The nine-year-olds who still need nappies: Britain faces 'potty training crisis' as 70% of schools report increase in number starting lessons who cannot use the toilet

[*]UK potty training expert says she gets hundreds of emails a day from parents

[*]Some nine-year-olds still need training and won't go to school for fear of being bullied

[*]A report states the avergae age at which children are toilet trained has increased to three-and-a-half years, when it was 15 months 50 years ago 


Britain is facing a 'nappy crisis', according to the UK's top potty training expert - with children as old as nine who still can't use the toilet properly. Amanda Jenner receives hundreds of emails a day from panicked parents whose children are not toilet trained. Some of the most alarming stories include children who need potty training at nine-years-old and refuse to go to school for fear of bullying.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4649006/Britain-faces-potty-training-crisis.html#ixzz4lOhjzOmZ 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

bad parents and rampant leftyism

amd YES the "let em develop at their own pace" IS a "lefty ideal"

They should've been out of nappies by age 2 or if they cant do it, then 3 the latest.

Bloody 9, that's horrible for the kids to go to school in nappies.

Lord Foul wrote:bad parents and rampant leftyism

amd YES the "let em develop at their own pace" IS a "lefty ideal"

Leftyism? You are most ignorant. Lefties are the intelligent ones.

The RW knuckle-draggers are the ones responsible for this type of thing. Such things as syphilis and ghonorrea are spread through motorcycle gangs and lower class communities of the RW.

It's a lack of education. Lack of education is a malaise of the knuckle-dragger, not the more intelligent lefties. If people are not potty-training their children, look to the RWs in shantytown for the problem.

I could name some posters in various places and on both sides who are obviously still in nappies...and in urgent need of them being changed.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:bad parents and rampant leftyism

amd YES the "let em develop at their own pace" IS a "lefty ideal"

Leftyism?  You are most ignorant.  Lefties are the intelligent ones.  

The RW knuckle-draggers are the ones responsible for this type of thing.  Such things as syphilis and ghonorrea are spread through motorcycle gangs and lower class communities of the RW.

It's a lack of education.  Lack of education is a malaise of the knuckle-dragger, not the more intelligent lefties.  If people are not potty-training their children, look to the RWs in shantytown for the problem.

Huh?

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:bad parents and rampant leftyism

amd YES the "let em develop at their own pace" IS a "lefty ideal"

Leftyism?  You are most ignorant.  Lefties are the intelligent ones.  

The RW knuckle-draggers are the ones responsible for this type of thing.  Such things as syphilis and ghonorrea are spread through motorcycle gangs and lower class communities of the RW.  

It's a lack of education.  Lack of education is a malaise of the knuckle-dragger, not the more intelligent lefties.  If people are not potty-training their children, look to the RWs in shantytown for the problem.

Are they spread via the motocycles then? I think you need a few lessons in medical matters.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:bad parents and rampant leftyism

amd YES the "let em develop at their own pace" IS a "lefty ideal"

Leftyism?  You are most ignorant.  Lefties are the intelligent ones.  

The RW knuckle-draggers are the ones responsible for this type of thing.  Such things as syphilis and ghonorrea are spread through motorcycle gangs and lower class communities of the RW.  

It's a lack of education.  Lack of education is a malaise of the knuckle-dragger, not the more intelligent lefties.  If people are not potty-training their children, look to the RWs in shantytown for the problem.

Are they spread via the motocycles then? I think you need a few lessons in medical matters.

yup ragga, its a whole new kind of problem

havnt you heard? STD transport and hermes are going to merge.......

the new company will be called herpes......

[quote="eddie"]

Original Quill wrote:

Leftyism?  You are most ignorant.  Lefties are the intelligent ones.  

The RW knuckle-draggers are the ones responsible for this type of thing.  Such things as syphilis and ghonorrea are spread through motorcycle gangs and lower class communities of the RW.

It's a lack of education.  Lack of education is a malaise of the knuckle-dragger, not the more intelligent lefties.  If people are not potty-training their children, look to the RWs in shantytown for the problem.[/quote

Huh?

