Kizzy and Ettie

[LEC]

Jumping with Ivy is renowned on long circuit for how awful her parents are. Getting cross and making her talk to the camera over and over again if it’s not quite right. My friends who have kids say it’s awful to see and this is the pony sjing circuit which isn’t exactly lacking domineering parents.

 

[FieldOrnaments]

Jumping with Ivy is renowned on long circuit for how awful her parents are. Getting cross and making her talk to the camera over and over again if it’s not quite right. My friends who have kids say it’s awful to see and this is the pony sjing circuit which isn’t exactly lacking domineering parents.

People on instagram who've been in warm up rings with them have said the same.

I think effectively monetising your kid's childhood when they can't consent and the internet is forever ought to be made a form of legally punishable abuse.

ETA - yes that's extreme but each child only gets one chance at childhood.

 

[criso]

I think effectively monetising your kid's childhood when they can't consent and the internet is forever ought to be made a form of legally punishable abuse

It is but is it different to child models or actors.

 

[ycbm]

It is but is it different to child models or actors.

I think at some stage in future child actors and photographic models will also be considered a safeguarding issue and they will be replaced with ultra real CGI

Hollywood is full of horrible stories about what has happened to many previous child stars.
.

 

[FieldOrnaments]

It is but is it different to child models or actors.

when you say it is do you mean yes it's abuse or yes it's already technically illegal? Sorry

 

[criso]

when you say it is do you mean yes it's abuse or yes it's already technically illegal? Sorry

I'm agreeing it's monetising your children with limited consent but suggesting that it's just a modern platform and no different to other forms of child performance that people wouldn't think twice about.

 

[Rowreach]

Tbf, as a society we are increasingly risk averse, particularly I think, with kids and ponies…..PC instruction can no longer do the ‘ come on get up and back on quickly’ when a child rolls off……our junior jumping used to start at 85( 2’6ish) riding club shows now start at poles on the ground. My friend started at BE novice because she WAS a novice!, x poles, and 40 cm…. BE and BS now start pretty small,
I do not agree with reckless btw! I haven’t seen the hunting child but remember mine drag hunting at 12 over substantially solid stuff…

Novice level eventing was never aimed at novice riders! Well not the sort of people we would think of as novice.

I think it's lovely that shows, clubs and coaches are encouraging riders to start realistically and offer cross poles and smaller classes to suit everyone. And with what we now know about concussion, I'm very glad that people take falling off a moving high up object a little more seriously than they did in my day (like when I fell off in a stubble field half way round a sponsored ride when I was about 12, threw up most of the rest of the way, and at the finish, and got taken home and put to bed to sleep it off by my rather unsympathetic mother who was p1ssed off about having to do my pony for me).

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Child performers are protected to a degree. I think parents who monetise their children on social media should come under the same legislation. It is a safeguarding issue.

Any tasks children will be asked to do need to be risk assessed. None of these parents would be able to place their child at such obvious unnecessary risk for money.

https://assets.ctfassets.net/870j9u9p7ed7/1tKIIRAkmY2SJiSXKIHQiE/d074f0798c6e1e1f5446c96a2a748249/Child_Licensing_Guidelines_-_January_2022.pdf

 

[ycbm]

My friend started at BE novice because she WAS a novice!,

I don't see how. My avatar is of me jumping a BE Novice fence. It is about 8 ft wide, 3ft 7 high, and has a 7ft drop on it. The horse is a very long and capable 17 hands.

BE Novice is 1m 10 with show jumps up to 1m 15 and brush xc fence at 1m 20.

 

[FieldOrnaments]

I'm agreeing it's monetising your children with limited consent but suggesting that it's just a modern platform and no different to other forms of child performance that people wouldn't think twice about.

Ahhh ok. I'd disagree the internet can be said to be the same as, for instance, theatre or even screen acting though. The reach and audience is so much wider and there is no risk of things like deepfakes or scams with their name/face being made as there is with online content.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Just to add - being pretty adventurous because you /your child are adrenaline junkies and love it is one thing. Personal choice, family culture etc. As soon as the motivation is money or goods then it becomes unacceptable imo.

And given these children are being treated like professional performers for financial gain then the legislation protecting them that already exists should apply. That doesn’t mean parents have to risk assess jumping hay bales in the field. But it would if they are only doing it for cash.

 

[criso]

Ahhh ok. I'd disagree the internet can be said to be the same as, for instance, theatre or even screen acting though. The reach and audience is so much wider and there is no risk of things like deepfakes or scams with their name/face being made as there is with online content.

Child actors in major soaps and series and films will have a fame far greater than the internet and those images are also available on the internet to be manipulated, distorted or or turned into memes. Kizzy and Ettie's IG has 98k followers, facebook 190k, jumping with ivy on FB 171k. EastEnders apparently 5 million.

And for every kizzy and ettie, there's a kid at the yard who thinks they're and eventer and has 527 followers..

