DaveR

Arsenal 3 Fulham 0 Everton 2 Sunderland 0 Reading 1 Norwich 1 Southampton 1 Swansea 1 Stoke 2 QPR 0 Wigan 1 West Brom 1 Aston Villa 1 Man U 2 Man City 2 Spurs 1 Newcastle 2 West Ham 0 Chelsea 1 Liverpool 0

OK, so while we're on the subject, any recommendations for a wireless audio receiver to stream music from aforementioned PC and other devices to an old school amp & speakers? I don't want to spend ?serious on a fancy Sonos system, but I want something better than Bluetooth streaming.

"DaveR- most people fully agree with you (often based on person anecdotal experience). The difficulty is that popular literature often overstates the case to such an extent that people are not making informed decisions. There was a woman who actually delayed treatment for CANCER because it would have prevented her from breast feeding. Part of this is clearly misunderstanding the proven benefits and relative vs absolute outcomes (which I believe is widespread), part of it is wrapped up in our natural / organic zeitgeist which makes parents intuitively believe that breast milk is even better than practitioners say it is and part of it is wrapped up in this idea a mothering as a kind of annihilation of the self (no risk, no matter how remote can be accepted regardless of the personal cost to the mother)." I get all of this. But it's still essentially unobjectionable to say that there is evidence that breastfeeding has advantages, whereas it's completely objectionable to directly criticise or interfere in someone else's life and choices. And people who engage in the latter should not be associated with the former, because in truth, they are probably the kind of people who would find something to be objectionable about in any situation.

I guess it's easy for me to say, not being directly involved, but why should it be difficult for anyone to accept the following propositions: there is evidence that breastfeeding provides advantages to baby and mother consequently breastfeeding should be supported and encouraged there are, however, many factors that impact on the wellbeing of babies and mothers, including many that are much more direct and signficant than breast or bottle not breastfeeding, for whatever reason, should never be characterised as 'failing' or 'inadequate' or anything else pejorative. To be honest, this seems to me to be more about manners than anything else, and consequently the term 'breastapo' is probably unhelpful, suggesting that the behaviour (essentially just rudeness) is inextricably linked to the issues. (For those of you who have long memories, you will recall that this latter point was resolved once and for all on this forum by *Bob* and his Law of Cocks i.e. cockish behaviour derives from the condition of being a cock, rather than any other quality possessed by the relevant individual, or the situation within which the behaviour arises)

Thanks all. Last question - has anyone used dropbox specifically for moving photos fromn iphone to PC and music files from PC to iphone? Some of the reviews suggest that uploading pics from iphone can be veeeery slooooow.

Does dropbox allow me to upload a single file and download to another device, as opposed to synching across all devices?

I was chatting to a bloke in the Palmerston who directed some episodes of Game of Thrones. Unfortunately I have never seen it and don't really know what it's all about so don't know how impressed I should have been.

IS there a single app/piece of software (that works) that I can install on a Windows PC, and phones/tablets running iOS and Android, that enables two-way transfer of any kind of file between all the devices using my home wifi?

I don't think there's any doubt that Romney is instinctively far more liberal on social issues than even the Republican mainstream, let alone the evangelical right, and his microeconomic approach to jobs and growth was arguably both closer to the US man in the street and more ultimately credible than Obama. On monetary and fiscal policy tho' Romney was a mess, both politically and economically, which gave Obama a comparatively easy ride in the area where he was most vulnerable. I founbd following the campaign fascinating, particularly in revealing that although it's tempting for many of us to identify with the Democrats as somehow more European, actually US politics is just very very different.

"So their customer base is anyone who doesn't use a laptop computer or have a small child or buggy....." ...and who doesn't mind paying a bit over the odds, and getting service that varies from bored, via slightly offhand, to verging on the hostile.

Man Utd 2 - 0 Arsenal Fulham 2 - 1 Everton Norwich 0 - 1 Stoke Sunderland 1 - 1 Aston Villa Swansea 0 - 2 Chelsea Tottenham 3 - 1 Wigan West Ham 0 - 1 Man City QPR 1 - 1 Reading Liverpool 2 - 1 Newcastle West Brom 2 - 0 Southampton

So what are you supposed to do if you want to get rid of a cat for legitimate reasons? Are you allowed to put it outside and wait until someone takes it, like with an old telly?

Maybe it would be best if women who are not happy to be called ladies could adopt some kind of visual cue to help out us poor old blokes; how about a big badge with "how dare you look at me!" written on it? Or maybe you could just look really hostile all the time - that would do it.

Their hoover must have a very long hose. Or flex.

"Why are people misconstruing it as being simply annoyed at being called a 'lady'" Because this was the first line of the original post on this thread: "I object to being referred to as a lady" Catch up dear.

I'd go for the scooter, or a balance bike rather than a trike. Most kids find riding a pedal bike easy if they've had a balance bike first. Both my kids got on reasonably well with a micro scooter from about 2, so that would be my pick. Be prepared to chase after her!

