tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32082314923282977892024-03-07T03:33:50.546+00:00Social Baby BlogAbout babies and toddlers, the media, attachment, play, work and parenting.Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-56018856385085280992012-10-30T12:29:00.001+00:002012-10-30T12:29:39.278+00:00Hurricane Sandy affecting SocialBaby's shopping basketThe effects of Hurricane Sandy are being felt far beyond the USA as power outages effect trade around the world.<br />
<br />
For our own part, our <a href="http://www.socialbaby.com/">socialbaby.com website</a> lost functionality last night (UK time). Our Shopping Basket is hosted by Long Island based <a href="https://www.cartloom.com/">cartloom.com</a> who lost all power at the onset of the storm. The result is any page on our website with an "Add to Basket" button is unlikely to load, or may take longer than you want to wait, whilst our pages try to connect with Cartloom's servers. This means our shop doesn't work, despite the fact our own servers and power supplies are unaffected.<br />
<br />
We are all connected by technology and today we have discovered it can have it's down sides. I wonder how many businesses around the world are affected by Hurricane Sandy? Can you imagine the global impact if Google ever went down - what site doesn't have Google embedded?<br />
<br />
Cartloom are posting updates on their twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/cartloom">@cartloom</a>. We wish them well and hope they stay safe.<br />
<br />
<br />
You can contact us by replying to this post or via<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.socialbaby.com/resources/fb_button.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.socialbaby.com/resources/fb_button.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/TheSocialBaby">Facebook</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.socialbaby.com/resources/twitter_button.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.socialbaby.com/resources/twitter_button.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/TheSocialBaby">@TheSocialBaby</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.socialbaby.com/contact/contact_us.php">Our web contact page</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And you can call us on 08450 94 54 94. </div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-53105945113099520402012-10-02T20:03:00.001+01:002012-10-30T23:21:07.641+00:00Smacking discussion on BBC Radio Five Live tonight<span style="font-family: inherit;">I've been asked to appear on BBC Radio Five Live tonight - in the anti-smacking camp.</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>Just after 11.00pm on the Toney Livesey show, here's the link to listen online<br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n0tl1">http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n0tl1</a></span><br /><div><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">This follows the release of a mum <span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">after a judge says her actions were 'similar to those of many loving parents across the land'. Widely reported in the UK press yesterday.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">It's a long standing debate and one I've been invited </span></span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">to discuss </span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">frequently </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-align: left;">on radio. Usually I am put against someone with extreme views who feels threatened by my stance and is unable to listen. Hopefully Trish Aduhu will not fall into that category. I'll report back.</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><br /></span></span><br /><div style="text-align: left;">Here is one article from <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211201/Mother-jailed-smacking-children-freed-judge-says-actions-worse-loving-parents.html#ixzz28AXjTLbP">the Daily Mail</a></div><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span><span style="text-align: left;">And from the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-19787942">BBC website</a></span>Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-89553416149338344032012-10-01T00:39:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:21:06.420+00:00It's been a while!I'm back with a brief message at the start of a new phase in my blogging… <br />The Bringing Up Baby campaign was a tough one. It became all-consuming and pretty much took over my life, but it did make a difference. Not as great as I would have liked, but change is often made in small steps and other people have picked up where I had to leave off. The posts still get a lot of hits, so it is something that has far from gone away and touches a good number of people. <br />So what next? <br />Well a new look blog for starters, to go with our new look website. You can now read posts from directly within our website <a href="../index.html" rel="self" title="Home">socialbaby.com</a> or the <a href="http://socialbaby.blogspot.com" rel="external" title="Social Baby blog" Description="About babies and toddlers, the media, attachment, play, work and parenting">blogger</a> .<br />Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-65027559803560511722009-02-26T23:49:00.005+00:002012-10-30T23:21:05.101+00:00ABC Australia's response to Bringing Up BabyThank you Victoria for contacting me about this dreadful and discredited series. I have not yet been able to correspond directly with ABC. They are fundamentally wrong in that Claire Verity has not been able to provide any evidence of any qualifications (see the Times article on this blog or here http://www.socialbaby.com/shop/page.asp?id=CVtimes). This is ABC's response to Victoria's complaint in which they use Claire Verity's fake qualifications as a defense. I don't blame ABC for this as I assume they I are using promotional material provided by Channel Four in the UK...<br /><br />Dear Ms xxx<br /><br />Thank you for your email regarding the first episode of the British<br />documentary series Bringing Up Baby, broadcast on ABC1 on 19 February.<br /><br />The ABC regrets that you were concerned by the inclusion of Claire<br />Verity and the Truby King childcare method she espoused in this program.<br /><br />I should first explain that Bringing Up Baby was categorised as topical<br />and factual content for the purposes of the ABC's Code of Practice. This<br />content category allows for the presentation of programs which reflect a<br />wide range of audience interests, beliefs and perspectives, including<br />programs which present controversial views. Where topical and factual<br />content deals with matters of contention or public debate, a diversity<br />of principal relevant perspectives must be demonstrated across a network<br />or platform in an appropriate timeframe.<br /><br />Bringing Up Baby is a four-part series in which three of the past<br />century's most influential approaches to childcare are compared to<br />assess which, if any, are best for today's parents to use. The series<br />features Claire Verity, an advocate of the Truby King method, Dreena<br />Hamilton, an advocate of Dr Benjamin Spock's approach, and Claire Scott,<br />an advocate of the continuum concept, each of whom instruct and mentor<br />two families with newborn babies. It is important to note that the<br />series does not promote or advocate any particular childcare approach,<br />or endorse the views expressed by the three mentors.<br /><br />The ABC acknowledges that some of the methods used in the program and<br />championed by each of the mentors are controversial, and more broadly,<br />that the question of how best to raise a baby is highly contentious.<br />Accordingly, in keeping with the requirements of the Code of Practice,<br />ABC Television must demonstrate a diversity of principal relevant<br />perspectives on childcare methods in an appropriate timeframe.<br /><br />On review, the ABC considers that this episode of Bringing Up Baby<br />itself provided a range of perspectives on each method and on childcare<br />in general. In addition to the views of each mentor on the methods they<br />advocated, the program included the views of the other mentors on those<br />methods through scenes of robust debate between all three mentors, the<br />positive and negative feedback of each parent in relation to the methods<br />they were applying, and other views such as those of a broadcaster and a<br />1950s mother. Furthermore, other relevant viewpoints have been presented<br />on previous documentaries such as the Life at 1 and Life at 3 series<br />(http://abc.net.au/tv/life/). As such, the ABC is satisfied that the<br />requirement to demonstrate a diversity of principal relevant<br />perspectives has been met.<br /><br />Your comments in relation to Claire Verity's qualifications are noted.<br />The ABC understands that Ms Verity is a nanny with many years of<br />experience. Throughout the program she was described as a mentor,<br />reflecting her role in the experiment. However, early in the program,<br />the narrator introduced her as a maternity nurse, which viewers may have<br />interpreted as implying that she has nursing qualifications. The ABC<br />acknowledges that Ms Verity has no such qualifications and should not<br />have been described as a maternity nurse. ABC Television has advised<br />that the remaining episodes of the series will be preceded by an<br />advisory note clarifying that the term is not intended to signify a<br />professionally qualified nurse, but rather, someone with experience in<br />caring for babies and children.<br /><br />Please be assured, your comments about Bringing Up Baby have been noted<br />and conveyed to the ABC Television management. Thank you for bringing<br />your concerns to the ABC's attention. I have attached a link to the<br />ABC's Code of Practice for your information:<br />http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008<br />pdf.<br /><br />Yours sincerely<br /><br />Sally Griffiths<br />ABC, Audience & Consumer Affairs<br /><br />My Complaint<br />Location: QLD<br /><br />Subject: Bringing up baby- dangerous advice<br /><br />Comments: I was appalled by the Channel 4 program, Bringing up baby,<br />aired on Thursday 19th Feb. The program was apparently widely protested<br />in the UK and its so-called expert, Claire Verity was discredited once<br />the show had aired. The methods this particular woman promotes are close<br />to "institutionalised neglect". Her promotion of "leaving a baby to cry"<br />is proven to cause psychological damage. The baby to develops "learned<br />hopelessness"- put simply the baby gives up on attempting to communicate<br />its needs and has no-one in its life that it can trust. This is a<br />symptom seen in many neglect and abuse cases- very quiet and compliant<br />children. Verity's approach, which discourages bonding between babies<br />and their parents- even down to regulating physical and eye-contact<br />between parent and child, may suit parents who do not want to "deal"<br />with their offspring but long-term effects are not exposed or even<br />discussed within this program. It is irresponsible to air such a progra!<br />m without allowing the general public to understand the potential harm<br />that can be caused to children in following such a method. A forum or<br />discussion panel after each program airs- such as was done with the<br />Great Global Warming Swindle- may go some way to addressing the serious<br />problems associated with such irresponsible programming.