True, but have never in my experience heard a child ask why someone's face is dirty, children aren't that stupid imo.
I have never heard it either, esp seeing as if you are a different colour your entire body including your hands and neck etc that are on show will be the same colour, so it wouldn't look like their face was dirty as they would be all one colour.
Even if you find it funny, it will never be as funny as my friend asking his mum on the bus in a big loud kid's voice: "Mummy, why has that donkey in the field got five legs?" Cue quick exit from bus at next stop
Even if you find it funny, it will never be as funny as my friend asking his mum on the bus in a big loud kid's voice: "Mummy, why has that donkey in the field got five legs?" Cue quick exit from bus at next stop
I have never heard it either, esp seeing as if you are a different colour your entire body including your hands and neck etc that are on show will be the same colour, so it wouldn't look like their face was dirty as they would be all one colour.
I think maybe the child was misunderstood, maybe they meant why is that person darker or brown ?
I know my little girl uses the word "messy" to describe being dirty so maybe it was just a bit of word substitution or something...?
I remember when I was little, our neighbours were mixed race - their mum was white and their dad was a black Nigerian fellow. They had two boys and when the mum had another baby a little girl I asked the lady why the baby wasn't brown like her brothers (she was a newborn so was a lot lighter). My mum was moritifed but I think that was a perfectly natural thing to ask, I think my mum ushered me away because she was so embarrassed!
I LOVE that!!!! But some people would read it and think it was serious:rolleyes::rolleyes: I loved the one about Channel 4's extreme dieting too, very amusing
My friends little boy was scared when he first saw her as he thought his arm might fall off (like the lady on the telly) but after my friend explained to him about her and how she was born that way and how she was just like everyone else he seemed to understand - the next night he asked to watch the programme with the clever lady - we wondered who he was talking about at first but it transpired that he thought she was clever for doing her clothes and shoes up with one hand as he finds it difficult still with two hands
He looks forward to seeing her, and his initial shock was probably due to the fact that his little world is not yet full of disabilities or different races - communication is the key and if more people can understand that everyone is different but no less a human being then the world will be a better place
I think maybe the child was misunderstood, maybe they meant why is that person darker or brown ?
I know my little girl uses the word "messy" to describe being dirty so maybe it was just a bit of word substitution or something...?
I remember when I was little, our neighbours were mixed race - their mum was white and their dad was a black Nigerian fellow. They had two boys and when the mum had another baby a little girl I asked the lady why the baby wasn't brown like her brothers (she was a newborn so was a lot lighter). My mum was moritifed but I think that was a perfectly natural thing to ask, I think my mum ushered me away because she was so embarrassed!
I have a niece and nephew who's father is indian, so their skin is a different colour from the rest of our family and they do often ask why they can't be white and its unfair that they are a different colour, I just tell them they look beautiful as they are.
Kids always ask silly questions and sometimes very embarassing ones.
My two year old has never mentioned Cerrie's arm, in fact she just wanders off when they come on. She does however miss Chris and Pui and gets really excited when Andy shows how to make a Birthday card useing photographs of them.
I think that the new presenters are non offensive to children but I find the strange facial expressions they pull quite disturbing. The young man looks sad all the time like he has the weight of the world on his young shoulders even when he breifly smiles and Cerrie looks like she is on some sort of medication and with both there is a disinct lack of animation. They don't seem to engage the children I know as the previous presenters did, I simply think that Chris and Pui were such a hard act to follow that most presenters would have problems stepping into their shoes.
I have never heard it either, esp seeing as if you are a different colour your entire body including your hands and neck etc that are on show will be the same colour, so it wouldn't look like their face was dirty as they would be all one colour.
What is the first thing you look at when you look at a person??? Their face. Children don't think about whether they are hurting anyone, they do ask questions like that, especially if they aren't used to different colour.
My two year old has never mentioned Cerrie's arm, in fact she just wanders off when they come on. She does however miss Chris and Pui and gets really excited when Andy shows how to make a Birthday card useing photographs of them.
I think that the new presenters are non offensive to children but I find the strange facial expressions they pull quite disturbing. The young man looks sad all the time like he has the weight of the world on his young shoulders even when he breifly smiles and Cerrie looks like she is on some sort of medication and with both there is a disinct lack of animation. They don't seem to engage the children I know as the previous presenters did, I simply think that Chris and Pui were such a hard act to follow that most presenters would have problems stepping into their shoes.
And bring back "Bedtime business"
My two girls are the same, my oldest has noticed her arm but was not even slightly bothered she just asked why it was shorter. Neither of my two really like the presenters, they're just not interested in them like you said we-know-you, there is not conections between the presenters and children.