I agree with ambersecho that there is regulation in place however a quick look at the link has some exceptions including filming an event or activity they would be doing anyway. So even for TV a child going hunting or jumping in a competition would not need a licence if you can say they would be doing even if the cameras weren't there.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

I think that exception is fine - parents posting children showjumping, hunting etc. But the children under discussion are being made to do dangerous things and being monetised.

Where the line is between sharing fun videos that happen to go viral (and thereby generating income), and setting your children up as performers for social media channels, might be tricky but a simple metric is if the channel is a subscription one. And also if the task is being done just for the channel as Jumping With Ivy clearly is.

 

[FieldOrnaments]

Child actors in major soaps and series and films will have a fame far greater than the internet and those images are also available on the internet to be manipulated, distorted or or turned into memes. Kizzy and Ettie's IG has 98k followers, facebook 190k, jumping with ivy on FB 171k. EastEnders apparently 5 million.

And for every kizzy and ettie, there's a kid at the yard who thinks they're and eventer and has 527 followers..

I agree with ambersecho that there is regulation in place however a quick look at the link has some exceptions including filming an event or activity they would be doing anyway. So even for TV a child going hunting or jumping in a competition would not need a licence if you can say they would be doing even if the cameras weren't there.

It is views though, not just followers, as the content is public: and the cumulative account views, especially if you factor in across multiple platforms will be in excess of East Enders by a long way. It really needs tighter regulations...something along the lines of no posting under 16s by third parties to be legal....which would be a shame in a way because it would enormously reduce the amount of cute content out there for those of us who just need a dopamine boost.

Child actors will have a huge support team behind them. (Not saying that what goes on in Hollywood and the exploitation there isn't also completely wrong).
I just think how on earth will those children feel about it all when they are no longer children.

Again, as usual, the ability to turn my thoughts into coherent written sentences completely eludes me

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

Aside from risking falling off, watching Callie Coles' young child repeatedly whiplash his head and neck over huge fences makes me feel a bit sick. The odd one maybe but it just seems to be jump after jump of it, which cannot be good for his neck and/or brain.

The other one I cannot stand is Frankie's Ponies. And endless list of BS but the stand out for me was sharing a photo of Frankie in the back of an ambulance.

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

I think that exception is fine - parents posting children showjumping, hunting etc. But the children under discussion are being made to do dangerous things and being monetised.

Where the line is between sharing fun videos that happen to go viral (and thereby generating income), and setting your children up as performers for social media channels, might be tricky but a simple metric is if the channel is a subscription one. And also if the task is being done just for the channel as Jumping With Ivy clearly is.

Subscription or with brand partnerships/sponsors. I think for all under 16's the whole lot of monetisation should be banned from SM. It's gross.

Do venues not have a safeguarding responsibility to children competing at their venues? If it's widely known that the family with Ivy are awful in that way, I hope that it is being reported. If a child was repeatedly turning up at school with their family behaving like that you would hope safeguarding procedures would be followed and this shouldn't be any different imo.

 

[equinerebel]

I think family vlogging is definitely different from child actors and is absolutely abhorrent. I don’t know the channels being referenced in this thread, so my comment may not actually apply to this discussion.

I have seen parents of family vlogs guilt trip their own children by threatening that the comfortable lives they’re used to will disappear if they no longer did YouTube

 

[criso]

It is views though, not just followers, as the content is public: and the cumulative account views, especially if you factor in across multiple platforms will be in excess of East Enders by a long way. It really needs tighter regulations...something along the lines of no posting under 16s by third parties to be legal....which would be a shame in a way because it would enormously reduce the amount of cute content out there for those of us who just need a dopamine boost.

Child actors will have a huge support team behind them. (Not saying that what goes on in Hollywood and the exploitation there isn't also completely wrong).
I just think how on earth will those children feel about it all when they are no longer children.

Again, as usual, the ability to turn my thoughts into coherent written sentences completely eludes me

Kizzy and Ettie which was the one that prompted the thread is subscription only so will have limited exposure

I mentioned EastEnders as a very small local programme that has limited interest outside the UK but if you think about the reach of something like Harry Potter or Game of Thrones, the reach will be far in excess of jumping with ivy and clips and stills will also be on the internet in their original form and manipulated or out of context.

If you read the ITV regs posted, a lot are around hours and schooling and meals and a little h&s recognising TV and film sets can be dangerous with large heavy equipment. There is nothing to protect children from the psychological effects of exposure and fame at a young age and many don't cope. The rules didn't help someone like Britney Spears from the effects of fame at a young age or possibly exploitative parents depending on who you believe.. There are so many child performers who have issues either in the spotlight for those who have an adult career or out of sight for those whose fame didn't last.

I'm not justifying what these parents do and some of the posts mentioning brands are just one long product placement and not disagreeing that there is a level of exploitation but I'm just not convinced it's anything new.

As for unpleasant show jumping parents. When I was young it was well known that a very success JA jumper locally would get hit for each pole he had down.