<br />-----------------------------------------------------------Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-18198773153589280782009-02-20T23:02:00.002+00:002012-10-30T23:21:03.997+00:00Bringing Up Baby - again, sadlyI've had a couple of comments through our socialbaby.com website about Claire Verity and her involvement in ABC Australia's showing of Bringing Up Baby.<br /><br />There was huge protest here in the UK resulting in the UK newspaper, The Times completely discrediting Claire Verity. She is completely unqualified, and the UK broadcaster, Channel Four and the production company are aware of this. Here is the article<br /><br />http://www.socialbaby.com/shop/page.asp?id=CVtimes<br /><br />We have a history of the campaign, including a petition to 10 Downing Street to have the programme stopped on our website...<br /><br />http://www.socialbaby.com/shop/page.asp?id=CVhome<br /><br />Many many organisations tried to make sure this sort of programme never gets made or broadcast again. This should never have been broadcast in or outside the UK and shows how much work there is to be done to protect infants and their families from abuse by the television industry.Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-56315753417902879772008-04-17T15:22:00.004+01:002012-10-30T23:21:02.773+00:00Smacking discussion and phone-in on Radio 5 Live 18th April, 11.00pmI have been invited to appear on the Stephen Logan show tomorrow night (Friday) 18th April. I'm on at 11.00 pm for up to one hour. It's a discussion and phone-in on smacking following the Bowens' decision to mount a legal challenge to Somerset council's decision to not accept them as foster parents because they smack their child (though they say they would not smack a foster child).<br /><br />Opposite me in the studio, is a barrister called Mark Mullins, who is the London Chair of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship. I understand he supports the Bowens' stance and is pro smacking.<br /><br />I find it puzzling that many pro-smacking people are Christians. I find it difficult to correlate the work of Jesus and the teachings of the bible to the smacking of children, so I hope this will be an interesting discussion.<br /><br />You can listen on DAB radios, or online at www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive or by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive" target="blank"> clicking here</a> and following the on-screen links.<br /><br />Hope you can listen in.<br />Regards to all - CliveClivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-21286469817331245642008-03-12T10:17:00.002+00:002012-10-30T23:21:01.684+00:00Violent links to smacking<span style=";font-family:lucida grande;font-size:100%;" >So I did the Richard Bacon show last night on smacking. I am anti smacking, Lynette Burrows is very pro smacking and she could be an extraordinarily dangerous woman were it nor for the fact she is so happy to dig holes and jump in them. It was a difficult discussion to get any meaningful points across and she clearly wound up Richard Bacon.<br /><p><br />I wanted to pin Lynette down on the process of smacking - exactly when, and how. What triggers it, is she preemptive, ritualising the act, or does she just snap. She didn't answer. She doesn't know what attachment is. She admitted to hitting all her six children (it is necessary for a child's learning to experience a small amount of pain). Her eldest is special needs - a down syndrome baby. And she hit him too "but only when he was very small".<br /></p><p><br />What was so clear (and no time to discuss on the show) is how damaged she is. She must have experienced a good deal of pain in her own childhood. Many victims of harsh parenting say - it never did me any harm. As if they have to validate it. How else as an adult can you square your mum or dad (or both) hitting you? You keep being told you are naughty and in time you believe it. You either become compliant and spend the rest of your life trying to get parental approval, or defiant and get angry with no outlet and all the mess we see around us. As I said last night you can modify the behaviour but you can't change the thoughts.<br /></p><p><br />Interestingly as I arrived the receptionist said he'd shoot all the yobbo's hanging around out there and leave them to rot in the gutter where they belong. The security chap said "I'm from Africa and there all the children are smacked". To which I replied "Yes, and Africa is a very peaceful country isn't it?". "No it isn't," he came back, "it's very violent." "So now you know why." I said. He laughed and said "I'm not sure about that". But I reckon the thought registered. Treat children violently and they tend to grow violent.<br /></p><p><br />I have started a discussion on this topic on our group. To apply to join, <a href="http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/childrensprojectgroup/?yguid=191716072" target="blank">click here</a>.<br /></p><p><br />Clive</p></span>Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-88898825511913311052008-01-23T10:28:00.000+00:002012-10-30T23:21:00.701+00:00Claire Verity (bringing Up Baby) has no qualifications<h1 style="font-weight: bold;" class="heading"><span style="font-size:130%;">TV bosses wash their hands of nanny with fake qualifications</span></h1><span style="font-size:85%;">Patrick Foster, The Times, </span><span style="font-size:85%;">19th </span><span style="font-size:85%;">January 2008<br /><br /></span><p> A controversial television nanny whose "outdated and potentially harmful" childcare methods brought complaints from hundreds of viewers fabricated her qualifications, it was confirmed yesterday. </p><p><i>The Times </i>disclosed in October that Claire Verity, who appeared in Bringing up Baby, a programme that explored various methods of infant care, claimed to hold numerous childcare diplomas from organisations that denied knowledge of her. </p><p> The NSPCC said that the nanny’s methods, which included leaving babies to cry and limiting cuddling to ten minutes a day, were "outdated and potentially harmful". The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health said that her recommendation that babies should sleep alone in a separate room contradicted guidance from the Department of Health on reducing the risk of cot death. </p><!--#include file="m63-article-related-attachements.html"--><p> Channel 4 announced that it would hold an investigation into Verity's qualifications after it circulated publicity material detailing the awards that she claimed to hold, and described her on its website as having a “string of nannying qualifications”. </p> <p> Yesterday, 12 weeks after <i>The Times</i> reported the story, the broadcaster said that it had concluded its inquiry. In a short statement it said: "At Channel 4’s request, Silver River [the production company] has asked Claire Verity for documentary evidence to support the qualifications listed in a document her agent supplied and, thus far, none has been forthcoming." </p><p> The channel said that it had no further plans to work with Verity and had planned only one series of Bringing up Baby. </p><p> A source at the channel defended the length of time that it had taken to provide a response. The source said: "We had to give her a bit of time to produce proof of the qualifications that she said she had. It’s nearly three months later and she hasn't done that. I’m sure you can draw your own conclusions." </p><p> Ofcom received 752 complaints from viewers, some of whom accused Verity of child cruelty. The industry regulator said in December that Channel 4 had been wrong to describe her as a maternity nurse, adding: "Where there is the potential for harm, broadcasters should be careful when using terms which may imply participants have medical qualifications or other professional status." </p><p> In October <i>The Times</i> asked Chloe Cunningham and Simon Fairclough, Verity's agents, to confirm her professional qualifications. The list supplied by Cunningham Management, which described Verity as highly qualified, differed from the qualifications that Channel 4 claimed she held. </p><p> Verity, who has no children, claimed to hold diplomas in child daycare and preschool practice from the national awarding body ASET. But a spokeswoman said: "There is no trace whatsoever of this lady on our database." She said that ASET did not offer a diploma in preschool practice. </p><p> Maternity Nurse Training, from which Verity said that she had qualifications in maternity practice, sleep training and paediatrics, said that she did not hold any of its awards. A spokeswoman said: "This person never enrolled on any of our courses and as such has never been trained by us. We would like to make it quite clear that we do not in any way endorse the methods employed by Ms Verity in her work." </p><p> Goal, from which Verity claimed to hold a diploma in childcare, said that it had no record of her and had never offered the diploma. </p><p> In addition, Ms Cunningham admitted that Verity had not yet taken the postnatal depression or care of multiple baby qualifications that Channel 4 claimed she held. </p><p> The awarding bodies also searched their systems for Verity under the name Houseman, the name of her former husband, and Bradley, under which she is listed on the electoral roll. </p><p> In an interview with <i>The Times</i>, Verity claimed to hold a degree in business studies from the University of York, but a spokesman said that it had no record of her and did not offer a business studies degree. </p><p> Verity could not be contacted yesterday. Both Ms Cunningham and Mr Fairclough put the phone down and did not reply to e-mails, but Cunningham Management did remove from its website a profile of Verity containing claims about her qualifications. </p><i>The Times </i>understands that she has enrolled on childcare courses since OctoberClivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-29191008857734143282007-12-05T16:06:00.000+00:002012-10-30T23:20:47.089+00:00Ofcom response to Bringing Up BabyOfcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 98<br /><br />3 December 2007<br /><br /><strong>Not in Breach</strong><br /><strong><br />Bringing Up Baby</strong><br /><br /><em>Channel 4, 25 September to 16 October 2007, 21:00</em><br /><br /><strong>Introduction</strong><br /><br />This was a short four-part series aimed at exploring three of the most popular childcare methods of the twentieth century. These were the 1950s Truby King method, the 1960s Dr Spock method and the 1970s Continuum method.<br /><br />Five couples and one single mother, all with newborn babies, had decided to raise their babies using one of these three methods. The relative success or failure of the various aspects (e.g. where a baby should sleep, or when a baby should be fed, etc) were shown by the programme. Each method had a mentor who would support and take the parents through the method. The mentors were strong supporters of one of the three childcare methods.<br /><br />From time to time during the course of the series, the parents were encouraged to adopt certain different approaches to childcare. For instance, the approaches included: leaving a week-old infant wrapped up in a blanket in a pram in the garden to get 'fresh air', so as to sleep better at night time (the Truby King method); "trusting your instincts" and not having a set routine (the Dr Spock method); constantly carrying and being always available to feed the newborn (the Continuum method).