I'm a parent and there are 4 Netflix shows I've banned my toddler from watching
Some of the most popular children's TV shows on Netflix at the moment have been banned by one mum and for what she feels is a very good reason
The world of children's television is sparking fierce debate among parents, with some experts even questioning the value of letting little ones in front of the TV at all.
A number of child development specialists are firm that carers "should not be allowing their children to watch the TV without a parent or guardian engaging too".
I hear your parental cries: "But we need the TV," as striving for perfection in parenting isn't always realistic or easy. I am in no way suggesting that I am the model parent - because that I am not, I try to balance my two year old's life with outdoor activities, extra classes like swimming and dance, plus indoor creativity with painting, reading, and baking.
Despite striving to ensure my toddler leads a well-rounded life I still find myself occasionally succumbing to the allure of the remote control, normally during dinner prep or a quick shower.
Like many other parents, I've blindly followed Netflix's trending list for kids' shows, mistakenly echoing common patterns without much thought, reports Surrey Live.
However, it was during a glimpse of my toddler completely absorbed in Ms Rachel's programme that triggered my concern and prompted me to scrutinise the content she was consuming on screen.
As a parent, I've noticed a stark contrast between shows that completely captivate children and those that allow for playtime with the occasional glance at the telly.
This observation led me to take note of certain programmes that seemed to hypnotise my toddler in what appeared to be an unhealthy obsession.
Cocomelon
Luckily, my two-year-old didn't show much interest in JJ and his mates for long, likely because it's one of the most stimulating shows out there, in my view. I was quick to discourage it from the start.
A quick Google search on "is Cocomelon bad for children" will yield numerous videos and experts suggesting that the show's pace, repetition, and animation style could be problematic.
Having watched the show myself, I observed that most scenes were rapidly cut every 1–3 seconds, accompanied by neon-bright visuals and continuous nursery rhymes.
Due to these factors and the grip it seemed to have on my daughter, we decided to ban this Netflix show in our house.
Ms Rachel
I realise this might not be a popular opinion, but for me, Ms Rachel's programme was the eye-opener and the start of my own investigation into what I consider to be overstimulating TV shows for my child.
Ms Rachel doesn't rank as the worst in my view, and I do respect her as a fellow mother striving to enhance speech and development for children, drawing on her background as a former teacher. However, it would be remiss of me not to mention some concerns with her top-ranking Netflix show.
My two-year-old seemed to lose a bit of her spark while watching this series, perhaps overwhelmed by the vivid colours, whimsical imagery, and relentless pace. Consequently, we've decided to switch off this series for good.
Apologies to Ms Rachel, you're a good person and your programme is more educational than some, but it's not without its problems.
Peppa Pig
It was a tough call, but I'm standing firm on my decision to exclude Peppa Pig because it falls short educationally compared to other shows.
The programme is suitable for young viewers and features straightforward 2D animation, yet the bright colours and occasional rapid background movement caught my attention.
I've also seen complaints from parents on various forums about Peppa's attitude in certain episodes, fearing their kids might mimic her "bad manners".
Credit to the creators, though, for the slow-paced, gentle scenes that offer a touch of light family humour.
Paw Patrol
For similar reasons to Peppa Pig, Paw Patrol on Netflix didn't make the cut for me due to its lack of educational content and sometimes frenzied action.
Despite the evident themes of teamwork and problem-solving, I found the programme to be quite distracting and overly captivating during the action-packed sequences. So much so my toddler would not even respond to her name.
The quick scene changes aren't as rapid-fire as Cocomelon, yet the draw of bright colours and boisterous sounds undeniably impacted my child's focus.
Playtime with toys was completely abandoned when this show graced our telly, and for that reason, I'm switching it off.
