Cheap but fun presents?

[Ginger]

You are assuming that every kid who needs a present on Xmas day has a parent .... is that what you call an "incredible sweeping statement! "  ?

Nice swerve attempt, but that isn't what you were getting at!

[EvilPie]

You are assuming that every kid who needs a present on Xmas day has a parent .... is that what you call an "incredible sweeping statement! "  ?

OP states that the presents are for "poorer families".

At least one parent is implied in this statement.

[Colchester Kev]

It was !

When I was younger (1 of 3 kids) we had fk all money, that didnt stop the old man spending hours with pen and paper playing battleships and shed loads of other games with all 3 of us .... you dont need to spend money on your kids to give them a good life ... give them the gift of YOUR TIME, thats fkin priceless !!

[Claw75]

It was !

When I was younger (1 of 3 kids) we had fk all money, that didnt stop the old man spending hours with pen and paper playing battleships and shed loads of other games with all 3 of us .... you dont need to spend money on your kids to give them a good life ... give them the gift of YOUR TIME, thats fkin priceless !!

Kind of contradicting what you said earlier, no?

[Ginger]

.....So in that case, kids that could use a present or two are just as likely to have parents that will sit and play with them...

Glad we cleared that up.

[Colchester Kev]

Oh bollocks ... I concede.

Now 2 women are involved, what chance do I have.

[G1BTW]

Take them down the local recycling centre for a day out playing 'lucky dip'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8401076.stm

We used to do this, very seldom though, my parents were poor so couldn't be arsed with us much.

[GreekStein]

am I the only parent that plays board games with their only child? We love them here!

Lets face it, Kids that are in desperate need of an xmas pressie aren't that likely to have parents that will sit and play board games with them.

Wow, incredible sweeping statement!

Just because a parent can't provide presents, does not mean they aren't likely to play a board game with their kids.

Probably less likely than someone who can though.

Why probably?

Not being awkward, I just don't see the reasoning.

A parent finds themselves in hard times, very short of money for whatever reason - how does that equate to them being less likely to play with their child?

I don't mean to be controversial (for once!) and think it's a really nice thing that Tracey is doing.

I wouldn't have said what Kev did (though it's no huge deal imo) just to avoid arguments except I can see his thinking.

Also, Matt, there is a HUGE line between multai parents and parents who can simply afford to buy their children a christmas present. I wasn't referring to rich people at all - dunno how you made that leap!

You have to be mega poor to not be able to buy your kid a present for £10 say, and I'd imagine this was the case for less than 1% of people in the UK.

In cases of such extreme poverty, would the children not be taken away? My dad was, for 2 years as a kid when living in unfit conditions. His parents tried their best but were working 7 days a week from morning til 1 am - I don't think they ever played a game with him. Not saying that's the case generally but might help you understand where my line of thought is coming from.

If not then parents are possibly ill in which case it may be fair to assume they aren't up to playing games?

Or poor because of things like drugs/alcohol/gambling which probably wouldn't make them wanna whip out the monopoly board with the little ones.

[Ginger]

It was !

When I was younger (1 of 3 kids) we had fk all money, that didnt stop the old man spending hours with pen and paper playing battleships and shed loads of other games with all 3 of us .... you dont need to spend money on your kids to give them a good life ... give them the gift of YOUR TIME, thats fkin priceless !!

Kind of contradicting what you said earlier, no?

I wasn't going to point that out directly, but as you already have...

[G1BTW]

Popped on here during my coffee break during the middle of an uberbusy afternoon, for a quick browse. Walk slap bang into a domestic.

Mannn, I run good

[Colchester Kev]

Take them down the local recycling centre for a day out playing 'lucky dip'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8401076.stm

We used to do this, very seldom though, my parents were poor so couldn't be arsed with us much.

Tried that, couldnt be arsed to queue ... too many people with the same idea

[Colchester Kev]

Popped on here during my coffee break during the middle of an uberbusy afternoon, for a quick browse. Walk slap bang into a domestic.

Mannn, I run good

LOL ... not quite code red yet, come back at knocking off time though, there may be developments

[Jon MW]

am I the only parent that plays board games with their only child? We love them here!

Lets face it, Kids that are in desperate need of an xmas pressie aren't that likely to have parents that will sit and play board games with them.

Wow, incredible sweeping statement!

Just because a parent can't provide presents, does not mean they aren't likely to play a board game with their kids.

Probably less likely than someone who can though.

Why probably?

Not being awkward, I just don't see the reasoning.

A parent finds themselves in hard times, very short of money for whatever reason - how does that equate to them being less likely to play with their child?

I don't mean to be controversial (for once!) and think it's a really nice thing that Tracey is doing.

I wouldn't have said what Kev did (though it's no huge deal imo) just to avoid arguments except I can see his thinking.

Also, Matt, there is a HUGE line between multai parents and parents who can simply afford to buy their children a christmas present. I wasn't referring to rich people at all - dunno how you made that leap!

You have to be mega poor to not be able to buy your kid a present for £10 say, and I'd imagine this was the case for less than 1% of people in the UK.

