Child labour ?

[vision25]

Although not just at the post quoted, many kids used to like going to choir practise at local churchs and that has a very sordid past, no one thought twice about it, no one ever questioned it.

That's because most of the time the priests refrained from raping the choirboys.

The OP hasn't ran to the local council asking for it to be shut down, she has come asking for advice to make an informed choice,

And she has argued against that advise because it goes against her world view.

she isn't asking for anyone to stop anything or to make it hard for the children or the owners
,

Have you actually been following this thread. She *DOES* want the present situation to stop because she thinks the kids are being exploited even though the stables activities have no effect on her and irrespective of the wishs of those involved.

 

[yorkshirejames]

Damn it all, you beat me to it.

Zeno, I'll give you a cane, you can help me beat them.

Erm I mean a piece of chalk, and you can help me educate them.

 

[Zeno]

Zeno, I'll give you a cane, you can help me beat them.

Erm I mean a piece of chalk, and you can help me educate them.

Have you seen that Gillie is taking suggestions for a use of her spare room in another thread?

That would house a fair few urchins.

 

[yorkshirejames]

The thing that still bothers me is that this is a private enterprise run for the owners profit. If it were a charity organisation than fine as the only people who would benefit would be the kids and the animals but essentially for every kid that they don't pay, that one more payment on their range rover.

Perhaps this is the crux of the matter? As you say, if this was an animal welfare sanctuary rather than a riding school, I expect a lot of views on this forum would be more sympathetic.

 

[Silky]

This *IS* a straw man because you know fullo well that children (by their very nature of not being adults) can't give informed consent. I am merely pointing out your incredible stupidity here.

Aren't you able to contribute to a discussion without descending to insults? :| Wasn't it you who initially went down the track that children can decide for themselves ? I have pointed out the above, and that's why we have laws to protect them.

The argument is this, you think they are being exploited (irrespective of the kids disagreeing with you) due to your own individual morality and not because it may be illegal.

You're contradicting yourself in one post. Above you say kids can't give informed consenet, now you're suggesting they can....

And no, this is not my "own individual morality". I did not set the laws of the land.
Again as other posters have mentioned, where does child labour stop? Or do you believe this is discretionary based on the activity? As far as I'm aware laws are not discretional and they're not voluntary - laws are the tenet of a civilised society.

So let me ask you again. What is so special about *YOU* that you want to curtail other peoples activities that have nothing to do with you.

Why are you being so authoritarian?

I'm not being authoritarian - I have simply started a discussion behind, as you previously put it, "the anonymity of my screen" (although I point out, my home page and details are available for all to see, yours are not...).

As another poster mentioned on here, if there were an accident or incident (as there already has been, thank God this time without too much injury) then those who know about the situation are then criticised for their silence in the matter. Does everyone have to stand by and keep stumm whatever activities are going on in their midst, just because they're not involved? What if your next door neighbour started a brothel, staffed by young Eastern European's smuggled into the country, would you keep quiet? Or if the factory down the road started polluting the nearby river with it's chemicals?

You consistently fail to acknowledge that this isn't just about spending time with warm, fluffy animals, but the wider principle. Do you think the laws should simply be abolished ?

Silky

 

[Silky]

Perhaps this is the crux of the matter? As you say, if this was an animal welfare sanctuary rather than a riding school, I expect a lot of views on this forum would be more sympathetic.

Hi Yorkshirejames, this could be turned around the other way too - what if it wasn't a stable but a sweet shop or car wash.....would the views be the same that it's ok for the kids? There are a plethora of different scenarios and that's why it's so difficult to have a "one size fits all" solution to this - the law (I would hope) has been based on what's good for the kids, rather than what suits the owner's profit.

Silky

 

[frimleypit4]

For fear of repeating myself (as seems to be the norm for this thread), as far as I see it you have coveted opinion, as was your original purpose. You seem to have an issue in that noone is as indignant about this situation as you are and the constant reiteration of the same points does make it sound a little more like a crusade than a general attempt to see what others think. Bottom line is that if you believe so strongly have the courage of your convictions and go get the other side of the story direct from the horses mouth (so to speak). If you don't have the courage/ honesty to do that then frankly your self proclaimed high morals are of little worth and you are relegated to little more than an interfering curtain twitcher.