Cocomelon, Ms Rachel, Peppa Pig and Paw Patrol can all currently be streamed on Netflix.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
4 hours ago
- Daily Record
Meghan and Harry's eye-watering bills laid bare in new show as 'income dries up'
Meghan and Harry: Where Did The Money Go? is set to delve into the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's finances since quitting The Firm. Prince Harry and wife Meghan Markle are set to see their incomes dwindle and costs soar as their multi-million pound deals dry up, experts have said. After they decided to quit the Royal Family back in 2020, Harry's father, King Charles removed all financial support from them as they relocated to America. After this, Harry told Oprah Winfrey during that explosive interview that his dad "literally cut me off financially" . Now a new Channel 5 programme called Meghan and Harry: Where Did The Money Go? is set to shine a light on their finances revealing Harry's surprising inheritances, Meghan's millions and their staggering Montecito mortgage. The documentary also delves into the multi-million pound deals the couple have cut to sell their story since leaving The Firm - but it also details their huge outgoings, according to The Mirror. Royal expert Norman Baker tells the show: 'There's no doubt in my mind that Meghan and Harry's income is going to decline in the future. It's declining now. They've done the big hits that they could do. They've done the big Spotify event, they've done the big book, there is nothing else to come, nothing else to sell apart from themselves.' After they moved their lives over to the US, the couple bought a lavish family home costing $14.65 million (£11m). However, they also took out a mortgage of $9.5m (£7m), with repayments in the region of $50,000-100,000 (£73,000 - £37,000) a month. Until now, it's been unheard of for a senior Royal to require a mortgage. Prince Harry has also been forced to fund his own security, and he rarely travels anywhere public without a four-car convoy. Former royal protection officer Simon Morgan explains the costs of specialist protection, saying: 'It's always very difficult to identify the cost in relation to specialist protection, purely because there's a lot of other factors that go into it. You are looking at somewhere in the region of about £3 million a year to protect somebody who stays at home. As soon as they leave the residence, even if they go down to the shops, that could see that cost double or triple and go from £3m to £6m or £9m or £10m, conservatively. Security is not a fashion accessory, it's a need. You've got to address your needs versus your wants.' In order to fund it, Harry and Meghan famously signed a £100 million five year deal with Netflix in 2020 and a £15 million deal with Spotify. The Spotify deal has since come to an end with a top exec at the firm dubbing the pair 'grifters', while the Netflix deal is due to end this year, with no renewal planned. Before they left their royal roles, which was famously branded 'Megxit', the Sussexes were earning £2.3m a year as working Royals, receiving money from the then Prince Charles's Duchy of Cornwall. But when they departed The Firm that all stopped, leaving Harry forced to live on the inheritance his mum Diana, Princess of Wales left him in her will. When she sadly passed away in a car accident in 1997, Diana left £6.5m to each of her two sons, which had grown to around £10m when Harry received it upon turning 30. In his interview with Oprah, Harry said 'Without that, we wouldn't have been able to do this," referring to the family's move to California. Meghan, meanwhile, was thought to be worth around £5million when she met Harry - money built up from her time as an actress on Suits and from her lifestyle brand. His tell all book Spare earned Harry a $20m (£15m) advance and sold an incredible 3.2 million copies in its first week. He's expected to have received a further £7m from the hardback sales. Now PR expert Nick Ede is backing Meghan to become the family's breadwinner. He says, 'Meghan is the best way of making money for the two of them. She is the breadwinner.' Nick believes that having to build her own fortune before she met Harry means she's more savvy with deals than her Royal husband. Nick continues: 'Megan from an early age knew it was very important to be secure. If you're a jobbing actress that means you don't know literally where the next pay cheque will come from and I think that will have added to her drive.' Indeed, Meghan might be more savvy with money but Harry has just come into another inheritance - this time from his great-grandmother, Elizabeth, Queen Mother. In 1994 the Queen Mother set up a Trust Fund to benefit her great-grand children and this is expected to have paid out £8m to Harry. It's a tidy sum but royal journalist Emily Andrews reckons Harry doesn't contribute much else to his household. She tells the documentary: 'Meghan gets up at half six, half an hour before the children, then the children gets up and she gets them dressed, gets their breakfast, and then she makes their packed lunch and takes them to kindy (nursery), then at 9 o'clock she sits down and is a girl boss… Where is Harry in all of this? He's not making money, he's not looking after the kids, what is Harry doing?' Meghan & Harry: Where Did The Money Go? Airs on Saturday 14th June at 8.30pm on Channel 5.
