ooooohhhh... a new series of...

[Karen A]

Fair enough karen... just didn't realise it was a personal shot (well not THAT personal, anyway - onviously I knew there was 'personal shottage' in the mix generally! ). I was being 'flippant' rather than ridiculing, but take it any way you like... The point I have stressed throughout is that I like the show because it shows children (and parents) being helped to live happier, more empowered, more productive lives and to improve their relationships and communication. I really do think the fact that you see only 'ridicule' says far more about you (and anyone else arriving at the same conclusion) than it does me, but hey ho. Keep up the sterling work.

 

L&P

 

BD

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_television

Ah yes reality TV such as big brother is very well known for empowering people and helping them to live happier and more productive lives.

We watched Jeremy Kyle briefly this morning.At least he uses consenting adults.

[Karen A]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/jo-frost-nanny-state-401460.html

 

Who knows what the truth is.

Jo Frost has a PR person who manages her very well apparently unlike the indivuals who come along to see her in shopping centres in a search for help for their children's problems.

 

There is no argument that filming people in public for TV in a shopping centre,allowing them no come back and leaving them open to ridicule is a good way for people to obtain support.

 

Perhaps some people here believe that the benefit to the public generally can justify whatever indignity is inflicted on unconsenting individuals.I gather the media like that argument too.

 

At least professionals who provide private assesments do so within an ethical framework.

Apparently the current media have no ethical framework.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Karen A

[baddad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_television

Ah yes reality TV such as big brother is very well known for empowering people and helping them to live happier and more productive lives.

We watched Jeremy Kyle briefly this morning.At least he uses consenting adults.

 

Hold on Karen - you seem very confused ... I made exactly that point, that JF didn't ridicule people, it helped them to live better, more empowered, happier lives... you then posted, to say, effectively, 'no, not the programme, you'. I responded to that, and you have now changed tack again to compare the programme to Jeremy Kyle and Big Brother (both, by the way, programmes that I have stated many times I find offensive and ridiculing, and anything but the 'harmless fun' some people seem to see them as). Make your mind up, eh?

 

I do appreciate that you might find a programme looking at the issue of ineffective parenting as the cause of bad behaviour in children 'challenging' (this is a matter you have discussed openly on the forum, so please don't assume offense at my mentioning it) but that's not my fault or Jo Frost's. If you feel that strongly about her programme, complain to C4. There's nothing I can do about it, and I'm pretty convinced that other than among people who have a vested interest (for whatever reason) for seeing something 'nasty' in it I'm pretty sure most people would not tar it with the same X-Factor/Jeremy Kyle brush you (or bid, now apparantly, after due consideration )want to tar it with.

 

Just for the record. I made a point of saying that the girl (who did seem quite boyish, lets not let our own desire to score points off of other people - none of whom are me, BTW if you read MY posts on the subject - blind us to that very obvious fact) had some mannerisms etc that might well be seen as 'traits' of autism. If you don't think that's a relevant observation to make on a forum about Autism, can you explain why, or, if you are taking offense at people recognising certain behaviours as akin to autistic traits why that would be offensive? Are you saying that people who display autistic behaviours offend you? Or that it is offensive to say someone displays behaviours that could be interpreted as autistic traits? I didn't find the young lady offensive in any way, or the suggestion that some of her behaviours could be interpreted as autistic traits offensive in any way. That should be clear from the totally non-judgemental post I made about her, but if you are offended by autistic people / autistic traits that is your prejudice and I'd rather you didn't project it onto me. I'll leave others who agreed with me that she had behaviours that appeared similar to 'traits' of autism and those who thought she appeared boyish to plead their own cases, but I feel confident their intentions were far less nasty than you imply too.

 

I'd add, additionally, that somewhere on the forum I've almost certainly mentioned the day Ben and I went to the local curry shop and he was mistaken for a girl... he had long blonde hair halfway down his back, his voice (naturally high) hadn't broken, and he is a very 'pretty' boy fwoabw, feature wise anyway, so it wasn't a completely surprising mistake for the waiter to make. Ben and I, fortunately blessed with GSOH's, both thought it hilarious, and still do. Did we assume the waiter was being nasty and take umbrage? No, not at all, but perhaps if you had been sitting there you would have taken it upon yourself to give the waiter a 'good old talking to' on our behalf after we left?

