Is it that hard to protect our children?

Ofsted, the government's lead watchdog on all things education and child related has announced in its annual report that there are a whole host of nurseries, day care centres and playgroups that are failing fundamental safety and security checks.

Hygiene, secure premises, basic checks on staff are just some of the areas that were highlighted during the review.

One has to ask the question, why is it so difficult to fulfill these basic functions? Basic hygiene standards should be normal, same with ensuring doors and windows are locked, but most worrying is the thought that staff are allowed to work with small children, who have had no background checks.

Despite many high profile scandals involving adults abusing children, one would have thought any organisation involved in child care or education would put safety and security at the top of their list?

Then there is the online social networking worries many parents often have. How can it be so difficult to police this when technology should make it far easier? Moreover, is there a need for parents to be more responsible when allowing their children to use the internet?

That is why we decided to have a look around and find out who in the online space in particular is working to try and help protect children and inform parents. Dizeo.com is just one of those organisations that is trying to help educate children about the dangers of online predators and ultimately how to 'use the internet safely'.

The simple fact is you can never protect against all eventualities, what you can do is try to minimise the risk, prevent rather than cure and just be sensible about how you use the internet.

In terms of putting your kids in nurseries, keep an eye out for cleanliness, hygiene, are staff clean? do they close doors? is the main gate locked once they are inside? Do they have CCTV? what are there safety checks?

Parents are completely entitled to ask these questions. Perhaps it is time they started doing just that?

Why are alcohol advertisers being so difficult?

I mean I have to agree with the Alcohol Concern CEO, when he says 'it is simply unacceptable' to display or broadcast advertisements that children may watch, especially during morning or day time.

I agree because last Sunday i saw just that, an advert in the mid morning for an alochol brand, it was around 11am, i thought, hang on a minute that is a bit early for that kind of thing. I also happened to feel that Hollyoaks and Ugly Betty are far too 'adult' for young children to be watching, especially as Channel 4 decided to broadcast them midday/ early afternoon. To me, i think sometimes broadcasters try to be too 'clever'.

They try to upset the norm and generally refuse to accept that they have a responsibility in society. I don't accept the 'freedom of speech' arguement especially when broadcasting during the morning or early afternoon. Broadcasters and advertisers know full well that their programmes and advertisements reach a young audience, that is why they broadcast them.

Whilst none will officially admit it, having worked in that industry for a long time, i can assure parents out there that, you have to look after your children. Watching television is no different. There is a need to make sure that kids watch 'suitable' programmes for their age group.

The fact is, as a parent, you are responsible, as a father even more so. Men have a duty to their family and kids, to be honest, blaming the advertisers is one thing, but parents have to try to do more.

It isn't easy with the explosion of the internet, the ever increasing explicit nature of Television, sometimes I wonder where all the decency went? How difficult it is to just broadcast some normal television for a change..

I guess unfortunately a producer or writer somewhere is always looking to make a name for themselves. Perhaps if parents stood together and said no more, our kids might have a better chance?

So is Nick Clegg is on a mission to 'save' our children?

News today that Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is all for helping the poorest in society get through school and university. A fair example to set it has to be said...

That is until you realise that money alone won't solve the problem. Earlier in the week we heard that Frank Field, a prominent Labour backbencher and highly respected MP, effectively said parents in Britain needed to wake up and start being parents.

Whilst I can't help but feel that Mr Field's words are correct, I would probably suggest that he needs to go one step further and say that parents need to be far more responsible for their actions and their children, let alone any 'quick option' to file a lawsuit or cut corners.

To expect the state to look after them all is not right. Frankly it is insulting. For too long Britain has slumped down the parenting leagues, instead we should be leading by example.

To think that children in some developing countries have better manners, respect and humility.

Perhaps it is the fact that we have thrown so much money at the problem that people seem to think money is the answer. Reality is that the amount of money the british government spends on education each year is more than the gdp of some nations in the world. In fact probably quite a few.

So what has gone wrong? Why are parents so blazay about their responsibility? their children and wider society? David Cameron has gone to great lengths to try and encourage the British people to wake up and realise that we are all running on 'empty'.

To all intents and purposes, he is right. The idea that a society as 'developed' and 'advanced' as that of the UK, can show respect, work for communities, help the weakest should come naturally. Yet, we all seem to sit at home, happy to watch TV and ignore the plight of the country, whilst it has never been more in need of help.

Perhaps the times are changing, seeing that only yesterday 50, yes 50 members of the public wrestled to the ground a gang of armed raiders. Perhaps the Big Society is really working? Perhaps David Cameron has a point after all?

Can it really be true?

That children can tell when other kids are suffering? Perhaps they are more clever than we had originally thought. We parents that is.

Only days after famous rapper Eminem spoke out about parenting, are we really letting our children down by poor standards?

The reality is at the end of the day, the buck stops with the parents. It couldn't be simpler. So why are so many parents failing their children? Lack of money is no excuse for high standards of discipline, respect and ultimately love and happiness.

Perhaps it is time Britain shifted direction and started to confront many of these so called 'bad parents' when they fail children.

'Tough Love' parenting to return?

So we're in the 21st Century and to think that an MP working for David Cameron has advised parents to be tougher on their kids to give them a chance in later life. Now to most people that might have seemed sensible, in fact I'd probably say 'the norm'. But the reality is Britain has unfortunately lost its moral compass. You could say, it lost it years ago.

