[Closed] At what age is it acceptable?

At no age. TVs are not for bedrooms.

When they can afford to pay for it themselves. I'd not allow it in my house.

At whatever age they get their own house at!

The correct answer is when the parent considers it so.

FWIW, my kids won't be getting one until they're much much older than 5.

And his two older kids (7 and 9) have iPads.

Call me old-fashioned, but b0llocks to that for a party.

At no age. TVs are not for bedrooms.

My mother thought the same until I got a mega drive.

iPads while I consider them overly expensive for young kids myself, are a rather different matter IMO.

The correct answer is when the parent considers it so.

This is no place for such sensible answers; how will such a subjective question turn into a argument otherwise?!

Tomy MyFirst 4k FTW!

how will such a subjective question turn into a argument otherwise?!

Don't you worry about that. It'll happen in good time.

Fair comment.

In that case, burn any parents who put a TV in their kids' rooms before the age of 15.74. It's the only right way.

There's no right and wrong, and it can always be removed.

johndoh - at what age did your kids have a tv in their bedroom?

A TV in the bedroom
[img] [/img]
it will never end well

Don't know about that, Conchita is doing very well for herself.

Whilst I agree that 5 is too young, I think I would sooner they had a TV than something connected to the internet.

Why would you have a TV in the bedroom? There are other things to do in there...like sleep.

We have a blanket 'no digital' in the bedroom rule. Enough of that shite in my life, best to have at least one place where it is not.

johndoh - at what age did your kids have a tv in their bedroom?

I wouldn't even have a TV in the house, let alone in a kid's bedroom (not that I have kids myself, but none of my nephews have TVs in their rooms FWIW).

We have a blanket 'no digital' in the bedroom rule.

Alarm clock?

[i]I wouldn't even have a TV in the house[/i]

this always surprises me. Mine was on for an hour last night while I was watching a mildly interesting programme about castles, then it went off.

Do you not trust yourself?

Edit. It's just a thing...like a kettle. No one ever said, "oh those kettles, I couldn't ever have one, it'd be boiling all day long"

I wouldn't even have a TV in the house

I got rid of mine three years ago, recently moved to a house that has one. To be honest, I can't really trust myself not to watch rubbish and I'm thinking about getting rid of it again.

There is no good age at which children should have a TV in the bedroom IMO. some people disagree with this, some people agree. It depends on how much value you place on indoctrinating your kids to be passive, judgemental, unobjective consumers of utter shart.

footflaps
I wouldn't even have a TV in the house, let alone in a kid's bedroom

But a computer is much better. Nothing on the internet but good wholesome edutainment.

Do you not trust yourself?

Partly this yes, if it's not there you can't accidentally end up watching choss. However, there's no desire at all to have one as 99% of the time I watch something on iPlayer I just give up half way through thinking it's drivel.

On an interesting note, if you read a transcript of a 'high brow' programme like Panorama, it takes about 5 minutes to read. Yet as a TV programme it wastes 50mins of your life. TV is a very inefficient medium for many things.

Yes I think it is a silly idea for a 5 year old to have a TV in their bedroom.

iPads for 7 and 9 year olds is more debatable I think. Depends what they are used for and for how long. You can't judge without context.

FWIW our eldest daughter was messing around with iPads when she was 2 (not her own) and had to be banned from using them in the end (about 6 months later) as it was obvious she was getting addicted. She's 5 now and does have an attraction to computers in general. I don't see a problem with that as long as it's carefully managed. She certainly won't be having a pc in her bedroom anytime soon!

[i]On an interesting note, if you read a transcript of a 'high brow' programme like Panorama, it takes about 5 minutes to read. Yet as a TV programme it wastes 50mins of your life. TV is a very inefficient medium for many things.[/i]

1. your idea of interesting is not one I share
2. "waste" is a subjective term, I've learned a great many things from telly; Ethics, Beckett, and so on, but I'm happy to be entertained by moving pictures, and my brain's not fallen out of my ears yet.
3. Yes it is, however it's a most excellent medium for a great many things. Moon landing? Twin towers?

It's 2014; why on Earth would you need a TV in a bedroom. Isn't that what phones and tablets are for?

Sorry, they both got the iPads when about 6 or 7 I recall. I do see the point of giving a child access to technology (we let our kids use our iPad at weekends) but to buy them one each (no doubt the 5 year old will be getting her own iPad in a year or so) is a bit excessive I think.

They are also getting an expensive games console (PS4 I believe) for Christmas. At least they are sharing that.

It is all just a bit obscene - the most expensive presents our girls are getting are about £25.

[quote=GregMay ]We have a blanket 'no digital' in the bedroom rule.Better than a 'no oral' in the bedroom rule I find.