 

L&P

 

BD

Edited August 6, 2011 by Suze
personal references

[Karen A]

Hold on Karen - you seem very confused ... I made exactly that point, that JF didn't ridicule people, it helped them to live better, more empowered, happier lives... you then posted, to say, effectively, 'no, not the programme, you'. I responded to that, and you have now changed tack again to compare the programme to Jeremy Kyle and Big Brother (both, by the way, programmes that I have stated many times I find offensive and ridiculing, and anything but the 'harmless fun' some people seem to see them as). Make your mind up, eh?

 

I do appreciate that with your history you might find a programme looking at the issue of ineffective parenting as the cause of bad behaviour in children 'challenging' (this is a matter you have discussed openly on the forum, so please don't assume offense at my mentioning it) but that's not my fault or Jo Frost's. If you feel that strongly about her programme, complain to C4. There's nothing I can do about it, and I'm pretty convinced that other than among people who have a vested interest (for whatever reason) for seeing something 'nasty' in it I'm pretty sure most people would not tar it with the same X-Factor/Jeremy Kyle brush you (or bid, now apparantly, after due consideration )want to tar it with.

 

Just for the record. I made a point of saying that the girl (who did seem quite boyish, lets not let our own desire to score points off of other people - none of whom are me, BTW if you read MY posts on the subject - blind us to that very obvious fact) had some mannerisms etc that might well be seen as 'traits' of autism. If you don't think that's a relevant observation to make on a forum about Autism, can you explain why, or, if you are taking offense at people recognising certain behaviours as akin to autistic traits why that would be offensive? Are you saying that people who display autistic behaviours offend you? Or that it is offensive to say someone displays behaviours that could be interpreted as autistic traits? I didn't find the young lady offensive in any way, or the suggestion that some of her behaviours could be interpreted as autistic traits offensive in any way. That should be clear from the totally non-judgemental post I made about her, but if you are offended by autistic people / autistic traits that is your prejudice and I'd rather you didn't project it onto me. I'll leave others who agreed with me that she had behaviours that appeared similar to 'traits' of autism and those who thought she appeared boyish to plead their own cases, but I feel confident their intentions were far less nasty than you imply too.

 

I'd add, additionally, that somewhere on the forum I've almost certainly mentioned the day Ben and I went to the local curry shop and he was mistaken for a girl... he had long blonde hair halfway down his back, his voice (naturally high) hadn't broken, and he is a very 'pretty' boy fwoabw, feature wise anyway, so it wasn't a completely surprising mistake for the waiter to make. Ben and I, fortunately blessed with GSOH's, both thought it hilarious, and still do. Did we assume the waiter was being nasty and take umbrage? No, not at all, but perhaps if you had been sitting there you would have taken it upon yourself to give the waiter a 'good old talking to' on our behalf after we left?

 

L&P

 

BD

 

 

Just to point out.

I have reported this post.

I object to any reference being made to my history.

I have not read beyond that.

It is against thev Forum rules to make reference to an individuals history and use it to prove your own point and you know it.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Karen A

[baddad]

For anyone in any doubt.

We watched this programme, the individual in question may well be a vulnerable individual under the age of eighteen with mental health problems whos parents were not aware or chose not to be aware of the implications of the individual taking part in the programme.

 

 

Sorry, just seen this.

[baddad]

It is against thev Forum rules to make reference to an individuals history and use it to prove your own point and you know it.

 

this is a matter you have discussed openly on the forum, so please don't assume offense at my mentioning it

 

L&P

 

BD

 

NB: Having said that, there is a forum rule about discussing professionals etc... I don't think that would apply to a TV celebrity like JF, but that's not my call

Edited August 2, 2011 by baddad

[darkshine]

I have, does that make me old too? We used to have it at our skool and village fetes - it was called 'Splat the Rat'. It's actually on the list of games at an event I'm going to this weekend - will have to have a go now. :lol:

It might make you old too but I am told that you are as old as you feel

 

Good luck at the weekend at bam bam bam splatting that rat

 

It's sounding like I missed out - we just did jumble sales when I was a kid.... Although I was pretty good at that game when the fair used to come to town where you have to throw a wooden ball into a bucket

[bid]

(or bid, now apparantly, after due consideration )want to tar it with.

 

 

Oi!!

 

If you look back I have never said I thought Jo Frost was the bees knees!! Even when I said I used to enjoy her progs with my girlies when they were younger, I carefully qualified that by saying that I agreed with much of what she said but...