 

[Silky]

If you don't have the courage/ honesty to do that then frankly your self proclaimed high morals

If agreeing with the law means self proclaimed high morals then so be it, I'm just surprised that people will vehemently disagree with the law.

are of little worth and you are relegated to little more than an interfering curtain twitcher.

Ooh, ouch ouch !!

A forum is a platform for discussion and this one has attracted a number of posts of varying worth. These have been from both sides of the coin I may add, although questions raised about how/ where and when the law should be adhered to or simply ignored have been conveniently brushed aside by those who come on with their spears & tongues sharpened . All food for thought and yes, I am going to discuss this further with the stables in question.

Silky

 

[frimleypit4]

If agreeing with the law means self proclaimed high morals then so be it, I'm just surprised that people will vehemently disagree with the law.

Why do you find that suprising? Surely you are always going to get differing opinion regarding law - unless we are a nation of robots!

Ooh, ouch ouch !!

A forum is a platform for discussion and this one has attracted a number of posts of varying worth. These have been from both sides of the coin I may add, although questions raised about how/ where and when the law should be adhered to or simply ignored have been conveniently brushed aside by those who come on with their spears & tongues sharpened . All food for thought and yes, I am going to discuss this further with the stables in question.

Silky

Good for you if you do approach them though (abolutely no sarcasm)

 

[officeangel]

I've come into this thread very late, and I actually think there is a case for children being encouraged to do some voluntary work.

I'm not suggesting that children as young as 9 should be working long days without pay for the commercial gain of an employer, but my son worked as a volunteer for a local charity for a few days each school holiday from when he was 12 until he was 15. At 15 they employed him and he still works for them three years down the line.

He wanted to do it, he loved his "work" and actually he is now the longest serving member of the team other than the woman who set it up. In all of the interviews he had for University courses this work gained him extra brownie points, all of the Universities commented on it.

My son also did some work experience at a local firm, and loved it. They're now looking at maybe employing him part/time whilst he's at Uni and working towards hiring him when he finishes.

Voluntary work can reap rewards for both the volunteer and the "employer".

 

[yorkshirejames]

Re the comments about it being strictly against the law for a child under 13 to do any form of work, is this really right?

My primary school had a garden.... and the kids were encouraged to do gardening in it (with supervision)!

 

[vision25]

Aren't you able to contribute to a discussion without descending to insults? :| Wasn't it you who initially went down the track that children can decide for themselves ? I have pointed out the above, and that's why we have laws to protect them.



You're contradicting yourself in one post. Above you say kids can't give informed consenet, now you're suggesting they can....

Again rubbish, the kids can tell if they enjoy being with horses and their parents can give informed consent. Both the parents and kids are happy wiyh the present situation.

Btw, I am not insulting you by pointing out your illogical viewpoint.

And no, this is not my "own individual morality". I did not set the laws of the land.
Again as other posters have mentioned, where does child labour stop? Or do you believe this is discretionary based on the activity? As far as I'm aware laws are not discretional and they're not voluntary - laws are the tenet of a civilised society.

The law has nothing to say on if the kids are being expolited , you have. Notice the difference.

(As an aside, because its nothing to do with your dislike of the stables business model, child labour stops when the kid and parents want it to stop.

Also just because something is deemed to be lawful or illegal doesn't make it morally right. Was jews having to wear large yellow stars morally right. What about women not driving in Saudia Arabia, or homosexuals being stoned to death in Iran? Are they morally right? What about feckless welfare scum scrounging money from the taxpayer or the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to make bad loans and therefore contributing to the credit crunch, they are lawful but does that make them morally right? Or how about the police shooting a Brazilian electrician (who had forged his visa) at a tube station, was that lawful? Will anyone be punished if it wasn't. What about the politicians making all the pubs and bars in trhe land smoke free irrespective of what the owners or customers thought, yet excluding the H of C bars, is that morally right.

I could go on but if you still haven't understood the point I'm making ........)

I'm not being authoritarian - I have simply started a discussion behind, as you previously put it, "the anonymity of my screen" (although I point out, my home page and details are available for all to see, yours are not...).

I never made that statement, you must retract it immediately and apologise. I'll assume it was a mistake and you are not knowingly and deliberately making things up.

(As another aside, it doesn't matter who I or indeed you are, or what businesses we have. What matters is if our arguments are factually correct.)

You consistently fail to acknowledge that this isn't just about spending time with warm, fluffy animals, but the wider principle. Do you think the laws should simply be abolished ?

