Ludicrous, its up to the parents to take some responsibility for crying out loud. Condoms are cheaper than the vodka that more than likely helped produce the child in the first place.
I don't get this Darwinism thing. Are people saying the kid should be left to kill herself? Sounds a bit harsh.
At least the mum isn't trying to claim compo from the manufacturer and I bet she doesn't leave liquitabs out for her little girl to eat any more. Blaming the people who make the tabs doesn't make her look very smart though.
I think it's more a case of "this parent is clearly not suitable to care for a child, if they are eating liquitabs now, what worse may befall the child in the future? Without supervision and discipline on top of a lazy parent, will this child end up just as bad or worse than her mother when she does grow up?" Something obviously needs to be done now to prevent more problems arising and it doesn't appear this girl's parent is exactly capable of doing that.
I don't think it's necessarily obvious that liquitabs would hold a special attraction for children (whereas I think people have by now got the hang of e.g. not storing bleach in lemonade bottles).
It's a very simple concept, as someone else has already stated. If it's not food, it's not a toy, and the child doesn't need access to it, store it somewhere that the child can't get it. That's all anyone has to remember. You don't even need to read the labels.
I think it's more a case of "this parent is clearly not suitable to care for a child, if they are eating liquitabs now, what worse may befall the child in the future? Without supervision and discipline on top of a lazy parent, will this child end up just as bad or worse than her mother when she does grow up?" Something obviously needs to be done now to prevent more problems arising and it doesn't appear this girl's parent is exactly capable of doing that.
Agreed. The chewing of a liquitab at such a young age almost guarantees a gymslip pregnancy and drug addiction before the age of 17.
I came home to find my three year old snorting my bicarbonate of soda because she thought it was cocaine. It's a disgrace.
Another vote for it being the parents' responsibility. Some of these people need protecting from themselves. I couldn't be arsed reading the whole article, but how did a 7 month old baby get a liquitab anyway? Surely not mobile yet?
My daughter started crawling last month and she's just turned 9 months...
Ludicrous, its up to the parents to take some responsibility for crying out loud. Condoms are cheaper than the vodka that more than likely helped produce the child in the first place.
Actually condoms are free if you present yourself at any GP who will then point you in the right direction, but where is the fun in that when you can get loads of money off the government to spend on **** and booze!. Oh and washing machine products that look just like sweeties!! :rolleyes:
With picture of said "mother" surprised she did not kick up a fuss about having those big earnings ripped from her ears because "they were to shiny" and her lovely daughter thought they were toys or even a teething ring!
The child should not be able to access them to begin with. They do print KEEP OUT OF REACH AND AWAY FROM CHILDREN on the side.
The fact is the covering soluble plastic is not flavoured at all because it is not meant to be put in your mouth. I think you'll find most plastics are not flavoured in any way because, well, they are plastic and not intended for consumption.
I don't think it's unreasonable for people to assume that the stuff inside liquitabs is just as innocuous as traditional soap flakes, rather than being the caustic nastiness which it seems to be.
Even the powder forms of Persil and Bold become chemically reactive to saliva and increase in their potency as detergents.
Also, there is part of me wondering, how hungry does a child have to be to try eat out of a cabinet full of cleaning materials rather than going to the fridge? Don't kids cry and tug their parents leg for attention when they want food anymore?
The same warnings are true of liquids in bottles, yet they still have bittering agents added to stop kids drinking the solution and to induce vomiting, and there'll be a childproof cap to hopefully prevent them ever getting that far. The reason for all that is enough accidents happened, and it may not always have involved the child of a suitable chav mother who needed a good dressing down to lick her parenting skills into shape.
I'm not interested in class snobbery, all that would concern me is the potential child victim, so it's a case of what can be done to provide an additional level of protection; a practical solution. This isn't an isolated incident or something only happening now, so maybe it's time for a rethink on the way these things are manufactured and packaged.
It seems that although children squeezing the liquitab has been mentioned in the BBC article, the greater risk is from the leverage and puncturing of a bite, which is how they'll swallow the liquid, and/or it squirts into their eyes when near their face. They wouldn't do that if it tasted 'orrible. That's why I've suggested coating the liquitab with a bittering agent, it makes no odds what the capsule surface is made of, its entirety is designed to be soluble, and is therefore absorbent.
I noticed a recall for Ovenpride cleaner in my local Sainsburys due to a safety problen with the cap. Turns out a child drank it because it was left on the table. Because of that, all customers have been asked to take back the product, what a waste! I suppose the manufacturers will have to think of a different cap design now, even although children have been able to get into child-proof bottles for years; it's the adults that have trouble
For the record, even once I could walk I never got into any harmful chemicals because I was told not to, why bother when there's actual food to eat? Worse thing I ate was mud (hopefully) off my shoe because I thought it was chocolate! I still don't understand that thought process
I personally think a £5 lock at the parents cost should come before us having to pay for the new packaging revisions that would be required. When did childproofing your home stop being the job of parents? I await "EDF should make all power to plug sockets turn off immediately when you pull a plug out, my child played with a switch and stuck a fork in, now she's got third degree burns!" to end up in the news because apparently noone thought to spend on some of these...