<br /><br />Ofcom received 752 complaints from viewers. In summary, the principal concerns raised were that the programmes:<br /><ul class="disc"><li></li><li>employed techniques that were unethical, abusive, or neglectful and/or went against current UK government or other agency (such as the World Health Organisation) guidelines in respect of childcare</li><li></li><li>employed as mentors people who were not necessarily properly qualified to practise as childcare professionals</li><li></li><li>put children at risk of harm; and</li><li></li><li>did not sufficiently highlight to viewers the potentially harmful effects of some of the practices featured, and therefore put the safety of infants in viewers' care at risk.</li><li></li></ul><strong>Decision</strong><br /><br />Ofcom recognises the sensitivities relating to such issues as appropriate and safe child care, and understands the offence that may be caused to viewers who witness approaches and methods that do not accord with their own views and practices.<br /><br />Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom has a statutory duty to set standards for the content of television programmes with which broadcasters must comply. These standards are set to secure certain objectives set out in the Act including the protection of under eighteens and that generally accepted standards are applied to content so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material.<br /><br />Ofcom considers the standards it has set for the protection of children to be amongst the most important in the Code. These rules are aimed at preventing children suffering any unnecessary distress or anxiety as a result of being involved in a programme or by its broadcast; requiring that broadcasters take due care over the physical and emotional welfare of children who take part or are otherwise involved in programmes. However, it should be noted that Ofcom's role does not extend to investigating allegations of child abuse, which is the role of the relevant authorities.<br /><br />The Communications Act 2003 requires Ofcom to have regard to certain matters when setting the standards in its Code; particularly when applying generally accepted standards so that the public is adequately protected from offensive or harmful material, Ofcom must have regard to the need for standards to be applied in a manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression. This is in terms of both the broadcaster's right to impart information and ideas and the right of the audience to receive them. These rights are enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights incorporated within the Human Rights Act 1998. Accordingly, Ofcom must exercise its duties in light of these rights and not interfere with the exercise of these rights in broadcast services unless it is satisfied that the restrictions it seeks to apply are required by law and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.<br /><br />In the case of this series, Ofcom considered the complaints against the following Code Rules:<br /><br />1.26: "Due care must be taken over the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of people under eighteen who take part or are otherwise involved in programmes. This is irrespective of any consent given by the participant or by a parent, guardian or other person over the age of eighteen in loco parentis".<br /><br />1.27: "People under eighteen must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes or by the broadcast of those programmes".<br /><br />2.1: "Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television...services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion of harmful...material".<br /><br />2.2: "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not<br />materially mislead the audience".<br /><br />2.4: "Programmes must not include material...which, taking into account the context, condones...dangerous... behaviour and is likely to encourage others to copy such behaviour".<br /><br />In the course of our investigation, we contacted Channel 4 with regard to these matters seeking all relevant background information. It supplied us with further details. Much of the information it provided was also publicly available on the broadcaster's website, which accompanied the series.<br /><br />It is important to note that the programme was based on three different approaches to childcare. The methods themselves are all based on previously published and well-known books and theories:<br /><ul class="disc"><li></li><li>Truby King's "Feeding and Care of Baby";</li><li></li><li>Dr Spock's "Baby and Childcare"; and</li><li></li><li>Jean Liedloff "The Continuum Concept".</li><li></li></ul><br />These methods and approaches to raising a baby are all in the public domain. As the programmes stated, these were three of the most influential childcare methods of the 20th century. Although some of the methods are highly controversial, many parents today do debate these techniques, and they are all used to a greater or lesser extent within the UK. Therefore, Ofcom's starting point must be that a programme which explores and discusses these approaches cannot in itself be problematic, so long as the broadcaster ensures that the material is put in context and that the audience is fully informed; for instance by being made aware of government guidelines, where appropriate. Ofcom would not expect, and it would be a breach of the Code for, a broadcaster to promote or encourage practices which were overall considered to be dangerous or harmful.<br /><br /><strong>Possibility of harm to the children involved in the series: Rules 1.26 and 1.27</strong><br /><br />The childcare methods used were sometimes controversial (for example: where a baby should sleep; whether a baby should be left to cry; or when a baby should be weaned). Ofcom therefore considered the steps taken by the broadcaster and the programme makers to ensure that no harm would be caused to the children involved. Ofcom understands from Channel 4 that a range of relevant experts was consulted on current medical opinion with regard to the methods used before filming began.<br /><br />These were:<br /><br />a senior psychologist, who advised that following the routines proposed would cause no harm to the babies;<br /><br />a neurologist, specialising in brain development issues, who said that there was nothing in the books to suggest brain development would be impaired by a baby being put in any form of routine; and<br /><br />a GP who was of the view that none of the particular routines/methods was damaging to a baby's well-being.<br /><br /><br />A senior consultant paediatrician (currently an honorary senior clinical lecturer at a leading UK university and an associate member of the General Medical Council) also viewed all the programmes in the series, after editing and before their transmission. He was of the view that the babies had not been put at any risk.<br /><br />Ofcom is also aware that all the families, whilst participating in the series, followed the standard practice (after leaving hospital with a new baby) of consulting with their GP, attending clinics and receiving visits from qualified health care professionals.<br /><br />In our view, the broadcaster therefore gave careful and appropriate consideration to the potential impact of the methods used on the infants, and sought relevant independent advice. We have seen no evidence to suggest that due care was not taken over the physical and emotional welfare of the children, or that they were caused unnecessary distress or anxiety.<br /><br />Ofcom also took into account concerns over the professional experience and qualifications of some of the mentors involved with the series. It is not Ofcom's duty to regulate such qualifications, or lack of them, except insofar as it might contribute to a breach of the Code through materially increasing the risk of harm to the children (see also "Claire Verity's Qualifications: Rule 2.2" below). However, in Ofcom's view, a material increase in the risk of harm to the children did not happen here for a number of reasons, including: the fact that the books (Truby King, Spock and Continuum methods, written by acknowledged experts) were essentially the 'providers of the advice' to parents; the appropriate levels of protection from harm provided for the young children throughout the series; the fact that objective independent information from healthcare professionals was available to the parents through the standard medical routes during filming; and the guidance followed by the programme-makers, on the advice of the relevant medical experts consulted. With regard to the matter of consent, Channel 4 had made it clear that the families involved had been given detailed information on the principles and techniques of the methods being used to ensure that they were able to make an informed choice as to whether to continue with the method they had themselves chosen. It was made clear to the families that they were free to change their minds, and cease using the method in question, at any time they chose to do so during filming.<br /><br />It should be noted that Ofcom has not received a complaint from the parents who participated in the programmes. Neither has Ofcom received any complaint from the healthcare professionals involved in the independent provision of the standard care to the participating families, as mentioned above. For all of the reasons set out above, the programmes were not in breach of Rules 1.26 and 1.27.<br /><br /><strong>Possibility of harm being caused, in general, by the broadcast of the programmes: Rules 2.1 and 2.4</strong><br /><br />In considering this matter, Ofcom sought to establish whether the broadcaster had applied generally accepted standards to the programmes to ensure adequate protection from material that could be harmful. In other words, did Channel 4 encourage or condone harmful methods which could endanger babies?<br /><br />In Ofcom's view, <em>Bringing Up Baby</em> was a programme which explored different methods of raising a baby which have been, and are still, popular in the UK. The methods adopted were put into context and the pros and cons of each method were explored. In particular, the more controversial approaches were all challenged within the programme, either via the commentary or by the mentors themselves. Further, where the approach differed from <em>current</em> public health advice, this was made clear to the viewers and explained. For instance, having the newborn baby sleeping next to the parents in their bedroom was described as "<em>the safest place to be according to government guidelines</em>". When the mentor for the Truby King method encouraged the weaning of young babies at the age of 16 weeks, the programme clearly stated that the current World Health Organisation advice is for weaning to take place at 6 months because of the risk of allergies. In discussion about formula milk, the programme was unequivocal, stating that "<em>breast milk is known to be much better for babies than bottled formula</em>". The broadcasting of views which challenge current medical advice may not, in itself, breach the Code. Programmes should be permitted to explore such issues so long as such views are appropriately explained and put in context.<br /><br /><br />In Ofcom's view, the programme ensured that the viewer would be left in no doubt, what the pros and cons were of each method, and how each mentor felt about the others' view. According to the Dr Spock mentor, the Truby King method was "...<em>cruel, hard, awful... when what a baby actually needs love, touch and cuddles</em>". The Truby King method was itself described by its own mentor as "<em>quite mean</em>".