Different planet.

Thorin wrote:[*]UK potty training expert says she gets hundreds of emails a day from parents

[*]Some nine-year-olds still need training and won't go to school for fear of being bullied

[*]A report states the avergae age at which children are toilet trained has increased to three-and-a-half years, when it was 15 months 50 years ago 


Britain is facing a 'nappy crisis', according to the UK's top potty training expert - with children as old as nine who still can't use the toilet properly. Amanda Jenner receives hundreds of emails a day from panicked parents whose children are not toilet trained. Some of the most alarming stories include children who need potty training at nine-years-old and refuse to go to school for fear of bullying.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4649006/Britain-faces-potty-training-crisis.html#ixzz4lOhjzOmZ 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Unbelievable. Lazy parenting. Potty training starts early, and I did what my mum did with us, I started it at 6 months old. By the time my daughter was 2 she was clean and dry both night and day. It took a lot of effort and consistency but it worked. I dread to think what it must be like to be nine years old and you're still pissing and shitting in your pants.

I think 2 is about average to be out of nappies...for day and night.
Maybe the odd accident, but that's to be expected.

Look to the parents not the kids if at nine years old they still need nappies...its sad.

Syl wrote:I think 2 is about average to be out of nappies...for day and night.
Maybe the odd accident, but that's to be expected.

Look to the parents not the kids if at nine years old they still need nappies...its sad.

It is if you work at it. I know someone who didn't start potty training til 3.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:I think 2 is about average to be out of nappies...for day and night.
Maybe the odd accident, but that's to be expected.

Look to the parents not the kids if at nine years old they still need nappies...its sad.

It is if you work at it.   I know someone who didn't start potty training til 3.  

Three is late imo.....I know parents shouldn't compare their kids to others, they all have different timescales, but there has to be an average.
Its odd to not want your children clean by a certain age...a bit like mothers who carry on breast feeding long after the norm.
They probably think they are free thinkers...I find them slightly odd.

I started my son the day after his third birthday  and guess what? I didn't have months and months of training and acccidents. One day and it was over and not one wet bed ever in his whole life.

My daughter, I started at two. It was stop-start and loads of accidents so I put her back in nappies and waited till she was almost  three and then she did it no problem.

My children didn't start nursery until they were three and a half as I didn't want anyone else changing their nappies.

Not all children are the same anyway, I just knew my own children and knew when they were ready. They were mentally way, way advanced than others their age and that's what I concentrated on more if I'm honest. I knew that by three, with their mental abilities they understood the method of what I was doing and when they're mentally ready that's when they're physically ready imo.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:bad parents and rampant leftyism

amd YES the "let em develop at their own pace" IS a "lefty ideal"

Leftyism?  You are most ignorant.  Lefties are the intelligent ones.  

The RW knuckle-draggers are the ones responsible for this type of thing.  Such things as syphilis and ghonorrea are spread through motorcycle gangs and lower class communities of the RW.  

It's a lack of education.  Lack of education is a malaise of the knuckle-dragger, not the more intelligent lefties.  If people are not potty-training their children, look to the RWs in shantytown for the problem.

I normally respect your opinions greatly, old boy, but "Lefties are the intelligent ones..."?

Bloody hell! Are you really putting clowns like Scrat, Philagain and Angry Andy at the top of the current MENSA listings?

That trio could not jointly rustle up more active brain cells than a mentally retarded amoeba or more charisma than a flatulent slug!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Leftyism?  You are most ignorant.  Lefties are the intelligent ones.  

The RW knuckle-draggers are the ones responsible for this type of thing.  Such things as syphilis and ghonorrea are spread through motorcycle gangs and lower class communities of the RW.  

It's a lack of education.  Lack of education is a malaise of the knuckle-dragger, not the more intelligent lefties.  If people are not potty-training their children, look to the RWs in shantytown for the problem.

I normally respect your opinions greatly, old boy, but "Lefties are the intelligent ones..."?

Bloody hell! Are you really putting clowns like Scrat, Philagain and Angry Andy at the top of the current MENSA listings?