 

It's perfectly acceptable during a discussion to review and reflect on your own opinions. When I started to think about reality TV as a whole, I did start to feel uncomfortable with the idea of families with problems as public entertainment. I haven't been hypocritical at all, as I held my hands up to being guilty of sharing in the nation's rather unedifying interest in reality TV!

 

Honestly, if ya only wanted peeps who really, really Jo Frost to post ya shoulda said!!

 

Bid ;) ad nauseum, ad infinitum etc, etc, etc ...

[darkshine]

I have to say I will consider anything.

Another day.Another lot of traps that are full proof and no doubt he will appear shortly unless he doesn't like the rain.

Oh yes back already.Climbing the vegetable cane to the top this morning.

I have to say he must be intelligent as he develops new strategies every day.

Pest control are coming this afternoon.

 

Karen.

They're tricky little ###### and smart too - you'd better hope you get a good rat catcher good luck with that

 

How is that a swear word?!?!?!?!?!?

Edited August 2, 2011 by darkshine

[Mumble]

I love this forum - here we have a thread with only mild tetchiness covering everything from the realities of reality TV, ancient and not so ancient history, cultural differences, skool fetes, rat-catching and BD's infatuation with Super Frosty . Awesome.

[darkshine]

Hmmm, but it doesn't seem the same to me (in terms of "reality" tv) when I think of BB or I'm a celebrity etc They just sit there watching people and setting challenges to make them suffer.

 

Other things like strictly come dancing and embarrassing bodies seem to have a goal in mind at least...

 

I always figured that the main thing about J.F's programmes is that they are about helping people (including little people) and although the kids are the feature, its really the adults they are trying to reach in these programmes...

 

Considering the ethical minefield that is now the reality when it comes to working with kids I've always been satisfied that the programme is filmed in accordance with the protection of the kids shown within it. There are other programmes I've seen where the parents are using the kids to get them on tv/make money - but the J.F ones seem to be targeted to help them rather than extort and take advantage of them IMO.

 

J.F pretty much has the monopoly on this type of programme and I think that's for a reason - both in the way the programmes are constructed and broadcast and also in the aim of education of people.

 

And the UK versions are pretty tame I'd suggest don't watch the USA ones considering the responses

[darkshine]

I love this forum - here we have a thread with only mild tetchiness covering everything from the realities of reality TV, ancient and not so ancient history, cultural differences, skool fetes, rat-catching and BD's infatuation with Super Frosty . Awesome.

if we keep trying really hard we might add more

[baddad]

Oi!!

 

If you look back I have never said I thought Jo Frost was the bees knees!! Even when I said I used to enjoy her progs with my girlies when they were younger, I carefully qualified that by saying that I agreed with much of what she said but...

 

It's perfectly acceptable during a discussion to review and reflect on your own opinions. When I started to think about reality TV as a whole, I did start to feel uncomfortable with the idea of families with problems as public entertainment. I haven't been hypocritical at all, as I held my hands up to being guilty of sharing in the nation's rather unedifying interest in reality TV!

 

Honestly, if ya only wanted peeps who really, really Jo Frost to post ya shoulda said!!

 

Bid ;) ad nauseum, ad infinitum etc, etc, etc ...

 

No, you haven't ever said that Jo Frost is the bees knees and that's not what I said, and it is perfectly reasonable to change ones views on something, and no I don't only want (or anticipate) views only from people who really (whatever that means?) Jo Frost. And if you choose to stop watching Jo Frost - with your children or on your own - because you've suddenly arrived at the conclusion it's somehow morally wrong (or unedifying) to do so that's fine too. As you say, ad nauseum, ad infinitum etc etc etc... lol

 

L&P

 

BD

 

PS: I would add that I neither 'love' nor am infatuated with the 'Jo Frost'. One poster and a candle doth not a shrine make, and that I happened one day to be walking down the same street as her and taking photographs of the local scenery does not amount to 'stalking', despite the assertions of the arresting officer.

 

Being totally honest, i don't think I could get it orn with Jo even for a share of all those millions. I just happen to think she's probably offering the most common sense and practically useful advice about parenting of any high profile advisor (lets not say 'expert' or 'professional' lest we get that other side order issue cropping up again)accessible to most people. If others don't that's fine, but it would be nice if they explained why the advice is flawed rather than concentrating on the unknown quantity of JF's qualifications to give it, or the whole issue of 'reality TV' - an umbrella term that would cover a whole host of tv programmes, good and bad, on disability issues.

