View Full Version : Babtsitting Jobs! The Rules Apparently!!!!
Josie
28-09-2009, 01:17 PM
Who has seen this stupid business of the two police women that look after each others children in the news today - BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Q&A: Childcare swaps (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8278533.stm)
They both work different shifts and so look after each others child while the other is at work! I'd call that helping a friend wouldnt you? What is wrong with that?
Well a lot apparently! According to Ofsted they need to be registered child minders as they are looking after the children for more than two hours more than 14 days a year and gain a reward! The rward being WHAT? That you get to to do your job as a result of this?
I still can't believe it! Unless you are a family member, looking after a child for more than 2 hours, more than 14 days a year is Illegal if you are not registered!!
It's understandable if its your full time job (http://www.careers-jobs.eu/) and you make money from it! But what if your helping out a friend? Or each other as in this case? Surely the rules should be different?
According to these 'rules' a lot of people helping out friends could be breaking the law dont you think?
Marcey
30-09-2009, 04:00 PM
This is ridiculous!!
If they're not paying each other then how can this seen as child care?
I'm not to sure why this law is in place - call me thick - but it just doesn't make sense?
Josie
01-10-2009, 09:31 AM
This is ridiculous!!
If they're not paying each other then how can this seen as child care?
I'm not to sure why this law is in place - call me thick - but it just doesn't make sense?
I can understand it in the sense that they want people who do babysitting for a living to make money to be registered! But two friends helping each other out in order to work? How bloomin silly is that?
I mean what would they rather? They they sat on their arses at home?
I think the main point of this is that all child minders have a criminal record check - well in this case surely they would have had it already as they are polic officers???? Hmmmmmm :confused:
Marcey
05-10-2009, 01:39 PM
That’s a very strange law, how did they come up with the choice of 2 hours?
When you’re babysitting for over 2 hours your breaking the law?
Does anyone know the cost implications of registering as a child minder?
And with all this going on - they are taking these two poor women to court for taking care of each others children. Well what about the monster that was abusing the children in her nursery?
Now what option do you think women would choose? I would feel more at ease having my children with my close friends then I would at a nursery. How many checks are made in these nurseries? If they are going to give laws like this then there should be more done in order for women to feel comfortable having to leave their kids whilst they go out to work.
Josie
06-10-2009, 02:38 PM
It is horrible isn't it?
I mean there has to be aline drawn somewhere in all of this its ridiculous to carry it on like this!
Like you I would feel very uncomfortable leaving my children in a nursery - I would much rather they were looked after by a family member or friend than they had to go to nursery you know? Luckily I have not reached that stage yet but only time will tell....
My brothers and sisters and I never went to nursery, we used to get looked after by friends or family and my mum used to look after various kids here and there too! Its the way its done in my eyes!
Marcey
12-10-2009, 12:32 PM
Its just ridiculous, there really needs to be more done. I don't quite see how women these days are meant to balance a home a marriage work and having kids especially when there are so many rules in place these days.
Perhaps each time you have a baby the government should hand out a booklet to let you know the rules because women these days are obviously getting it wrong. But can you really blame them? I had never heard of this law before now.
Gladys
14-10-2009, 11:38 AM
There seems to be a lot wrapped up in this law with regard to child minding / babysitting. Primarily- safeguarding children except that has gone badly wrong with the recent paedophiles at Plymouth and Portsmouth- both Nursery workers and Mums. Secondly, Social Services can supposedly keep a better eye on children who are in the care of others. Thirdly,The potential for income - the Taxman gets more income if you have to declare any earnings from childcare. Employment figures can be adjusted to reflect a lower unemployment rate with more in work than out.
What ever happened to the good old days of community and families? Woman being Mothers if they want to be and additionally workers if they want to be? Men who become parents supporting their families in the provision of that choice. Families are largely fragmented these days, women as parents and or workers with and without support from a significant other. Men as parents not always workers not always supporting the parenting role. (It does work vice versa too) Responsible choice, balanced with a sensible application of a rule that is workable. That is all we need, not all this redtape claptrap. Sadly, paedophiles have always been and it is only now we are hearing more about them. It isn't just the paedophiles but also, parents whose parenting skills are in need of education to prevent the varied levels of abuse.The Sensible rule has to have an inbuilt structure to safeguard children at all times. How do you achieve all of that- I really don't know except my children had me, my Mum and a brilliant childminder with some very loving friends of mine- Family and friends again. It works.
Josie
15-10-2009, 08:59 AM
Exactly the whole family and friends thing works well as far as I am concerned! There is usually no profit in it and you know the people that have your kids! What more could you want?????
