helena handbasket

acumenman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The people who buy the BBC from third parties do > they need a TVlicence? Not that I've ever heard. The BBC police are not exactly going to show up at someone's door in Montreal or Washington I don't imagine. There really is a market for them to sell the licenses to an international client base. Can't think of a reason they don't. Maybe someone else knows?

Personally I can't think of anything worse than having to take a load of 13 yr olds abroad......... they should be giving those poor teachers extra pay to take that on! The longest field trips I've done with that age are a day, and wow does teacher need a drink at the end of that day! Oh forget the glass, just hand me the bottle! If parents don't like the ideas of teachers getting free trips I know they can always use a few parent chaperones........

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Floating Onion Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I know of lots of people overseas who would > very > > happily pay the license fee (or even more) just > to > > have access to iplayer. > > There are peeps overseas who pay third parties for > access to BBC transmissions. For the third > parties, that is their business. Some of the > people are my friends, and could not survive > without. The BBC has really dropped the ball on that one as a revenue source. WE're now in Canada and would happily pay the fee. It's amazing how many people I know here who have illegal access. My husband and I are total luddites so have not figured out how yet and are reduced to BBC Canada, which is 24 hour Top gear, Antiques Roadshow, and Escape to the Country. From 2003. Thankfully we can at least get BBC News online. Apparently ipad in North America will be selling an iplayer app in February, has actually made us consider buying one for the access. I think you have to live in a media black hole to truly appreciate the value of the amazing BBC. Spelling edit.

Oh wow, it gets better....... Having just read the "anti-fluoride" link, it appears that I might have to trade my poor boy in for a new one. It advises against formula feeding with fluoridated water, even though no one, anywhere EVER mentioned this while I was doing it. Sooooooo I was feeding him poison (fluoride) mixed with poison (formula ::o it's a joke people!) in what was supposed to be the best bottle, the Avent ones which we were later told were toxic, and heating said bottles and sterilizing them in steam (did somebody mention leeching?) crap. And at every step, I did the research and made what I thought was a well informed choice. So what I'm trying to say is all you can do is the best you can under the circumstances. And later when you find out they were all terrible choices in hindsight you have to laugh and move on or you will seriously drive yourself insane. And after junior goes to bed (IF junior goes to bed) you have a quiet drink. To take the edge off. Because there's always an edge.

My question from the Observer piece is who gives a baby sugared tea or custard in a baby bottle? Ha! It is so very confusing, I've always felt that I'm doing the wrong thing. As a baby my son lived in a city with fluoridated water, so we just used a little baby toothbrush and water on his first few teeth and gums. Once in London, I didn't realize the water was not fluoridated and did not want fluoride toothpaste as well, so had non-fluoridated shipped in by family until someone told me about the lack of it in the water. Ooops, switched back to fluoridated but nervously as my son has never been one to spit it out. Now back to a city with fluoridated water and have switched to herbal toothpaste in confusion. Our city is now in the process of removing it. So, I anticipate one of two things happening, either: a). I will be told my son has had too much fluoride or b). I will be told that my son has not had enough fluoride Right? Can't win. Parenting is hard, Karter! :))

Supergolden your post brought back a lot of memeories for me. My son was the same, also very "junky" breathing and it was awful to lie in bed at night and listen to the sounds coming from him. The times he did actually sleep I couldn't relax enough to close my eyes, I just needed to keep listening to the breathing. Awful. My doctor was great about it (and patient) and although she assured me that many babies just have more fluid in their lungs for a while she humoured me and sent us to a specialist anyway. I was assured once again that he was okay and would outgrow it. Something about a flap of tissue behind the nose/throat that is sometimes under-developed? Anyway he did outgrow it, maybe around 4-5 months so hopefully you will have the same situation. It might be worth taking him to the doctor to reassure yourself. Not sure if you had a c-section but I think there was something about that as well, they don't get squeezed through the birth canal so sometimes the fluids don't get squeezed out....... I know very technical and probably made it up in my head at the time. ClareC is right about the swing, my son sleep well there (and not really anywhere else) so at least he got a bit of sleep in the day. Wonder if one of those colic hammocks might help? Hang in there, it's hard when they're so new and you can't do anything to help them.

