Childminders in the headlines again this morning

[OrlandoBelle]

Has anyone heard the news this morning? I just checked it out on BBC new website and added my views. There seem to be a lot of people who are against childminders. I think it's time we put our points across...

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7052&edition=1&ttl=20090928103440

[Lady Haha]

I have to be honest, I read up to page 15 and could only find two or three neg comments about childminders! Not bad out of the 100+ comments I read!

[Mollymop]

I agree with most of the comments on there. I for one don't see a problem with what the 2 mum's did

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I replied with:

I am a childminder and have worked hard with very long hours to be a professional person.

If anyone is able to look after children then the quality of care and education would decrease.

Whilst I sympathise with their situation the law is the law and needs to be reviewed to re evaluate what "reward" means in this circumstance. Until then the rules should be adhered to

[OrlandoBelle]

I also wrote about all the qualifications we have and how we are able teach the EYFS and provide first aid etc.

I also wrote that these women seem to be "helping each other out" in order to save a few pounds, but the govenment provides most working parents with up to 80% towards the cost of childcare so there should be no excuses.

My local paper just phoned me and asked for my views on it. Think i'm going to be in the Evening Telegraph!!

[Blackhorse]

I replied with:

I am a childminder and have worked hard with very long hours to be a professional person.

If anyone is able to look after children then the quality of care and education would decrease.

Whilst I sympathise with their situation the law is the law and needs to be reviewed to re evaluate what "reward" means in this circumstance. Until then the rules should be adhered to

I to a degree agree with what you are saying..about cms qualifications..

but I think we need to be careful who we deem able to look after kids...if you say that ''if enyone ''is able to look after children...well everyone in this case are parents...and most parents are perfectly suited to look after children....even their friends kids in my honest opinion.

or are we saying that kids that dont go to childminders or nurseries but are at home with stay at home mums are worse off too? Because they dont get EYFS or whatever else it is that makes care and education better with cm's and nurseries??
We dont even have EYFS in Scotland...does that mean we are worse off too??

Dont want to sound offensive..so please dont take it that way..I am only trying to get your thoughts on mine...hope that's ok!

[Blackhorse]

but I agree..

dont break the law...try to get it changed if you dont agree!!

[Spangles]

I agree with most of the comments on there. I for one don't see a problem with what the 2 mum's did

I have to agree with you too. I think the law needs to be reviewed so that it achieves what it's meant to achieve which isn't this. If I were in their situation I have to be honest and say I would do the same as them and think most people would.

I think it's great that this has now been highlighted and will be sorted out - hopefully!

[OrlandoBelle]

I think at the end of the day, if everyone sent their child to a friend to be looked after, we would be out of a job. And the sad reality is, the majority of parents do put money and the cost of childcare before the welfare of their child.

[twinkle3005]

Can I just ask, what is the current law situation for Grandparents looking after Grandkids? Are they breaking the law as well if they care for children for more than 2 hours a day?

[OrlandoBelle]

Can I just ask, what is the current law situation for Grandparents looking after Grandkids? Are they breaking the law as well if they care for children for more than 2 hours a day?

I don't think it applies to relatives Twinkle. I think thats part of the debate.

[Winnie]

Can I just ask, what is the current law situation for Grandparents looking after Grandkids? Are they breaking the law as well if they care for children for more than 2 hours a day?

Grandparents can look after a grandchild and get paid if they want to, the Childrens Act allows for that.

[Blackhorse]

I think at the end of the day, if everyone sent their child to a friend to be looked after, we would be out of a job. And the sad reality is, the majority of parents do put money and the cost of childcare before the welfare of their child.

maybe you are right...but I dont know anyone who has friends that could look after their kids or even want to....so I dont think we would all be out of business..

not everyone wants to be looking after someone else's kids I dont think...