Again, I've never said it was about the stables but *YOU* thinking *YOU* should be able to determine what is exploitative.

As yet another aside, I do think most laws should be repealled as they actually hinder society becoming a better place.

Take for example the minimum wage laws. The Low Pay Commission report found that 80% of those on minimum wage were older married part time female workers from homes with higher than average incomes and that 70% of those who left minimum wage were younger people who got promotion from the same employer. A recent OECD report found that more than half of the bottom 20% of school leavers without qualifications found it difficult to get their first job.

So there you have it. Proof that the minimum wage benefits those who don't need it and hinders those trying to get on the first rung of the ladder.

A perfect example of a law having a bad effect, but oh no, according to *YOU* "laws are the tenet of a civilised society".

Unlike *YOU* I make up my mind according to the facts and I think it's disgusting that the minimum wage law keeps the uneducated in the gutter.

 

[officeangel]

Re the comments about it being strictly against the law for a child under 13 to do any form of work, is this really right?

My primary school had a garden.... and the kids were encouraged to do gardening in it (with supervision)!

... but only if you prefix work with the word paid ... a child under 13 cannot do any form of paid work and then add the following exceptions ... acting, ballet, sports and modelling.

So a child under 13 cannot do any form of paid work, with the exception of acting, ballet, sports or modelling.

 

[Dawg]

Vision 25

The Low Pay Commission report found that 80% of those on minimum wage were older married part time female workers from homes with higher than average incomes and that 70% of those who left minimum wage were younger people who got promotion from the same employer. A recent OECD report found that more than half of the bottom 20% of school leavers without qualifications found it difficult to get their first job.

Do you have the references please? My LPC references must be to older versions which don't have these details.

 

[vision25]

Vision 25


Do you have the references please? My LPC references must be to older versions which don't have these details.

I believe it's part of the December 2006 report research.

Oddly enough, the December 2006 report is called the 2007 report on the LPC website (I've just checked).

 

[TotallySport]

That's because most of the time the priests refrained from raping the choirboys.

And she has argued against that advise because it goes against her world view.

Have you actually been following this thread. She *DOES* want the present situation to stop because she thinks the kids are being exploited even though the stables activities have no effect on her and irrespective of the wishs of those involved.

President gives you the right to ask the people in charge of children, and there are systems in place which should be able to support the stables situation to say they are more than capable and have infastruture in place to maintain a safe envoirment to "work" and learn, and it should also allow the stables to show off there crudentials in this area, assuming the stables are well managed does mean they are and it is everyone's right to ask them.

The OP is gathering other peoples though which means she keeps her options open with giving her current opinion, thats doesn't mean it cannot and won't change.

The OP doesn't want it to stop, I think you need to take your blinkers off, things in life arn't black and white, you seem to have decided without knowldge of the stables that everything behind the scenes is rosey, and the kids are happy so leave them to it, not once have you ask if the kids are properly equipment, are the stables used as a baby sitting service, are their proper medical facilities, the contact details stored for the kids or if anything happens there next of kin can be contacted, if the staff have been CRB checked, is there insurance in place to ensure if something does go wrong everything will be covered. The OP isn't saying thes aren't all fine, she is just asking the question?

She simply wants the situation to be tidied up, and is looking for advices and views.

 

[TotallySport]

I think there is "alot" of assumtions being made by people questioning the OP's judgement and those supporting her, the fact is she has never mentioned or been asked alot of the back ground to the whole situation, there are 1001 possibilities which may turn people for or against.

I think that someone is concened enough to look into it with a sypathic hear to both sides makes sense.

There are also alot of issues being brought into this thread which IMO is making it more complicated than it even needed to be, so I am signing off this thread.

Good luck with the stables I hope it works out either way.

 

[Silky]

.

As yet another aside, I do think most laws should be repealled as they actually hinder society becoming a better place.
.

Interesting..... Is this all laws or just those you personally disagree with Vision? And what do you advocate in their place? Something voluntary? Something discretionary? Nothing at all? (Anarchy rules ok ?!).

The plot thickens....

Silky

 

[vision25]

President gives you the right to ask the people in charge of children, and there are systems in place which should be able to support the stables situation to say they are more than capable and have infastruture in place to maintain a safe envoirment to "work" and learn, and it should also allow the stables to show off there crudentials in this area, assuming the stables are well managed does mean they are and it is everyone's right to ask them.

President who?

Oh, you mean precedent.