 

In the simplest terms, I believe that in the vast majority of cases if parent's took on board what Jo Frost said and actually delivered on it they could hugely empower their children and hugely improve the lives of their entire families and networks. I can't see anything 'bad' about that whatsoever, but if others do...

 

I also think that no matter how many professionals are involved, how well qualified they are, how much money you throw at them, in situations where parents are getting it wrong and continue to get it wrong (whether as a result of ignorance, arrogance, denial, fecklessness, mental illness, projection, lowered expectations, whatever), those improvements won't happen, or in the very best scenario will happen much more slowly from the direct impact of the professional input on the child (i.e. circumnavigating the negative effects of the parenting) and the child's growing sense of self responsibility resulting from those professional influences. Even more problematic, I believe there are many many professionals out there who actually make things worse by reinforcing all of the mistakes that are already being made. Sometimes that might be because they have bought in to a particular 'brand' of child psychology or type of intervention, and other times because they just look at parents/carers and know they're gonna hit a brick wall anyway, so take the path of least resistance.

 

L&P

 

BD

 

L&P

 

BD

Edited August 2, 2011 by baddad

[bid]

I love this forum - here we have a thread with only mild tetchiness covering everything from the realities of reality TV, ancient and not so ancient history, cultural differences, skool fetes, rat-catching and BD's infatuation with Super Frosty . Awesome.

 

Actually, there's one you missed off your poll "What is BD?'...

 

...Super Frosty's secret body slave!!

 

Bid

[bid]

Ooooh, and furthermore, this thread gives me the ideal opportunity to use my new favourite word, as in:

 

'My, this is all a bit of a rumpty-to!'

 

Bid

 

And a free casual diagnosis (RRP 10 guineas) for anyone who can correctly guess in which novel I recently discovered said word!

[Karen A]

They're tricky little ###### and smart too - you'd better hope you get a good rat catcher good luck with that

 

How is that a swear word?!?!?!?!?!?

 

 

I made one mistake already today.

Very nice man turned up with the next order.

Fortunately I realised who he was after a brief pause before inviting him in to deal with my rat.

[darkshine]

I made one mistake already today.

Very nice man turned up with the next order.

Fortunately I realised who he was after a brief pause before inviting him in to deal with my rat.

[Karen A]

J.F pretty much has the monopoly on this type of programme and I think that's for a reason - both in the way the programmes are constructed and broadcast and also in the aim of education of people.

 

 

No she hasn't.

The House of tiny tearaways is made by the same company apparently.

I know Dr Tanya Byron does not always get everything right.

However she is very highly qualified and has a track record in the NHS and is subject to a professional code of ethics.

 

Karen.

[darkshine]

No she hasn't.

The House of tiny tearaways is made by the same company apparently.

I know Dr Tanya Byron does not always get everything right.

However she is very highly qualified and has a track record in the NHS and is subject to a professional code of ethics.

 

Karen.

I'd forgotten about that one! But its not quite the same I don't think and IMO that programme definitely follows a BB cross with another programme I used to watch that was with this therapist where they filled a house with people with problems (OCD, agoraphobia, and many others) and monitored them then helped fix the probs.

 

The reason the whole J.F things stand out is cuz usually they are focused on one family and the attention doesn't have to be divided so much.

[baddad]

 

NB: Having said that, there is a forum rule about discussing professionals etc... I don't think that would apply to a TV celebrity like JF, but that's not my call

 

But of course it would apply to DR Tanya Byron because she's 'totally bonafodoe'...

 

Of course, I am quite happy to discuss Tanya Byron, Tanya Roberts, Tanya Leech (she was a girl I had a crush on years ago... huge blue eyes and a lovely pair of... erm... earrings... ), or any other Tanya anyone might like to mention. Just so long as they don't cut off my access to obssessing about Jo ...

 

That's ironic, comedy effect, BTW, as I've said, there is absolutely no truth in the rumours that I have an inflatable 'sturdy girl' doll in the wardrobe which I dress up in fishnets and a leather teddy and refer to as 'Nanny J' ...

