Unhappy children.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by annesingleton

...unfortunately there is a section of society who seem to want material goods who do not have the understanding that they have to be earned, and in today's materialistic society are willing to get them by any means and do equate them with happiness.

So we agree. Good.

Material goods don't necessarily equal childhood hapiness.

There's probably an equal number of the little brats, who always complain of boredom.

Despite having everything at their disposal, which should mean they never are.

[annesingleton]

Unfortunately I know a lot of young people who do not have the very basics in life, never mind the material possessions.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by annesingleton

Unfortunately I know a lot of young people who do not have the very basics in life, never mind the material possessions.

Same.

Though in my opinion, the children I came across, who really did suffer poverty, lived in third world orhanages.

[mobertol]

My own experience of childhood and life in general leads me to believe that it is the people that populate a life are the key to happiness -not "material things".

My most treasured memories are of the simplicity and happiness of childhood. Freedom to roam with friends and play out. The security of a home where my parents and extended family were always present -even though both parents worked. School, which for many brings bad memories. I was a good student but didn't even have a proper desk -I studied on the rickety camping table which we used for holidays. All the furniture in my bedroom was old stuff of mum's which was painted every now and then to match the new colour scheme.

At the end of the day it is the personal, simple stuff that counts, not the latest gadget.

My most precious possessions are letters from my family and friends.

Yesterday evening I spent a rare, but wonderful, evening with my youngest son, 3 of his friends and his girlfriend - made an industrial quantity of pizza and a giant Tiramisù. We sat and talked and laughed for 3 hours and a good time was had by all -I hope he'll remember this evening in 25 yrs time when he has a similar occasion with a family of his own.

Technology brings certain advancements in the "quality" of life but at the end of the day, as human beings , it is the human stuff that counts..

I recently read a poem in a book which was written 100 years ago, it was a surprise to find that some of the simple gestures and sentiments described exactly mirrored thoughts and feelings of my own today- technological progress does not change human sentiment, that is the important thing that we must transmit to the next generation.

As a footnote: I sometimes wonder if the discontent of today's children does not mirror the frustration they feel in their parents.

[annesingleton]

The ones I know live in our immediate vicinity.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by annesingleton

Unfortunately I know a lot of young people who do not have the very basics in life, never mind the material possessions.

You earlier mentioned children not having their own bedroom, complete with their own TV, gasp, computers, and iPods, what else, besides those necessities, constitutes 'the very basics'?

Other than through criminal neglect, because of our generous welfare state, I don't see many starving children, living in British gutters.

[annesingleton]

Originally Posted by garinda

You earlier mentioned children not having their own bedroom, complete with their own TV, gasp, computers, and iPods, what else, besides those necessities, constitutes 'the very basics'?

Other than through criminal neglect, because of our generous welfare state, I don't see many starving children, living in British gutters.

I would say that the very basics are a stable home environment, caring parent (s)/ carers, adequate heating in the home, a bedroom either shared or not with appropriate bed and bedding, a reasonable standard of cleanliness, adequate food and clothing, appropriate boundaries with earned respect from parent(s)/carers, an expectation to attend school, and appropriate values. Also a background which incorporates values in which the young person's needs take precedence over the needs of the adult. Very importantly unconditional love. Additionally but not necessarily a standard of living which would allow the young person to have an equal playing field with his/her peers. This is my opinion and no matter what the family income I consider this to be essential for a happy childhood.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by annesingleton

I think you might all be missing the point, in our day we were all in the same boat and knew what our expectations were even though we knew that we could change our lot and move forward. They were good times. The 9% of children mentioned here are generally excluded from society with a history of families living on benefits and no idea of their potential and no ambition or hope for the future. Equally these 9% most likely don't have TV in their bedroom(they might not even have a bedroom) where the children don't have laptops, ipods etc, where the children get no schooling and may not even get enough to eat. They live in a self perpetuating system of no hope.
It's all relative and what's going on in third world countries should not be relative to our young people. Our young people should have ample opportunity to progress themselves but unfortunately their life chances and opportunities are limited by their family situations which is not assisted by the public's perceptions.
Not all young people have caring and happy families, whether well off or poor. You can be poor with good prospects or poor and hopeless.

No, Anne, I don't think I am missing the point.
And I am well aware that not all children have caring families.

It didn't appear to be about having no hope, it appeared that these children were unhappy because they didn't have sky TV, or the latest designer gear......these are not children living on benefits because most of these children, although living on benefits, seem to have all the modern gadgets. These are material things. Things which are not necessary to health and well-being.
Food and shelter is necessary(or it is as far as I am concerned).
As for schooling....there is no need in this country for children to go without schooling...in fact it is illegal to keep children away from school...they are required by law to attend. Now, as to what they make of that schooling is another matter. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink....you can give a child schooling but you can't make it think....and that is where the difference lies.

