yes probably, I don't get what about the poor misguided kids how they could possibly turn out in the future. None of this has happened yet as ever and if they turn out 'screwed' who could apportion blame to the father or mother or both nobody knows. But if there was a serious intention and concern about those children and their vulnerabilty, I'm sure there would be at least a pettition or something to stop it happening. I'll wait for a link to sign up to:)
Why do people have an issue with children in reality TV having the same rights as child performers? Reality TV is still a form of entertainment and they are being used for entertainment purposes.
I've no problem with Junior performing on tour as long as he is covered by the same rights and regulations as other child performers. If all he does is run on and wave or bring a stool on, that to me is not part of the show as such and as long as he doesn't have to do it if he doesn't want to that's not an issue for me.
Why do people have an issue with children in reality TV having the same rights as child performers? Reality TV is still a form of entertainment and they are being used for entertainment purposes.
I've no problem with Junior performing on tour as long as he is covered by the same rights and regulations as other child performers. If all he does is run on and wave or bring a stool on, that to me is not part of the show as such and as long as he doesn't have to do it if he doesn't want to that's not an issue for me.
As it stands, they don't have those rights, although it has been accepted that this is something that needs addressing.
Why do people have an issue with children in reality TV having the same rights as child performers? Reality TV is still a form of entertainment and they are being used for entertainment purposes.
I've no problem with Junior performing on tour as long as he is covered by the same rights and regulations as other child performers. If all he does is run on and wave or bring a stool on, that to me is not part of the show as such and as long as he doesn't have to do it if he doesn't want to that's not an issue for me.
But it's not right if he's in the show every night and missing school, even if it's only for a few minutes and in a run-on-run-off part. I doubt anyone would sanction him missing out on his schooling anyway, after all, ordinary parents who take their kids out of school in term time aren't looked on too kindly.
But it's not right if he's in the show every night and missing school, even if it's only for a few minutes and in a run-on-run-off part. I doubt anyone would sanction him missing out on his schooling anyway, after all, ordinary parents who take their kids out of school in term time aren't looked on too kindly.
I think they have to have a tutor with them as part of the regulations. Lot's of soap kids manage like that, kids performing in the west end too. How good it is for him to have time off school, who knows. It seems to be okay for others or they would stop all child performers performing.
But it's not right if he's in the show every night and missing school, even if it's only for a few minutes and in a run-on-run-off part. I doubt anyone would sanction him missing out on his schooling anyway, after all, ordinary parents who take their kids out of school in term time aren't looked on too kindly.
Sorry but it's not right if that has happened, it hasn't yet....
I was happy enough when KP announced she wanted the kids to take a back seat in her show, the problem i have with PA is all he goes on about is what a WONDERFUL father he is!! "look how wonderful i am!! I SO love my kids"!!!! well in my world that is NO BIG DEAL, all the men in my life are wonderful fathers, my Dad, my Hubby, my brother, my bro-in-law, AND all my friends husbands, so Pete is no big deal!!! he expects to be applauded for doing his damn JOB as a father!!
Same.
Only, there is more to being a responsible father than a few careful PR stunts. I.e. not exploiting your child to gain appraisal from your fans.
Only, there is more to being a responsible father than a few careful PR stunts. I.e. not exploiting your child to gain appraisal from your fans.
yes Peter said the same thing a few weeks ago, and also the same 'it's the childrens' choice there was a thread on here about it if it's slipped anyone's memory , perhaps we should give a round of applause to the pair of them for coming to the same conclusion?:)
yes Peter said the same thing a few weeks ago, and also the same 'it's the childrens' choice there was a thread on here about it if it's slipped anyone's memory , perhaps we should give a round of applause to the pair of them for coming to the same conclusion?:)
He said that he would discuss it with them if they raised concerns. Which isn't the same really. Which was discussed in depth in the other thread,:)
yes Peter said the same thing a few weeks ago, and also the same 'it's the childrens' choice there was a thread on here about it if it's slipped anyone's memory , perhaps we should give a round of applause to the pair of them for coming to the same conclusion?:)
He said that he would discuss it with them if they raised concerns. Which isn't the same really. Which was discussed in depth in the other thread,:)
Ah I see one parent has to ask and the other parent says it a few weeks later, really not the same - IMO just playing off the other as previous responses. Thanks for putting up the thread I'm not great at links:)
Ah I see one parent has to ask and the other parent says it a few weeks later, really not the same - IMO just playing off the other as previous responses. Thanks for putting up the thread I'm not great at links:)
Yeah, that is exactly what I said.:rolleyes:
Or did I just point out that Pa didn't say he was going to stop, or even that he was going to stop if the kids asked, just that he would talk to the kids about stopping if they said they didn't want their privacy invaded anymore.