Some people should just not be allowed to breed. Chav mum spots opportunity to possibly make some cash from a big manufacturer, probably. Someone needs to tell this girl to grow up and stop being stupid and learn what parental responsibility is. Oooh, I sound quite right wing.
I agree with you, but the problem is that the media always seem to take the side of the parent.
The BBC article isn't taking Shannon Hutchison to task and asking her what she was playing at ?
This shouldn't end up all over the news unless it's to hold up 'parents' like Ms Hutchison as an example of a bad mother.
My thoughts on seeing this immediately goes to the words "manufacturer" and "compensation".
Some parents appear not even to have the mental ability to look after themselves, never mind looking after a child.
When my child had young I used to keep anything that was sharp, poisonous and even kept my bottles of whisky, gin, etc., either in high cupboards out of reach or in locked cupboards the key kept on a high hook on the wall.
After a close friend some years ago had a 2-year-old child drown by falling in a fish pond in a neighbours garden and although it would be rare for a young child to have access to my garden I even have my fish pond childproofed to prevent drowning.
My three year old niece is a practiced escape artist - she can open her stairgate (and charmingly, she always closes it behind her, keeping her twin brother shut it), and she constructed a set of stairs to reach a laser cat toy put out of her reach.
My sister and her husband continually have to be three steps ahead with her (and she drives the nursery staff mental, though she's not being 'naughty' as such, just endlessly curious). But they do it. One day she may manage something dangerous, but at least her parents are making the effort. 'A two year old had access and managed to give my 7 month old a liquitab without my knowing of it' doesn't sound like all that much effort to me.
And after one has done that one should also lock up and put out of reach the detergents etc.
More seriously, I find nothing to disagree with in this thread.
I noticed my crap writing after the time limit for editing had expired! It would be much easier to put the children out of reach, I agree.
We have a kitchen door that can be shut and the handle is too high for a toddler to reach. So even if the dangerous stuff was on the floor or in an unlocked cupboard, we can shut the kitchen door.
Incidentally, we keep the sweets out of reach as well. Children should be taught to ask for things rather than just help themselves.
I don't think making unfounded allegations is particularly helpful.
Didn't someone post something a while ago that suggested those things were less safe than nothing at all?
Not unfounded at all. If you all of a sudden change the packaging of a liquitab to make it look like a lollipop, and then expect the mothers who have been shopping there for years to suddenly be aware of the new packaging, and then not expect a complaint, then you are a foolish retailer. The retailer deserves all its gonna get, INCLUDING being splashed all over the media
She must give her kid some bloody big sweeties to mistake a liquitab for one
I have had three children and I have one grandchild and I have never had to lock any cupboard doors
they all knew better than to go into a cupboard that was out of bounds to them and IMO a seven month old should have had better supervision than another young child
the mother should be blaming the person who was incharge of the children and not maufacturers who do put WARNINGS on their products
but then I suppose its easy money when she sues them
Not unfounded at all. If you all of a sudden change the packaging of a liquitab to make it look like a lollipop, and then expect the mothers who have been shopping there for years to suddenly be aware of the new packaging, and then not expect a complaint, then you are a foolish retailer. The retailer deserves all its gonna get, INCLUDING being splashed all over the media
So parent's aren't responsible for their children? And do you have a picture of the old and new packaging?
I think it's more a case of "this parent is clearly not suitable to care for a child, if they are eating liquitabs now, what worse may befall the child in the future? Without supervision and discipline on top of a lazy parent, will this child end up just as bad or worse than her mother when she does grow up?" Something obviously needs to be done now to prevent more problems arising and it doesn't appear this girl's parent is exactly capable of doing that.
So the opposite of "Darwinism" then.
Is she really going to sue the manufacturers? It looked to me like she was part of an information and awareness campaign for stupid people. With all those warnings on the box she wouldn't have a leg to stand on anyway.
I find it amazing she can afford gold hoop Pat Butcher style earrings but not a child proof catch lock from Mothercare. Shows where he priorities are.
I don't have child locks on anything and I've never had an incident in 9 years of having children. I keep an eye on them and tell them not to touch things. If something were to befall my children, I wouldn't blame the manufacturer.
I keep the really dangerous stuff in the garage.
Comments
I think it's more a case of "this parent is clearly not suitable to care for a child, if they are eating liquitabs now, what worse may befall the child in the future? Without supervision and discipline on top of a lazy parent, will this child end up just as bad or worse than her mother when she does grow up?" Something obviously needs to be done now to prevent more problems arising and it doesn't appear this girl's parent is exactly capable of doing that.
It's a very simple concept, as someone else has already stated. If it's not food, it's not a toy, and the child doesn't need access to it, store it somewhere that the child can't get it. That's all anyone has to remember. You don't even need to read the labels.
