Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Baby Newcomer is too young for trick-or-treating but, I've got to admit, I've always disliked the concept of it. Perhaps this is because I didn't trick-or-treat as a child (it wasn't common where I lived but I doubt my parents would've let me anyway) or perhaps it's because I can't help but think of it as a form of begging!


What do other parents do? Do you all let your kids trick or treat? Am I a killjoy if I don't go along with it?


PS I'm not a total spoilsport and I have bought sweets and chocolate to give out in case any kids come round!

So 'begging' is not ok for your child, but it's alright to hand out candy to other children? Uh-oh, massive double-standard ahead! You'll have a lot of trouble justifying this double-standard to your child when s/he is old enough to question it in a few of years. I think you either have to let your child go tick-or-treating (maybe with limits, like only to houses of neighbours you know?), or keep them in and not hand out candy at all.


Why not use it as an opportunity to meet your neighbours and their children, if you don't already know them? Or, if you want to go down the no trick-or-treating / no giving candy route, you could have a small party on halloween for your child and a few friends instead. xx

I know where you're coming from Newcomer - but I guarentee you'll change your mind when baby newcomer is older! Also, there is a unspoken rule that you only knock on decorated houses, a signal that they are joining in, which rather takes the notion of "begging" I think.

Happy Halloween!

Saffron, I see your point but I guess my belief is that what other parents let their kids do is none of my business, so on balance I think it would be worse to make a big deal out of it by refusing to give some 5-year-old sweets if they happen to stop by. I don't plan to leave out a pumpkin or decorations so I'm not exactly inviting the trick or treaters to come and call. Of course, I also admit that part of the reason is self-preservation - I really don't fancy having my windows pelted with eggs or other nasty tricks being played on me!


Gwod, yeah, I figure I might have to reluctantly relent if 'all his friends are doing it' and I'm the only stick-in-the-mud parent muttering on about 'institutionalised extortion' but I'm going to try to stand firm as long as I can! At the moment, my (probably naive) plan is to explain my views to my son if he asks, but give him some sweets and chocolate on All Saints Day instead (i.e., the next day) so he doesn't feel too hard done by.


My dad did a similar thing when I was growing up. He hated the idea of lying to me about anything, so instead of saying the tooth fairy would give me money for a tooth, he simply gave me the money upfront and explained that I probably shouldn't 'spoil it' for the other kids by telling them that the tooth fairy didn't exist. I never felt it was unfair - I was just happy to get the money!

For what it's worth, I'm totally with you on this. My eldest is only 2.5, but when she's bigger, I'll do my best to avoid her going T&T.


People call me a kill joy, and say they only go to agreed houses, or houses with pumpkins, but I've never had a pumpkin, and my doorbell always rings loads!


I too have sweets at the ready, and I think it's harsh to call that double standards.


I loved Halloween as a kid, and I want my kids to have great times at parties and stuff, but T&T is just a rubbish Americanism that should have stayed in America!

I'm not a fan either, and we don't put a pumpkin outside. Growing up it wasn't something that happened at all (same country as you I think newcomer) so I guess because I wasn't brought up with it I don't feel my kids need to do it either.


Nothing against it, just not part of my culture I guess.

I'm not a fan either. I couldn't believe the number of children out on court lane last year. I've always been a bit anti hallowe'en though - I think it's because my birthday is on the 2nd Nov and too many of my parties were taken over by the hallowe'en theme as a child!


I had to stop myself buying a tub of hallowe'en treat sweets today - decided they can make do with what's in the cupboard.

I probably said this same time last year, but in Scotland we had (still have?) a tradition of 'guising' instead of Trick or Treating. This involved dressing up and each kid performing a 'turn' - rhyme/song/telling a joke - and we'd collect treats in 'reward'. If nobody answered there was no 'trick' played, we just moved onto the next house. We did it for years and always made a massive effort with costumes etc. And yep definitely only called on houses of people we knew, and were chaperoned by adults/teenagers. But I've no idea if that still happens in my home town - must ask my mum!


In all the years I've lived in London I don't think I've ever had trick or treaters at my door. I did once have kids asking for a penny for the guy several months before bonfire night though...