[Ripeberry]

The Ofsted lady on the BBC news this morning said that people should NOT do sleepovers anymore as they would be breaking the law as well!
Well that's me done for then. My daughter has been looking forward to having her friend over for a sleepover this Friday and she has not seen her friend for years as she used to live in France and has only recently moved back to the UK.
I'm not registered for overnight care either so I'd be in double trouble, even though they are just friends :angry:

[balloon]

I was looked after by a succession of my mums friends when I was a child. None were kind, none looked after me properly, one tipped my baby sister out of her pushchair so her fat lazy 3.5 year old could ride in it instead and my baby sister had to walk.

The worse by far used to throw us out in all weathers and tell us not to come back til the evening, we froze, we burnt, we played on building sites, demolition sites, rivers, we got hurt and were walloped for being there in the first place. She humiliated me in front of her friends, threatened me not to tell my mother, made us into skivives to do her housework and care for her dogs. She simply did it for the money and cared nothing about the children. She was also a foster parent and treated the foster kids the same.

If this law is repealed, it opens the doors for thousands of men and women like my childhood 'auntie' to come in and abuse the system..

Hell; if this law gets repealed I may very well myself give up my registration and get them to pay me in grocery shopping or pay my rent or council tax, I'll be getting no money, just wont have to pay out for things and there won't be a damned thing they can do about it. No more courses, no more paperwork, no more first aid to pay out for, no more registration fees or income tax - ahhh I feel good about it already...:rolleyes:

The fact is, the law is the law is the law and ignorance of the law is no defence in a court of law! (and why on earth are policewomen ignorant of the law anyway?) I'm sure paedophiles, bank robbers, murderers etc all think it's a stupid law too...

[Ripeberry]

Blackhorse, don't you bet on it, they do it all the time around here!

[Blackhorse]

The Ofsted lady on the BBC news this morning said that people should NOT do sleepovers anymore as they would be breaking the law as well!
Well that's me done for then. My daughter has been looking forward to having her friend over for a sleepover this Friday and she has not seen her friend for years as she used to live in France and has only recently moved back to the UK.
I'm not registered for overnight care either so I'd be in double trouble, even though they are just friends :angry:

:eek: :eek:

me and my best friend would spend loads of time in each others houses with the respective parents being in charge of us...more than 2 hours a day...and certainly more than 14 days a year....

and no to sleepovers? I mean what good will that do?

how will this make ofsted look in the media?? and might this then also badly reflect on cm's? as we will all be thrown in the same pot ...

[Winnie]

Any one can employ a nanny, have a relative look after their child or have a friend come to the home of the parent/child. That is legal. Anyone can look after a child for up to 2 hrs a day or up to 14 days a year and receive 'gain' without breaking the law.
There is a lot of choice of 'informal' childcare allowed, so why break the law? and why should the law be changed. It will open the floodgates to unregulated childcare.

[Blackhorse]

Blackhorse, don't you bet on it, they do it all the time around here!

maybe I grew up to sheltered...where nobody would look after someones child just to get some money..or not treat them nicely...

I just think is is a shame that a law that is rightly there to make sure nobody is running an illegal childcare business is intruding so much into families personal choice of how they raise their kids.

[clorogue]

Not do sleepovers - oh my goodness what is this coming too!!! What about children's parties - eg are children allowed to go to parties anymore without parents and helpers being Ofsted checked? Where will it end?

[LOOPYLISA]

The Ofsted lady on the BBC news this morning said that people should NOT do sleepovers anymore as they would be breaking the law as well!
Well that's me done for then. My daughter has been looking forward to having her friend over for a sleepover this Friday and she has not seen her friend for years as she used to live in France and has only recently moved back to the UK.
I'm not registered for overnight care either so I'd be in double trouble, even though they are just friends :angry:

Agree with you hun,

Thats me and a million and one others in trouble then :rolleyes:

Gggrrr the world has well and truly gone mad :mad:

[Ripeberry]

I just thought of a way around sleepovers! Bring the child and the mum over! Kids have a sleepover upstairs and the mums have a night in with the DVDs and lots of wine! :laughing:
The resident dad has to be teetotal of course!;)

[OrlandoBelle]

Grandparents can look after a grandchild and get paid if they want to, the Childrens Act allows for that.