The OP doesn't want it to stop, ................

The OP has repeatedly called it "exploitation".

Now I don't know about you but most NORMAL people would want to see injustice stopped immediately.

 

[vision25]

Interesting..... Is this all laws or just those you personally disagree with Vision? And what do you advocate in their place? Something voluntary? Something discretionary? Nothing at all? (Anarchy rules ok ?!).

The plot thickens....

Silky

I have produced evidence that the minimum wage law makes society a worse place, do you disagree with my evidence? If so, where? Do you disagree with my conclusion? If so, why?

Basically I think that laws as a generality tend to interfere with peoples freedoms unnecessarily.

I'm broadly in support of the Libertarian Parties manifesto;

http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto.php

and my blog contains some more thoughts;

http://caligulaspalace.wordpress.com/

I try to examine things by looking at the facts, the evidence.

Let me ask you a question, do you want to live in a wealthy society with plenty of freedoms and low crime where everybody has a fair chance?

OK, whats the best way to get this. Lets start with Income Tax. If people pay less tax they become better off right.

The state spends about£600bn a year of which about £450bn is on the necessary stuff like pensions, NHS, police, courts etc, dole money, armed forces etc. About £150bn is raised from Income Tax.

Therefore if the state stopped doing all the unnecessary stuff it could afford to totally abolish Income Tax.

The minimum wage is £12,000/year which is hardly a fortune, is it. Yet someone on the minimum wage will still have to pay over £100/month in income tax. Should somebody earning a pittance pay tax? Does anybody have a need to pay Income Tax?

Facts, evidence, conclusion etc, etc.

Getting back to the stables/horse fetish thing.

The owners/kids/parents are happy, it doesn't affect you. No need for legislation.

Voluntary is good.

Voluntary free trade is good, everybody who partakes in such does so because they benefit. If they didn't benefit, they wouldn't buy or sell.

See, no need for govt legislation that Obama might impose for instance.

It's all about consent.

And freedom.

My right to swing my fist ends at the start of your nose.

I own my body not the govt.

It is my choice if I decide to inject myself with heroin daily provided I don't have to rob to pay for my fix. (And if drugs were legal, they would be so cheap I wouldn't need to rob but could hold down a normal job).

etc, etc

Read the links above for more.

 

[Zeno]

The owners of this stable have an unfair competitive advantage over any other stables or cafes in the area that pay for their employees though.

 

[spigwell]

I think I deserve lots of Thanks for not getting myself involved in this thread.

The temptation has been so strong but I refuse to be drawn into it

Gary

 

[blackandwhite1986]

It's pretty impressive that people are getting so passionate without knowing any facts.

If you think there is a problem, report it.

Imagine your business being cained across the pages of UKBF

 

[Silky]

I'm broadly in support of the Libertarian Parties manifesto;

http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto.php
.

Just leafing through this now.... quote:

"
Welfare

• An end to State funding of lifestyle choices. People dependent on the State shall not normally get additional housing or cash provision if they expand their family either through birth or the accumulation of additional dependants for whatever reason. Although this may seem harsh, there is an injustice in entitlements that accumulate, forcing tax payers unable to provide for or expand their own families to fund the choices of others. "

Let the buggers sleep on the streets eh? They can't provide for themselves, why should we? And then as for those that actually bring their children into this country....tsk, tsk... "Go forth and multiply (but only if you're rich )

So what does happen to those who can't provide for themselves, Vision?

Silky

(more exciting instalments bound to follow.....)

 

[Silky]

Imagine your business being cained across the pages of UKBF

The business is totally anonymous, what's the problem? (and if they decide to contravene laws -whether you agree with the laws or not - I'm sure the least you can expect is to become a point of discussion)

Haven't you seen the other thread on here where the business isn't anonymous Black & White?

Silky

 

[blackandwhite1986]

The business is totally anonymous, what's the problem? (and if they decide to contravene laws -whether you agree with the laws or not - I'm sure the least you can expect is to become a point of discussion)

Haven't you seen the other thread on here where the business isn't anonymous Black & White?

Silky

I get the impression that some posters may know who the business in question is. No I have not seen the other thread.

There is nothing wrong with discussing it. But discussing it here will not change anything.

Whilst I may or may not agree with certain laws, I believe that we must all adhere to them and if we see something that is wrong alert the proper authorities which is what should be done here if there is real concern.

 

[Silky]

I get the impression that some posters may know who the business in question is.