So really this is a thread about cost of things rather than what they are.

You're just jealous of them, aren't you? (deliberately contentious comment 🙂 )

[quote=johndoh ]It is all just a bit obscene - the most expensive presents our girls are getting are about £25.
Why not spend some of that spare time they have not watching TV to teach your kids to be a lot less judgemental than you are?

No I am not jealous at all, I just think that children should learn the value of things more and should have access to such things more limited.

Judgemental? Probably. Do I think my brother/sister in law are obsessed by material possessions? Yes.

I feel that the thread is now ready to descend 🙂

FWIW, as I said above, I would consider iPads overly expensive for young kids. Tablets in general less so.

And FWIW, you can spend money on material possessions without being obsessed by them. As usual it's a question of balance and values. By my reckoning my kids probably have a lot of toys but they have it hammered home to them that while material things can be nice, they're not important in the way that people are.

footflaps - Member
On an interesting note, if you read a transcript of a 'high brow' programme like Panorama, it takes about 5 minutes to read. Yet as a TV programme it wastes 50mins of your life. TV is a very inefficient medium for many things

Off topic, but this is a very valid point. even the stuff that isn't supposed to be dumber than a bag of hammers is watered-down to idiot level, facts repeated for the hard of concentration and whole chunks of the story are edited out.

Back to the OP, but my real concern with TV is not so much the over-sexualisation of just about everything for no particular reason, but the preponderance of violence in films somehow still deemed fit for children.

When I moved house the people who moved in have 7 TV's and 1 bike between the 4 of them.

We had 1 Telly and 7 bikes...

This might not be the best place for a reasoned and balanced answer

What if you have 7 bikes and 7 TVs? Who are you superior to then? 😉

that children should learn the value of things more and should have access to such things more limited.

How do you feel with the fact I just bought my lad a present for £300 and gave it to him just because... not because it is Xmas...

And now, add into the fact it's an Islabikes.... does that make it more right or wrong ?

Kids have years to learn the value of things IMO, their childhood is for learning to be a child 🙂

My boys had little portable dvd players at around 6-7 just to watch kids films, my eldest got a freeview TV at 12. I'd not put a TV in a kids room till secondary school starts as a minimum. Having said that they barely watch TV both on Tablets all the bloody time!

In my, somewhat narrow minded, opinion the answer is "never". Watch TV downstairs then go to your room for sleep. I had one in my room for a while and found the temptation to watch random crap until late at night was not good for my sleep or state of mind (or for the amount of "romance" for that matter). I got rid and will never have one in my room again.

Off topic, but this is a very valid point. even the stuff that isn't supposed to be dumber than a bag of hammers is watered-down to idiot level, facts repeated for the hard of concentration and whole chunks of the story are edited out.

Either it's an age thing or 'high brow' Newspapers are going the same way, I find The Times and The Guardian seem to be getting more dumbed down.

I've taken to reading The Economist and FT as they do seem to actually have content in their articles rather than filler...

footflaps - Member
I've taken to reading The Economist and FT as they do seem to actually have content in their articles rather than filler...

To those of an economic and a-political standpoint, both of those publications are seen as slightly left and very closely related in standpoint - not bad, but not always totally subjective.

Best to trawl far and wide and attempt to develop one's own bullshit filters. e.g. Reuters, zerohedge (filter out all the goldbugs with basements full of guns, ammo & tinned food) and even Russia Today can give some novel and often informative angles on stories.

And don't forget Al Jazeera

lunge - Member

In my, somewhat narrow minded, opinion the answer is "never". Watch TV downstairs then go to your room for sleep. I had one in my room for a while and found the temptation to watch random crap until late at night was not good for my sleep or state of mind (or for the amount of "romance" for that matter). I got rid and will never have one in my room again

Regarding TVs in bedrooms, isn't it better to be in bed with the wife at 10pm and watching TV while she goes asleep before you, instead of watching TV downstairs and coming to bed at 11pm and disturbing her ?

How do you feel with the fact I just bought my lad a present for £300 and gave it to him just because... not because it is Xmas...

It would depend - if you buy them £300 presents all the time because you are flash and want him to have the best of everything and every time he asks for something he gets it, then I'd call fool. Of course there could be other circumstances where it might be warranted

I bought him it because it's part of our bonding as daddy and boy, our life, our fun etc... It's extravagant but also a way of life/exercise I want him to enjoy 🙂

He also happens to be wonderfully well behaved and again in school today is in 'the special chair' .... which in his school is a GOOD thing, the opposite to the special chair when I was in school 🙂

Regarding TVs in bedrooms, isn't it better to be in bed with the wife at 10pm and watching TV while she goes asleep before you, instead of watching TV downstairs and coming to bed at 11pm and disturbing her ?