My son was also the child who cried as long as it went on, hours if he needed to, and I couldn't mentally take it. So what I resorted to was to pull of a small stool beside the crib, put him in it, snuggles etc and then night night lights out. And then I sat on the stool and ignored him. He bounced around and shrieked a lot in the beginning and I think I did a lot of pick up put down, but mostly I just sat on the stool so he knew I was there and let him work himself out. Every so often I'd hold his hand and say "I love you but you're okay and it's sleepy time now" and that's it. The sad truth is you can't do anything to reinforce the waking, so snuggles and all the nice stuff just keeps them coming back for more. Seems cruel but truthfully my only son will likely need therapy for all the constant hugs and kisses he has to endure from his overly affectionate mother so don't think he's too love deprived. I won't lie, it didn't take three days and I started in the daytime at nap time because I knew there was no way in hell I'd be able to really follow through at night, but it didn't take long to see progress and it carried over to night time quite quickly. I did get a little tiny book light and read on my little stool to pass the time. Felt a bit like a hostage for a while but honestly it felt like a much nicer way to pass the "hideous hour" than fighting with a tired baby. I think I mostly followed Baby Whisperer but had to really modify the plan for my very dramatic spirited son. If nothing else it could be a good excuse to take some quiet time away from family?

Great post Molly!

I remember thinking at the time : "I'm the absolute worst version of new mother I've ever seen". Ouch. After reading these I feel like I was a normal version of a new mother, with false expectations. The people who have an easy go of it don't need the same support, but wow those who are having a hard time really really need to know that's it's normal. In my experience, the mothers who are having a hard time are often the ones who vanish into thin air for six months, when they are really the ones who need the companionship and support. But when you feel like you are falling apart it's not much fun to be around those who are not. I remember once confessing to a friend with a five month old that I was feeling pretty overwhelmed by my colicky baby and sleep deprivation and all the rest and she said, no joke, "Really? I haven't had a bad day yet". Which is great for her but seriously why would you ever say that to someone? It's like bragging about your good health to someone who is terminally ill. As with everything in life, if it's been good, count your blessings. If it seems crazy hard, reach out because there's always someone out there who understands.

I don't want to be alarmist, but two models of Phil and Ted's were recalled in Canada and the US yesterday due to finger amputation risk. Anyway, I think it's based on a handful of cases and not an epidemic or anything but if I had one I'd want to at least know about it, so thought I'd pass the info along. Don't imagine they are in any hurry to recall the bazillions sold in the UK. Edited to add: I was going to add a link so googled it, and discovered they were also recalled in 2008. Maybe not the same model though and it is ONLY two models. Sorry the url is too long for me to add tonight...... too lazy :-$

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Never, never repeat back the dreadful things your > other half will say about or to the baby in > desperate moments. Thank you so much for saying that Moos. Those sleepless nights can really bring you to your knees.

No I'm not touching the McCann story........ But I have trouble understanding how it can be called shady dealings of all administrations. What would have been Clinton's incentive? The fact that the intelligence was there long before Dubya came into power kind of shoots holes in the theory that this was orchestrated by the scary (and yes they were scary) Bush administration. Clinton waited to act, some say too long, because he was sidetracked by the Lewinsky scandal and trial amongst other things but also didn't have the catalyst that was indeed 911. But to say 911 was just a good excuse is to underestimate the obvious threat the US was then under. If you have recognized the threat for years and then what do you know, you are attacked, kind of elevates the level of threat you feel you are under, don't you think? I think the gloves come off and they did. Back to the OP, it seems a bit to simple to implicate Tony Blair as an evil puppet in some Bush agenda when it was not a crisis created by Bush. He did not dream up Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction "myth" as a justification for his actions, it was already there in 1998. I sometimes wonder what would have happened differently if 911 had happened on Clinton's watch, given what he knew. I'm a big fan of Clinton, hate Bush, but would it really have gone any differently? Impossible to guess. But what if Blair had made these decisions with Clinton? I think that animosity towards Bush clouds our perceptions of how Blair acted. I don't know really. But the Bush theories seem too easy.

What about this? 1998 US Liberation Act - Bill Clinton People often forget that Bill Clinton laid the groundwork, and I'm fairly certain he was not working with the Bush Republicans. As always, more to the story......