<br /><br />The programmes themselves frequently made it clear that the methods used were controversial, and consequently were not offering universally accepted approaches to childcare. For example, important issues such as leaving a baby to cry, or allowing a baby to sleep in the same bed as the parents, were both regularly fiercely debated by the three mentors on screen and/or questioned by the participating parents themselves. Therefore there were frequent discussions between the mentors (and the parents) about the appropriateness of the approaches and the viewer would be left in no doubt about which ones would be considered, by many, as problematic.<br /><br />Further areas of controversy or risk were regularly highlighted in the commentary throughout the series, e.g.:<br /><ul class="disc"><li></li><li><em>"...some people criticise the 1950s routine...";</em></li><li></li><li><em>"...today, some experts also believe that having your baby in the same room can help prevent cot death...";</em></li><li></li><li><em>"...although co-sleeping </em>[in the parent's bed]<em> is the norm in some countries, it's a contentious issue in Britain and should only be done if proper safety guidelines are followed" </em>(the safety guidelines were then outlined by the Continuum mentor and re-stated in the commentary); and</li><li></li><li><em>"...but having no rules isn't always a blessing...".</em></li><li></li></ul><br />It is also important to note that all the babies, when shown asleep in their cots or prams, were shown lying on their backs and placed at the end of the bed - both positions recommended by today's practitioners; and that there was an extensive website providing a wide range of information related to the programmes, childcare advice (including reference to currently accepted practices) and debate; the address of which was announced at the end of every programme.<br /><br />Overall, <em>Bringing Up Baby</em> was not a programme that advocated or promoted any one method or particular practice. It gave the viewers the facts about different approaches adopted today and in the past. The methods were put in an historical perspective. Where appropriate, it gave the government or other health guidelines. In our view, it was clear that the parents that featured in the programme had different priorities and chose their method accordingly.<br /><br />Taking all the above into account, we consider that the broadcaster took the necessary steps to ensure that there was adequate protection for viewers from harm. The programmes were therefore not in breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.4.<br /><br /><strong>Claire Verity's Qualifications: Rule 2.2</strong><br /><br />Concerns were also raised over the qualifications of Claire Verity (who advocated the Truby King theory). In terms of whether the audience was materially misled, Ofcom's remit, in this case, extended only to what was broadcast (as opposed to what may or may not have been claimed off-air). The programme almost exclusively referred to Claire Verity as a "<em>mentor</em>" (and on one occasion as a "<em>1950s guru</em>"). Such descriptions did not attribute to her any qualifications or expertise beyond what she may or may not have. The broadcaster stated that she had been working with babies and children for over 20 years.<br /><br />However, the broadcaster did also refer in the introductory sequences to Claire Verity as "<em>a maternity nurse</em>". Some complainants were concerned that the use of this term implied Claire Verity had qualifications which they believed she did not in fact have. In our view, there is no evidence to suggest that a maternity nurse must have a qualification or belong to any professional body. While some maternity nurses may have a medical background, others do not but are experienced nannies or carers. Therefore, in our view, the description can refer to someone who is "experienced" in post-birth care both for the baby and the mother, and the programme was not necessarily intending to imply that Ms Verity had medical qualifications.<br /><br />As it was therefore unclear whether or not Ms Verity had professional qualifications, we went on to consider whether by labelling her as a maternity nurse, there was a risk that some viewers might have assumed that her opinions were backed by professional training, and that she was accountable to a professional body.<br /><br />On the very few occasions she was referred to as a "<em>maternity nurse</em>", it was always<br />qualified and limited. For example: she was referred to as a "<em>controversial maternity nurse</em>", "1950s style maternity nurse" and "1950s inspired maternity nurse". On these occasions, she was also introduced as a "mentor" immediately before.<br /><br />Taking into account all of the above, it is our view that whether Ms Verity has professional qualifications or not, the programmes were not materially misleading to viewers about her professional status, so as to cause harm. Nevertheless, it is clear that in cases such as these, where there is the potential for harm, broadcasters should be careful when using terms which may imply participants have medical qualifications or other professional status. They need to take into account the potential risk of viewers giving more weight to the opinions of such people. It would therefore have been preferable for the programme not to have used this term (even if only sparingly).<br /><br /><strong>Not in Breach</strong><br />Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-29512787764531830572007-10-27T17:55:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:46.371+00:00Letter from The Children's Project to the England Children's Commissioner<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:lucida grande;">Professor A Aynsley Green<br />Children’s Commissioner<br />11 MILLION<br />1 London Bridge<br />LONDON<br />SE1 9BG<br /><br />26th October 2007<br /><br />Dear Professor Aynsley Green<br /><br />PROTECTION OF INFANTS NOT APPEARING AS ACTORS ON TELEVISION<br /><br />The screening of Bringing Up Baby by Channel 4 has raised some fundamental issues about how we as a society set about protecting infants from harm, and indeed, our willingness to be participants in the process.<br /><br />Some years ago I attended a meeting at Portcullis House at which Peter Clarke the new Welsh Children’s Commissioner spoke. At the time the consensus in Government was that a Children’s Commissioner for England was unnecessary as there already existed a department and a Minister for Children. It is interesting to note one argument at the time - that the appointment of a Children's Commissioner for England would simply add an additional layer of bureaucracy without any real power.<br /><br />How ironic that the welfare of infants - those most vulnerable in our society, yet too young to be called children - would appear to be outside the jurisdiction of the very person appointed to protect them. I can think of no more urgent issue to be placed at the top of (what must be) an already busy agenda than that of dangerously misguided practices being promoted as both safe and desirable in a television programme. And in complete contradiction of all current government guidelines and those of others such as Unicef, United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child and WHO.<br /><br />Along with my colleagues who are concerned with the emotional wellbeing of infants, and therefore the future wellbeing of our society, I am astonished at the lack of any response from yourself about this fundamentally important issue – that of protecting infants. One that we all assumed you had been appointed to oversee and enable.<br /><br />I would like to draw your attention to the statement about your appointment on the Every Child Matters website, from which I quote... "As part of his broad remit and function, the Commissioner works within the framework of the five Every Child Matters outcomes. These outcomes complement the rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the Commissioner must have regard. As the Commissioner is independent of government, he will decide what issues he will focus on as he discharges his duties." I suspect that within the last sentence lies the key. I do urge you to think about the importance of good beginnings for infants and the impact of this on future outcomes.<br /><br />It is one thing to offer an ear to children suffering as a result of bad experiences when they are able to communicate this, but what of the youngest children for whom speech remains in the future, yet have the same emotions? Do they not deserve special protection from harm when it is highlighted and brought to your attention by those who understand?<br /><br />We are happy to assist in any way we can.<br /><br />With best wishes<br />Yours sincerely<br /><br />Clive Dorman<br />Director and Co-founder<br />The Children’s Project Ltd<br /><br />Sign the petition at 10 Downing Street <a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/parentingshows/" target=blank>here</a><br />Statements and information <a href="http://www.socialbaby.com/shop/page.asp?id=CVhome"target=blank>here</a><br />Encl. Statement for The Children’s Project re: Bringing Up Baby <a href="http://www.socialbaby.com/shop/page.asp?id=CVtcp"target="blank">here</a></span></span>Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-40119178599920403242007-10-25T23:48:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:45.680+00:00UNITE/CPHVA Statement (Unite the Union/Community Practitioner and Health Visitor's Association)<span style="font-family: lucida grande;font-size:100%;" >UNITE the Union, Who Cares? Campaign<br />Protecting Community Health Services<br /><br />18th October 2007.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: lucida grande;font-size:100%;" >UNITE/CPHVA STATEMENT ON CONTROVERSIAL BABY TV ‘REALITY’ SHOWS<br /></span><span style="font-family: lucida grande;font-size:100%;" ><br />Health visitors feel that they must strongly protest about one of the mentors on Channel 4’s programme ‘Bringing up Baby’. Claire Verity calls herself a Maternity Nurse and boasts that she is paid £1,000 a day to get babies into a routine. The Nursing and Midwifery Council in a press release in response to the programme stated:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“Made-up titles like ‘maternity nurse’ are deceptive as they imply the person has earned qualifications that they do not have. This only serves to confuse the public and could prove damaging to the high level of trust that people have for genuine nurses and midwives”</span><br /><br />Were Claire Verity an NMC registrant she could be facing professional misconduct charges.<br /><br />Her advice to new mothers is not evidence based and runs directly contrary to the guidelines produced by the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths on reducing the risk of cot death. She is clearly unaware of the effect of ignoring babies on their brain development and the subsequent potential long term damage to their ability to form trusting relationships and enjoy good emotional health.<br /><br />The latest programme in the series from Channel 4 once again calls into question the ethics of making such a programme. Voluntary codes of ethics are clearly not working. What is needed is an independently appointed ethics committee made up of informed professionals. Potential producers of programmes involving the filming of 0-17 year olds should be required to bring their plans for approval and to demonstrate that they will do no harm. Such a group could be appointed by OFCOM or the UK Children’s Commissioners and should include a child psychologist, child psychotherapist, child psychiatrist, paediatrician, social worker, health visitor, midwife, parent representatives and the NSPCC.