I'd be surprised, I haven't given any hints.

There is nothing wrong with discussing it. But discussing it here will not change anything.
.

Forums don't exist to change the world but to discuss and air views - exactly the point of the thread and it's been quite interesting to see different perspectives on this.

Just reading the main points of the law on this again, the definition of work is "a child is employed if they assist in any trade of occupation carried on for profit." Which in this case they are....

I think this thread's pretty much been exhausted now but like the direction it's taking on the Liberty-whatsit front - I'm watching avidly.

Silky

 

[blackandwhite1986]

I'd be surprised, I haven't given any hints.


Forums don't exist to change the world but to discuss and air views - exactly the point of the thread and it's been quite interesting to see different perspectives on this.

Just reading the main points of the law on this again, the definition of work is "a child is employed if they assist in any trade of occupation carried on for profit." Which in this case they are....

OK then. So after all of this...what are you going to do?

 

[Silky]

OK then. So after all of this...what are you going to do?

As I mentioned earlier, talk to the owners.

Silky

 

[blackandwhite1986]

As I mentioned earlier, talk to the owners.

Silky

Let us all know how it goes because I'm very interested in this.

 

[Zeno]

I have a feeling that the words "mind your own damn business" possiby followed by "Get off moi laand" will be the response.

I would be careful to be honest because there are any number of men with clipboards that could descend at any moment - HMRC, HSE, Local Government etc all of whoms arrival will be blamed on you.

 

[Tom McClelland]

My son loves to work with and ride horses. He couldn't wait to be 13 so that he could spend his saturdays as a helper at a local riding stables.

Lessons typically cost about £25/hour. It was legally structured (and we signed a contract) as training in stable-management, that we paid £25/fortnight for, with one lesson a week. So effectively the payment for 2 full days work each fortnight was one lesson, with us buying the other.

But I don't resent it. As an exercise I did the numbers on a riding stable operation, and basically they only stack up as viable businesses because of all the kids helping at weekends. If the stable had to pay even minimum wage for sufficient employees for the weekend rush the cost of riding would go through the roof. Being involved in riding is like ripping up £50 notes while shovelling horsepoo, and using child labour (in this case legally and totally above board) is what makes it possible for the once-a-week riders on hired ponies to afford it.

My son loved it. He was doing something outdoors all saturday, properly insured, healthy, and legal. Much better from our point of view than him sitting at home on his Xbox blasting virtual enemies or hanging around in town with his mates.

 

[vision25]

Just leafing through this now.... quote:

"
Welfare

• An end to State funding of lifestyle choices. People dependent on the State shall not normally get additional housing or cash provision if they expand their family either through birth or the accumulation of additional dependants for whatever reason. Although this may seem harsh, there is an injustice in entitlements that accumulate, forcing tax payers unable to provide for or expand their own families to fund the choices of others. "

Let the buggers sleep on the streets eh? They can't provide for themselves, why should we? And then as for those that actually bring their children into this country....tsk, tsk... "Go forth and multiply (but only if you're rich )

So what does happen to those who can't provide for themselves, Vision

Are you being willfully and deliberately blind or is it merely that you can't read.

What it says is that if you depend on the state, and for example, already have a couple of kids and then decide to get a couple more then the state (ie taxpayers) are not going to fund your choice of having two more kids by giving you a larger council house.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me and I bet it seems perfectly reasonable to all normal people reading it.

Suppose a family, Mum Dad and 2 kids fall on hard times and get a council house. What this means is that they can't keep on popping an additional kid after kid after kid and get the taxpayer to fund it.

*YOU* have already pointed out on this thread that you have a massive authoritarian streak and now you want the hard pressed taxpayer to featherbed the feckless.

 

[Silky]

No I haven't pointed out I have a massive authoritarian streak, I simply said I agree in following laws.

I don't agree in many of the ridiculous policies touted in the manifesto you've posted a link to, I guess the majority of the UK populace wouldn't either or we'd see more "libertarian" in parliament. What a load of codswallop.

Silky

 

[Silky]

now you want the hard pressed taxpayer to featherbed the feckless.

..... needy does not necessarily equal feckless, although of course there are some parties who would argue otherwise (BNP, Libertarian etc)


Silky

 

[Cornish Steve]

I'd be surprised, I haven't given any hints.

I think Silky runs the stables and is trying to find out whether there are any legal problems with recruiting young people to help with the business.