And then there are those who tut you for disciplining your children

Got stared at yesterday at the chip kiosk at the beach. S&L were pushing and shoving each other. Told them twice to stop, as they were close to other people, or to go and sit down. They didn't. So the 3rd time was with a raised voice. 'Stop that NOW, before you knock into someone'. Mature lady looked at me with surprised eyes. Or maybe she was surprised at someone disciplining their children

I so agree. If you go and tell someone that their child is upsetting other people you are far more likely to get the rude reaction. If you approach with sympathy -is there anything I can do to help/are you ok?- then you are more likely to get a positive answer, or at least one that isn't rude.

On the other hand if the parents are feral then you will most likely be lucky to get away with just a verbal ear-bashing.

Sure .... I don't eat my happy meal in the childrens play area and I sure don't go to shopping centres at all for this very reason.

But cafes on a sunday morning, aeroplanes, surely you would get up and remove the offending child from the offending situation?

Not quite sure where they could be removed to, especially at take-off/landing which is often when the kids are most uncomfortable

I see this as an idea worth patenting... Ejector seats for children on all Commercial Aircraft...

I'm more thinking about the hour long crying fit, can't get the little one to sleep, type thing in the middle of the flight.

I'm thinking back to my last red eye from Singapore. Long week of work, overnight flight back, I was in the row behind the bulkhead so naturally a family sat in front and about an 2 hours into the flight, just when everyone was dropping off the little one started, and carried for a long long time.

I remember getting up about 4 hours in to go to the bathroom and looking back and the angry, frustrated looks. No one was sleeping - they couldn't.

I really felt it was time for the mum or dad to take the crying child to the bathroom or even the galley for a while just so the other passengers could get some rest. Sure they are going to be uncomfortable for a while, carrying the infant, but it's not the responsibilty of the other passengers to bear the distruption. The responsibility lies truly at the feet of the parent - it's their child after all.

This really isn't an issue of bad parenting. Babies cry - its the way it is. It's more the parents really could have done a little more to help the comfort of other passengers.

Ah, see now if that was me, with a babe in arms, I'd have whipped me baps out for some intensive boobage feeding That keeps them quiet

You think it would have been preferable to have one of the toilets out of action? That's more convenient for other people? Those plane walls aint that thick - all the parents would have done is pissed off another group of people who'd have had to listen to the crying. As for the galley, I don't ever recall being on a flight where non-crew have been allowed in the galley of an aircraft - those that have tried to hang out there (generally stretching legs) have been moved along.

Like you say, children cry. They're programmed to. A parent's main concern should be the welfare and best interests of the child, not the comfort of anyone else. Are you really advocating that a parent should place concern for strangers above doing their best by their child?

And that's where your motives differ to rasen's. It's all about YOU.

And to answer your question as simply as I can .... YES

How do you know how I'd react in your scenario - my answer didn't specify. Why presume to know my motives? For the record, I'd have done the same as Rasen. And have done on planes.

How do you think the parents in your scenario felt? Happy to have their child crying? I'll wager that they were well aware of the upset and bad feeling that their child was causing and were wishing they were anywhere else but that plane. But, like I said, what were their real alternatives? The galley is a no-go area. Toilets need to be used by other passengers and, besides, they're not sound proof. The child would still have been heard and be upsetting people. In this scenario, you seem OK with the idea of the child being moved to upset other people, so long as it's not you.

As I've already said in this thread, sometimes parenting is about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Most of the time, parents are doing the best they can. They don't go out of their way to disturb other people; who on earth thinks, 'perfect! Bubba is in a foul, stroppy mood, now's the time to hit a restaurant!'? Children are not mini-adults. They're unpredictable and need to learn how to handle both social situations and their own emotions. And parents, for the most part I think, do their best to help their children through situations that the child finds difficult. Is cutting parents some slack while they do that really asking that much?

You're demanding that my concern should be for you rather than my child? And yet, with apparently no sense of irony, you're accusing me of being selfish.

I'm guessing you don't have children yourself Beoz?

Our youngest, when he was 3, started to have a tantrum in the Westfield when we didn't do something we'd done the time before that he liked (can't remember what it was). He threw a huge tantrum and people were starting to stare so I just hoisted him over my shoulder and took him down the corridor by the lift and sat him down until it had burned itself out.

Interestingly I had both looks - the annoyed because your child is disturbing me looks and then the oh my god you're carrying your screaming child over your shoulder, how cruel looks!

Once we were in the corridor he had no audience and we weren't bothering anyone. We did it twice over a couple of weeks. The third time I reminded him what would happen next and he stopped. Not happened again.

Whatever you do, people will judge and think you should have done x,y,z and each person will have a different x,y,z. You have to do what you think is right.

If either of mine created a scene in an enclosed space then we would leave or one of us would go for a walk.........we always take distractions with us too.

Aeroplanes are more tricky. We were on a flight from LON to SYD with our daughter when she was 2 1/2. She'd had a bad cold and her ears were sore so she was distressed on take off from Singapore. She also had lots of mouth ulcers so drinking and eating hurt too......we managed to distract her with the tv and some toys doing silly dancing - anything really. A couple in front with a 3 year old were having similar issues but with a screaming child with a cough. Their method was to plug a bottle of milk in......again and again until about 40 minutes into the flight..........yep. Puke everywhere several times and the smell was unbelievable. Had they let her cry it out I'm sure she would have fallen asleep eventually. They were panicking about disturbing people and the outcome was far worse for the fellow passengers!

The parents are desperately trying to normalise their lives.

For the other 50 passengers

No need to guess - read post #1

I think you've quite adequately demonstrated your intention to help keep any annoyances to a minimum for others. I don't think anyone would complain about that. Kids throw wobblies - it's inevitable and I keep saying that but it's what the parents do with it that the article is about. In the case of the article the parents chose to sit there, invading the relaxation of others.

I was doing the uncle duties one weekend, taking the neice and nephew on a day out. I think we were at the showground in Sydney, and the horses or something were doing a parade, tricks, I can't for the life of me remember. But what I do remember is when the little nephew threw one almighty tantrum. Sure there were looks from those around, but I quickly and swiftly removed the little fella from the arena. My attitude to that is, he's my responsibilty on the day and I should do my best to make sure he doesn't spoil the enjoyment and relaxation of others.

Oops, my memory bad..........