[darkshine]

That's ironic, comedy effect, BTW, as I've said, there is absolutely no truth in the rumours that I have an inflatable 'sturdy girl' doll in the wardrobe which I dress up in fishnets and a leather teddy and refer to as 'Nanny J' ...

pml that image is beyond scary!

[bid]

 

That's ironic, comedy effect, BTW, as I've said, there is absolutely no truth in the rumours that I have an inflatable 'sturdy girl' doll in the wardrobe which I dress up in fishnets and a leather teddy and refer to as 'Nanny J' ...

 

I feel a bit queasy...

 

Bid

[Karen A]

I'd forgotten about that one! But its not quite the same I don't think and IMO that programme definitely follows a BB cross with another programme I used to watch that was with this therapist where they filled a house with people with problems (OCD, agoraphobia, and many others) and monitored them then helped fix the probs.

 

The reason the whole J.F things stand out is cuz usually they are focused on one family and the attention doesn't have to be divided so much.

 

That would hold true before the last series.

Some of the people last Wedensday were filmed in a shopping centre.

I found another article in which JF specifically says she has changed her focus.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8149148/Supernanny-Jo-Frost-abandons-the-naughty-step.html

She has and it shows.

If I thought she was just a parenting adviser offering simple advice for clearly simple issues then it would not be an issue.

 

She is not qualified to work with a family who may have complex problems.

I have a qualification in working with families.I have 23 years of practical experience in the public and voluntary sector.

I could go down to my local shopping centre and set up a stall this afternoon although I could not offer advice that involved using my profesional qualification directly because I am not currently registered to practice.

 

Perhaps I should.I know CAMHS services are being reduced in my area,the voluntary sector is being cut back dramatically and people are desperate for advice.

 

I am in practice more qualified than JF.

Yet she appears to be regarded as an expert on the back of a media career and popularity.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Karen A

[Mumble]

That's ironic, comedy effect, BTW, as I've said, there is absolutely no truth in the rumours that I have an inflatable 'sturdy girl' doll in the wardrobe which I dress up in fishnets and a leather teddy and refer to as 'Nanny J' ...

Bid, I'll be needing that bucket after you Doc stopped my anti-sickness meds yesterday to 'see what would happen'. Well the inevitable happens, but how am I supposed to go back this afternoon and explain that the above was the trigger???? :lol:

 

Now, cause this thread can't go more whether or not BD thinks JF is the bees knees or not, why the heck do we refer to something we think is pretty much awesomely the best thing as 'the bees knees'? I'm guessing a bee's knees are a little nicer than a bee's sting, but quite frankly I'd rather keep my distance from any aspect of a bee.

[Mumble]

I could go down to my local shopping centre and set up a stall this afternoon although I could not offer advice that involved using my profesional qualification directly because I am not currently registered to practice.

 

Perhaps I should.I know CAMHS services are being reduced in my area,the voluntary sector is being cut back dramatically and people are desperate for advice.

Noooo, don't go giving Cameron any more ideas for his idiotic 'Big Society'.

[bid]

 

Now, cause this thread can't go more whether or not BD thinks JF is the bees knees or not, why the heck do we refer to something we think is pretty much awesomely the best thing as 'the bees knees'? I'm guessing a bee's knees are a little nicer than a bee's sting, but quite frankly I'd rather keep my distance from any aspect of a bee.

 

That's just when I'm in polite society...

 

Usually I'd say the dog's ######!!

 

Bid

[darkshine]

That would hold true before the last series.

Some of the people last Wedensday were filmed in a shopping centre.

I found another article in which JF specifically says she has changed her focus.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8149148/Supernanny-Jo-Frost-abandons-the-naughty-step.html

She has and it shows.

If I thought she was just a parenting adviser offering simple advice for clearly simple issues then it would not be an issue.

 

She is not qualified to work with a family who may have complex problems.

I can see your point but I'm not always convinced that qualifications are that important, I just see them as a measure placed by society on the ability of a person to pass tests etc... Having said that there are of course areas of "expertise" where qualifications are required purely to prove/reassure, after all, I wouldn't fancy an operation with an unqualified surgeon. Of course anyone who works with children should be trusted to not screw them up (in as much as you can ever guarantee that) but I'm not certain that qualifications are everything.

 

I am in practice more qualified than JF.

Yet she appears to be regarded as an expert on the back of a media career and popularity.

Amazing what media backing does innit?