Community and family is the way that it should be - I hate the way it has all changed these days and hope my children can have the close knit family unit that I was raised in you know?
I mean at the end of the day regardless of what taxes they can get and how it improves the employment figures - the risks are still present aren't they? I would rather give the job of caring for my child to someone I know if it came down to it!
Marcey
15-10-2009, 01:53 PM
Well I'm sure you won’t all fall off your chairs when I say they've gotten away with this. It is now ok for you to babysit each others kids...
What it be the same if it was one of us ?
Josie
16-10-2009, 02:41 PM
Well I'm sure you won’t all fall off your chairs when I say they've gotten away with this. It is now ok for you to babysit each others kids...
What it be the same if it was one of us ?
Im kind of hoping this will now set the standard and they will assess thier stupid rules! For those of us that are doing it not as a job etc there should be no need to be registered you know?
Marcey
19-10-2009, 03:49 PM
Yea exactly? Very strange I don't quite know how they would have come across this law. Maybe allot of mothers were paying each other to look after there kinds and that would affectively put child minders out of business I guess?
Shizara
12-04-2010, 08:50 AM
Once again, the Nanny State and beauracracy has gone mad, but there is a method in their madness. Yes, the number one concern should be the protection of children. That's why most of us would leave them with family or trusted friends for x amount of time according to the need at the time. As a child growing up I went to my aunts, grandmother and at times even the next door neighbour. I didn't ever go to nursery or even kindergarten, my mother didn't go out to work either. My father worked and the household was pretty much typical of that era. Dad being a capable home handyman and mum, like most mums of her ilk could mend, sew, darn, knit etc. We didn't have the trappings of today's world, there was a line between our 'needs' and our 'wants'. It was only when we were at school that mum had an industrial sewing machine at home and made ballet shoes. In later years she took a part time job but was always there when we went to school and when we came home.
It is such a different way of life now and as Gladys has rightly pointed out, families are indeed very fragmented and the family support network isn't as strong as it once was. I wasn't born until after the depression, but I knew about it and how things were from my parents and grandparents. How many today are able to sit with elderly people and and learn about the lives of their ancestors? There is much for little ones to learn in life and one of the most valuable ways of learning is to spend time with older generations. This has a two fold purpose, that of imparting knowledge of of the past to the child and that knowledge takes on more meaning because it is often first hand experience, but it also gives the older generations a place in society as valued members and that appears to be diminishing. Some of my happiest memories are those of wandering around the garden with elderly family members or trusted elderly friends and learning about the garden, the life cycle of various insects and bugs. It was here, that my appreciation for bumble bees began
Nanny State makes much fuss about the protection of children and that's very commendable, however just as there is in every walk of life there are some people, in the very places that are supposed to be trusted, that are betraying that trust by doing the things that every parent dreads. I don't need to name names or refer to specific incidents because they were all so well publicised that if we don't know about all of them we know of some. On the other hand, 2 friends, to help each other out, care for each other's children due to the different shift patterns were subject to so much absolute nonsense. It is laughable, but worrying to think that 2 people who would have already been background checked due to the nature of their jobs are having the Rule Book waved at them, when really, I would expect their backgrounds to be squeaky clean anyway. So, that has to raise thoughts regarding other motives. If any money is changing hands the tax collectors would be looking for a share, if people have a family or friend support structure and prefer to use that, why would they want to pay unknown other people to care for their children? Or, are there other reasons perhaps?
Gladys
12-04-2010, 03:22 PM
Shizara, Well said, I do however have to point out the very real fact that maybe at the core of this ruling a blooming good reason for it or I hope it is anyway because I'm damned if I can think of any other reason. The reason has to be that it is almost always a family member or a close friend who does the abusing. ( There are exceptions- the Jamie Bulger killers didn't know little James - that was a random act of sheer cruel violence) So sickeningly it is sensible to 'police' childcare arrangements and steep them in checks etc because if you don't and then an unwitting parent leaves a child with a vile monster who then has a free hand to be ... it makes me shudder to think more about it. Its not going to be fool proof. The headlines have shown that but still it is safer than having no process in place. Otherwise, Joe Paedo has a free for all and we would be neglegant as a nation in allowing him to do so. Process costs money and it takes people to make the process. If it isn't quite right, then change it but you have to start somewhere.
Josie
21-04-2010, 01:57 PM
Shizara I was brought up in the kind of family network that you are describing and it saddens me to see this not happening today like it did back then! Its is a sorry state of affairs!
Gladys makes a very good point as well though! But still something needs to change in all of this as every time your child needs taking care of you cant go out and get a Criminal Record Check on the person!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.