<br /><br />What we have seen on our screens promotes child care practice which research has demonstrated puts babies’ physical and emotional health at risk. Such practice should not be promoted to the general public and undermine the work of many professionals involved in the care of mothers and babies or current Department of Health guidance. Babies’ cannot give their permission to take part in such programmes and indeed it is unlikely that their parents fully understand the implications of taking part. Babies rely on their parents and society to protect them. There seems to be no protection from the makers of reality TV programmes. Unite/CPHVA raised their concerns to the producers early in the production process.<br /><br />Unite/CPHVA would like to see the Children's Commissioners’ offices in the four countries in the UK putting their influence behind the establishment of a new ethical panel to regulate the involvement of children in reality TV programmes and has raised this with the English Commissioner<br /><br />UNITE/CPHVA Professional Team<br /><br />For further information, please ring:<br /><br />Maggie Fisher 07918 608115 (Blackberry)<br />Cheryll Adams, Lead Professional Officer, Unite Health 07712 678 281 (mobile)<br />Shaun Noble Communications Officer 020 7780 4080 (direct line)<br /> 07768 693 940 (mobile) <br /><br />Unite/CPHVA press releases can be seen on the CPHVA website: www.amicus-cphva.org<br /><br />Unite (Amicus section) is the third largest union in the NHS. It has seven professional sections: the Community Practitioners’ and Health Visitors’ Association, the Mental Health Nurses Association, the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists, the Society of Sexual Health Advisers, the Medical Practitioners’ Union, College of Healthcare Chaplains, and the Hospital Physicists Association. <br /><br />Unite was formed by an amalgamation of Amicus and the Transport and General Workers’ Union in May 2007.<br /></span>Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-40413028208526053752007-10-25T23:28:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:44.754+00:00Letter to the Children's Commissioner from the Association for Infant Mental Health (AIMH)<span style=";font-family:lucida grande;font-size:100%;" >Professor A Aynsley Green<br />Children’s Commissioner<br />11 MILLION<br />1 London Bridge<br />LONDON<br />SE1 9BG<br /></span><span style=";font-family:lucida grande;font-size:100%;" ><br />16 October 2007<br /></span><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Dear Professor Aynsley Green<br /><br /></span></p><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Re: Bringing up Baby and the use of infants in ‘reality Television’<br /></span></p><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">I am writing as Chair of the Association for Infant Mental Health (UK) to express the Committee’s heartfelt dismay at the lack of comment from your office in respect of the recent TV series Bringing up Baby, which followed hot on the heels of the BBC’s Baby Borrowers..<br /></span></p><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">This programme employed (and, therefore, promoted to parents) a range of techniques. Some of these were outdated, such as leaving a baby to cry for lengthy periods in order to manage crying. Others had never previously been recommended by anyone and so can only be described as wholly experimental. Examples of these included deliberately avoiding eye contact with a baby and, most recently, witholding three quarters of new (and premature) twins' bottles at one feed in order to make them so hungry that they would take more at the next (and sleep longer).<br /></span></p><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">In using these techniques the film makers seem to have completely disregarded current knowledge on brain development and how this can be adversely affected by the stress and trauma a baby experiences. We can only assume that those involved in making the programmes either did not know of this research (which in itself is worrying) or they chose to ignore it to make “good viewing” and boost their ratings.<br /></span></p><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">To date there has been a lot of publicity about the programmes in this series. During the week following the first broadcast of Bringing up Baby OfCom received well over 200 complaints from the general public. The press has run extensive coverage and there is now a Downing Street petition with 2740 signatures (to date) calling for the greater regulation of programmes such as this.<br /></span></p><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">In this context it is concerning that there has been no comment from you or a representative of your office. Your new website, 11 million, makes a great deal about giving children a voice. Sadly the babies being exploited, and put at risk, by this and other similar TV programmes are unable to email their views and make their voices heard. But it would be good to think that you could lead the way in the drive to afford<br />them better protection from this kind of sensational and exploitative television.<br /></span></p><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">With best wishes<br />Yours sincerely<br /></span></p><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Dr Shirley Gracias MBChB DCH MRCPsych<br />Consultant in Infant Child and Adolescent Psychiatry<br />Chair of AIMH (UK)<br />------------------------<br /></span></p><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Have you <a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/parentingshows/" target="blank">signed the petition </a>at 10 Downing Street yet?<br /><br />Or cut and paste the URL and send to everyone<br />http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/parentingshows/<br /></span></p><p style="font-family:lucida grande;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.socialbaby.com/shop/page.asp?id=CVhome">«Back to Bringing Up Baby info</a><br /><a href="http://www.socialbaby.com/shop/default.asp?">«Back to our home page</a><br /></span></p>Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-75746883593178709772007-10-16T23:54:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:43.545+00:00Notes on Bringing Up Baby Week 4<b>Bringing Up Baby Week 4</b><br><br /><i>These are notes from, and my comments about the programme. Whilst I have endeavoured to comment accurately, I cannot say the transcript is 100% accurate in every word, though the essence remains.</i><br /><p><br /><b>10 - 12 weeks</b><br /><p><br />Very few surprises this week from our perspective. Not as overtly offensive as previous weeks, due mainly to the fact Claire Verity wasn't hands on with the babies. However, my worst fears have been confirmed. With an air of triumphalism the commentary repeatedly made reference to babies sleeping through the night at an unnaturally young age, with no reference to any research and reasons behind why this might be. The clear implication is that the routine method is by far the best. A glossy promotion of neglect as a method to produce subdued babies, which is then presented as a the most successful method.<br /><p><br />This has been my worst fear, and one that I have presented to Silver River and Channel 4 for many months. Silver River, "I appreciate your concerns but hope that when you see the series, you will be satisfied that your fears were unfounded." Channel 4 "I appreciate your interest in this series and hope that when you have seen it, your fears will be allayed." <br /><p><br />Possibly the most outrageous part of this series is that there is no point. The programme, with it's complete lack of any reference to research or understanding simply ends. Just a voice over to confirm it is the end and cue credits. In my view, completely indefensible.<br /><p><br />This week is concerned with 'getting your life back'. A social life, a sex life.<br /><p><br />10 weeks<br /><p><br />Voice Over (VO) Already the routine babies are sleeping 11pm - 7am leaving their parents the most refreshed. But this is not enough for Claire Verity - 7 - 7. She wants to introduce solids.<br /><p><br />(Reference to allergy risk, wait til 6 months)<br /><p><br />CS (continuum mentor) ...from birth you feed from whenever the baby cues that it needs feeding and for at least the first six month all the baby gets is breast milk and then at about...<br /><p><br />CV (incredulous) The first six months?<br><br />CS In fact that is what the WHO suggests<br><br />CV Well, I don't really care what they say. I've dealt with hundreds of babies and I know at 4 months they need something other than milk.<br><br />CS At 4 months?<br><br />CV I wean babies at 16 weeks or 16 lbs<br><br />CS I totally refute that<br><br />DH (Spock mentor) I have to say Claire I think it depends on the baby,<br><br />CV But at the end of the day my babies at 12 wks are going 7 -7 are yours?<br /><p><br />Silence<br><br />----<br><br />VO Some people criticise the 50s routine, saying it works for parents but might not work for baby.<br><br />----<br><br />Sex<br><br />This isn't an area of expertise for me, but it was covered in the context of the 3 routines. I did notice during the interviews that babies were not relaxed (lights camera etc). One dad holding his baby, who was fussing and unsettled. When dad looked at his baby, he settled. When eye contact was lost, the baby became unsettled again.<br><br />----------------.<br><br />Social Life<br><br />Twins parents having a party<br><br /><p><br />VO One of the main reasons the routine method became so popular in the 1950s is that promised couples who couldn't afford nannies precious time to themselves.<br /><p><br />Mum: nothing will get them out of their routine. It's just amazing. I just don't know what I would have done without the routine.<br><br />CV At the end of the day the routine is all about getting the baby to fit in with your way of life. And if you want to have a party, great have a party. Those babies won't wake up, they'll be fed and put into bed at 7 o clock as normal and you can party all night. So it's all very much about the baby fitting into your way of life. Don't let it stop you having fun.<br /><p><br />Best method?<br><br />VO 1950s is the passport to serious partying.<br /><p><br />Mum: I can't believe that I've got 2 babies upstairs, 30 people inside and I'm enjoying myself it's fantastic, I've got my life back - a different life, but I got my life back.<br /><p><br />Continuum mum: I got pregnant for a reason because I wanted to have a child so the last thing I want to do is put it in another room as some sort of punishment for being alive<br><br />------<br><br />Moving house<br><br />Twins (Truby King)<br><br />Mum: They say moving is one of the most stressful things you can do, but I think we may be able pull it off especially as the babies are in a very good routine.<br /><p><br />VO (sister) takes them on ahead while parents stay behind to pack.<br><br />Mum: It's just important that she keeps them in the routine that we've been working so hard on these last 10 weeks.<br /><p><br />VO trouble is, (sister) isn't a big fan of schedules for babies.<br><br />Sister: I still don't agree totally with routines but I agree with it because it's working for (mum) and it's important for me to stick to it.