 

It's really hard to explain what I'm trying to say - but the gist of it is that she does sell practical advice - and it is selling - and the general feeling is that this advice works so isn't that a good thing?

[darkshine]

That's just when I'm in polite society...

 

Usually I'd say the dog's ######!!

 

Bid

That wouldn't be that great in my house - me poor lil dog aint got none no more

[Karen A]

I can see your point but I'm not always convinced that qualifications are that important, I just see them as a measure placed by society on the ability of a person to pass tests etc... Having said that there are of course areas of "expertise" where qualifications are required purely to prove/reassure, after all, I wouldn't fancy an operation with an unqualified surgeon. Of course anyone who works with children should be trusted to not screw them up (in as much as you can ever guarantee that) but I'm not certain that qualifications are everything.

 

 

Amazing what media backing does innit?

 

It's really hard to explain what I'm trying to say - but the gist of it is that she does sell practical advice - and it is selling - and the general feeling is that this advice works so isn't that a good thing?

 

Some time ago two other programmes ''Girls and Boys Alone'' and ''Young Autistic and Stage Struck'' were talked about at length on the Forum.At the time ''Girls and Boys Alone'' was on air it was discussed in similar terms to this debate.

 

As a result of letters written by most recognised professionals and chatity organisations in this country there was significant tightening up of policy regarding children being involved in TV production.

If children work then there are clear regulations protecting them.Similarly if children take part in a documentary there is some expectation that specific standards will be met.There is the expectation of some level of integrity and the ability to question the claims being made.

The production teams are very aware that they cannot call these programmes factual or claim that they are a documentary.

As they are entertainment they do not have to prove anything.

There are many people including some professionals who agree with the methods JF uses but there are many others who don't.

She does not have to show alternative views or look at wider issues.

There are not many similar programmes around with professional involvement because professionals know they would be entering an ethical minefield if they agreed to take part.

 

Tanya Byron is involved in similar programmes but you can be sure that she is absolutely certain about the welfare of anyone involved in her programmes.She has refered to other agencies and recognises wider issues where they are relevant.

She also works as part of a team and her work is reviewed by other recognised professionals in the field.

She works with families in a secure safe extremely carefully managed environment and provides long term follow up.

 

In contrast when I looked through the web today the vast majority of coverage about JF was about her,her sex life or lack of it,her relationship with celebrities and her wish to be more famous.

 

I looked for ages for the previous links about the other programmes but could not find them.I think they were from before the Forum upgrade.

 

But as you will gather my opinion is that if the methods cannot be seen to be open to a clear standard of ethical scrutiny they can't be justified by a greater benefit to the public as viewed by some.

 

How would you feel if you were the parent of a child in the programme or a child in the programme and you read this thread ?

I listened to parents on five live being harrased and questioned after ''Girls and Boys alone'' and it was not nice.

[Karen A]

I can see your point but I'm not always convinced that qualifications are that important, I just see them as a measure placed by society on the ability of a person to pass tests etc... Having said that there are of course areas of "expertise" where qualifications are required purely to prove/reassure, after all, I wouldn't fancy an operation with an unqualified surgeon. Of course anyone who works with children should be trusted to not screw them up (in as much as you can ever guarantee that) but I'm not certain that qualifications are everything.

 

 

Amazing what media backing does innit?

 

It's really hard to explain what I'm trying to say - but the gist of it is that she does sell practical advice - and it is selling - and the general feeling is that this advice works so isn't that a good thing?

 

I should add that there are plenty of people who sell advice and no it is not always a good thing.

Who says that it is the general feeling that this advice works ?

I could find plenty of voices that question whether her methods are the most appropriate method of discipline.That is the problem.

She only reports those who agree.

Just look at the response I have obtained by asking a few questions and it is easy to understand why people who disagree may not have a voice.

In any case she is not selling practical advice.She is using people,paying them nothing and making money out of the media coverage she obtains.

 

Why do you think a link to her latest book is on every page I go to and the launch was at the same time as the new series.

If she just wrote books I would not care as I would just not read them.

It is reported that she is as rich as Simon Cowell.I don't see how that helps the people she works with.

[baddad]

Who says that it is the general feeling that this advice works ?

I could find plenty of voices that question whether her methods are the most appropriate method of discipline.

 

Yep, totally agree with this... Mostly parent's with under-disciplined, over-indulged, badly behaved kids and the people who advise the methods that parents of under-disciplined, over-indulged, badly behaved kids prefer, of course, but dissenters from the 'JF way' none the less...