Well than I guess it's up to each person to do that risk assessment and decide what they want. I'm just saying there;s always more to it than a google search will necessarily tell you.

sophiechristophy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Our diet and lifestyles have changed dramatically > in what would be a blink of an eye in evolutionary > terms. Our bodies simply haven't had the time to > adapt." > > - It is true that in recent times, we have moved > away from eating traditional foods, and have moved > towards eating processed and refined foods. We > have also become more sedentary, and lifestyles > less active. There are many well known health > implications to this. > > This is most true for indigenous populations, who > have experienced these changes most rapidly. > Indigenous Australians, for example, who were > living as hunter gatherers before the arrival of > Europeans to Australia. > > In this article about nutrition and growth among > Australian indigenous peoples: > http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/health-risks/n > utrition/plain-language/our-review > > the health implications of this are acknowledged. > However, it also states that babies of indigenous > Australians thrive and grow normally, whilst still > breastfed, and it is only once weaned to solids > that they encounter health and growth issues. > > Science is not our enemy, however it is also not > without it's limitations and corruptions and > should not be regarded as an unquestionable > authority. Well I live in Canada and we have obviously our own indigenous peoples here who are included in all health policy. So that is already a factor. Edited to add: Here it is not "most true for indigenous populations" because many are living lifestyles closer to their ancestors (while it is true that there have been many western influences that have done them no favours). It's those of us in the city who have drastically different lifestyles than out pioneering ancestors only two or three generations ago.

I wonder why everyone is not advised? The city I currently live in is the same latitude as London, but we get so much more sunshine Dec.- Feb. (in spite of low temperatures). As I mentioned earlier, the first thing my doctor checked when I returned from the UK was my vit. D for this reason, and she said it was shockingly low. So it stands to reason that I am/was not the only woman of child bearing age in London who did not know how dangerously low my vit. D was (my awful GP certainly wasn't going to test for it). If there are many other mothers out there the same (and I can only assume there are) than it doesn't seem like a huge leap in the imagination to assume their babies are also? I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to at least know this and find out for themselves and their children. My doctor is English (trained as well) so isn't just making it up. Anyway we're on "the D" it now to make up for it.

sophiechristophy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can it really be possible that we evolved to > produce milk for our babies that doesn't contain > what the babies need, so as to necessitate the > artificial addition of a vitamin/iron supplement, > which we only know if they need by doing blood > tests? > > how has the human race survived? Our diet and lifestyles have changed dramatically in what would be a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Our bodies simply haven't had the time to adapt. Anyway, isn't that what we refer to in the animal world as survival as the fittest? It's just that now we have the knowledge to keep more of the "less fit" alive. The other day I was visiting a very elderly relative in hospital and mentioned to her nurse that I thought she was on an awful lot of medication, and wondered if it was all necessary. She said it was quite normal for someone her age (87) and that it was really what is keeping all of these people alive for so long. Science is not our enemy. Edited to add: She's only in with an infection, otherwise her social calender puts mine to shame.

The supplement would be liquid drops, just like those used for vitamin D supplementation in breast fed babies. I assume that is done in sun deprived Britain? My vit. D levels were extremely low when I left the UK.......... It seems like a rational way to address the issue; it looks like there is evidence that there is the potential for iron deficiencies in these babies, there is as yet no consensus n the effect of solids on a 4-6 month old tummy so logically top up the iron in the mean time and keep doing the research. Instead, everyone can point fingers, misinterpret, re-interpret, embellish and distort until nobody even knows what the original issue was. As much as I adore the British press, this is something that they do well and it goes nowhere. AS a Canadian we spend the bulk of our time convincing ourselves we are not American and feeling smug, but generally the British perceptions of the average American were so far off I found myself defending them. Odd. We don't want to be them, but we are more than happy to benefit from their brilliant research in the health sciences and I never quite understood the British hobby of dismissing things as "too American". This is off topic but anyway...... for a year I went to my GP complaining of stomach and chest pain. Every couple of weeks I would sit in her office crying over the stress of it. So? She said it was stress (!) and offered me anti-depressants or counseling. I didn't want to get stuck on the meds so chose counseling and spent 10 weeks being told to stop feeling negative about the pain because it was causing the pain. (?) Got back to Canada, went to my old doctor (who is English) who said it sounded like reflux, gave me some medicine and in two weeks I was better. A year of HELL and all I need was a little pill here and there. Um, I had a brilliant insight but it's nowhere to be seen on my post and I've lost the plot. Sorry!:))

Saila I think that Times article is compelling because it's a bit of a cry to restore sanity......... they are not claiming to absolutely have any answers but are asking rightly "Why can't we at least examine? Consider?". Funny enough I came across a piece by accident today that discussed a variation on the topic; the American Pediatric Association is examining iron deficiencies in 4-6 month old infants, but no mention of adding solids. Their recommendation was to add an iron supplement. Is this a case of one outcome, two very different interpretations and paths? I follow both American and British media quite closely and am often amazed at how different the approaches are to the same story. Makes me weary to believe most of it to be honest. Can't remember the periodical (it was a link from something else) but might take another look.

