BB100

This is just a thought but have you considered the smell to be from someone paint spraying? Maybe spraying cars.

I think Grinlings Gibbins in Deptford should win some kind of award for 90% level 5 passes and 100% level 4.

Can I ask why you stopped her playing with the doll? Children are naturally curious and her fascination with eyes in an early years setting would ordinarily be used to extend her learning. Prehaps treating her behaviour as a negative it has become a negative. It may be turned around to make it a positive by using it as an opportunity to teach her about faces and feelings. For example, by giving her the doll she can explore how her eyes open and close without doing it to herself and to you, and she would learn this by the fact the doll won't protest but you will. This would be an opportunity to explain how delicate human eyes are and they are not quite like the dollies, who can't feel anything. She would also begin to learn a difference between the animate and inanimate. When she is tired she would then have something else to use to show you she is tired rather than pinch you and something to comfort her. You could also use the doll to show her what she needs to do when she feels tired and say 'look dolly doesn't scratch and pull her eyes look dolly just lies down and go to sleep'. Drawing/photographying eyes, buying some cheap bonoculars/telescope/sunglasses/kilidoscope, going to the science museum to look at their eye display, a visit to the opticians to try on the glasses or even watch you have an eye test, etc even at such a young age shows her you are taking her interest seriously and will help her to learn what eyes are for, ie. not pulling them. You could also nurture her interest in 'open and shut' and 'enveloping'. Buy her or borrow some toys where she can open and close things such as cars with doors that open and close, dolls furniture/house with doors, write letters and put them in envelopes, etc. This may help to move her interest on to other things rather just focussing on the doll and her eyes. There's no foolproof answer and it's difficult to give advice based on the little information you have given but I hope it gives you some ideas for an approach.

Katie, I've just read your message. Don't worry however amusing it was to annoy an old great I'm through now.

The problem is you keep jumping to conclusions as I am familiar with education, however, I don't work in secondary schools where there are obviously still people like you that insist their values and beliefs are the only way. Your days in education are over Hugh and it's you that's out of touch.

Oh Hugh can you let me know what it's like up at your glass ceiling?

If it wasn't then why were teachers checking poppies on the way OUT of the school gate? Since you know neither the children or the school I don't see how you can judge, and my question was never about whether they should but about whether they could.

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That Woman might be "mentally ill" indeed. > > However, she's deemed fit to have a child, walk > the streets & ride the public transport system. Actually I have a friend with mental health problems who appears perfectly sane most of the time but on many occasions has been known to verbally abuse and spit at strangers and damage property when she is on the street. She has pulled bits off people's cars, spat at them in shopping centres and stolen neighbour's letters. She has also been arrested a few times and her family only found out what she was doing when a neighbour videoed her, otherwise they would not have believed it.She has been sectioned a number of times by request of her family but the mental health unit just discharge her a few weeks later. I have another friend who has two children and is regularly sectioned whilst she 'changes personality' and he children are still living with her. The point is that those even with antisocial mental health problems are deemed quite capable of doing anything we can do so I wouldn't entirely discount it.

How do you know what the point is? I suspect the wearing of poppies was more about the school's image to the local community than for any educational value.

This is a great thread. You might find Arthur a bit of a mouthful if you already have an Archie. I wouldn't worry too much about unusual names, there are very few 'usual' names at school these days and all with odd spellings. Out of your list I prefer Zach too - then you will have an A to Z! I love Jude and Joshua too. Actually Archie and Josh sound quite good together. Hope you decide soon....

Noise sensitivity can be a sign of Aspergers. Some children are very high functioning autistics and a dislike for noise can be an early sign. It's too early to tell at this stage but it's worth keeping in mind as noise avoidance maybe the only kind solution.

Exactly Hugh. It demonstrates how making children wear one means diddly squat. Using force doesn't win hearts and minds. ;)

Try and get the treatments that you leave on for 12 hours - full marks do one. It might be awkward but they are much better than the ten minute treatments. Lots of combing whilst it's on is a must too. I bought teatree shampoo and conditioner as well to keep them at bay.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Meanwhile, BB100 has taken the perfectly > insignificamt and worthwhile enterprise of a > school Remembrance Day ceremony and equated it > with brainwashing and child abuse, I'm so glad you've been able to continue this discussion without me. Hugh it was you who mentioned ''They don't have adult rights for good reason'' and I merely pointed out that yes they do, they have extra rights because of adult abuses. So you are twisting my words again. Anyway I asked my nephew if any other children didn't wear their poppy. He said lots of children didn't, they just kept it in their pocket to whip out if confronted by a teacher - that says it all really.