In cases of such extreme poverty, would the children not be taken away? My dad was, for 2 years as a kid when living in unfit conditions. His parents tried their best but were working 7 days a week from morning til 1 am - I don't think they ever played a game with him. Not saying that's the case generally but might help you understand where my line of thought is coming from.

If not then parents are possibly ill in which case it may be fair to assume they aren't up to playing games?

Or poor because of things like drugs/alcohol/gambling which probably wouldn't make them wanna whip out the monopoly board with the little ones.

It doesn't have to be extreme poverty for parents not to be able to afford Christmas presents, if it comes down to paying for rent and bills or buying Christmas presents then the bills should come first (but they still have the money to pay one or the other - so not extreme poverty).

In practice a lot of families in that situation take out extra credit to pay for Christmas because they're idiots, but just because they're poor - and in many cases stupid in that way - doesn't have any corellation with how much attention they pay their kids in terms of playing games and spending time with them.

It does have a corellation with spending time with them on things like homework and reading - but that's a different topic.

[GreekStein]

am I the only parent that plays board games with their only child? We love them here!

Lets face it, Kids that are in desperate need of an xmas pressie aren't that likely to have parents that will sit and play board games with them.

Wow, incredible sweeping statement!

Just because a parent can't provide presents, does not mean they aren't likely to play a board game with their kids.

Probably less likely than someone who can though.

Why probably?

Not being awkward, I just don't see the reasoning.

A parent finds themselves in hard times, very short of money for whatever reason - how does that equate to them being less likely to play with their child?

I don't mean to be controversial (for once!) and think it's a really nice thing that Tracey is doing.

I wouldn't have said what Kev did (though it's no huge deal imo) just to avoid arguments except I can see his thinking.

Also, Matt, there is a HUGE line between multai parents and parents who can simply afford to buy their children a christmas present. I wasn't referring to rich people at all - dunno how you made that leap!

You have to be mega poor to not be able to buy your kid a present for £10 say, and I'd imagine this was the case for less than 1% of people in the UK.

In cases of such extreme poverty, would the children not be taken away? My dad was, for 2 years as a kid when living in unfit conditions. His parents tried their best but were working 7 days a week from morning til 1 am - I don't think they ever played a game with him. Not saying that's the case generally but might help you understand where my line of thought is coming from.

If not then parents are possibly ill in which case it may be fair to assume they aren't up to playing games?

Or poor because of things like drugs/alcohol/gambling which probably wouldn't make them wanna whip out the monopoly board with the little ones.

It doesn't have to be extreme poverty for parents not to be able to afford Christmas presents, if it comes down to paying for rent and bills or buying Christmas presents then the bills should come first (but they still have the money to pay one or the other - so not extreme poverty).

In practice a lot of families in that situation take out extra credit to pay for Christmas because they're idiots, but just because they're poor - and in many cases stupid in that way - doesn't have any corellation with how much attention they pay their kids in terms of playing games and spending time with them.

It does have a corellation with spending time with them on things like homework and reading - but that's a different topic.

Maybe I just grew up in a very privileged family but imo only having money to pay rent and bills is ridic poor.

[Jon MW]

am I the only parent that plays board games with their only child? We love them here!

Lets face it, Kids that are in desperate need of an xmas pressie aren't that likely to have parents that will sit and play board games with them.

Wow, incredible sweeping statement!

Just because a parent can't provide presents, does not mean they aren't likely to play a board game with their kids.

Probably less likely than someone who can though.

Why probably?

Not being awkward, I just don't see the reasoning.

A parent finds themselves in hard times, very short of money for whatever reason - how does that equate to them being less likely to play with their child?

I don't mean to be controversial (for once!) and think it's a really nice thing that Tracey is doing.

I wouldn't have said what Kev did (though it's no huge deal imo) just to avoid arguments except I can see his thinking.

Also, Matt, there is a HUGE line between multai parents and parents who can simply afford to buy their children a christmas present. I wasn't referring to rich people at all - dunno how you made that leap!

You have to be mega poor to not be able to buy your kid a present for £10 say, and I'd imagine this was the case for less than 1% of people in the UK.

In cases of such extreme poverty, would the children not be taken away? My dad was, for 2 years as a kid when living in unfit conditions. His parents tried their best but were working 7 days a week from morning til 1 am - I don't think they ever played a game with him. Not saying that's the case generally but might help you understand where my line of thought is coming from.

If not then parents are possibly ill in which case it may be fair to assume they aren't up to playing games?

Or poor because of things like drugs/alcohol/gambling which probably wouldn't make them wanna whip out the monopoly board with the little ones.

It doesn't have to be extreme poverty for parents not to be able to afford Christmas presents, if it comes down to paying for rent and bills or buying Christmas presents then the bills should come first (but they still have the money to pay one or the other - so not extreme poverty).

In practice a lot of families in that situation take out extra credit to pay for Christmas because they're idiots, but just because they're poor - and in many cases stupid in that way - doesn't have any corellation with how much attention they pay their kids in terms of playing games and spending time with them.

It does have a corellation with spending time with them on things like homework and reading - but that's a different topic.

Maybe I just grew up in a very privileged family but imo only having money to pay rent and bills is ridic poor.

No ridic poor is when you don't have enough money to pay the rent and bills