<br><br />CV If you choose to move home with one baby two babies even three babies, as long as you stick to that routine 100% you will not have a problem. Don't kid yourselves, if you just sidetrack slightly it won't work. 100%, and 100% only.<br /><p><br />VO Under the routine its essential that the babies are fed every 4 hours without even a few minutes delay.<br />But with Leamington Spa a 3 hour drive away SIS needs to get going if she is arrive on time for the next feed.<br><br />VO If (sister) was sticking to the routine she would be pulling over now (10.50) and giving them their 11 am feed. But they're asleep and she decides to carry on to her destination.<br><br />Sister: We are I would say about 40 minutes away from home... so we're going to be late.<br /><p><br />Arrive crying<br /><p><br />In house, both twins hysterical<br /><p><br />VO Following a routine is all or nothing and breaking it has dire consequences as sis is discovering.<br />Sister: It's 20 to 12 and they're used to being fed at 11. We'll get back on track at three, yes, I'm sorry.<br><br />-----<br><br />During the ad break is an NSPCC ad - 'be the click', about ending child abuse. Seemed somewhat incongruous.<br><br />------<br><br />The families meet up for the first time.<br /><p><br />VO 3 months evidence for and against - which one has come out on top<br /><p><br />The 1950s routine families had the toughest time at the beginning. Taking on the harshest method when it came to emotional attachment.<br /><p><br />But the first to have babies sleeping through the night was the routine method. (Mum) was able to go back to work. They had a sex life and social lives.<br /><p><br />Other mum: So you'd recommend it<br><br />Dad: You only have to go through the first 2 months from when the baby's born.<br><br />------<br /><p><br />And so the programme ended. No conclusion, other than stating <br /><p><br />VO Our experiment is over. We've seen that each method has its pros and cons so it's not possible to pick an outright winner. All our couples are firmly convinced that they chose the best methods. Perhaps in the end all you can do is pick the one that's best suited to you. The one that you think is best for Bringing Up Baby.Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-8368732868457472842007-10-16T14:13:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:42.949+00:00Open Letter to The Telegraph from the Association for Infant Mental Health (AIMH)Sir<br />As a group of academics and professionals we are alarmed that Channel 4 is broadcasting such an exploitative parenting series as Bringing Up Baby the last part of which is to be shown tomorrow.Many techniques used in these programmes are outdated and completely fly in the face of our scientific knowledge about brain development in very young babies. <p>That anyone should be billed as an expert and allowed to promote ideas such as not making eye contact with babies and not comforting them when they are in distress is at best irresponsible and at worst dangerous. And to see these theories being put into practice with real babies in the name of entertainment is deeply worrying. </p><p>Last year, the Family and Parenting Institute surveyed parents to ask them their opinions on TV parenting programmes and some 83% of the respondents said that they found a technique in these programmes helpful to them. So with these programmes having such an influence on parents it is shocking that broadcasters are not exercising more responsibility. </p><p>Sadly the exploitation of both babies and children in the pursuit of high ratings is becoming ever more common: the BBC3 programme Baby Borrowers earlier this year was another case in point where babies and young children were "lent" to teenage couples in a programme that was intended to bring in viewers by being shocking. </p><p>We call on all production companies to stop making television programmes which give parents irresponsible advice and turn the suffering of tiny babies and children into adult entertainment. </p><p> Mary MacLeod,<br />Chief Executive, Family and Parenting Institute </p><p> Penny Mansfield,<br />Director, One plus One </p><p> Dorit Braun,<br />Chief Executive, Parentline Plus </p><p> Dr Shirley Gracias,<br />Chair, The Association for Infant Mental Health UK </p><p> Dr Cheryll Adams,<br />Acting Lead Professional Officer, Unite-Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association </p><p> Christine Bidmead,<br />Chair of Health Visiting Forum,Unite-Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association </p><p> Stephen Scott BSc FRCP FRCPsych,<br />Professor of Child Health & Behaviour, Consultant Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist, Kings College,London </p><p> Helen Dent,<br />Chief Executive, Family Welfare Association<br /></p> <b>Dr Shirley Gracias</b><br />AIMH UK<br />Knowle Clinic,Broadfield Road,Bristol,BS4 2UH<br />----------------------<br /><br /><p><br />Have you <a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/parentingshows/"target=blank>signed the petition </a>at 10 Downing Street yet? <br /><p><br /><a href="http://socialbaby.com/shop/page.asp?id=CVhome">«Back to Bringing Up Baby</a> on our website to view all statements<br /><p><br /><a href="http://socialbaby.com/shop/default.asp?">«Back to socialbaby.com home page</a>Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-73518496749078926802007-10-14T11:32:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:42.042+00:00La Leche League statement re Bringing Up Baby13th Oct 2007<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bringing Up Baby - Channel 4</span><br /><br />For 50 years La Leche League has been supporting breastfeeding mothers around the world, giving women the accurate information they need to make informed choices on caring for their babies. La Leche League GB are concerned that the parents in the "Bringing Up Baby" programme on Channel 4 are being misinformed.<br /><br />To say that there is no difference between breast and formula milk is patently untrue. It goes against all the available evidence, the experience of millions of mothers, and contradicts the guidance on infant feeding given by both the World Health Organisation and the Department of Health. Misleading parents in this way could have serious health implications for mothers and children.<br /><br />Young babies have a biological need for frequent feedings and tactile stimulation. Imposing a four-hourly feeding schedule on young babies, and leaving them alone for long stretches of time, is contrary to both recent research and most parents' natural instinct, which is to hold their babies close to feed, love and comfort.<br /><br />A baby's crying is not manipulation but a way of alerting parents to respond to his/her needs. Leaving a baby to cry can increase the risk of a brain bleed. It can also increase the levels of stress hormones, which can, in turn, affect stress patterns for life.<br /><br />La Leche League believes babies and mothers need each other and become distressed if they are separated, as on this programme. To use babies in this way as part of an experiment, and for entertainment purposes, is, we believe, completely unacceptable.<br /><br />Anna Burbidge, Chair of Council of Directors,<br />On behalf of La Leche League of GBClivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-81326389453123122382007-10-12T15:13:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:40.711+00:00NSPCC reply to my emails12 Oct<br />Dear Clive<br /><br />Thank you for your recent emails regarding the 'Bringing Up Baby' television programme.<br /><br />Having reviewed the programmes that have been screened to date, the NSPCC believes that they are publicising outdated and potentially harmful methods of baby care and we are calling on TV executives to be more careful when making such programmes.<br /><br />The programme has provoked one of the highest levels of inquiries to the NSPCC in recent years, with more than 60 messages from viewers expressing their concerns at some of the methods it promotes.<br /><br />One method tested in the programme relies on what the NSPCC considers as strict, inflexible routines which deny eye contact between parent and baby during feeding, promote limited cuddling and leave infants to cry alone for long periods. These rigid routines appeared to leave some babies and parents taking part in the programme in distress.<br /><br />Our parenting advisor, Eileen Hayes has said that: "Suggesting that a small baby could be 'manipulative' is discredited and can lead to potentially damaging patterns of care. Similarly leaving babies to cry for long periods is stressful and research suggests it may be damaging. Strict authoritarian routines pay little attention to parents' natural instincts about their infants or the wealth of research that has shown the importance of early sensitive care for health and well-being. It's the most natural thing in the world for a mother to want to cuddle and make eye contact with her newborn - and babies love it as well.<br /><br />"Babies are born with a social instinct and communicate through touch, sound, eye contact and facial expressions. This sensitive communication plays a vital role in attachment, and ensuring that infants develop a sense of trust and security, which gives a firm foundation for their growing sense of identity and self-esteem.<br /><br />"The first weeks after birth are a crucial period when parents and babies get to know one other. It can be a very challenging time when vulnerable parents are particularly anxious to get advice about the best way to care for their baby. Programme-makers must recognise that some viewers may consider what they see as an approved method. They have a responsibility to tell viewers when methods are widely disputed by health professionals and academics."<br /><br />Once we have viewed the final programme, we will decide what further action we will take. Eileen sends her best wishes - she is out at a conference today so I am replying to you on both our behalves.<br /><br />With best wishes<br /><br />Chris<br /><br />Christopher Cloke, Head of Child Protection Awareness and Diversity, NSPCC<br />------------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/parentingshows/" target="blank">Sign the 10 Downing Street petition!</a><br />or cut and paste the URL in your browser http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/parentingshows/Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-30387001078115329752007-10-10T19:33:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:40.097+00:002nd Complaint to Ofcom about Bringing Up Baby, 9th OctMy previous complaint 26/09/07 Number:1-33437367 refers.<br />Having expressed my concerns for the wellbeing of infants and their parents above, I now have serious concerns with issues of child protection, child abuse, and child neglect being implemented by mentor Claire Verity. A specific complaint is about the long-term damage to how the brain becomes 'wired', caused by Claire Verity's insistence that the infants' most basic needs, that of food, nurture and care are limited, simply to ensure a good nights sleep.<br /><br />Your code is sadly lacking in its ability to protect very young babies who appear in factual and reality programmes.<br />Section 1 - protecting the Under-Eighteens is mostly concerned with protection from what might be viewed. There is little to protect participants.<br />Specifically:<br />Section 1 <br />'The involvement of people under eighteen in programmes',<br />1.26 Due care must be taken over the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of people under eighteen who take part or are otherwise involved in programmes. This is irrespective of any consent given by the participant or by a parent, guardian or other person over the age of eighteen in loco parentis.