That trio could not jointly rustle up more active brain cells than a mentally retarded amoeba or more charisma than a flatulent slug!

Well, it's true.  I'll explain to you, because the rest of these knuckle-draggers wouldn't get it.

Owing to the rise of laissez-faire liberalism, and Smithsonian economics, in the eighteenth century, the predominate ideology was selfish individualism, or capitalism.  This occurred because value exceeded the worth of labor, and surplus value (or market value), otherwise known as capital, began.  This ideology settled in and holders of it became the Tories and Republicans of the world.  Smithsonian theory said that the best way to behave was to be selfish...do nothing, except for yourself.  Hence the theme of this ideology was self-interest, or something we might call just plain selfishness.

Subsequently, a post-liberal ideology set in, which was far more altruistic and public oriented.  It became the basis for Social Democracy and/or Social Labour parties, such as you have in the UK.

There you have the settings for the two modern parties: Tories/Republicans and Labour/Democrats.  Look back.  These are the two themes of post-industrialism.  Now you can understand: one party represents special interests, culminating in economic selfishness, and the other party represents the public interest.  The former party constantly tries to privatize, employ austerity, tax cuts for the rich and so forth, so they can serve their own interests.  The party representing the general public is constantly experimenting and developing programs that help overcome the ills that are found within the general public. They are thinking, trying to solve problems.

Why does that effect intelligence?  It was early recognized by people like John Stuart Mill that those engaged in trying to improve the world are taxing their minds more; those who sink to mere egoism and self-interest fail to exercise their mental faculties and their minds atrophy.  Look no further than Donald Trump...wealthy, yet dumb as a stone.  No practice.  Now, Mill wrote: I never said Conservatives are all stupid, I said stupid persons are all Conservative.  That's why we call them knuckle-draggers.    Through lack of exercise, they can no longer think.

Now, it stands to reason that a smart person is going to take hygiene and health seriously...that's what the left does, solves problems.  The RW on the other hand, gives less or no thought to problems, especially if they effect anyone other than themselves.  You would never see a lefty neglecting their children like that; alternatively, rightys not only ignore their children, but oppose any program that helps them progress.  Take a look at the Tory/Republican stand on education.  Seen any Tory cuts to healthcare lately...of course.  Anything that is not profit for their own pockets, is useless to a Tory.  A Tory doesn't care if his kid is 9-years old and still in nappies; a Tory doesn't care about the kid.  No profit.

Well the above is a false premise that only stupid people are conservatives

So there is no stupid left wing people?

None who are regressive?

Or suffer Ostrich Parasitic syndrome?

As seen how the left will defend bad beliefs that conflict with liberal and secular values has to be about the most dumbest thing going. You ind stupidity on both political sides of the spectrum. All you gave is an opinion based on your political beliefs. Again the Tories are more Politically like the Democrats. Which would mean you view the Democrats as Stupid.

Anyway are you thus saying the majority of Muslims are stupid as they are politically conservative in their beliefs?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t21267-what-might-be-missing-in-the-Muslim-world


Just because somebody is politically conservative, does not make them stupid. What you fail to grasp is peoples views will differ based politically on a variety off issues, between left and right individually.

Lord Foul wrote:bad parents and rampant leftyism

amd YES the "let em develop at their own pace" IS a "lefty ideal"

And British is also a factor

and before you whine clearly the British implementation of 'lefty ideals' is part of the issue since it isn't found in other lefty nations like NZ, Canada etc.
If fact the British implementation of RW ideals has gone pretty bad too, it's almost like the whitewashing of the British history has left a peoples unable to accept that maybe they can learn from others

veya_victaous wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:bad parents and rampant leftyism

amd YES the "let em develop at their own pace" IS a "lefty ideal"

And British is also a factor  

and before you whine clearly the British implementation of 'lefty ideals' is part of the issue since it isn't found in other lefty nations like NZ, Canada etc.
If fact the British implementation of RW ideals has gone pretty bad too, it's almost like the whitewashing of the British history has left a peoples unable to accept that maybe they can learn from others