However you cannot claim tax credits if a relative looks after your child. They have to be a registered professional. xx

[inspiron]

all the parents had to do was look after the children in each others houses and call themselves nannys and this would have been ok no problems .i also think that surely we would like to think that we have the final say in what we do with our own children

[jelly15]

If a parent trusts a friend to look after their child on occasion without payment I don't see a problem. However, if it happens on a regular basis and for financial gain then of course it should be illegal.

The problem is how to enforce and clarify the law.

[Pudding Girl]

:laughing: that was a lady from Netmums on the beeb this morning not Ofsted - she was being all sensationalistic, as they like to be :rolleyes:

[Madminder]

However you cannot claim tax credits if a relative looks after your child. They have to be a registered professional. xx

Although that is true, did you realise that if you are a registered childminder caring for a family member (eg a grandchild or neice/nephew) then you must also care for non-family members too else the tax credits or company vouchers cannot be claimed for!

[Madminder]

If this law is repealed, it opens the doors for thousands of men and women like my childhood 'auntie' to come in and abuse the system..

I agree wholeheartedly with you and that is the point I was trying to get across on the radio this morning. We will be back to the old pre-registration days where the lady up the road is looking after 20 children and they will all be 'friends' children with no cash payments made to get round the law.

When they do this review to clarify what 'reward' means they need to be very careful.

Also, please remember that Ofsted do not make the rules, they only enforce the rules that the government put in place. They went to the house of this policewoman because they had received a complaint so they had to follow it up.

[wendywu]

I think the people who run this country should deal with the people who see not going to work as a reward and gain from not going:angry:

Since when did the act of just going into work become a reward in istself. If this was the case then no none needs to be paid do they :panic:

This country gets worse by the second :(

[Daftbat]

I think that the good thing that has come out of this is that it has highlighted the inadequacies in the childcare act as it stands.

Only last week we were told about the transportation of children for clubs would incur the wrath of the authorities in the future unless a fullo CRB check is in place!

There needs to be some common sense applied by Ofsted. Parents DO get help from their friends for a variety of reasons and it needs to be accomodated. I personally don't have a problem with what these parents did - i imagine thousands of parents have done something similar.

A close friend of mine had two heart attacks a few months ago at the age of 35. She has 2 children 7 & 2 years. She is a full time mum. Whilst my friend has been recuperating i have "helped" with the childcare - not in my capacity as a childminder but as a friend. I have received no monetary gain but i am sure that Ofsted would think that my friend has since she has not had to pay anyone to care for her daughter and son. If i wasn't a registered childminder are we really ok to be in the position where i would have been breaking the law the help out a good friend who i am sure would do the same for me?

I think that a bit of common sense would go a long way.

[wendywu]

[I think that a bit of common sense would go a long way.[/QUOTE]

Here here, i second that:thumbsup:

[brightstar]

It's not just about the person caring for the child, but about other household members or visitors. A friends next door neighbour was a policeman, everyone thought he was ok. His house overlooked her garden, where her little girls and their friends played in their pool, but no-one gave it a thought, not even his poor wife. Turned out he had a large collection of indecent images of children on his computer. I'm not saying that this is common, but no-one knows what goes on in private. I would say that the childs protection and welfare are the most important thing and if that takes a bit of work on the parents part i.e becoming registered or seeking proper childcare, then so be it.

[Madminder]

Since when did the act of just going into work become a reward in istself.(

The reward was not going to work but free childcare! How much would you charge for providing childcare for a week for an under 5? That is what the reward is, what she is getting free!

[atmkids]

So it's ok for grandparents to look after children. How do they know that they'd be safe just because they are family. From a personal point of view I wouldn't dream of leaving any of my children alone with their grandad (for reasons I won't go into) they'd be much safer with a good friend.

[wendywu]

The reward was not going to work but free childcare! How much would you charge for providing childcare for a week for an under 5? That is what the reward is, what she is getting free!

But she was not getting free childcare as she was having her friends child in lue of payment. Neither women were getting childcare for free as they were using their own time looking after their friends children.