<br />1.27 People under eighteen must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes or by the broadcast of those programmes.<br /><br />These clauses go some way in offering protection for these babies, but I suspect the context in which they appear with 1.28 will make it difficult to apply to my complaint. Your guidance notes Issue 4: 20 March 2007 have NO ADVICE under the heading Rule 1.26 to 1.28, other than a reference to Research: Consenting children: the use of children in non-fiction television programmes (2001) BSC; Consenting adults (2000) BSC<br /><br /><br />Section 2<br />Principle<br />To ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.<br /><br />2.2 'Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience'<br />I suggest Bringing Up Baby breaches clause 2.2, particularly in the context of paragraphs 2 and 4 of your guidance notes, Issue 7, 2 August 2007.<br /><br />Paragraph 2 reads<br />Nevertheless, Ofcom is required to guard against harmful or offensive material, and it is possible that actual or potential harm and / or offence may be the result of misleading material in relation to the representation of factual issues. This rule is therefore designed to deal with content which materially misleads the audience so as to cause harm or offence.<br />Paragraph 4 reads<br />Whether a programme or item is "materially" misleading depends on a number of factors such as the context, the editorial approach taken in the programme, the nature of the misleading material and above all what the potential effect could be or actual harm or offence that has occurred.<br /><br />Each of the 3 episodes of Bringing Up Baby clearly breach section 2 of your code.<br /><br />Channel 4 and Silver River Productions' have set out to deceive the public. They claim to have consulted widely with paediatricians, psychologists and others, and have written to reassure myself and others: "I would like to reassure you once again that we take the welfare of children in this series, as with all programmes, very seriously. Bringing Up Baby is a thoughtful and responsible observation of different methods of childcare. " This is not the case and is deliberately misleading. Both companies have not responded to my requests for details of who their advisors are.<br /><br />There follows a transcript of some of Part 3, broadcast 9th October, annotated by myself:<br />(Note. The transcript follows on this blog, so I've not repeated it here)Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-31977308653940750042007-10-10T16:32:00.001+01:002012-10-30T23:20:39.190+00:00Notes from part 3 of Bringing Up BabyBringing Up Baby Week 3<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Topic, crying and colic</span><br />This week portrayed scenes of an abusive and neglectful nature that were difficult to view. There is so much wrong with this series it is almost pointless highlighting specifics. The overwhelming message coming from the poor babies this week was one of dangerously heightened stress levels. Babies being force fed, babies vomiting, babies showing very red skin tone, back arching, and turning away when being held - avoidant behaviour. Babies close to collapse being roughly fed as part of a regime to be followed. Shocking scenes of babies becoming quiet... There are genuine child protection issues here.<br /><br />The time-frame here is 2 - 6 weeks<br /><br />Spock family, having 'their time' snuggled on sofa in the evening.<br />Dad: This is what we used to do <span style="font-style: italic;">(baby is 2 weeks old)</span><br />Mum: I feel physically sick when he cries - I don't know if you suffer from that.<br />...I gotta go.<br /><br />----<br />Mentors Claire Verity CV, Claire Scott CS (Continuum)<br /><br />CV Babies cry for no reason at all<br />CS They have such an anticipation about being held.<br />CV It isn't about being held, there isn't a reason why they cry all the time, sometimes they just cry for absolutely no reason at all. Very clever little things - they know exactly what's going on.<br />CS (gasp) You think they're manipulative don't you?<br />CV They are - very much, very much they are, course they are.<br /><br />----<br />Voice over (VO) Colic isn't harmful. Doctors advise babies are not left to cry for more than 15 mins<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">This scene was very difficult to view</span><br /><br />Truby King family with twins struggled with evening crying and had previously brought the twins down. CV suggests cutting the afternoon feed 'so it will feed better at 7.00 and sleep'. The feed is 1 1/2 oz.<br /><br />Mum: It doesn't seem like that much Claire, does it?<br />CV It isn't is it? I know, it's hardly anything at all. Right, that's good.<br />Right little (name), you're in for a bit of a shock hunny bunny. Make the most of it.<br />- It's quite a shock to the baby's system to do this, but it's just a one-off, or maybe tomorrow as well just to get them back into this routine of sleeping at 7 o clock because they're very much out of it by the sound of it and I'm not sure what's gone wrong. Something else has gone wrong somewhere else down the line, and we need to take this drastic action to get them back in otherwise they're going to keep doing this for a long time.<br />- There. What d'you think to that young man?<br />Mum (distressed, baby mouthing) Oh look, he's looking for food. I don't want to see him hungry.<br />CV He's going to be hungry, but it's up to you if you want to stop it right now and feed another 2 oz and be up and down stairs all night.<br />Mum: OK<br />CV I know you can do it.<br /><br />CV Rocking twins in buggy, to camera...<br />I think she thinks she's starving them and they're going to be really upset and they're going to hate her for it. I mean, they're only babies, they don't even know and at the end of the day, when it comes to bath time they'll be starving and that means they're going to take 4 oz which is a good night's sleep. You can't expect to be tied to a baby literally 24 hrs a day. You have to have time on your own, you need to have time out and that's between 7 and 11 when these babies are in bed.<br /><br />-----<br />VO To make sure they sleep in the evening she wakes the babies from their afternoon nap one hour earlier.<br /><br />What follows was a damming piece of broadcasting showing the abusive and brutal treatment of infants, which was almost impossible to watch.<br /><br />Babies screaming in distress<br />Mum (distressed): I hate it when she's crying.<br />CV It is all about at the end of the day keeping them awake during this hour just to keep them going so they're absolutely shattered and really hungry.<br /><br />The twins are so tired they can hardly feed - but they have stopped crying. They are being fed roughly to force them to take the milk, when they are exhausted.<br /><br />CV Come on madam.<br />Give it 100 per cent with this routine. No grey areas, black and white, all or nothing.<br /><br />Later, sat on settee, dad with a beer<br />CV This is what it's all about, you need to toughen up, really.<br />Mum: But it's so difficult Claire<br />CV No it isn't. Be firm at the end of the day you're the one that needs this time together.<br />Dad: I'll drink to that.<br />Mum appears defeated<br /><br />----<br />The breastfeeding in public discussion was very poor. Two of the mentors were shocked at the prospect and found it disgusting.<br /><br />----<br />CV Dad: Don't stick your tongue out at me. <span style="font-style: italic;">(See Social Baby book. This is early communication, and something to be celebrated. It is hugely empowering for dads if they know what is happening)</span><br /><br />----<br />CV's child minder mum (back to work after 6 weeks) feeding the baby quickly, twice. Baby sick.<br />CV It's all about how much you can get inside. It's like a car, the more you put in the further it goes. Just the same with a baby.<br /><br />Baby wakes at 2.45am<br /><br />VO After several traumatic nights (name)'s no longer waking. Are these the first parents to get an unbroken night? And just 6 weeks after giving birth (mum) is back at work as a childminder.Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-86149945726928266272007-10-10T08:50:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:38.276+00:00Gina Ford talks with Clive Dorman about Claire Verity and Bringing Up BabyFollowing the broadcast of part 3 of 4 of the dreadful Bringing Up Baby series last night (9 Oct), Gina Ford and Clive Dorman had a lengthy and mostly private conversation in which a wide range of topics were discussed. <br /><br />We are both passionate advocates of the styles of parenting we promote, which are quite different. However, we have found unlikely common ground in our condemnation of Channel 4's Bringing Up Baby. At the heart of this is our concern about the neglect and abuse of babies promoted by the misguided information being promoted by Claire Verity, Daisy Goodwin and Channel 4. <br /><br />Gina Ford said to me (in an agreed quote) that the series is "One of the worst parenting programmes I've ever seen. I just feel so sad for the babies." My comments are well documented on this blog.<br /><br />Like many of us, Gina Ford felt obliged to write to NSPCC, and with her permission the letter follows...<br /><br />Dear Mr Cloke,<br /><br />Re: Bringing Up Baby<br /><br />This is the second time this year I have had to write to you regarding the suffering of a tiny baby used to sensationalise child-rearing methods in a television programme. In both Bringing Up Baby and Gina Ford - Who Are You To Tell Us babies were left to cry when it was clear that they were genuinely hungry. In the first programme, Gina Ford - Who Are You To Tell Us, the programme makers did at least make it clear to the viewers that Gina Ford advises that if a tiny baby is crying, the parents should always assume that it is hungry and the baby should be fed.<br />However, in the latest TV programme on parenting methods, Bringing up Baby, Claire Verity advises that a newborn baby should be fed four hourly and that any crying should be ignored. While parents and health care officials alike will always be divided about the best way to bring up a baby, the advice given in this programme - not to feed a tiny crying baby - could endanger a baby's life, particularly if it is being breastfed. I would urge you to take immediate steps to ensure that production companies are not allowed to continue this form of child abuse.<br /><br />Best wishes<br />Gina FordClivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-73823566182837811072007-10-07T14:54:00.001+01:002012-10-30T23:20:37.359+00:00Daisy Goodwin's astonishing claims in Sunday Times OnlineDaisy Goodwin makes this astonishing claim in an article in Times Online on Sunday 7th Oct. Read <a href="http://www2.blogger.com/2007/06/letter-from-clive-dorman-to-silver.html" target="blank">my letter to her</a> in May. Daisy's continued refusal to accept she is damaging babies is a complete mystery to me. How completely irresponsible can someone be and still be allowed to work in their profession? Does she honestly believe there is no evidence? There is decades of evidence.