Go on then Tottenham 2 Chelsea 2 Fulham 3 Aston Villa 1 Liverpool 3 Reading 0 Man Utd 2 Stoke 0 Swansea 2 Wigan 0 West Brom 1 Man City 1 West Ham 0 Southampton 0 Norwich 1 Arsenal 2 Sunderland 0 Newcastle 1 QPR 1 Everton 2

"I must admit to finding it quite sad that parents feel the local schools are so bad they have to send their children on 1hr+ commutes. My older children and their friends are all at local secondary schools and all doing brilliantly and are more than happy. The schools that aren't doing so well will only get better with the support of local families." Whilst I agree with the sentiment, in practice it's difficult to criticise parents who don't see their role as being a "force for change" (and with their kids as guinea pigs) but rather just want a school that best meets their child's needs. I think that most parents' ideal would be a local state school that caters for all ability levels and aptitudes and enables all kids to do their very best, but unfortunately those types of schools remain quite thin on the ground; arguably the present system of state secondary education is actually not very good at producing them. On the specific issue of commuting to school, outside big cities it's not uncommon for kids to have a 30-45 minute bus journey to secondary school, so I doubt that it's inherently detrimental. I'd be more concerned about all their friends living miles away, and spending half my life in the car driving them to and fro.

Pannier bags are best IMO but he'll need a rack if he doesn't already have one. Ortlieb are fab but expensive, Altura cheaper but still good quality and hard-wearing, and those two brands seem to account for most of the pannier bags I see around. I have one of these: http://www.wiggle.co.uk/altura-night-vision-20-pannier/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=uk&gclid=CMzTsMygirMCFaTHtAodizMAlQ which I use for daily commuting. It will hold a change of clothes and a file of papers, plus mini pump, tool, spare tube etc. If he needs to take anything more bulky he'll want something a bit bigger.

If you want to do the classic 5* hotel thing, the Lanesborough is fantastic.

"Ha! 'correct English'=can of worms" Again, I don't agree. Of course, language and usage change over time, and everybody uses different language in different situations, but that doesn't mean that it's snobbish or racist (or anything else negative) to recognise that at any point in time there is a broadly accepted correct form. As many people have noted, most kids will adapt, depending on the situation, and will speak differently to their friends as compared to their teachers, for example. But if you tell a kid that it's equally acceptable to say 'we was' in any situation you're not doing them any favours, IMO; you may not judge them, but others will.

" I would like to say that I find it very disturbing that the thinly veiled racist/classist comments about 'aks' and 'we was' have been allowed to continue unchecked. If you are too good for an area's regional verbal quirks then maybe its time you moved to an area that would satisfy your narrow-minded ideas about correctness" Just to be sure I understand you - are you saying that "arks" and "we was" are correct English (in this area, at least), and that to suggest otherwise is racist/classist? If so, I disagree, and if my child said "we was" I would correct them.

Medusa, no matter how you seek to explain it, your position is not based on a rational assessment of risk. The fact that men appear to present a greater statistical risk than women does not assist in assessing either the actual risk of a particular man or woman being an abuser, or the risk of a random man or woman being an abuser. The risk of a random man or woman being an abuser is likely to be too small to be statistically useful at all. Further all of this: "it is nevertheless true that nobody can ascertain which individual is a 'safe bet' on the basis of an interview, a CV and even a CRB check. Nor is it possible to divine who probable abusers are on the basis of 'gut instinct'; if it were, far fewer people would respond to revelations of abuse with the shocked comment that they had *no idea* that their friend/babysitter/scout leader/husband/etc was capable of that. For that reason and that reason alone, I would not choose a male childminder because *within that context* I would not have the opportunity to get to know someone well enough over a long enough period of time to be certain that I could trust them" applies equally to a female childminder, unless you are claiming either that a female presents no risk, or that you can judge the risk of a woman based on CV etc. but not a man. Whether you like it or not, your position does reflect a belief that any man (regardless of their qualifications, background etc.) is a potential abuser, or at least that the risk of that being the case is too substantial to be mitigated. Unhappily, I'm sure you are not the only person posting here who has some experience, direct or indirect, professional or personal, of child sexual abuse. If your own experience has influenced your feelings, that is understandable, and as I said, it is everybody's right to make their own decisions on whatever basis they like. Nobody is calling you an alarmist bigot. But it is unhelpful to say (even implicitly) "if you know the truth about abuse the logical/rational thing to do is not to employ a male childminder".

If you say this: "I don't want to put my child volountary in a risky situation" it surely implies some evaluation of nature and likelihood of the risks. If you let your child cross the road, ride a bike, ride a horse, go swimming, try new food, or play sport (for example) then you are exposing them to risk, including the risk of death or serious injury. Most of us are comfortable with most of these things because we understand that the risk is small and can be made smaller by taking proper precautions. To suggest that employing a male nanny or childminder is somehow inherently too risky to be a sensible choice is obviously nonsense. Of course, everybody has the complete freedom to believe nonsensical things, and, more importantly, to make choices (at least as far as choosing childcare is concerned) based not just on rational analysis but also on gut feel, prejudice, or anything else they want. Just don't try and dress it up as 'being careful'. PS - "the precautionary principle" has a specific meaning that explicitly includes a scientific assessment of the relevant risk - it doesn't just mean not doing what you subjectively think might be harmful.

"I'd love to see Medusa's completed risk assessment though." Me too. Or do you think its an attempt to make "I think all men are potentially dodgy" sound more respectable?