A few minutes of tv . I am now an arch-criminal

My first child babies slept on their side with a blanket rolled up behind their backs to stop them rolling on to their backs because that could kill them (guidelines in 1989.
Fast forward to 1991 babies on tummy to sleep any other position death may ensue.
Lo and behold 1997 back to back campaign the only safe position on their back. We did manage to keep up with the changes back then as well.

Isn't there a saying about teaching granny to suck eggs.

Many people here may dislike my views, but they are views many of today's parents hold.

You forget that we are the parents of today's parents

I don't know any who are like you.

Whatdayisit
1974 - tummy sleeping, resulting in an unhappy baby
1976 - back sleeping, babies will turn their heads to one side so if they are sick it will be ok.
1981 - sleep on side with rolled up blanket behind but they didn't reckon with my DD who, from a tiny age, wriggled and wriggled until she was on her back.

Then your post shows how rules changed yet again!

apparently staffordshire bull terriers are known as the nanny dog because they are so good at looking after babies.
are we not meant to leave them to do that any more ?
who'd a thunk it !
can't keep up with all these changes...

Yes Callistemon i chuckled when i read your post i must have been typing when you posted!
Maybe babies spent the whole of the 80s on their sides with the rolled up blanket! Nowadays you would be able to buy a purpose made rolled up blanket to stop the roll onto their backs!
I do remember being horrified at the thought of baby 3 going on her back! Anyway as you said babies do what they want and that one co-slept ! She didn't want to lay on her back either!

welbeck oh no, DD had a Staffie, a wonderful dog who would have given her life to defend any member of the family.
However, even so, DD never left her with DGS!

She was such an amazing dog.

Welbeck???

My children were always very determined, Whatdayisit!
And still are.

We always obey orders , well at least within reason.
Now the DGC tell us what they are allowed to do but I can always tell if they're trying it on.

welbeck I thought St Bernards were the preferred Nana dogs

Maybe the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree!!

I wonder how many times you let them think they have got away with trying it on that is the fun part them thinking they have pulled the wool over your eyes!

How about letting him listen to the radio instead, or playing him a CD of some music or children's story, or reading a book with him? Then his imagination will be engaged. I do understand how tiring a small grandchild can be, however well-behaved. Maybe if your childcare time was limited to one or two days that would help - you don't have to provide it for three days, or indeed at all. I do basically two days childcare a week, not full days but from 11-5 and with two different dgc - I'm not paid but am much appreciated. I do also sympathise with your children's views - I don't have a TV myself and believe screen time of any sort needs to be very limited until at least age 5.

There's me. When I brought up my three DC in the 80s, we didn't have a TV until 1986 and it was kept in our bedroom and watched together as a family, often with home made popcorn. We seldom watched programmes as they were broadcast but usually taped films or school videos. We had very strict rules on diet: no refined sugar of any sort in anything and all wholemeal flour. My DM, a very good cook, went along with all this and it certainly meant the children's teeth were immaculate and their health was very good. Now my DD is a bit laxer as regards food, and pretty strict about screen time. I agree with her, radio and books are preferable as the pictures are so much better.

* How about letting him listen to the radio instead, or playing him a CD of some music or children's story, or reading a book with him?*
Pretty sure OP does all that already.

For goodness sake a bit of appropriate TV does no harm,