This has all come about because they were going to work. I doubt if they were both going swimming for 2 1/4 hours Ofsted would not even put pen to paper.:panic:

[PixiePetal]

I can see both sides to this.

My kids only have one grandparent left who lives 130 miles away. My best friend is like family to them, she is like a sister to me. Better sometimes!! My kids are older now but wouldn't have thought twice about her caring for them.

Just as well she is also a CM :rolleyes:

[Daftbat]

]But she was not getting free childcare as she was having her friends child in lue of payment. Neither women were getting childcare for free as they were using their own time looking after their friends children.[/COLOR]
This has all come about because they were going to work. I doubt if they were both going swimming for 2 1/4 hours Ofsted would not even put pen to paper.:panic:

This is what i thought too.

[Madminder]

But she was not getting free childcare as she was having her friends child in lue of payment. Neither women were getting childcare for free as they were using their own time looking after their friends children.

But that is the whole point! They were receiving childcare in lieu of payment for childcare given which is the reward and under the current law this is illegal. Someone reported them to Ofsted so Ofsted have no choice but to follow it up.

As for leaving children with friends, you may trust your friends with your children but if they are not registered then none of their household is police checked, nor any regular visitors. A friend of ours has just had his children taken into care because it was discovered that his ex-wife's new boyfriend is a registered sex-offender and has been abusing his children. He trusted his wife but how could he (or she) be expected to know about the boyfriend?

Suppose she was your good friend that you trusted with your children? Had she been registered then the boyfriend would have been checked and not allowed in the house while she was minding. always supposing that she stayed with him after she knew.

I agree that this should be clarified so that kids can have friends over to play and for sleepovers but I do not agree that it should be changed to allow what they are doing. If they want to do it what is the problem with getting registered? They could then both claim childcare tax credits and if available, the voucher scheme through their employers and charge each other the amount they are getting in credits and they would both be better off and within the law.

[clorogue]

They did think about getting registered, but as we all know it can take months and time wasn't on their hands, they immediately had to stop. One of the women's children was upset as she had to send her to Nursery and it has taken her time to settle in. Her employers have been really good about the situation (the police) and allowed for her being in late to her child could settle. The children were like siblings, it all really wasn't in the benefit of the children in this respect. Gosh can you imagine being a registered childminder and doing a policewomen's job as well - that is a lot of work! In this situation, I really don't feel it was necessary to be registered - thank goodness it is being reviewed!

[Pudding Girl]

All they had to do was go to one another's houses to keep on doing what they were doing, not to have a hissy fit, go public and spend cash on registered childcare - but then that's not as good a story now is it? :rolleyes:

If they were that bothered about the effect on the children as they claim they'd have simply done that and stayed within the law.

[balloon]

All they had to do was go to one another's houses to keep on doing what they were doing, not to have a hissy fit, go public and spend cash on registered childcare - but then that's not as good a story now is it? :rolleyes:

If they were that bothered about the effect on the children as they claim they'd have simply done that and stayed within the law.

This is pretty much what I've been thinking too.

I looked up the law on the internet before I was a childminder and cared for my friend's son in her home to be on the right side of the law. If I, an ordinary woman, could do that I don't understand why a police officer could not...

[Pipsqueak]

Been thinking about this - HOW COME Ofsted can come down so heavy on people like this but they can't do anything (even when proof if under their blooming noses) about sub-standard minders when complaints have been made. If they can stop these women in their tracks how come they can't stop naff minders.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Another Wonder Of Ofsted moment - coming straight at'cha only from the warped thinking of the Powers That Be

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I to a degree agree with what you are saying..about cms qualifications..

but I think we need to be careful who we deem able to look after kids...if you say that ''if enyone ''is able to look after children...well everyone in this case are parents...and most parents are perfectly suited to look after children....even their friends kids in my honest opinion.

or are we saying that kids that dont go to childminders or nurseries but are at home with stay at home mums are worse off too? Because they dont get EYFS or whatever else it is that makes care and education better with cm's and nurseries??
We dont even have EYFS in Scotland...does that mean we are worse off too??