 

[teapot]

Kizzy and Ettie which was the one that prompted the thread is subscription only so will have limited exposure

I mentioned EastEnders as a very small local programme that has limited interest outside the UK but if you think about the reach of something like Harry Potter or Game of Thrones, the reach will be far in excess of jumping with ivy and clips and stills will also be on the internet in their original form and manipulated or out of context.

If you read the ITV regs posted, a lot are around hours and schooling and meals and a little h&s recognising TV and film sets can be dangerous with large heavy equipment. There is nothing to protect children from the psychological effects of exposure and fame at a young age and many don't cope. The rules didn't help someone like Britney Spears from the effects of fame at a young age or possibly exploitative parents depending on who you believe.. There are so many child performers who have issues either in the spotlight for those who have an adult career or out of sight for those whose fame didn't last.

I'm not justifying what these parents do and some of the posts mentioning brands are just one long product placement and not disagreeing that there is a level of exploitation but I'm just not convinced it's anything new.

As for unpleasant show jumping parents. When I was young it was well known that a very success JA jumper locally would get hit for each pole he had down.

Kizzy and Ettie had follower numbers in thousands and thousands before it went private, the exposure was done a long time ago.

ETS: the Instagram account is public and I still see stuff being shared by third parties. That's the problem with social media, you have no control with the spiral of content unless you restrict access.

 

[Aleka81]

As for Callie the basket saddle would have been produced regardless. I suggest you search her husband and his achievements. Yes its old school and god forbid if there was an accident. That would be horrendous. But I think saying the things some of you are is pretty horrific :-(

Also as for small children on big horses. We are one of the few nations that put children on a-hole ponies rather than well schooled 15hh plus horses!

 

[ester]

Aside from risking falling off, watching Callie Coles' young child repeatedly whiplash his head and neck over huge fences makes me feel a bit sick. The odd one maybe but it just seems to be jump after jump of it, which cannot be good for his neck and/or brain.

The other one I cannot stand is Frankie's Ponies. And endless list of BS but the stand out for me was sharing a photo of Frankie in the back of an ambulance.

It's the constant whiplash that gets me too. .

 

[FieldOrnaments]

I am now wondering what I've said wrong now

 

[Clodagh]

Yeah fair enough. I’d have a minor heart attack myself

Because you wouldn’t doesn’t always mean other people are too scared as well.
No judgement against you but maybe less judgemental of others.

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

I suggest you search her husband and his achievements.

I'm not getting your point. What does this have to do with monetising your children and putting them at excessive levels of risk for SM.

 

[Clodagh]

I think you’d find Callie Coles children would be doing what they do even if instagram wasn’t invented. No I don’t follow her, I don’t really so insta.
Some people live wild lives, we don’t all live risk free nowadays.

 

[Upthecreek]

It is so wrong. How would most adults feel if someone was filming them and sharing the videos on social media? Most of us would be furious. Yet these parents seem to think they have a right to do it because the children belong to them. It’s a grotesque invasion of their privacy when they are not old enough to understand how they might feel about it when they are older.

Kizzy and Ettie had 192,000 FB followers before they became subscription only. One of the girls is apparently quite shy and self conscious, so would she choose to be a social media star?

 

[criso]

Double posted

 

[criso]

Kizzy and Ettie had follower numbers in thousands and thousands before it went private, the exposure was done a long time ago.

ETS: the Instagram account is public and I still see stuff being shared by third parties. That's the problem with social media, you have no control with the spiral of content unless you restrict access.

Yes hundreds of thousands but Britney Spears who was a conventional child star has 42 million on IG and well publicised issues with parents and fame.

 

[Dave's Mam]

I eventually blocked Kizzy & Ettie because everywhere I went, there they were. On every single horsey FB group, the same videos every week, umpteen times. It was a concerted effort for views, obviously with a move to monetising. It's shabby behaviour in my opinion.

 

[DressageCob]

I'm very uncomfortable with any account based around watching little kids do things. It's weird. I don't like that they can't consent, they get bullied into doing things by their parents and have no control over their image. It's not just equestrian influencers either. There's an awful account with a little girl (whose name is a type of bird but I won't say beyond that because I don't want to drive traffic there) whose mum gets her to eat things on camera, say things which adults will interpret in a different way to an innocent child. Not only does she have thousands of adult male followers, but she also has scores of other accounts sharing her videos, fan pages and the like. I've noticed Jumping with Ivy is getting shared by fan accounts and the bot pages on Facebook, with comments from adult men about her "riding". It's gross. Why you would put your child out there to be shared by good and evil alike is beyond me. It's not worth the risk .

I do think it's different to child actors, because their image is carefully watched and there are strict limits on what they do and when/where. They are so far in the public eye that they have millions of people looking out for them and advocating when things go too far. However, they still get exposed to adult things they shouldn't be. It's better now than it was in Brook Shields' day, but if you see a post with child actors you will see dodgy comments there too.