<br /><br />Link to the full article is <a href="http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article2602620.ece" target="blank">here</a><br /><br />Excerpt from articles reads<br /><br />The gist of the protest was that following any kind of a routine with a baby was tantamount to child abuse, that leaving a newborn baby to cry would cause irreparable psychological harm. As one Mumsnet post puts it: "Watching Claire Verity abuse other people's babies in the name of 'routine' makes my blood boil. She should be prosecuted under child protection laws, it's disgusting." As responsible programme-makers we observed due diligence on this for Bringing Up Baby and there is absolutely no scientific evidence that following a routine in infancy has any deleterious effect on the psychological health of the child. There are some aspects of Truby King's routine, such as putting a child in its own room, which are now challenged by cot-death charities such as FSID, which advise mothers to keep babies in the same room for the first six months, and the programme makes current guidelines on this clear. But apart from that there is no hard medical evidence to suggest the Truby King approach poses any threat to a baby's physical or psychological health.<br /><br />Yes, she really does write... <span style="font-style: italic;">"there is no hard medical evidence to suggest the Truby King approach poses any threat to a baby's physical or psychological health"</span><br /><br />I suppose this is true if you don't talk to those who know.Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-35728233872163522832007-10-06T14:34:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:36.446+00:00Huggies veto posts to their discussion groupIt would seem posts to the Huggies Bringing Up Baby forum are being carefully censored. I joined their forum and posted a comment which has never appeared.<br /><br />There are very few comments on the Huggies Bringing Up Baby forum, which makes me wonder how many posts are being blocked.<br /><br />This of course, enables Kimberley Clarke to be economical with the truth about the depth of feeling over this programme.Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-74240822867501969832007-10-06T14:17:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:35.544+00:00Press Release from the Association of Infant Mental Health (AIMH)2 October 2007<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Association for Infant Mental Health (AIMH)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">PRESS RELEASE</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject: "Bringing up baby"</span><br /><br />Social experiments by health professionals must satisfy ethics committees that they are both useful and harmless. Yet a TV company can make a series described as settling "the right way to care for babies", by recruiting six pairs of pregnant parents and mentoring them to follow one of three historical methods.<br /><br />Twelve parents and their seven babies could not usefully contribute to child care debate and the show is clearly harmful to those taking part as the weeping mother and shocked father of the howling newborn, shut away at the mentor's insistence, alone until the next feed was due and then to be fed with no eye contact and held well away from mother's body, made clear. And the show will harm children of watching parents, too. These Truby King recommendations bedevilled the lives of our great grandparents. They have long been recognised as damaging to babies' development and to their relationships with parents, so advocating them on mass media is irresponsible. Claire Verity, the mentor, was unmoved by the distress she had orchestrated" People pay me £1000 a day to put their babies into a routine... That's what I firmly believe in". Claire Verity has no more right to prevent parents responding to their own babies and preach the rightness of doing so than a psychiatrist would have to insist that a bridge be built to his sketch rather than to an engineering specification.<br /><br />"Bringing up Baby" is not the first TV series to use the difficulties of volunteer parents and their volunteered babies to entertain the rest of us, (think "Baby Borrowers" or "Help I'm a Teenage mum") but it is the worst and should be the last, says the Association for Infant Mental Health. If television production companies and networks cannot police their own ethics and promote accurate information that viewers can trust, and Ofcom, their regulator cannot make voluntary codes effective, we need compulsory standards and an ethical review process for TV and radio programmes planning manipulations of Infant Care.<br /><br />AIMH UK<br />Knowle Clinic<br />Broadfield Road<br />Bristol BS4 2UH<br /><br />Tel: 0208 144 2386<br />Fax: 0117 370 1011<br />E-mail: info@aimh.org.uk<br />Website: www.aimh.org.ukClivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-490480073418372462007-10-05T21:18:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:34.635+00:00From a Truby King Survivor<span style=";font-family:lucida grande;font-size:100%;" >Claire Verity should read this, as should anyone who considers her methods have any sort of merit. I get more and more angry and upset about this entire episode.<br /><br />From our own discussion group...<br /><br />This is very sad re the long term effects of TK's regimes<br /><a href="http://www.openwriting.com/archives/2007/01/a_dangerous_ind_1.php">http://www.openwriting.com/archives/2007/01/a_dangerous_ind_1.php</a><br /><br /><br /></span>Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-63320639278446356612007-10-05T20:48:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:33.714+00:00Statement from The Children's Project about Channel 4's Bringing Up Baby<span style="font-family: lucida grande;font-size:100%;" >Statement from The Children's Project regarding Bringing Up baby on Channel 4 and Claire Verity<br />5th October 2007<br /><br />Newborn infants, babies and children should be equally protected from neglect, abuse and harm. In the home, in care environments, in school and in television programmes.<br /><br />This is true in all bar television.<br /><br />There are many regulations in place to protect infants which apply to childminders, nurseries and other childcare settings. Television is exempt from any such controls.<br /><br />The Ofcom Broadcasting Code makes no reference to infants, babies, or children. Section 1 - Protecting the Under-Eighteens is solely concerned with protection from what children might view. As such, broadcasters and production companies can use infants, babies and children as they see fit, with impunity.<br /><br />Ofcom advised us they will not act before a programme is broadcast and then, only if they feel their code has been breached. This leaves infants completely unprotected against programmes such Channel 4's Bringing Up baby.<br /><br />Bringing Up Baby follows three styles of parenting over the last 50 years. We are concerned with Truby King, mentored by Claire Verity. Truby King founded his ideas in the early 1900s and has been discredited for decades by research that has given us a better understanding of how an infant's brain develops, and the importance of babies forming secure attachments. Babies are born capable of experiencing a wide range of adult emotions, including pleasure, pain and fear, and contrary to popular opinion, they are highly organised and capable of showing their likes and dislikes.<br /><br />Bringing Up Baby shows parents being instructed to neglect their newborn infants' cries. In these circumstances, babies quickly become highly stressed, producing high levels of the stress hormone cortisol, which is extremely damaging to an infant's brain. Left unattended, they eventually give up. They learn there is no point in crying.<br /><br />Further instructions by Claire Verity in the programme state that there should be no eye contact, no cuddles (physical contact) and the baby should be left unattended outside for long periods of time between feeds. Formula is favoured to breast. In these circumstances, the brain makes adjustments in order to survive. Essential pathways in the brain that deal with empathy, social skills, and anger management simply don't get connected.<br /><br />Importantly for Claire Verity, her babies become quiet, which she views as a successful outcome. For those of us who are concerned with the emotional wellbeing of children, and understand the reasons for the quiet, the results are frightening.<br /><br />Clive Dorman<br />Director & Co-founder<br />The Children's Project<br />PO Box 2, Richmond, TW10 7YE, UK<br />E: clive@childrensproject.co.uk<br />T: 08450 94 54 94 F: 08450 94 54 84<br /><a href="http://www.socialbaby.com" target="blank">socialbaby.com</a><br /><br /><i>Further information and reading</i><br />Unicef Convention on the Rights of the Child<br />National Occupational Standards for Work with Parents<br />Sure Start Birth to Three Matters<br />HM Government Every Child Matters<br />Why Love Matters, Sue Gerhardt<br />The Science of Parenting, Margot Sunderland<br />The Social Baby, Lynne Murray & Liz Andrews</span>Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3208231492328297789.post-63173134424501103952007-10-05T11:55:00.000+01:002012-10-30T23:20:32.817+00:00Press Statement - In Response to Channel 4's 'Bringing Up Baby' Programme - For Immediate Release<span style=";font-family:lucida grande;font-size:100%;" ><br />The<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH)</span> is very concerned about some of the child rearing practices portrayed on the Channel 4 programme 'Bringing up Baby' and in particular sleeping arrangements. There is good evidence about the best sleeping arrangements to minimise cot death and the programme fails to makes this clear.<br /><br />We strongly advise viewers who are considering any of the methods shown in the programme to read the Department of Health's guidance on reducing the risk of cot death<br /><br />The RCPCH firmly support these guidelines and most importantly:<br /><br />• Place your baby on the back to sleep, in a cot in a room with you<br /><br />• Cut smoking in pregnancy – fathers too!<br /><br />• Do not let anyone smoke in the same room as your baby<br /><br />• Do not let your baby get too hot<br /><br />• Keep your baby’s head uncovered – place your baby in the 'feet to foot' position<br /><br />• Do not share a bed with your baby if you have been drinking alcohol, take drugs or if you are a smoker<br /><br />• If your baby is unwell, seek prompt advice.<br /><br />The RCPCH also strongly encourages breastfeeding as there are clear proven health benefits to both the baby and mother. Breastfeeding provides babies with optimal nutrition and helps protect them from infection in the first six months of their life. Nothing comes close to breast milk for the advantages it offers, and we hope that more mothers will make it their first choice for infant feeding.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Notes to editors: </span><br />- Department of Health - 'Reduce the risk of cot death: An easy guide' (2007 edition) - (http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4123625 <http: uk="" en="" publicationsandstatistics="" publications="" publicationspolicyandguidance="" dh_4123625=""> ). <br />- RCPCH was not approached for expert medical advice by the programme makers.<br />- RCPCH supports the Breastfeeding Manifesto - http://www.bestbeginnings.info/ <http: info=""> .<br /><br />Claire Brunert<br />Head of Media Affairs<br />Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health<br />50 Hallam Street<br />London<br />W1W 6DE<br /><br />www.rcpch.ac.uk <http: uk=""><br /><br />Leading the way in children's health<br /></http:></http:></http:></span>Clivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09142600766051639888noreply@blogger.com0