Dont want to sound offensive..so please dont take it that way..I am only trying to get your thoughts on mine...hope that's ok!

Bad wording - should have written "if just anyone"

[sophiestars]

I think thiis an interesting situation, and I can understand the Mum's annoyance as I do think they have been treated a bit heavy-handedly.

HOWEVER as usual no one on the TV when I was watching this morning even mentioned the reason that the law is there. All they are focusing on is the subject of 'rewards' for looking after their friends child.

Ok, these ladies are both responsible police officers, with Crb checks and presumably First Aid training. But surely the law is there to protect the children. What if someone left their child with a friend who they said they completely trusted but has no first aid training and the child chokes on their lunch? What then?

OR If they left their child with a friend who has older children and whose house isn't toddler proof anymore - they could fall down the stairs or into the garden pond. I don't think they would be such a friend then would they? And no insurance so no compensation...

OR they leave the child with a friend....hubby/boyfriend at home...friend says I'm popping to the shop for some milk...hubby/boyfriend says leave the little one here for 10 minutes while you're out...enough time for lo to be abused?

Whereas we have to have the children in sight or hearing at all times, we have to have first aid training and also have a check on our house to make sure it's safe, plus we and everyone over 16 in our house has to be CRB checked. These things just wouldn't happen with registered childminders.

THAT'S why this law is so important, I'd like to see how these women's close friendship would survive if one of the girls had a serious accident because they weren't being watched properly.

This story has totally focused on these 2 women but what about all those illegal childminders out there that this law is for? No one on the Tv has mentioned them!

[Madminder]

All they had to do was go to one another's houses to keep on doing what they were doing, not to have a hissy fit, go public and spend cash on registered childcare - but then that's not as good a story now is it? :rolleyes:

If they were that bothered about the effect on the children as they claim they'd have simply done that and stayed within the law.

Well said George!

It seems to me that if they had not been policewomen that this furore would not have happened and I seriously doubt whether there would be any reviews of the current law for mere ordinary parents breaking the law, I bet they would have just been charged!

[Ripeberry]

The illegal CM at our school was not bothered by it all as she says she has the full backing of the parents :angry:

[OrlandoBelle]

Bad wording - should have written "if just anyone"

I'm sure we all knew what Blackhorse meant Debbie

[Rach30]

Exactly. My newist mindee has come to me after previously being cared for by friends of the family. Mum had realsied that he need to be with someone who would know what to do in an accident ect . At first she was a bit worried cos she didn't know me but 4 weeks in and she is over the moon ! She loves the fact that her son is getting well looked after and not just plonked in front of the TV. The law does not need to be change but enforced more often to cut back on illegal childminders. And yes if the women were so bothered why not just be 'nannies'. :angry:

[wendywu]

HOWEVER as usual no one on the TV when I was watching this morning even mentioned the reason that the law is there. All they are focusing on is the subject of 'rewards' for looking after their friends child.

Ok, these ladies are both responsible police officers, with Crb checks and presumably First Aid training. But surely the law is there to protect the children. What if someone left their child with a friend who they said they completely trusted but has no first aid training and the child chokes on their lunch? What then?

OR If they left their child with a friend who has older children and whose house isn't toddler proof anymore - they could fall down the stairs or into the garden pond. I don't think they would be such a friend then would they? And no insurance so no compensation...

OR they leave the child with a friend....hubby/boyfriend at home...friend says I'm popping to the shop for some milk...hubby/boyfriend says leave the little one here for 10 minutes while you're out...enough time for lo to be abused?


THAT'S why this law is so important, I'd like to see how these women's close friendship would survive if one of the girls had a serious accident because they weren't being watched properly.

This story has totally focused on these 2 women but what about all those illegal childminders out there that this law is for? No one on the Tv has mentioned them![/QUOTE]




No this law is not there just to protect the children, if that were the case it would also cover children cared for in their own home .
All the above mentioned situations could happen to a child being cared for at home. So what the country is saying is a child cared for outside its own home is more important than a child cared for in its own home. I told you the law is an ass.:panic:

[Trouble]

me and my hubby had an argument about this:angry: :eek:

[Blackhorse]

Bad wording - should have written "if just anyone"

well I am sorry if I have offended you with what I said which is not what I was trying to do.
there was no need to point out a spelling mistake...
I thought we could have a mature discussion about this and bounce of thoughts off each other...which is all I was trying to do.
if that is not possible I will not post in this thread anymore.