 

other reasons that parents who disagree may not have a voice are

a ) they've got sore throats from all the screaming and hollering they do at their kids instead of disciplining them effectively

b ) their kids have just punched/kicked them in the throat

c ) their kids won't let them speak in their own homes...

 

Oh - my tic seems to have gone off at the moment...

no wait...

it's back again ;)

 

L&P

 

BD

[Karen A]

Pest control came this afternoon.

He was very good.Walked in with what appeared to be enough poison for a masacre.

Have just been doing the ironing with a song going round my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwAmpn8ISV0

 

[Karen A]

Noooo, don't go giving Cameron any more ideas for his idiotic 'Big Society'.

 

Too late for me.

I am already doing plenty that people used to be payed to do.

What do you think I have been doing in the last few months whilst not around ..... just enjoying myself or planting a garden as a personal recreation area for a rat.

Alas it is all unpayed.

[Karen A]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531626/Beware-of-Supernannys-naughty-step-treatment-parents-are-warned.html

 

Another alternative perspective.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_time-out

As I thought the naughty step is not even original.

It has been around since 1958.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Karen A

[Lynden]

ack, just typed a reply and managed to lose it! Anyway, I don't mind Supernanny - she has a lot of good advice but when I watched one of this series online I was really uncomfortable with the big red arrow with naughty on it pointing at where the child sat..it's the behaviour that is naughty, not the child. I use time out when I need to, but don't refer to it as the 'naughty step'. I don't even use a step, but that's besides the point

 

Lynne

[baddad]

ack, just typed a reply and managed to lose it! Anyway, I don't mind Supernanny - she has a lot of good advice but when I watched one of this series online I was really uncomfortable with the big red arrow with naughty on it pointing at where the child sat...it's the behaviour that is naughty, not the child. I use time out when I need to, but don't refer to it as the 'naughty step'. I don't even use a step, but that's besides the point

 

Lynne

 

Hi Lynne - I can see what you're driving at here, and can understand why people have different feelings on this aspect of 'sanctions', but having said that I disagree... I honestly don't think that children who receive the right kinds of positive reinforcement, reward and praise will suffer 'negative' self esteem issues (or whatever) for being expected to take ownership of and responsibulity for their bad behaviours... I think, in fact, it's the kind of thinking from which child psychologists make their daily bread and butter...

Would you dream of telling a child who had behaved well, 'oh, it wasn't you being good, it was just good behaviour'? No? Same concept, different spin. Making a distinction between the behaviour and the child enacting the behaviour is, IMO, one of the biggest problems that crops up where autism (for example), is a factor. 'It's not you that's naughty, just the behaviour that's naughty' comes (IMO) pretty close to that t-shirt slogan 'I'm autistic, what's your excuse?'... A child behaving badly will be judged by wider society. That judgement will effect self-esteem, no matter how much reassurance the child gets at home. In fact, it just adds another level of confusion where the rules at home differ from those outside and the 'positive reinforcers' from home become negatives. Black and white works for me every time: that is naughty (and the child doing it is being naughty), that is good (and the child doing it is being good). Ever so simple - child's play, in fact! - and far easier to grasp for children whose conceptual understanding is compromised (which really applies to all kids whether autistic or not, cos they are just kids) than an abstract model that distances the act from the actor...

 

Hope that makes sense

 

L&P

 

BD

[Lynden]

It does indeed - fair point well made, especially with regards to being good not being classed as good behaviour. I've never used it in terms of excusing 'bad behaviours' such as hitting being the fault of his autism. I actually wouldn't say that the behaviour was naughty either, would do the same as you, say 'that is naughty'. Still don't like the idea of the big red arrow but I guess that's partly what makes good TV..

 

Lynne

[bid]

Way back when I watched her progs, I thought at the time that a lot of her language was sometimes over-complicated for children. I also thought her behaviour charts were often too complicated too, both visually and conceptually.

 

A rough idea of what I mean (because I can't remember verbatim) would be something like saying to a small kid 'You have been disrespectful', whereas with little ones I would always use much simpler language such as 'You have been rude/unkind'.

 

However, that may just be that I have lived and worked with chldren with special needs for too long

 

Bid

Edited August 2, 2011 by bid

[darkshine]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531626/Beware-of-Supernannys-naughty-step-treatment-parents-are-warned.html

 

Another alternative perspective.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_time-out

As I thought the naughty step is not even original.