I would take issue with you about being poor and having good prospects........poor people do not have good prospects unless they make those prospects for themselves. Poor people start the race already hobbled by their background.

Anyway the study said 9% were unhappy. This must mean that 91% were happy.......and in my book that is a result.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by annesingleton

Very importantly unconditional love. Additionally but not necessarily a standard of living which would allow the young person to have an equal playing field with his/her peers. This is my opinion and no matter what the family income I consider this to be essential for a happy childhood.

These are your criteria for what you consider makes a happy childhood.
They are [I]not the criteria of the children who were surveyed.

I don't think there has ever been a level playing field when it comes to a childs peers. I know that when I was growing up there were poor children in our school(of which I was one)...but equally there were children whose parents were comfortably off....and some were clearly very well off.
It is just that our mindsets and attitudes were different.

Where true poverty exists, is where there is no responsible adult toensure basic needs are met[
Some people have children when it clear that they are not capable of caring for themselves....and having worked in an NHS setting, I know this to be true from personal experience.

[annesingleton]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

No, Anne, I don't think I am missing the point.
And I am well aware that not all children have caring families.

It didn't appear to be about having no hope, it appeared that these children were unhappy because they didn't have sky TV, or the latest designer gear......these are not children living on benefits because most of these children, although living on benefits, seem to have all the modern gadgets. These are material things. Things which are not necessary to health and well-being.
Food and shelter is necessary(or it is as far as I am concerned).
As for schooling....there is no need in this country for children to go without schooling...in fact it is illegal to keep children away from school...they are required by law to attend. Now, as to what they make of that schooling is another matter. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink....you can give a child schooling but you can't make it think....and that is where the difference lies.

I would take issue with you about being poor and having good prospects........poor people do not have good prospects unless they make those prospects for themselves. Poor people start the race already hobbled by their background.

Anyway the study said 9% were unhappy. This must mean that 91% were happy.......and in my book that is a result.

I appreciate and agree with what you are saying, I am speaking from my own professional experience, which is mainly working with the most socially excluded young people in society and their families. Food and shelter are the most basic of human needs, unfortunately a proportion of the young people I encounter are not privy to such luxuries. A further number of them have inadequate parents who are unable to provide adequately for their children. And as for there being a legal requirement to attend school, if children do not fit in with the educational environment they may find themselves with no more than one hour one to one tuition per week as a maximum.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by annesingleton

A further number of them have inadequate parents who are unable to provide adequately for their children.

So who, where or what is to be seen as responsible for this situation where the "Parents" are inadequate ?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by annesingleton

I appreciate and agree with what you are saying, I am speaking from my own professional experience, which is mainly working with the most socially excluded young people in society and their families. Food and shelter are the most basic of human needs, unfortunately a proportion of the young people I encounter are not privy to such luxuries. A further number of them have inadequate parents who are unable to provide adequately for their children. And as for there being a legal requirement to attend school, if children do not fit in with the educational environment they may find themselves with no more than one hour one to one tuition per week as a maximum.

In many cases these children have socially excluded themselves by unacceptable behaviour.
You may say that this is not their fault, as they do not have the appropriate adult role models to give them mentoring.

Inadequate parents breed inadequate children....their inadequacies are not the fault of the rest of society, and they cannot be mended by giving them material things.....they may not be able to be mended at all.

[annesingleton]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

These are your criteria for what you consider makes a happy childhood.
They are [I]not the criteria of the children who were surveyed.

I don't think there has ever been a level playing field when it comes to a childs peers. I know that when I was growing up there were poor children in our school(of which I was one)...but equally there were children whose parents were comfortably off....and some were clearly very well off.
It is just that our mindsets and attitudes were different.

Where true poverty exists, is where there is no responsible adult toensure basic needs are met[
Some people have children when it clear that they are not capable of caring for themselves....and having worked in an NHS setting, I know this to be true from personal experience.

Margaret, I think we might be saying the same thing in a different way - it's really about responsible parenting which unfortunately some people are not capable of. A responsible parent would ensure the child's welfare needs were met, as you said some adults are incapable of meeting their own needs (or are more concerned for their own needs than those of their children).
And the list I gave previously whilst being my own criteria for what makes a child happy are also in the main considered to be a base for adequate parenting.

[annesingleton]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

In many cases these children have socially excluded themselves by unacceptable behaviour.
You may say that this is not their fault, as they do not have the appropriate adult role models to give them mentoring.

Inadequate parents breed inadequate children....their inadequacies are not the fault of the rest of society, and they cannot be mended by giving them material things.....they may not be able to be mended at all.

Again I completely agree with you, we are singing from the same hymn sheet!

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes, Anne I took your point, but there was little mention of parenting in this report.
As far as I am aware, parenting hardly came into the equation...other than the children(who were aged between 8yrs and 15yrs) said they would like to be more involved in family decisions, and decisions in the community.........now, to me(and you can correct me if you think I am wrong here) these do not sound like the kind of children to which you referred.