Daily Mirror
6 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Meghan and Harry timebomb with eye-watering bills laid bare as 'income dries up'
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have made a fortune since leaving The Royal Family. However, a new Channel 5 documentary reveals the money could run out Prince Harry and his wife Meghan will see their income dwindle and costs soar as their multi-million pound deals dry up, according to experts. After striking their 'Megxit' deal in 2020, King Charles removed all financial support from the couple, with Harry moaning to Oprah that his dad "literally cut me off financially". Now a new Channel 5 show called Meghan and Harry: Where Did The Money Go? shines a light on their finances revealing Harry's surprising inheritances, Meghan's millions and their staggering Montecito mortgage. The documentary counts the multi-million pound deals the pair have cut to sell their story since leaving The Firm - but it also details their astronomical outgoings. Royal expert Norman Baker tells the show: 'There's no doubt in my mind that Meghan and Harry's income is going to decline in the future. It's declining now. They've done the big hits that they could do. They've done the big Spotify event, they've done the big book, there is nothing else to come, nothing else to sell apart from themselves.' Upon moving to America the pair splashed out on a family home costing $14.65 million (£11m). However, they also took out a mortgage of $9.5m (£7m), with repayments in the region of $50,000-100,000 (£73,000 - £37,000) a month. Until now, it's been unheard of for a senior Royal to require a mortgage. On top of that, Prince Harry has been forced to fund his own security, and he rarely travels anywhere public without a four-car convoy. Former royal protection officer Simon Morgan explains the costs of specialist protection, saying: 'It's always very difficult to identify the cost in relation to specialist protection, purely because there's a lot of other factors that go into it. You are looking at somewhere in the region of about £3 million a year to protect somebody who stays at home. As soon as they leave the residence, even if they go down to the shops, that could see that cost double or triple and go from £3m to £6m or £9m or £10m, conservatively. Security is not a fashion accessory, it's a need. You've got to address your needs versus your wants.' To pay for it, the pair famously signed a £100 million five year deal with Netflix in 2020 and a £15 million deal with Spotify. The Spotify deal has already ended with a top exec at the firm dubbing the pair 'grifters', while the Netflix deal is due to end this year, with no renewal in sight. Before Megxit, the Sussexes were earning £2.3m a year as working Royals, receiving money from the then Prince Charles's Duchy of Cornwall. But when the pair left The Firm that all stopped, leaving Harry forced to live on the inheritance his mum Diana, Princess of Wales left him in her will. When she died in 1997 Diana left £6.5m to the boys each, which had grown to around £10m when Harry received it upon turning 30. Talking to Oprah, Harry said 'Without that, we wouldn't have been able to do this," referring to the family's move to California. Meghan, meanwhile, was thought to be worth around £5million when she met Harry - money built up from her time as an actress on Suits and from her lifestyle brand. His tell all book Spare earned Harry a $20m (£15m) advance and sold an incredible 3.2 million copies in its first week. He's expected to have received a further £7m from the hardback sales. Now PR expert Nick Ede is backing Meghan to become the family's breadwinner. He says, 'Meghan is the best way of making money for the two of them. She is the breadwinner.' Nick believes that having to build her own fortune before she met Harry means she's more savvy with deals than her Royal husband. Nick continues: 'Megan from an early age knew it was very important to be secure. If you're a jobbing actress that means you don't know literally where the next pay cheque will come from and I think that will have added to her drive.' Broadcaster and critic Bidisha Mamat agrees with Nick and admits she fears that Harry has a lot to prove. She says: They are going to run out of ideas before they run out of money. Meghan is going to do fine, Meghan is going to make her money, Harry has the bigger financial, personal and emotional challenge. Harry has to prove he really can have a career.' Following the collapse of the Spotify deal, Meghan did indeed land another podcast deal. This time, however, her deal was with smaller company Lemonada and expected to be worth just $40,000 (£30,000). Meghan is also still coining it in from Suits, from which repeats are thought to have recently added another $200,000 to the Sussex bottom line. Indeed, Meghan might be more savvy with money but Harry has just come into another inheritance - this time from his great-grandmother, Elizabeth, Queen Mother. In 1994 the Queen Mother set up a Trust Fund to benefit her great-grand children and this is expected to have paid out £8m to Harry. It's a tidy sum but royal journalist Emily Andrews reckons Harry doesn't contribute much else to his household. She tells the documentary: 'Meghan gets up at half six, half an hour before the children, then the children gets up and she gets them dressed, gets their breakfast, and then she makes their packed lunch and takes them to kindy (nursery), then at 9 o'clock she sits down and is a girl boss… Where is Harry in all of this? He's not making money, he's not looking after the kids, what is Harry doing?' Emily accompanied Harry and Meghan on their tour of Australia in 2018. She recalls how Meghan moaned to Harry that they weren't being paid for their work. Emily says, 'It has just been announced that Meghan was pregnant. I'm inside the Sydney Royal Opera House with Harry and Meghan and they come out. Meghan turns to Harry and looks at the screaming crowds who are waiting for them and says, 'I can't believe I'm not getting paid for this.' I think that speaks to how she viewed her role in the Royal Family.' Since they left the Royal family, the pair have become more famous than ever and commentator Afua Hagan believes the pair will go on to achieve more and more. She says: 'What is clear about Harry and Meghan is that they are very savvy with their money. America is a good spot for them at the moment because it definitely fits in with their idea of entrepreneurship. Harry and Meghan have proven time and time again that they can stand on their own two feet that they can provide for themselves and their family. Definitely we can never count them out.' The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been contacted for comment.