This will be a dilemma for us when the time comes in a couple of years too. I need to find out more about any conflict between haloweem and our Christian beliefs. I've seen church youth groups doing an alternative All Saints Day party, which seems like a good idea. Like someone said, it will be interesting to resurect this thread in a few years and see where our principles have ended up.
Belle--I grew up in the US and in my area halloween was very similar to what you described. Never any nastiness to it and you always gave a little something (IE performance) to get the treat. It seems that now in the US and in my last 5 years in London kids just knock on your door and shove an open bag in your face to fill with treats. Like so many things the sweetness of childhood seems to have been stripped away and replaced with a gimme gimme attitude. Sad.

My son hasn't trick-or-treated but now he's 4, we're thinking it might be fun this year.


Maybe I'm naive, but our experiences of Hallowe'en in ED have been enormous fun. We do put pumpkins out and dress up, and it's so sweet to see the little ones dressed as witches and wizards giggling at the gate. I don't see kids greedy and grasping, just excited and loving being dressed up and out and about.


I completely respect what people are saying about not finding it their thing and it must be really annoying to have kids knocking when you haven't decorated your house, but again my experience has been when we 'retired' our pumpkins and left a note on the gate with the last of the sweets explaining that we now had kids in bed and would prefer no more visitors, we were left alone.

I don't let my children go out trick or treating and they are now teenagers, so, no I haven't caved in. I don't give out sweets so I do not have any double standards but if very small children come to the door I will comment on their costumes so they are not too disappointed.


The one thing in particular I don't like is how some elderly people have been harassed by constant and persistent knocking. One year an elderly relative had flour and eggs thrown at her door which she then slipped on and badly hurt herself. I appreciate that users of this forum would not condone such behaviour but encouraging such an activity has some rather serious and unavoidable effects.


I also don't think we give enough consideration to how very young children feel about the event. When my children were very young they were terrified of the ugly faces so I didn't open the door to the next set of callers but they persistently banged on the door which made my children even more upset. I've also had children come to play at my home after a week of trick or treating and tell me they feel safe at my house because "there is no ghosts here".

I'm with Belle - 'The sky is blue, the grass is green, may we have our Halloween' and a party piece to boot. A much nicer approach I think than trick or treat. But I think even up home it's dying out....probably depends how much of a community feel & trust there is nowadays.


Not sure about letting my LO's out or not. It's nice for them to do something with friends but I dread a bucket full of sweets that I'll feel guilty about then trying to ration out (but guilty too if I let them binge)!

Very sad to hear of egg throwing etc. We always put out pumpkins & decorations & welcome callers, but the year we had a 3 week old baby we simply put out a sign saying 'sorry new baby means no treats this year' & we had no trouble at all - heard people approach then saying "shhhhsh & walking away".


We have huge fun with it in our house & do go calling at certain pre agreed houses. I'm happy my girls will grow up understanding what is acceptable behaviour. I love seeing how much effort some people go to with costumes.


I also totally respect that it isn't for everyone.


If you really don't want callers I'd def. Put a polite note up to that effect.

My daughters tricked and treated only once - youngest about 3 and with her sister 16, they went with a group of friends

with similiar aged siblings and only called on houses of people that they knew. The older ones dressed up the younger kids- I think it was the novelty of dressing up which made it for the kids. They only did it once and that was enough for them.

A former neighbour always encouraged her 4 kids to T & T as it was a cheap way of getting their weekly sweets and saved her money!

My mum is frail and lives near us in East D and I have taken to inviting her round to ours on Halloween in recent times as there were way too many groups of teenagers wearing scream masks (prob 13 - 15 ish) trick or treating her and asking for money, not sweets. Trouble is, you only know if it's groups like that, rather than little kids with parents asking for chocs when it's too late and you've gone to the door. And my mum was finding that if she turned back without answering because she was intimidated the teenage groups could see her in the hall cos there are glass panels in her front door, and played 'tricks' because she hadn't come and given them stuff. Tricks being eggs thrown against windows etc. I do worry about vulnerable people living on their own being quite intimidated on Halloween. Definitely seems best to only go to houses that have pumpkins or friends houses, that's what we did when we were little, just went to a couple of friends houses, and we were totally chuffed with that, still got to dress up, eat chocolates etc.