PS As english is not even my first language I think I am doing pretty well with my spelling and posting. I dare anyone to post in a 2nd language :D

[The Juggler]

Been thinking about this - HOW COME Ofsted can come down so heavy on people like this but they can't do anything (even when proof if under their blooming noses) about sub-standard minders when complaints have been made. If they can stop these women in their tracks how come they can't stop naff minders.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Another Wonder Of Ofsted moment - coming straight at'cha only from the warped thinking of the Powers That Be

exactly what I was thinking. these mums are not advertising their services just helping each other out. Ofsted won't touch those illegally advertising as minders nor do anything about serious complaints against substandard minders as you've said. I had a friend, pre-reg who waited nearly 6 months for her CRB. As she waited so long she looked after her friends child, for no money, for a few hours a day. She got reported by a neighbour and ofsted were round like a shot.

Yet, those who smoke, drive too many kids in the car, shout at kids, don't keep them safe by the roads, are just slapped on the wrists and left to get on with it. :angry:

Rant over

[The Juggler]

[QUOTE=sophiestars;537704]What if someone left their child with a friend who they said they completely trusted but has no first aid training and the child chokes on their lunch? What then?

OR If they left their child with a friend who has older children and whose house isn't toddler proof anymore - they could fall down the stairs or into the garden pond. I don't think they would be such a friend then would they? And no insurance so no compensation...QUOTE]


I see your point but what about the times we all do this for weekends, babysitting or other. I don't go and check over friends houses or expect them to get insurance. I know this arrangement is for longer hours, and on an ongoing basis but grandparents don't have their homes checked if they care for little ones. you use your common sense. I can't honestly see the difference if these are close friends and as we've all said, they are not advertising their services to others or gaining reward from it. Not many mums would do this for each other IMO as you'd have to have a high level of trust and respect for each other - otherwise you'd fall out over the slightest niggle.

[Pudding Girl]

Ummm, I thought Debbie was just correcting her own post that Blackhoirse had replied to, not having a go at you...

[Madminder]

No this law is not there just to protect the children, if that were the case it would also cover children cared for in their own home .
All the above mentioned situations could happen to a child being cared for at home. So what the country is saying is a child cared for outside its own home is more important than a child cared for in its own home. I told you the law is an ass.:panic:

IMHO the law is protecting all children while they are being cared for away from their home, it is not saying that these children are more important. But just imagine the outcry about the nanny state there would be if they tried to legislate for children being cared for at home!

Wendy, please note that I am not intentionally picking on you! It is just that we are obviously seeing different sides to this argument, I hope you won't take it personally? :o

[Blackhorse]

Ummm, I thought Debbie was just correcting her own post that Blackhoirse had replied to, not having a go at you...

from the quote I thought she was mine as I made a spelling error in my post...

if that wasnt the case then I am sorry Deb as I then jumped to conclusions to fast..that is just the problem with posts sometimes....

I really dont mean any offence to anyone when I am posting.
!!!!

[Mouse]

This must have taken over from swine flu as the latest 'hot topic'. Can't seem to avoid it at the moment :rolleyes:

I wonder what happened to that website that someone posted about ages ago where they were trying to match up parents who need childcare & help make an arrangement very similar to this (except the parents probably wouldn't have known each other first). Can anyone remember what it was called? Presumably that wouldn't be allowed as it offered childcare as a reward.