It has been around since 1958.

(just quoting this one so I don't fill the screen )

 

At length I have read everything since I logged off earlier today, I understand what you are saying but I don't know if I agree, cuz as much as channel 4 will praise J.F til the sun don't shine, the Telegraph obviously doesn't.

Yes, there's editing and stuff but the thing is that so much of what she says makes sense to me... I don't see what wider issues need to be referred to in supernanny

 

That programme where the kids were left in a house to look after themselves - I thought that was completely wrong, but I don't see where the house of tiny tearaway's is right either - they were out of their usual environment in that and I thought that can be a double-edged sword. And with the whole celeb thing - well she doesn't make any pretence about it - its unfortunately a thing of the times - and I bet that tanya lady got paid a fair whack and got her own slice of publicity from them shows...

 

I don't reckon supernanny claims to be a cure all, but it does show simple tips for some really difficult problems and if that makes just a few of the screaming hitting parents stop and think for even a second then its worth while.

 

I know when I was a kid I really needed some of those things in place and they are simple things, that build relationships, respect, trust, communication, show everything isn't black and white, could have taught us all to listen to each other, have routines and structure and time together, make things like discipline fair and right instead of unfair and unright, to build understanding, stability, and also to have self-esteem, feel wanted and accepted, to have had a chance at building confidence instead of knocking it down etc etc

 

I really could go on longer and I see you are saying there is more than one way of looking at it and I am naive at times when it comes to the issues you have raised - but I do know one thing - everything I see that she does - it could have made my childhood better if my parents had seen that and thought about their parenting style.

 

It doesn't matter if she nicked all her ideas from others, plenty of people do that and do alright for themselves

[baddad]

It does indeed - fair point well made, especially with regards to being good not being classed as good behaviour. I've never used it in terms of excusing 'bad behaviours' such as hitting being the fault of his autism. I actually wouldn't say that the behaviour was naughty either, would do the same as you, say 'that is naughty'. Still don't like the idea of the big red arrow but I guess that's partly what makes good TV..

 

Lynne

 

Yes, the big red arrow... Not sure about that either. I guess the point is it's a very visual way of reinforcing the message 'This is where bad behaviour gets you', and that's an important message, but it'a also a very physical 'label', iyswim Are we (adults) making it too complicated, though, by trying to project out adult 'considered' logic onto something that for kids is far more B&W? Thinking of children's games, there are many where being 'caught' or getting out sends them to the 'sin bin', and they don't for a moment think that the temporary restriction (sanction?) applies to them generally, outside the context of the game. In fact, this is one of the fundamental lessons they have to learn about turn taking, fair play, rules of engagement etc etc, and we (adults) fully accept that not learning these concepts will be detrimental to their social opportunities; again, we don't assume that teaching them these things will have a negative impact on self esteem... On reflection, my 'gut feeling' regarding a big naughty sign is the same as yours (ie thanks but not thanks), but now you've raised the point I'm wondering if maybe I'm guilty of projecting my adult 'take' on it rather than seeing it as the very concise / clear message children might appreciate? Hmmmmm....

 

Darkshine... I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but having read your post I wonder if you might be describing the very process I've often outlined that I find totally 'wrong' - i.e. a child who has to find their own way to the conclusion that they need boundaries, expectations and sanctions in order to know how to and effectively engage with the world, and then find their own way of realising those things? I do believe it happens, and is far from limited to autistic children. I mentioned it in an earlier post in this thread (I think), and I think it is hugely unfair when children manage that conceptual understanding on their own and then have that effort usurped by parents as confirmation of their own parenting skill. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that the child's 'take' on the process is entirely objective (it can be as subjective as the parents, and it goes without saying that even parents saying the right thing are often the last people their children will listen too!), but I think this does happen, happen's quite often, and is completely unfair when it does. .

 

I think the idea that JF nicked the idea of the naughty step and claimed it as her own is laughable, TBH. I've no idea whether the term 'naughty step' was coined in 1958 or whatever, but feel pretty sure the idea of a 'sanction area' has been about a lot longer than that be it a corner in a classroom (with or without a 'dunces' cap), the village stocks or HM's prison. I'm guessing neanderthal mums might have directed their kids to the 'naughty boulder'.

 

L&P

 

BD