God no, she'd be watching crap* all night when I want to sleep!

* crap IMO, but then I don't really like police series.

see this is what happens when someone posts a thread with links to netsmum

I hope he's going the whole hog:
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Where do I get one of those TV stands? My 6 month old would love it!

It is all just a bit obscene - the most expensive presents our girls are getting are about £25.

But what have you actually bought them? Just because something only costs £25 doesn't mean it's suitable either.

Maybe you should have asked "what is an acceptable amount to spend on a 5 year old's Christmas presents?"

Sorry, I'm lost. So is it okay to buy my toddler a £300 telly to watch Al Jazeera on so long as it's his birthday?

Regarding TVs in bedrooms, isn't it better to be in bed with the wife at 10pm and watching TV while she goes asleep before you, instead of watching TV downstairs and coming to bed at 11pm and disturbing her ?

Not for us, no. I can deal with 5 minutes of disturbance when she comes to bed (and vice versa) much better than the sounds and light from a TV. Plus, we tend to go to bed at the same time most nights anyway.

^ those TV stand things are absolutely grim. Bedrooms are for sleeping or other recreational activities.

Not for us, no. I can deal with 5 minutes of disturbance when she comes to bed (and vice versa)

[img] [/img]

But what have you actually bought them? Just because something only costs £25 doesn't mean it's suitable either.

If I see a trampoline on special offer we might get them one of those to share.

[i]Watch TV downstairs then go to your room for sleep.[/i]

thing is though, with Kids their rooms are the first (and for a long time the only) personal space they get to control, that rule pretty much ignores how most kids behave in their rooms, I don't know of any kids that use their bedrooms just "for sleep".

Just because there's a TV in the room, doesn't follow that all parental control has been abandoned! TBH it's a pretty good bargaining chip, behave yourself, or the telly goes...

Sorry, they both got the iPads when about 6 or 7 I recall. I do see the point of giving a child access to technology (we let our kids use our iPad at weekends) but to buy them one each (no doubt the 5 year old will be getting her own iPad in a year or so) is a bit excessive I think.

They are also getting an expensive games console (PS4 I believe) for Christmas. At least they are sharing that.

My youngest is getting an iPad my eldest a PS4.

Guess I'm a bad parent who is just materialistic. Or a one how loves his kids loads and doesn't mind spending some spare cash on them. I go off my mother's words she once gave me when I asked her if she thought I was spoiling them. "You can never spoil them, they're your kids, your life, your soul one day they won't be young kids any more or even not there at all"

Those words were even more poignant last week when I had a tragic job at work. I came home from that and swore I not put a budget on them this year, I have the cash sat there and more coming. I'm also off this Xmas so yes I'm having an extravagant one.

Still if you want to do something different then good for you but I can't see why you have to be judgemental of others, especially your own brother.

Sounds fine to me, except for the 'obsolete' CD players. Funny you mention that as I came across my old Sony Discman last night while I was looking for something else in a drawer. It hasn't spun a single disc since I got my first iPod in 2002.

But at least you won't have to deal with all the "Apps" though!

So by forcing them to have obsolete CD players, you're making them 'those wierd kids'.

See the damage you're doing to them by not showing that you love them by buying an iTouch 😉

Drac - there comes a time where I accept that I will need to buy my kids more expensive presents but I think my original point (although not expressed very well) is that I felt that a TV for a bedroom for a 5 year olds' birthday is wrong. Perhaps not necessarily too expensive, just that they shouldn't have a TV in their bedroom at such an early age.

FWIW, we bought our twins a climbing frame for their birthday which is probably equal in value to two TVs - but then we tend to spend more on their birthday than Christmas (partially because it is *their* day and partially because they get spoiled by friends and family at Christmas anyway).

Edit: And I wouldn't give them CD players if they were older, but at five they have no need for MP3 players.

Drac - there comes a time where I accept that I will need to buy my kids more expensive presents but I think my original point (although not expressed very well) is that I felt that a TV for a bedroom for a 5 year olds' birthday is wrong. Perhaps not necessarily too expensive, just that they shouldn't have a TV in their bedroom at such an early age.

Fair point. I didn't allow my eldest have on in her room until she was 9 😀

Edit: And I wouldn't give them CD players if they were older, but at five they have no need for MP3 players.

A music playing device of 1 type requires a different age than another to do the exact same thing?

And I wouldn't give them CD players if they were older, but at five they have no need for MP3 players.

Personally I don't allow my 5 year old anywhere near my CD collection. She got hold of my wife's Witney Houston CD the other day and let's just say it doesn't play now - not that I'm complaining.

A music playing device of 1 type requires a different age than another to do the exact same thing?