Now veya, IF you could only stick to that point, rather than simply "brit hateing (which you seem to have adopted as a life crusade), I would agree ENTIRELY with you.

however its NOT entirely "british leftyism...its "euroleftyism" in general thats gone this way....the scandinavian left have been there and got out of the mawkish stagnant, lazy form of leftism....they went through that in the late 50's to 70's. the rest of europe is unfortunately still stuck there. And it has to be said Some scandinavian countries are paying a heavy price for even THEIR admirable leftist policys.....(but we wont go there since mentioning Muslims drives you into an unreasonable rage aproximating apoplexy )

Lord Foul wrote:
bad parents and rampant leftyism

amd YES the "let em develop at their own pace" IS a "lefty ideal"

".. a "lefty ideal"..."  !?!

Not in my neighbourhood,  it isn't.

*****************************************

I agree with the "bad parenting" aspect, though..

Lazy parents, basically...

Probably the same ones who are too scared of a little dirt to keep their toilets, bathrooms and laundries clean (fragile little 'urban princesses', too delicate to do any dirty chores..).

eddie wrote:I started my son the day after his third birthday  and guess what? I didn't have months and months of training and acccidents. One day and it was over and not one wet bed ever in his whole life.

My daughter, I started at two. It was stop-start and loads of accidents so I put her back in nappies and waited till she was almost  three and then she did it no problem.

My children didn't start nursery until they were three and a half as I didn't want anyone else changing their nappies.

Not all children are the same anyway, I just knew my own children and knew when they were ready. They were mentally way, way advanced than others their age and that's what I concentrated on more if I'm honest. I knew that by three, with their mental abilities they understood the method of what I was doing and when they're mentally ready that's when they're physically ready imo.

Well you know your own kids better than anyone, so if three was the right age for them, then they learned quickly and easily, you did what was best for them.

My friends little boy didn't take kindly to being trained. She repeatedly tried to get him out of nappies and sit him on the potty, or a specially designed seat for the toilet, he would do nothing, but then disappear into places like her wardrobe or the back of the settee and poo there.
She decided (very wisely I thought) to leave it for a while.....so she did, and when she tried again (he must have been about 3 then) she had no trouble.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:I started my son the day after his third birthday  and guess what? I didn't have months and months of training and acccidents. One day and it was over and not one wet bed ever in his whole life.

My daughter, I started at two. It was stop-start and loads of accidents so I put her back in nappies and waited till she was almost  three and then she did it no problem.

My children didn't start nursery until they were three and a half as I didn't want anyone else changing their nappies.

Not all children are the same anyway, I just knew my own children and knew when they were ready. They were mentally way, way advanced than others their age and that's what I concentrated on more if I'm honest. I knew that by three, with their mental abilities they understood the method of what I was doing and when they're mentally ready that's when they're physically ready imo.

Well you know your own kids better than anyone, so if three was the right age for them, then they learned quickly and easily, you did what was best for them.

My friends little boy didn't take kindly to being trained. She repeatedly tried to get him out of nappies and sit him on the potty, or a specially designed seat for the toilet, he would do nothing, but then disappear into places like her wardrobe or the back of the settee and  poo  there.
She decided (very wisely I thought) to leave it for a while.....so she did, and when she tried again (he must have been about 3 then) she had no trouble.

I found it easy to train my daughter. By the time she was one, she was happily using the potty and didn't need nappies during the day at all. There was no battle. Just routine. It was better for her and better for me. Remember, back in those days there were no Huggies. Only terry nappies you had to wash out. I think disposable nappies have made it easier for parents to get lazy.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:I started my son the day after his third birthday  and guess what? I didn't have months and months of training and acccidents. One day and it was over and not one wet bed ever in his whole life.

My daughter, I started at two. It was stop-start and loads of accidents so I put her back in nappies and waited till she was almost  three and then she did it no problem.

My children didn't start nursery until they were three and a half as I didn't want anyone else changing their nappies.