It might be quite a nice thing if people know there is someone older, or frailer, on their street who might feel intimidated by door knocking / potential for tricks, to invite them round that evening so they're not home alone, whether that's for a Halloween-less evening or to have a slice of pumpkin pie if you're making something fun of it! I know my mum isn't alone in feeling quite anxious that night, my gran used to be scared s*itless when people rang her bell on Halloween, even if it is all harmless fun outside, I think sometimes it's hard for people who feel vulnerable to differentiate between the sounds of high jinks and something that sounds more threatening. And actually, something like egging the windows, or coming up through the bushes in the front garden with masks on and pressing faces against her windows, has really scared my mum before..


don't want to sound like a killjoy! Certainly not saying that people shouldn't have fun on Halloween! Just that trick or treating strangers houses unless they have a pumpkin out, maybe isn't such a great thing..

I never let my kids out to trick or treat, i was called a big meanie by the kids and adults alike. A good alternative if you don't like the idea of trick or treating is to hold your own halloween party. I almost hate to admit it but i enjoy it more and more every year a tea of witches worms draculas blood punch and eyeball jellies always goes down a treat with the kids. If you hate halloween give it a go you never know you maybe like me and be converted!

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I too have sweets at the ready, and I think it's

> harsh to call that double standards.


It's not harsh, just an observation of the illogical juxtapose of the two. I was not at all making a judgement, and I totally respect that different people observe different traditions. But if you have one sentiment for yourself (no trick-or-treating) and another for everyone else (still handing out candy), there is an illogical disunion between the two sentiments. That is why I said it was a double-standard. It was not meant to be offensive. I was merely observing that parents need to think ahead about how they would explain this contradiction to children.


>

> I loved Halloween as a kid, and I want my kids to

> have great times at parties and stuff, but T&T is

> just a rubbish Americanism that should have stayed

> in America!


This statement, however, is offensive. Do you feel so strongly about it b/c you have been trick-or-treating in the US or Canada and had a bad experience with it? I say this b/c trick-or-treating in America is actually different than what many British people believe it to be. It's not what you see on the tele or in films. From what I have observed, it's a holiday with a strong sense of community.


If you had a bad experience of trick-or-treating in America, I'm truly sorry. A bad experience can be very off-putting. But there's no need to "rubbish" other people's traditions just b/c of it.


On the other hand, if you have had bad experiences with Halloween/T&Ting in Britain, then it's more of an issue as to how the modern holiday has been adapted here, and nothing to do with "American" or "Americanisms". If you don't want to celebrate Halloween or trick-or-treating, b/c it's not your cuppa, that's absolutely fine, w/o having to blame it on some jingoistic nonsense.

I grew up trick or treating (not in the States!) and it was and a really fun night for the whole neighborhood. Costumes don't have to be scary so are actually really creative and fun, seniors enjoy having a stream of children come to the door and show off their costumes, and the whole neighborhood would be lit up with pumpkins and busy with happy children. Teenagers are generally thought to be too old, although some put some great costumes together and are welcomed if in the spirit of the fun. Nobody asks for money, although we used to carry small Unicef boxes to collect spare change as well as treats. And the trick part never really materialized (that I've ever known of) so there was little threat. Sometimes people make you sing for your candy though!


But it does seem to have become quite sinister in London, it kind of sounds like the worst parts have been oddly interpreted (give us money or we'll egg or house? WTH?) And I can see how it's not the best place to have strangers in masks banging down your door at night demanding candy and money. Sounds like a distinctively London twist on things!;-)

I'm a Yank so obviously grew up trick or treating. We spend the day carving pumpkins and putting up decorations in the front of our house. Starting from about 3 years of age, we allowed our kids to go out with their friends (and adult) trick or treating and they were absolutely delighted. They also only knock on houses with pumpkins/halloween decorations. Over the years I've noticed more and more houses on our street participating and it's great for the kids. Think our road had the best carved pumpkins last year!


I have never ever heard of people getting eggs pelted at their windows or property damaged until I moved to London and am very surprised. But in the States you did read about the the odd nutter who contaminated the candy in some way so my parents used to go through my loot and throw away anything that looked dodgy (but here my kids only ever went to the houses on our street and we know everyone so it felt safer).


Sorry to some that the rubbish americanism has invaded your borders, but then you don't have to partake!

My daughter is four and hasn't been trick or treat-ing yet, for the last two years she's dressed up and handed out sweets to (early evening) callers - that way she feels involved and enjoys the anticipation of someone knocking the door. This year, as she's just started school we're taking advatage of an INSET day and having a Halloween tea at the house for a handful of new school friends - lots of decorations, 'scary' games and no doubt some revolting coloured food.......

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...