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Netflix fans gripped by Downton Abbey star's horror movie hailed as 'an all-time favourite' with extreme gore and 'proper mystery'
Netflix fans have been gripped by a Downton Abbey star's horror movie, hailing it as 'an all-time favourite' with extreme gore and 'proper mystery'. Apostle, released in 2018, sees Dan Stevens - best known as Matthew Crawley in the iconic ITV period drama - looking rather different. The horror film, set in the early 1900s, has Dan play a man trying to rescue his sister from a remote Welsh island, where she is being held for ransom by a religious cult. It was written and directed by Welshman Gareth Evans, well known for co-creating 2020 British action series Gangs of London, starring Paapa Essiedu and Peaky Blinders ' Joe Cole among others. The Netflix original movie has an impressive Rotten Tomatoes score of 79 per cent - and fans have now rediscovered it, taking to the review site to express their praise. From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new Showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. The horror film, set in the early 1900s, has Dan play a man trying to rescue his sister from a remote Welsh island, where she is being held for ransom by a religious cult One said: 'I'm generally not a fan of supernatural thrillers but this is a story mostly of people behaving badly with just a little supernatural thrown in to make it a little more creepy. 'Not good for "sensitive" souls as it comes with plenty of blood but not overdone in my opinion. Well done cinematography.' Another commented: 'As a huge fan of quality horror films, Apostle stands out. 'A slow burn of anxiety and dread, it makes the most out of its settings and concepts. It could have seemed slow if not for the proper use of mystery. 'It doesn't shy away from gore, but the violence is by no means senseless here. 'Apostle is by no means perfect. However, it's among one of the all-time favourites of the genre.' Similarly, one person said: 'Definitely one of the best horror movies I have seen.' Someone else was just as keen on it: 'It's a violent, imaginative gothic tale with plenty to think about, thanks to the brainpower of Gareth Evans. Fans have now rediscovered film, taking to review site Rotten Tomatoes to express their praise 'The cast are superb as is the cinematography. It's one I had to rewatch to truly appreciate its depth and beauty as a film. I'm glad I did.' Alongside Dan as protagonist Thomas Richardson, the cast boasts some other starry names too. Michael Sheen plays the cult leader Malcolm Howe and British-American actress Lucy Boynton (Miss Potter) stars as his daughter Andrea. Rising star Kristine Froseth, known for her recent turn in 2023 Apple TV+ period drama The Buccaneers, plays the daughter of Malcolm's deputy Quinn. And while others are full of praise for their performances, some viewers were not so keen. One brutally said: 'This is genuinely one of the worst movies, if not the worst movie, I have ever watched. Waste of two hours entirely.' Another was particular disappointed: 'Interesting concept and story. Started out strong with good acting. Then 45 minutes of total boredom and static. 'Watching wet paint dry would have been more interesting. But while others are full of praise for their performances, some viewers were not so keen 'Then it picked up the pace again but became muddled in a series of spasmodic, disjointed and confused nonsense.' Director Gareth, well known for his work on the Indonesian action film series The Raid, told Collider about how he tried to make Apostle different to other horror movies. 'With horror, usually, all of those suspense builds and tension builds are to jump scare, but then the release is really quick, he explained. 'They just say, "Pop", and it's gone. You've got the little jolt and then you carry on. 'For me, what I wanted to do instead is wait, where I can sustain that sense of dread, sustain that feeling of danger so you don't get those jump scare release moments. 'I might move you into another part of the plot, but I haven't let you let go of that feeling yet.' Fans' rediscovery of the movie comes as lead actor Dan's old Downton Abbey co-stars team up one final time for the beloved series' last spin-off film. Dan's character Matthew made a shock departure from the show in 2012, during the Christmas Day special - to viewer outrage. The Downton Abbey franchise, which began in 2010, has gone on to produce two spin-off films about the beloved Crawley family and their Yorkshire estate Set in the 1930s, the third and final film (pictured, the trailer) will see the return of beloved stars like Hugh Bonneville, Elizabeth McGovern, Michelle Dockery, Laura Carmichael, Jim Carter and Phyllis Logan His tragic death in a car crash came only in series three - just halfway through the show's total six series. He was killed off because the actor wanted to pursue other opportunities. And Dan has since starred in X-Men spin-off series Legion and Disney's live action Beauty And The Beast remake in 2017. The Downton Abbey franchise, which began in 2010, has gone on to produce two spin-off films about the beloved Crawley family and their Yorkshire estate. And now, the story is set to come to a close, with the third and final movie Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale, which will be released on September 12. Set in the 1930s, it will see the return of beloved stars like Hugh Bonneville, Elizabeth McGovern, Michelle Dockery, Laura Carmichael, Jim Carter and Phyllis Logan. Robert James-Collier, Joanne Froggatt, Allen Leech, Penelope Wilton, Lesley Nicol, Michael Fox and Raquel Cassidy will also feature. It also stars new additions, Paul Giamatti, Joely Richardson, Alessandro Nivola and Simon Russell Beale.