Can't see an issue with things like pads as they're easy to take away. How are you going to police a 5yo watching late-night grot whilst you're asleep?

Think I was around 10 when I got one in my room, primarily to sling a ZX Spectrum in front of. About the raciest stuff available to my clandestine late-night viewing was Remington Steele and Cagney & Lacey, in monochrome interference-o-vision.

She got hold of my wife's Witney Houston CD the other day and let's just say it doesn't play now - not that I'm complaining.

That's brilliant. It'll no doubt a massive coincidence when the rest of your wife's crap CDs meet a similar fate. "Your Peter Andre CD doesn't work? That's a shame, must be darling daughter again..."

It's funny how the most anti-television people are often the very same people who like to let everyone know so via the internet, hey ho.

Anyway, no at 5 a TV in the room is the parents trying to buy themselves some time away from their kids, my son is 9 and would like one so he can play Minecraft in his room, but we'd have to drag him out kicking and screaming - we're going to hang on for a few years until he's a teenager and wants to spend any time at home on his own anyway.

He's had a tablet device for a few years now, he loves Minecraft PE (which is TOTALLY different to Minecraft PS3 or PC I'm told) - chose an Samsung Android one partly because at the time ipads were still fortunes but mostly because I can have a lot more control of it - I've restricted youtube to the weekends and he can't turn off safe mode - the internet is limited to only the safest websites and I can audit everything he views and does on their via Google.

He's recently got into Instagram, but again it's an account in my name he doesn't have the password for, so he's got a closed account and has to ask me before he can accept any new followers - I can see who he follows or searches for any time.

We've also had the 21st century version of the 'chat' about strangers, puppies and vans.

We bought our daughter a tv for her bedroom when she was about 6, she's now at sheffield university doing a degree in bio chem and genetics, dosen't appear to have rotted her brain.

On the cost thing...

What if your "£25 max per present" was a higher percentage of your disposable income, than, say, a £400 gift was from a ridiculously well off family??

In that sense, YOU are being the flash extravagant one......

DrP

It's funny how the most anti-television people are often the very same people who like to let everyone know so via the internet, hey ho.

I'm not anti-TV, I am anti-TV in bedrooms though. They are bad for getting decent sleep and bad for your sex life - there's quite a lot of studies/evidence to back this up BTW.

I still watch a fair bit of TV, but only through a projector with Netflix/iPlayer etc. Personally I find it's a totally different thing when you make a conscious decision to watch stuff rather than just sitting in front of whatever you can find.

Some people maybe have more self-control than me and find it easier not to end up watching dross.

and bad for your sex life - there's quite a lot of studies/evidence to back this up BTW

Amazingly, I just turn it off when this happens...

They are bad for your sex life

Not a major issue for a 5 year old though.

TV's don't ruin your sex life, it's the wife getting old and fat that does that.

nickc - Member
Watch TV downstairs then go to your room for sleep.

thing is though, with Kids their rooms are the first (and for a long time the only) personal space they get to control, that rule pretty much ignores how most kids behave in their rooms, I don't know of any kids that use their bedrooms just "for sleep".

Just because there's a TV in the room, doesn't follow that all parental control has been abandoned! TBH it's a pretty good bargaining chip, behave yourself, or the telly goes...

+ 1

our boys are 8 and 12, they both have TV's in their rooms and have had since probs aged 6/7. Thing is, they rarely watch telly on them, but do use for gaming. Eldest is footie daft on his XBox, yougest is into minecraft and skylanders on Wii.

We have never had an issue getting them out there rooms, to sport, on bikes, swimming etc and as a family we neither individually or collectively watch much tv. Movie maybe at the weekend on Chromecast or Netflix. They do both have Beats, with eldest having a Chromebook he got for his 11th. Youngest borrows mums ipad for restricted periods, but is getting an ipad mini this yr for Christmas. he also has my old windows phone for when he is out with his pals and we want him back for food, elder has his mums old iphone.

It's funny how the most anti-television people are often the very same people who like to let everyone know so via the internet, hey ho.

I think you're confusing being Anti-TV with being technophobic. The internet is generally much more interactive than TV, which is about as passive an experience as you can get....

Reading a book is just as passive on that basis...

We bought our daughter a tv for her bedroom when she was about 6, she's now at sheffield university doing a degree in bio chem and genetics, dosen't appear to have rotted her brain.

That proves nothing really. Some people still achieve things in life even if their parents neglect them badly (not implying you did this of course - it's only a TV!)

I think you're confusing being Anti-TV with being technophobic. The internet is generally much more interactive than TV, which is about as passive an experience as you can get....

On that basis you could argue that the internet is potentially a lot more harmful than a passive TV. Especially for a 5 year old.

It's almost like there isn't a single correct-for-all-situations answer. Shocker.