[barbarella68]

I think everybody has missed the point here, as soon as a CRB comes back to you it is invalid. Just because there isn't anything on it at the time means absolutly nothing somebody could go out next day and mistreat a child or they just haven't been caught. Also whilst I do agree with being registered if you are a childcarer being registered means nothing either,look at how many so called childcare professionals mistreat children and have been caught doing it (some of these are childminders).I would leave my son with my best friend over a childcare professional anyday even though they are registered.I know childminders on here don't agree with the 2 policewoman sharing care and say it's in the best interests of the child,but the best interest of the children is to stay with the people who they have grown up with and obviously love.
We need to get out of our heads that everybody is a potential paedophile because they are not if the government dealt with these people when they got caught then there wouldn't be such a problem.the government blame everybody but the criminal.

Ofsted and the government should keep there noses out and get on with running whats left of our country and not keep telling us where we are going wrong with our children.Grrrrr:mad:

[Daftbat]

Just a thought.

Some posters have been saying that these parents could have avoided problems and just worked at one anothers houses as nannies perfectly legally - correct. However, many issues have been raised about the insurance and first aid aspects of the original senario. Why would these issues not be a concern for them acting as nannies?

I agree that measures must be put in place for people wanting to care for large numbers of children for financial gain outisde of the family but the law does need assessing to see how locked down things really need to be. As it stands someone having regular sleepovers for under eights would be breaking the law if it exceeds 14 times a year (as i read it). This is ridiculous and parents need to be given back their responsibility unless it can be shown that they are incapable of assessing situations for themselves. Lets not forget that whilst family is exempt from these regulations in cases of abuse it is more often a family member than a stranger that is responsible.

Can we let parent BE parents? At least on some level?

[Mouse]

This must have taken over from swine flu as the latest 'hot topic'. Can't seem to avoid it at the moment :rolleyes:

I wonder what happened to that website that someone posted about ages ago where they were trying to match up parents who need childcare & help make an arrangement very similar to this (except the parents probably wouldn't have known each other first). Can anyone remember what it was called? Presumably that wouldn't be allowed as it offered childcare as a reward.


http://www.letssharecare.com/contact.php

This is the site I was thinking of. Presumably they won't be able to offer this service any more as parents are swapping childcare.

[buildingblocks]

All they had to do was go to one another's houses to keep on doing what they were doing, not to have a hissy fit, go public and spend cash on registered childcare - but then that's not as good a story now is it? :rolleyes:

If they were that bothered about the effect on the children as they claim they'd have simply done that and stayed within the law.

That is what made me cross when I saw it on GMTV. They said they had looked into getting registered but it would take them too long to do and they didn't have time on their hands but all they had to do was start looking after the children in each others home and there would have been no problem. but then I guess they wouldn't have been able to do all that they would be doing in their own home.

What made me cross was the comment Esther Rantzen made. She said something along the lines that she must have been breaking the law many years ago as she had a young child and her husband's secretary had a child of a similar age and Esthers nanny looked after both. Er sorry not the same situation that is called a nanny job share and I would have thought someone as educated as Esther would know that. Playing Devil's Advocate here but if the two mums had been from a rough council estate like the ones near where I live (and yes I am generalising here) I wonder how keen Michelle Eliot (Kidscape) and Esther would have been to defend them or am I just being cynical

[buildingblocks]

well I am sorry if I have offended you with what I said which is not what I was trying to do. there was no need to point out a spelling mistake...
most people would not have been bothered let alone have noticed - oop sI didn't

I thought we could have a mature discussion about this and bounce of thoughts off each other...which is all I was trying to do.
if that is not possible I will not post in this thread anymore.

PS As english is not even my first language I think I am doing pretty well with my spelling and posting. I dare anyone to post in a 2nd language :D

Nicole try not to worry too much as many on here will verify my spelling is atrocious and unlike you English is my first language I am just c**p at spelling

[Rach30]

[QUOTE=Playing Devil's Advocate here but if the two mums had been from a rough council estate like the ones near where I live (and yes I am generalising here) I wonder how keen Michelle Eliot (Kidscape) and Esther would have been to defend them or am I just being cynical[/QUOTE]

Exactly ! They would have been dead against them and accused them of dumping kids in front of telly all day long ! :laughing:

[Erika]

All they had to do was go to one another's houses to keep on doing what they were doing, not to have a hissy fit, go public and spend cash on registered childcare - but then that's not as good a story now is it? :rolleyes:

If they were that bothered about the effect on the children as they claim they'd have simply done that and stayed within the law.


