to understand such a concept a child needs to know what will happen if the behaviour exhibited is not acceptable. There are a number of ways to try to get them to understand. One is by smacking, another is by reasoning, and yet another is by bribing. We’ll look at these separately at a following date, very soon.

Let's go back to this situation of a parent actually tying the child to her. A child needs to be able to develop numerous skills and understandings whilst growing up, and one is obedience because in the worst scenario he could be heading towards a very serious situation where he could be terminally badly injured if he continues to pursue his current course, and that is not something a parent would want to happen. The parent needs to know that the child will respond to their verbal instruction for his own safety, without querying it. Absolute obedience at that instance should be expected. It has to be admitted that such an instruction would also be accompanied by a voice projection that the child would hopefully understand almost without the accompanying words if only because of its horror characteristics, but if the child is brought up in an environment where such voice projection is normal, then the warning could so easily be treated as being just normal and therefore ignored, much to the possible detriment of the child. We’ll touch on the parent child communication scene relationship at a later date.

Supermarkets can be fun places for children if restrained in an acceptable manner. The main criteria is that the parent needs to keep track of where the child is, which can be extremely difficult if allowed to roam, and if going too far afield to know that the child will return if told to do so. One advantage that the parent has is that if brought up in a loving environment the child won’t want to put himself in a situation where he feels lost, and insecure, and if he approaches that point he will try and find his parent to put his mind at rest. If he suddenly sees his parent at long range he is likely to head for them straight away to avoid the ‘lost’ feeling, although just seeing them may be sufficient to allay his fears. Of course, if the child is used to doing what he likes all the time, encouraged or not by his parent, then the ‘lost’ feeling is unlikely to develop and the child may not care if the parent is there or not, and that can be a real problem.

The child has a right to know that the parent cares enough for his safety to avoid him getting unintentionally ‘lost’ or to unknowingly getting into dangerous situations, and for this right to be exercised effectively the child needs to accept discipline so that the parent then knows that the child can be warned in advance of any dangers, and that the child will take heed of the warning. The child has that right.

Benefit of competition

There is a trend to stop children from entering any sort of competitive sport or pastime, in the belief that such activity is not good for their morale, or self esteem, and that the upset that naturally occurs when failing to win is an unacceptable state for them to experience. What on earth are the powers that be thinking, to come up with such a policy! They are not living in the real world!

The adult world is competitive. Surely there is nobody who considers this not to be true. If you apply for a job, or go in for an individual sport like tennis, or a team sport like football, and you are not successful, you have not won, so you may then consider that you have therefore lost. This happens in the real world. How does the new adult deal with this situation if he hasn’t experienced such at an earlier age? Probably with difficulty, and certainly with more difficulty than had he had such an experience as a child.

A child’s right is to be fed experiences that they are going to encounter in the adult world, so they need to be trained or encouraged to deal with possible setbacks in a competitive environment. There is no doubt that if a person is unsuccessful in a venture, or a sport, then it can be extremely disappointing, and can be very depressing, but that’s natural. Whilst a child, there is opportunity for them to face these situations under guidance and to experience not being as successful as they would like, and to be trained or advised and encouraged on how to get over the disappointment and try again or pursue a more beneficial route, but certainly to accept that they are going to experience failures through their life, and know that they have to get over them.

Bringing a child up in a competitive environment where he knows that he can lose, but nevertheless does his best to win, means that he experiences the psychological effect of not being successful, and thereby develops a character where he can handle such an eventuality. How much better is that than going into the adult world without that experience? Not to provide this experience is not in the best interests of the child.

The child must be allowed to join in and fully experience competitive environments and learn and fully understand how he will feel from the result of such an experience where he might lose, and from this learn how to cope with it! The child has that right before he reaches adulthood!