Or did I just point out that Pa didn't say he was going to stop, or even that he was going to stop if the kids asked, just that he would talk to the kids about stopping if they said they didn't want their privacy invaded anymore.
He was going to ask them very much the same the other week as katie this week saying it was their choice - you are right pretty much the same really in the giving the children the choice respect, I agree neither of them are really going to stop are they - any solutions for that?:)
He was going to ask them very much the same the other week as katie this week saying it was their choice - you are right pretty much the same really in the giving the children the choice respect, I agree neither of them are really going to stop are they - any solutions for that?:)
Nope. But that wont stop me commenting on it. Or others. Or others popping up to say "Well, they haven't had their lives ruined by their parents selfishness and greed yet!".
That is the point of an opinions forum. People give their opinions on things.
My opinion on the subject of this thread, rather than the old thread that had already been discussed is that Junior should at the very least get the same protection from exploitation as other child performers get - his own contract, his own pay, a chaperone for him.
Or, better yet, Pa should stop using his kid as an accessory to him and let him grow up before he pushes him on the stage to be the next Michael Jackson impersonator in the family.
I may take an enforced holiday for the following, but....
After his seperation he used his love for someone elses disabled child to show what a great father and human being he is.
Based on him saying his ex had the 'licence' to the child's image any suggestion he was using the child to promote his record must be far from the truth.
He told the media the reason he features his children in his reality shows is so they have a professionally shot record of their holidays.
The fact his children feature heavily, if not more than him, in promos for his shows has no financial or publicity benefit for himself.
I may take an enforced holiday for the following, but....
After his seperation he used his love for someone elses disabled child to show what a great father and human being he is.
Based on him saying his ex had the 'licence' to the child's image any suggestion he was using the child to promote his record must be far from the truth.
He told the media the reason he features his children in his reality shows is so they have a professionally shot record of their holidays.
The fact his children feature heavily, if not more than him, in promos for his shows has no financial or publicity benefit for himself.
IMO. The children do not feature that much in his actual show. The last episode l saw, it showed them visiting Cadburyworld.....about 5 mins.
ITV advertising PA prog tonight: PA the popstar and father LOL we know enough already. :yawn:
Is it disgusting to be PA the popstar and father? I think it would be disgusting to be PA the popstar and the one who doesn't bother with his children (as Dwight York for instance).
What is the big deal about PA loving his children and saying so? No matter how many times he says it...it is better than him having nothing to do with them surely? :rolleyes:
Is it disgusting to be PA the popstar and father? I think it would be disgusting to be PA the popstar and the one who doesn't bother with his children (as Dwight York for instance).
What is the big deal about PA loving his children and saying so? No matter how many times he says it...it is better than him having nothing to do with them surely? :rolleyes:
There are never enough times that we need reminding.:D
As long as we are reminded he is a good father rather than one who has rejected his children and doesn't bother with them...then surely that's ok isn't it?
As long as we are reminded he is a good father rather than one who has rejected his children and doesn't bother with them...then surely that's ok isn't it?
Is there nothing in the middle then? Are all the millions of men who are not on tv, or in mags constantly going on about what a good dad they are, are they on the Dwight end of the scale?
Or can we accept that it is not actually necessary to continually tell the world, but it is necessary to BE the best dad you can be. To put your kids first, rather than talk about it. To respect their needs, even when they clash with your own wants.
Is there nothing in the middle then? Are all the millions of men who are not on tv, or in mags constantly going on about what a good dad they are, are they on the Dwight end of the scale?
Or can we accept that it is not actually necessary to continually tell the world, but it is necessary to BE the best dad you can be. To put your kids first, rather than talk about it. To respect their needs, even when they clash with your own wants.
My post has nothing to do with middle ground. It was a query to Goldi that surely it is better to be known as a good father than a rotten one.
My post has nothing to do with middle ground. It was a query to Goldi that surely it is better to be known as a good father than a rotten one.
And my post is saying is there not an awful lot of ground between? Because being Pa or being Dwight are not actually the only two options available to men.
Personally, I wouldn't want either of them to be the model for fatherhood. Both selfish, both put themselves first. One just makes a bigger song and dance about doing what millions of men do every day without the least amount of fuss.
