The new Government has decided we should consider what laws we need thrown out. They are asking us to decide which laws are not good, or no longer valid, or in some cases, just plain stupid. Well, there are millions of laws, so let’s just look at one that I think is stupid.
The law that does not allow job sharing mums to share child caring responsibilities on their off day, if the child is under two. This, in my opinion is a totally ridiculous law. If you are able to look after your own baby, and your baby is healthy and happy, then surely you are capable of looking after your friend’s baby as well, for a number of hours during the day, whilst your friend (with whom you job-share a position) is at work, and visa-versa. Especially if you are happy for your child to be there for that time!! Ofsted says you have to be a registered child – minder to do this though.
Honestly – what the hell are we doing stopping mums working because they have to look after their kids, even though they have a perfectly normal person who is willing to look after you child whilst you work?????
Which bright spark came up with that one?
‘Under existing rules, people who babysit for another person’s child for more than two hours at a time or on more than 14 days per year must be registered. This applies to any case where the parent receives a “reward” for the childcare – which can include money or simply free babysitting in return.’ From The Times October 13, 2009.
So if my kids have a play date – does that qualify? It’s usually longer than 2 hour. Similarly, when I have friends’ babies over when they go out to dinner, and I do the same when I go to a movie – I am breaking the law??? GIVE ME A BREAK!!
If you have any ideas, let me know, but I am sure there are a million more we could come up with, but I quite like the idea of getting rid of some of the ‘nanny state’ that has opened up here. If we don’t own our lives and accept responsibilities for our actions, how do we teach our kids to be upstanding, responsible adults?
Another one that I can’t understand is how people use the Human Rights Bill to get away with the most ridiculous things. Like the child that used it to be allowed to have bright red hair at school, or it would infringe on his ‘freedom of expression’. Does that mean if a kid goes and complains that it disturbs his concentration he can make the child change his hair colour because the second child has the ‘right to an education’ ? After all, if he/she id being disturbed by a pupils behaviour / hair colour, and can’t get adequate schooling as a result, then he has the right to get the problem fixed. I am sure some clever lawyer could argue that quite well, and win! I like the idea of a British Bill of Rights, something simple and ‘normal’ and that gives more rights to the general public than the exception!
I’ll be watching the development of this quite carefully – will you?
Join me on Facebook .