My 4 year old son watches cbeebies, I hadn't noticed the missing arm and I do watch, until I read about her on this thread. My son hasn't noticed it, and if he has he hasn't said anything.
My view, she has every right to appear on television, they've given her a job, it takes many people to make the world, and I see nothing wrong. It's a good way to educate children on the diversity of life, and should be approached in a manner that doesn't scare a child. If the parents can drag themselves off their mobiles for 5 mins to actually sit with their children and discuss this diversity, there wouldn't be a problem.
It's not as bad as my Mum's best friend's son saying
"Why's the man got a dirty face, Mummy?" :D:D:D:D
You should worry. Many years ago we were following another family into the local sports centre when my son, then about four, with a voice that couldn't have been clearer had he used a megaphone, chimed in with "that lady's got a very big bottom, hasn't she?"
There seems to be some confusion in this thread as to whether we are discussing Ms Burnell's abilities (or lack thereof) as a presenter, or whether we are discussing her physical disability. I dare say there may be some confusion at the BBC too. I don't dismiss out of hand the possibility that there may be some bias in her favour <i>because</i> of her disability but really I don't care.
I would consider it legitimate for viewers to complain to the BBC if they felt she was a poor presenter. Whether or not such complaints would be justified, I don't know. I have never seen the lady. What I find totally unacceptable is the notion that anyone can complain on the grounds of her disability. I understand that there were only eight or nine formal complaints but IMHO that's eight or nine too many.
Unfortunately, as with any issue, the number who are sufficiently motivated to send in a formal complaint will only be a small minority of those who hold similar views. The depressing conclusion, therefore, is that there is probably a significant number of people who are so psychologically disabled that they feel the need to shield their children from physically disabled people. Even more unfortunately, the inevitable consequence is that this prejudice will be handed down to the next generation.
There seems to be some confusion in this thread as to whether we are discussing Ms Burnell's abilities (or lack thereof) as a presenter, or whether we are discussing her physical disability. I dare say there may be some confusion at the BBC too. I don't dismiss out of hand the possibility that there may be some bias in her favour <i>because</i> of her disability but really I don't care.
I would consider it legitimate for viewers to complain to the BBC if they felt she was a poor presenter. Whether or not such complaints would be justified, I don't know. I have never seen the lady. What I find totally unacceptable is the notion that anyone can complain on the grounds of her disability. I understand that there were only eight or nine formal complaints but IMHO that's eight or nine too many.
Unfortunately, as with any issue, the number who are sufficiently motivated to send in a formal complaint will only be a small minority of those who hold similar views. The depressing conclusion, therefore, is that there is probably a significant number of people who are so psychologically disabled that they feel the need to shield their children from physically disabled people. Even more unfortunately, the inevitable consequence is that this prejudice will be handed down to the next generation.
I concur wholeheartedly, the woman should by judged on her ability not her disability. As I mentioned in an earlier post my daughter either didn't notice her shorter arm or if she did notice then she didn't comment. My daughter just shows disinterest. I can only speak as I find, perhaps there are plenty of children who prefer the laid lower key delivery of the new presenters.
Children of the stones, for a start. Children's TV now is all bright colours and cheery hosts and rubbish children sit com type programmes. Do you think it's more scary now? You must be wrapped in cotton wool. :rolleyes:
Children of the stones, for a start. Children's TV now is all bright colours and cheery hosts and rubbish children sit com type programmes. Do you think it's more scary now? You must be wrapped in cotton wool. :rolleyes:
No I don't think tv is scarier now, I never said that. What I said is that CBeebies is aimed at 2-5 year olds and the edgier and grittier programmes are largely aimed at a teenage audience.
To use your phrase, I don't think tv audiences are being "wrapped in cotton wool" but as I mentioned before funding has been almost completely removed from the age group that would have enjoyed programmes such as "Children of the Stones" so rather than tv being "less scary" it is actually non existent.
Children of the stones, for a start. Children's TV now is all bright colours and cheery hosts and rubbish children sit com type programmes. Do you think it's more scary now? You must be wrapped in cotton wool. :rolleyes:
And for the record, I don't think 90's tv was any less scary. I remember programmes like The Chestnut Soldier, Goosebumps and The Snow Spider scaring the living daylights out of me.
Comments
I have never heard it either, esp seeing as if you are a different colour your entire body including your hands and neck etc that are on show will be the same colour, so it wouldn't look like their face was dirty as they would be all one colour.
I don't get it?
I think maybe the child was misunderstood, maybe they meant why is that person darker or brown
I know my little girl uses the word "messy" to describe being dirty so maybe it was just a bit of word substitution or something...?