Comments
Why do people have an issue with children in reality TV having the same rights as child performers? Reality TV is still a form of entertainment and they are being used for entertainment purposes.
I've no problem with Junior performing on tour as long as he is covered by the same rights and regulations as other child performers. If all he does is run on and wave or bring a stool on, that to me is not part of the show as such and as long as he doesn't have to do it if he doesn't want to that's not an issue for me.
As it stands, they don't have those rights, although it has been accepted that this is something that needs addressing.
But it's not right if he's in the show every night and missing school, even if it's only for a few minutes and in a run-on-run-off part. I doubt anyone would sanction him missing out on his schooling anyway, after all, ordinary parents who take their kids out of school in term time aren't looked on too kindly.
I think they have to have a tutor with them as part of the regulations. Lot's of soap kids manage like that, kids performing in the west end too. How good it is for him to have time off school, who knows. It seems to be okay for others or they would stop all child performers performing.
Sorry but it's not right if that has happened, it hasn't yet....
Same.
Only, there is more to being a responsible father than a few careful PR stunts. I.e. not exploiting your child to gain appraisal from your fans.
yes Peter said the same thing a few weeks ago, and also the same 'it's the childrens' choice there was a thread on here about it if it's slipped anyone's memory , perhaps we should give a round of applause to the pair of them for coming to the same conclusion?:)
He said that he would discuss it with them if they raised concerns. Which isn't the same really. Which was discussed in depth in the other thread,:)
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1368858&highlight=pa
Ah I see one parent has to ask and the other parent says it a few weeks later, really not the same - IMO just playing off the other as previous responses. Thanks for putting up the thread I'm not great at links:)
Yeah, that is exactly what I said.:rolleyes:
Or did I just point out that Pa didn't say he was going to stop, or even that he was going to stop if the kids asked, just that he would talk to the kids about stopping if they said they didn't want their privacy invaded anymore.
He was going to ask them very much the same the other week as katie this week saying it was their choice - you are right pretty much the same really in the giving the children the choice respect, I agree neither of them are really going to stop are they - any solutions for that?:)
Nope. But that wont stop me commenting on it. Or others. Or others popping up to say "Well, they haven't had their lives ruined by their parents selfishness and greed yet!".
That is the point of an opinions forum. People give their opinions on things.
My opinion on the subject of this thread, rather than the old thread that had already been discussed is that Junior should at the very least get the same protection from exploitation as other child performers get - his own contract, his own pay, a chaperone for him.
Or, better yet, Pa should stop using his kid as an accessory to him and let him grow up before he pushes him on the stage to be the next Michael Jackson impersonator in the family.
I didn't say it had - just speculating like everyone else on here.
After his seperation he used his love for someone elses disabled child to show what a great father and human being he is.
Based on him saying his ex had the 'licence' to the child's image any suggestion he was using the child to promote his record must be far from the truth.
He told the media the reason he features his children in his reality shows is so they have a professionally shot record of their holidays.
The fact his children feature heavily, if not more than him, in promos for his shows has no financial or publicity benefit for himself.
IMO. The children do not feature that much in his actual show. The last episode l saw, it showed them visiting Cadburyworld.....about 5 mins.
Is it disgusting to be PA the popstar and father? I think it would be disgusting to be PA the popstar and the one who doesn't bother with his children (as Dwight York for instance).
What is the big deal about PA loving his children and saying so? No matter how many times he says it...it is better than him having nothing to do with them surely? :rolleyes:
No of course not but it made me laugh:D
Why?
There are never enough times that we need reminding.:D
As long as we are reminded he is a good father rather than one who has rejected his children and doesn't bother with them...then surely that's ok isn't it?
Is there nothing in the middle then? Are all the millions of men who are not on tv, or in mags constantly going on about what a good dad they are, are they on the Dwight end of the scale?
Or can we accept that it is not actually necessary to continually tell the world, but it is necessary to BE the best dad you can be. To put your kids first, rather than talk about it. To respect their needs, even when they clash with your own wants.
My post has nothing to do with middle ground. It was a query to Goldi that surely it is better to be known as a good father than a rotten one.
And my post is saying is there not an awful lot of ground between? Because being Pa or being Dwight are not actually the only two options available to men.
Personally, I wouldn't want either of them to be the model for fatherhood. Both selfish, both put themselves first. One just makes a bigger song and dance about doing what millions of men do every day without the least amount of fuss.