That's been pointed out on the netmums thread, and the question has actually been put to the "friend" of the women, asking why they could not do this, and why they could not have known about it as surely after Ofted's visit they would have sought to clarify the law and would have soon found they could do this....unsurprisingly no answer has been forthcoming.

http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/lifestyle-8/work-study-childcare-44/326100-childcare-banned-ofsted-4.html

[Erika]

What made me cross was the comment Esther Rantzen made.

This was also pointed out on the netmums thread (link above) - that back in the day when her husband was doing documentaries, registration was not a requirement and this was the result of it, and one of the reasons for the law being introduced in the first place.

[Chatterbox Childcare]

The Ofsted lady on the BBC news this morning said that people should NOT do sleepovers anymore as they would be breaking the law as well!
Well that's me done for then. My daughter has been looking forward to having her friend over for a sleepover this Friday and she has not seen her friend for years as she used to live in France and has only recently moved back to the UK.
I'm not registered for overnight care either so I'd be in double trouble, even though they are just friends :angry:

The latest Ofsted newsletter says that we can do sleepovers as parents and do not have to have a CRB - how right that is.

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I'm sure we all knew what Blackhorse meant Debbie

I meant my bad wording not Blackhorse's.

[Chatterbox Childcare]

well I am sorry if I have offended you with what I said which is not what I was trying to do.
there was no need to point out a spelling mistake...
I thought we could have a mature discussion about this and bounce of thoughts off each other...which is all I was trying to do.
if that is not possible I will not post in this thread anymore.

PS As english is not even my first language I think I am doing pretty well with my spelling and posting. I dare anyone to post in a 2nd language :D

Nicole - the mistake was mine with not putting in "just" before "anyone and that was as a result of your first reply.

I wasn't correct your spelling and I am sorry if that was how it came across.

[Blackhorse]

no worries Debbie, things like that can happen if you only have the written words on a forum...(rather than sitting round a table chatting)

all is well! :thumbsup:

[Chatterbox Childcare]

no worries Debbie, things like that can happen if you only have the written words on a forum...(rather than sitting round a table chatting)

all is well! :thumbsup:


:) :) :) :) :)

[Lou]

I dont really post on here anymore as i am no longer childminding, but this story makes me so flipping angry i feel i have to.

As i said i was a registered childminder for 6 years and i am now working full time out of the home so i can see both sides so to speak.

The world has quite simply gone mad. Just looking at this particular story and not generalising. These women are educated samrt ladies who came to an arrangement that suited them, their children were happy and they were working, contributing to society and seem to me like good parents. How can this arrangement be wrong in any way at all?

By OFSTED sticking their oar in, they are now forced to send their children to nurseries where they are not as happy or settled and no doubt they are having to pay out a large chunk of their wages in childcare. I know all about tax credits, but i highly doubt they would be entitled to any, I know i am not and i wouldnt say me and my DH earn loads!!! And even if they were it is their choice to do as they wish.

And in regards to going to each others houses and then they would be within the law....why the hell should they? They are busy working parents, and probably have simple jobs to get on with at home while they are taking taking of the children. Im sorry but just because they need to peg some washing out and do a bit of housework doesnt mean they are not caring for the children properly. Stay at home mums dont follow EYFS or will that be the next ridiculous law change?

I use an excellent childminder term time who collects my daughter from school and takes care of her until me or DH pick her up. I think she is amazing and i am more than happy to pay for that service as she is doing such a great job. However in school holidays i simply cannot afford full time child care, and so therefore i take as much time off as i am able, and then rely on family and friends the rest of the time. I am lucky i have family available to help out, but occasionaly i have to ask my best friend. She is more than happy to have my children and wouldnt accept any kind of payment ever, but i always buy her flowers or wine etc as i am so grateful to her. I wouldnt ever expect her to come to my house, she has 3 children of her own, one of whom is disabled and also works part time.