Not all children are the same anyway, I just knew my own children and knew when they were ready. They were mentally way, way advanced than others their age and that's what I concentrated on more if I'm honest. I knew that by three, with their mental abilities they understood the method of what I was doing and when they're mentally ready that's when they're physically ready imo.

Well you know your own kids better than anyone, so if three was the right age for them, then they learned quickly and easily, you did what was best for them.

My friends little boy didn't take kindly to being trained. She repeatedly tried to get him out of nappies and sit him on the potty, or a specially designed seat for the toilet, he would do nothing, but then disappear into places like her wardrobe or the back of the settee and  poo  there.
She decided (very wisely I thought) to leave it for a while.....so she did, and when she tried again (he must have been about 3 then) she had no trouble.

It's my belief the earlier you start the better. Even very young babies learn quickly, they're a lot smarter than people think.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well you know your own kids better than anyone, so if three was the right age for them, then they learned quickly and easily, you did what was best for them.

My friends little boy didn't take kindly to being trained. She repeatedly tried to get him out of nappies and sit him on the potty, or a specially designed seat for the toilet, he would do nothing, but then disappear into places like her wardrobe or the back of the settee and  poo  there.
She decided (very wisely I thought) to leave it for a while.....so she did, and when she tried again (he must have been about 3 then) she had no trouble.

I found it easy to train my daughter.   By the time she was one, she was happily using the potty and didn't need nappies during the day at all.   There was no battle.   Just routine.   It was better for her and better for me.   Remember, back in those days  there were no Huggies.   Only terry nappies you had to wash out.   I think disposable nappies have made it easier for parents to get lazy.

I cant remember exactly how old my son was when I started potty training, I know he stopped wearing nappies in the daytime, then gradually worked up to not wearing at night. By his 2nd birthday he was completely dry day and night.
This seemed to be pretty average back then....I am talking mid 70's.

Thorin wrote:So there is no stupid left wing people?

None who are regressive?

Actually, very few.  In the main, left wing people tend to be very practical, almost boring people. Just problem solvers.  A lot of that is because LW people have fewer flamboyant people; RW'ers have lots.  They like jingoes, cliches and catch phrases.
Trump, for example.  Boris for another.

Thorin wrote:Well the above is a false premise that only stupid people are conservatives

I'm just responding to a comment by someone else.  It's a well-grounded argument, based in the roots of our history and acknowledged by experts all around.  I've explained how selfishness has made its way into the cellular structure of the RW, and how the infection manifests itself.

It's solid, not to be undone by jingos, cliches and catch phrases of the right.

To make the 'Stupid Conservatives' hypothesis a bit clearer :

Not all stupid people are conservatives, but most conservatives are by nature stupid people.

Original Quill wrote:



Actually, very few.  In the main, left wing people tend to be very practical, almost boring people.  Just problem solvers.  A lot of that is because LW people have fewer flamboyant people; RW'ers have lots.  They like jingoes, cliches and catch phrases.
Trump, for example.  Boris for another.

Thorin wrote:Do they? Based on what evidence? This by any chance?

I'm just responding to a comment by someone else.  It's a well-grounded argument, based in the roots of our history and acknowledged by experts all around.  I've explained how selfishness has made its way into the cellular structure of the RW, and how the infection manifests itself.

It's solid, not to be undone by jingos, cliches and catch phrases of the right.

Is it well grounded? Again most people have views that cross over into both political camps. So the bases for your argument is groundless. All you are doing is expressing an opinion, which you are entitled to.

Nappies full of shit...yup, just about sums up politics.

It says there are some 9yo's who are not fully potty trained.  I take that to mean they still get occasional accidents. It does not necessarily mean they are actually still in nappies at such an advanced age (-except maybe those specially adapted children's nappies that are worn only overnight.)

Any child over 5 or 6 yo still routinely wearing nappies probably has spina bifida, sadly or some serious developmental disease.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:I could name some posters in various places and on both sides who are obviously still in nappies...and in urgent need of them being changed.

Don't start a ................................. shitstorm!!