Agreed. The chewing of a liquitab at such a young age almost guarantees a gymslip pregnancy and drug addiction before the age of 17.
Another vote for it being the parents' responsibility. Some of these people need protecting from themselves. I couldn't be arsed reading the whole article, but how did a 7 month old baby get a liquitab anyway? Surely not mobile yet?
My daughter started crawling last month and she's just turned 9 months...
Here we go - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywlZyfiKBJ4&feature=related
Actually condoms are free if you present yourself at any GP who will then point you in the right direction, but where is the fun in that when you can get loads of money off the government to spend on **** and booze!. Oh and washing machine products that look just like sweeties!! :rolleyes:
With picture of said "mother" surprised she did not kick up a fuss about having those big earnings ripped from her ears because "they were to shiny" and her lovely daughter thought they were toys or even a teething ring!
The same warnings are true of liquids in bottles, yet they still have bittering agents added to stop kids drinking the solution and to induce vomiting, and there'll be a childproof cap to hopefully prevent them ever getting that far. The reason for all that is enough accidents happened, and it may not always have involved the child of a suitable chav mother who needed a good dressing down to lick her parenting skills into shape.
I'm not interested in class snobbery, all that would concern me is the potential child victim, so it's a case of what can be done to provide an additional level of protection; a practical solution. This isn't an isolated incident or something only happening now, so maybe it's time for a rethink on the way these things are manufactured and packaged.
From 3 years ago:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226738/Children-poisoned-modern-concentrated-washing-machine-capsules.html
It seems that although children squeezing the liquitab has been mentioned in the BBC article, the greater risk is from the leverage and puncturing of a bite, which is how they'll swallow the liquid, and/or it squirts into their eyes when near their face. They wouldn't do that if it tasted 'orrible. That's why I've suggested coating the liquitab with a bittering agent, it makes no odds what the capsule surface is made of, its entirety is designed to be soluble, and is therefore absorbent.
For the record, even once I could walk I never got into any harmful chemicals because I was told not to, why bother when there's actual food to eat? Worse thing I ate was mud (hopefully) off my shoe because I thought it was chocolate! I still don't understand that thought process
I don't think making unfounded allegations is particularly helpful.
Didn't someone post something a while ago that suggested those things were less safe than nothing at all?
I agree with you, but the problem is that the media always seem to take the side of the parent.
The BBC article isn't taking Shannon Hutchison to task and asking her what she was playing at ?
This shouldn't end up all over the news unless it's to hold up 'parents' like Ms Hutchison as an example of a bad mother.
Some parents appear not even to have the mental ability to look after themselves, never mind looking after a child.
When my child had young I used to keep anything that was sharp, poisonous and even kept my bottles of whisky, gin, etc., either in high cupboards out of reach or in locked cupboards the key kept on a high hook on the wall.
After a close friend some years ago had a 2-year-old child drown by falling in a fish pond in a neighbours garden and although it would be rare for a young child to have access to my garden I even have my fish pond childproofed to prevent drowning.
My sister and her husband continually have to be three steps ahead with her (and she drives the nursery staff mental, though she's not being 'naughty' as such, just endlessly curious). But they do it. One day she may manage something dangerous, but at least her parents are making the effort. 'A two year old had access and managed to give my 7 month old a liquitab without my knowing of it' doesn't sound like all that much effort to me.
Does anyone accept their own responsibilities anymore!?
I noticed my crap writing after the time limit for editing had expired! It would be much easier to put the children out of reach, I agree.
We have a kitchen door that can be shut and the handle is too high for a toddler to reach. So even if the dangerous stuff was on the floor or in an unlocked cupboard, we can shut the kitchen door.
Incidentally, we keep the sweets out of reach as well. Children should be taught to ask for things rather than just help themselves.
Not unfounded at all. If you all of a sudden change the packaging of a liquitab to make it look like a lollipop, and then expect the mothers who have been shopping there for years to suddenly be aware of the new packaging, and then not expect a complaint, then you are a foolish retailer. The retailer deserves all its gonna get, INCLUDING being splashed all over the media
I have had three children and I have one grandchild and I have never had to lock any cupboard doors
they all knew better than to go into a cupboard that was out of bounds to them and IMO a seven month old should have had better supervision than another young child
the mother should be blaming the person who was incharge of the children and not maufacturers who do put WARNINGS on their products
but then I suppose its easy money when she sues them
So parent's aren't responsible for their children? And do you have a picture of the old and new packaging?
Is she really going to sue the manufacturers? It looked to me like she was part of an information and awareness campaign for stupid people. With all those warnings on the box she wouldn't have a leg to stand on anyway.
I don't have child locks on anything and I've never had an incident in 9 years of having children. I keep an eye on them and tell them not to touch things. If something were to befall my children, I wouldn't blame the manufacturer.
I keep the really dangerous stuff in the garage.