With children up and down the UK unable to read, write or even put basic sentences together, who is to blame? Is 'blame' the right word to use? As Eminem said so aptly in an interview recently if you are a parent 'be a parent'.

To think that parents believe children can bring themselves up without guidance, care and attention is really naive to say the least.

People should take care with their kids. Not obsess rather, ensure that a child's well being, learning and experiences grow as they do. Leaving it to the state or school is just plane wrong.

Parents need to take responsibility for their actions and to expect anyone else to do so, well, you shouldn't have kids in the first instance.

The week that the government announced a clamp down on child benefits, these comments serve as a welcome reminder that parents need to step up to the plate and take responsibility, not just for their kids, but for themselves too.

Online privacy, a big deal or not important?

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg doesn't seem to think so. In stark comparison to most parents who feel that social networks aren't taking privacy seriously enough. So who is right and who is wrong?



In the internet age where everything revolves around technology, does Zuckerberg have a point?



It is an ever interesting debate, that will no doubt continue to rumble on for some months, perhaps even years. I guess you have to look at privacy like this: would you like someone to open a letter sent to you, read it, then put a flyer advertising products related to the content of your letter? Probably not. Yet that is what major technology networks are effectively doing.

Not to mention the fact that our very moves are being recorded by data storage facilities every minute. You can kind of understand why people are concerned. It does seem strange that alot of the population aren't aware because most don't actually 'see' the consequences of such privacy 'violations'.

I guess people essentially need to be aware of just what they sign up to and shouldn't be fooled into thinking that because it is 'online' or on the 'internet' it will be fine..in all likelihood it won't.

Saving for the future and parents changing attitudes

So it turns out that saving for the future is becoming a little harder or is it? Saving for a child's future doesn't have to be the most expensive thing in the world. A couple of pounds a week to start or even £10 or £20 a month will suffice.

Now that the Child Trust Funds are being withdrawn by the government it means that parents are going to have to find new was of saving for their kids.

What is slightly more concerning is the news that some parents in the UK appear to be unconcerned by the prospect of their kids drinking, doing drugs or having sex underage. I have to say i find the notion of the latter slightly alarming. If anything it highlights a distinct lack of moral guidance and principles.

There is clearly some need for parental involvement in the bringing up of a child, yet, in Britain parents appear all too preoccupied with themselves as opposed to their kids. Aside from the fact that they are breaking the law, the health impact of such lazy parenting could actually be quite severe in later life.

Is anyone really surprised child benefits are being harmonised?

I mean let's face facts, the UK is in massive debt left by the previous government. The country has to sort its finances and child benefit to the richest families just doesn't really seem fair?

David Cameron, to his credit, is actually doing a good job at getting the economy moving again. Of course some might argue, don't do this, don't do that. But the reality is he has to do something.

For a dad, father or dad to be, it may not seem that hard to understand. The idea that you have a family and you need to provide for them. Keeping your finances in order is the norm. Cameron if you like is the spiritual father of the nation, as PM he has to take the tough decisions. I think he is taking the right ones.

To be honest, parents in Britain do have it good. Ok we pay some high taxes at times, but let's face it the NHS costs alot of money to run. If you want the best health care you have to pay top dollar for it.

So parents, think about the benefits of these spending reductions, personally i think this is a good move.

New mothers suffer from lack of care and parents to lose out on child benefit..if you stay at home

Is it any surprise that the new coalition is reducing spending on child benefit, in particular for those parents that opt to stay at home and look after children? Is that fair? Particularly as it will effect middle class families most.

With public borrowing at records levels, looking at debt interest alone, the UK pays £43billion for 2010 in debt repayment. Nearly £1,400 per person, truly astonishing fiscal mismanagement by the previous Labour administration.

To leave such a legacy to future generations is truly worrying.

Worse still news, that new mothers are more than likely not to receive adequate support when having a baby.

Main thing is that as men, fathers and dads continue to stand fast and help their wives and girlfriends get through child birth.

So men do actually cry to music?

A new survey conducted by PRS for Music found the top 10 songs men are most likely to cry to. That includes the toughest guys out there, they might occasionally shed a tear. Eric Clapton, REM, U2, Robbie Williams and more were among the top ten.

Is this anything to be surprised by? Not really, i guess it is more a case of confirming that men just like women can be emotional. Fathers, dads and dads-to-be fear not, you are not alone!

There are thousands of men out there who enjoy a good cry, so share your feelings! Whilst that may sound slightly emotional, the reality is, most men don't tend to cry and do tend to keep their feelings private.

Men are from mars and women from venus. Women talk alot about feelings, men don't. It's not that dificult to understand. More a case that men are men and prefer to discuss Football than songs that make them cry..

Dads look out, another toy manufacturer issues warning

This time its market leader Mattel and the Fisher-Price brand range. Apparently there are millions of products ranging from toys, trikes and high chairs that have all been 'voluntarily' withdrawn from retailers.

Numerous consumer protection organisations in the US and Canada raised the alarm. Makes you wonder what the UK consumer protection teams are up to?

Anyhow, the good news it that Fisher-Price have taken action to alleviate the problem. The bad news is that if you have bought any products it may take some time to find out if they are affected or not. The company has set up hot lines for parents/ consumers to call in and ask.

Now what ever happened to good old fashioned toys that work? Can't be that difficult to make surely?