I remember when I was little, our neighbours were mixed race - their mum was white and their dad was a black Nigerian fellow. They had two boys and when the mum had another baby a little girl I asked the lady why the baby wasn't brown like her brothers (she was a newborn so was a lot lighter). My mum was moritifed but I think that was a perfectly natural thing to ask, I think my mum ushered me away because she was so embarrassed!
I LOVE that!!!! But some people would read it and think it was serious:rolleyes::rolleyes: I loved the one about Channel 4's extreme dieting too, very amusing
Oh, the innocence of youth. Ever heard the phrase "hung like a donkey"?
Think about it, Tiffany!:D:D:D
My son once asked an entire train carriage to look at the cows giving each other piggy backs in the adjacent field:o
Ohh I get it now lol my brain doesn't function well in the moring or afternoon or evening for that matter lol
He looks forward to seeing her, and his initial shock was probably due to the fact that his little world is not yet full of disabilities or different races - communication is the key and if more people can understand that everyone is different but no less a human being then the world will be a better place
I have a niece and nephew who's father is indian, so their skin is a different colour from the rest of our family and they do often ask why they can't be white and its unfair that they are a different colour, I just tell them they look beautiful as they are.
Kids always ask silly questions and sometimes very embarassing ones.
I think that the new presenters are non offensive to children but I find the strange facial expressions they pull quite disturbing. The young man looks sad all the time like he has the weight of the world on his young shoulders even when he breifly smiles and Cerrie looks like she is on some sort of medication and with both there is a disinct lack of animation. They don't seem to engage the children I know as the previous presenters did, I simply think that Chris and Pui were such a hard act to follow that most presenters would have problems stepping into their shoes.
And bring back "Bedtime business"
How insulting to the poor woman is that. Imagine how she felt reading that she was scaring the people her profession is based around, kids.
What is the first thing you look at when you look at a person??? Their face. Children don't think about whether they are hurting anyone, they do ask questions like that, especially if they aren't used to different colour.
My two girls are the same, my oldest has noticed her arm but was not even slightly bothered she just asked why it was shorter. Neither of my two really like the presenters, they're just not interested in them like you said we-know-you, there is not conections between the presenters and children.
This is very true imo.
My view, she has every right to appear on television, they've given her a job, it takes many people to make the world, and I see nothing wrong. It's a good way to educate children on the diversity of life, and should be approached in a manner that doesn't scare a child. If the parents can drag themselves off their mobiles for 5 mins to actually sit with their children and discuss this diversity, there wouldn't be a problem.
You should worry. Many years ago we were following another family into the local sports centre when my son, then about four, with a voice that couldn't have been clearer had he used a megaphone, chimed in with "that lady's got a very big bottom, hasn't she?"
I would consider it legitimate for viewers to complain to the BBC if they felt she was a poor presenter. Whether or not such complaints would be justified, I don't know. I have never seen the lady. What I find totally unacceptable is the notion that anyone can complain on the grounds of her disability. I understand that there were only eight or nine formal complaints but IMHO that's eight or nine too many.
Unfortunately, as with any issue, the number who are sufficiently motivated to send in a formal complaint will only be a small minority of those who hold similar views. The depressing conclusion, therefore, is that there is probably a significant number of people who are so psychologically disabled that they feel the need to shield their children from physically disabled people. Even more unfortunately, the inevitable consequence is that this prejudice will be handed down to the next generation.
I concur wholeheartedly, the woman should by judged on her ability not her disability. As I mentioned in an earlier post my daughter either didn't notice her shorter arm or if she did notice then she didn't comment. My daughter just shows disinterest. I can only speak as I find, perhaps there are plenty of children who prefer the laid lower key delivery of the new presenters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7906507.stm?lss
I'd say thats very true.
Children of the stones, for a start. Children's TV now is all bright colours and cheery hosts and rubbish children sit com type programmes. Do you think it's more scary now? You must be wrapped in cotton wool. :rolleyes:
No I don't think tv is scarier now, I never said that. What I said is that CBeebies is aimed at 2-5 year olds and the edgier and grittier programmes are largely aimed at a teenage audience.
To use your phrase, I don't think tv audiences are being "wrapped in cotton wool" but as I mentioned before funding has been almost completely removed from the age group that would have enjoyed programmes such as "Children of the Stones" so rather than tv being "less scary" it is actually non existent.
And for the record, I don't think 90's tv was any less scary. I remember programmes like The Chestnut Soldier, Goosebumps and The Snow Spider scaring the living daylights out of me.