I think that's exactly what she's trying to say. Yet for every mother that sadly tells the story of her breast feeding struggles, there's always someone more than happy to jump in with "yes but.........." and the result is a the constant feeling that you are not being heard. Sorry, edited to add that was a response to sophie

BTW Gwen the breast feeding Nazi does not live or work in London so she is not you or someone you may know. :)-D

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is true though that the first feed of formula > does affect the "virgin gut" > > http://www.health-e-learning.com/articles/JustOneB > ottle.pdf But see this is part of the problem. My son was just not latching on at all and my milk was nowhere to be seen. He was losing weight and turning a bit yellow and I knew he needed to eat and eliminate to get his system working. But how? What do you do when you are a new mother and watching your tiny baby needing to eat and rejecting your breast full stop? I knew about the first formula, knew it was a risk, didn't want to do it but seriously what on earth is a new mom in full panic supposed to do? I knew if I persisted it might work, but might not so how long do you sit and watch your newborn go downhill until you make a stand as a mother and say "to hell with all the judgement and rhetoric, I'm feeding my child!" It's not necessarily rational but it's certainly some surge of maternal instinct to get your new baby fed. THIS is what drives women crazy, this presumption that if only you knew better or were stronger in your convictions or something. Ah Fuschia, you and I have sparred on this plenty, you can tell I'm taking out my frustration on the wrong victim hey?:)) Now if only I could find Gwen the breast feeding Nazi who should be the target for my grrrrrrr.

I love the idea, but would need my management consultant to go one step further and manage me! I feel like my head is always everywhere these days, I can't focus on a thing because there is so much "noise" around me (clutter, dishes, shoes in the hallway, toys everywhere, half finished crafts, stuff everywhere, phone calls/emails to return it goes on and on) as well as a small boy with a thirst for adventure. At the very least they would have ME pulled together......... clean ironed clothes ready to go, messages organized, dishes done and really good storage in every room. I'd also like menus on the ready and the necessary ingredients all set to go. I was thinking it was a valet I need but actually what I think I need is a wife!::o Yeah that will bring out the humourless............

jollybaby Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with srisky about the kings run breast > feeding workshop. I was seething by the end of it. > I couldn't believe that the phrase 'damage being > done' was used to describe giving a baby one > bottle of formula. This was not at all helpful in > my opinion, and only likely to add to the stress > felt by a new mum struggling to breast feed. I absolutely agree with this and in fact am certain that if I was left to muddle through on my own without all of the "help and advice" we likely would have ridden off into the breast feeding sunset. As it was, I was told on a weekly basis that his latch was wrong etc etc etc and I actually convinced myself that I was such a crap mother I couldn't even properly do something as "natural" as breast feed. Four years on and it's still a highly emotive topic for me because I get so angry about all of the interference thinly veiled as help. That said (and back on topic) ;-) I totally agree with what you're saying Fuschia and agree that we need to take these studies with a pinch of salt and consider the source. It's incredible that in this day and age new mothers are still falling over themselves trying to get it right and not getting reliable information. The media jumping on trends does not help matters. When you are a new mother, who is REALLY on your side?

I do admit that my boy is particularly resourceful and observant, and I have learned to anticipate situations with him that "most" parents don't seem to have to deal with on the same level. He could Houdini himself out of his grobag as an infant as well but boy oh boy do I wish that would have worked for us. Some of these little people just keep you on your toes more than others! So most parents needn't worry that my experiences are typical. If memeory serves, Belle and snowboarder I think that you have sons very similar to mine?:)) Anyway it's okay because three years was old was somewhat easier and four is gold now that he understands cause and affect and is developmentally ready enough to think it through when I explain to him why something is a bad idea. Mostly. He absolutely just gets better and better and if possible I just fall harder in love every day. But I don't know how I survived the first three years!