ladywotlunches Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As regards the 'all concrete' look, I prefer these > schools than the Victorian schools, which inside > just look a bit bleak to me. And it does have a > claim to fame, that Fairlawn is the only other > public building built by the Architect who > designed the Royal Festival Hall. I don't think children really care what materials the building is made of so long as they feel safe and have suitable places to play and space in the classroom. I've found what does matter to children is small pieces of carpet in the classrooms - if 30 children cannot fit comfortably and see the whiteboard then your child may find it more of an effort to learn (very difficult to listen when you're squashed and have another child's shoe sticking in your backside). Also count the chairs - if there are not enough chairs for the number of children then some small groups of children maybe doing their work sitting on the floor (yes this is happening in some schools because I've seen it). However, I'm referring here to Year 1 and upwards, the number of chairs are not important for nursery and reception as the teaching structure is different.) There is also a tendency in some classrooms to squash lots of children around a few tables. This is fine until the children try to work on paper larger than A4 or try to open their exercise books as there is just not enough work space to do this and it can cause arguments and frustration for the children. To have enough space only two chairs should be allocated for each table (some tables are pushed together to make a table for 4 or 6 and this is fine unless 8 children are expected to sit there.) So my advice is to forget about what the school looks like and concentrate on whether the space works for the children and how it is used. Spacious classrooms are a real bonus.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BB100, no I don't think that children call the > shots. Nowhere else to go with that one. They > don't have adult rights for good reason. Whether > he is a squirt or not remains unresolved. > Ah, this is where the problem lies there. Your arguement is not really based on poppies/respect/rememberance but on your view-of-the-child. Actually children have extra rights to adults and they need them to stop adults from abusing their power over them!

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > This argument was about the actions of a > schoolchild rejecting the commitment of a shcool > to an act of group remembrance. The focus of this > complaint hinged on the fact that he didn't like > to be told what to do, and it was turning us into > a nation of brainwashed drones. (An argument BB100 > has just repeated and reinforced as the primary > motivation behind this protest). > Were you a politician in a previous life Huguenot, because you have a great capacity for twisting what people say to your own ends? What you are suggesting is that it's ok for an adult to make a choice but a child has no such rights and should just do as he is told. The assumption is that all children are rude little squirts that don't know any better. Showing respect for the living is obviously not in your remit Huge.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Out of interest, why won't your nephew wear one? > Is it now a matter of principle? I'm so glad you asked that question David because everyone has drawn their own conclusions without even asking. However, at this point it now seems irrelevant and I'm not sure I want a young person's thoughts and conscience to be chewed up and spat out here. My question though wasn't about whether he should wear one or not, but the school's right to force him wearing it. After giving a lot of thought to the matter, I've reflected on how private and meaningful thoughts of respect are worth more than an empty showy outward display of rememberance pinned on an empty-headed boy's jacket.

I'm editing this post after seeing there is now another discussion raging in the famiily room - best to keep out of it I think. :-S

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BB100 I think it is wrong to make children wear a > poppy, and agree that assuptions are made if you > refuse. If they have the power to exclude your > nephew for a day, i am now assuming, they must > give him the work he would have been doin at > school, for him to do at home. I have found in > situations where schools forget individuality, it > is often better for a parent to get involved, if > the child feels he is not being heard. This often > opens a dialogue where understanding is met. Thanks TE44. Yes his parents have spoken to the school and they have asked for it in writing! However, they have been most understanding - more than he would get from some on this forum - and he does not have to wear a poppy, although he is not allowed into the assembly without it. So it seems it is not possible to remember the dead without a poppy.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BB100, it seems to me that you're now researching > more information to support a rejection of the > poppy appeal. > No, I just thought it would clarify some of the questions people have raised but it is interesting that my posting of what was just some information has provoked you into thinking there is something to reject. As regards my nephew rejecting authority he has no such motives. He chose not to wear a poppy long before the school insisted that he wears one. I have every respect for the mature ones among us Huguenot but you are showing yourself as a cantankerous misery that thinks young people should be seen, not heard, do as their told and not have an opinion. Well the world has moved on and we need more young people in the world who can think for themselves and stand up for what they believe in, even if it does mean it doesn't quite sit with the majority. The earth may still be flat without those types. Too many young people just follow the crowd and have no original thoughts of their own and just ride on other people's opinion - there's one poster on this thread for example who does exactly that.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That aside, BB100 are you now arguing that > children shouldn't wear poppies because they're a > weapon? > > I'm sure if he is as gentlemanly and sensitive as > you describe, he will recognise that this is a > time when he should put his own ego to one side in > respect to the sensitivities and sacrifices of > others. That would be the honorable thing to do, and he > will be the better man for it. Not doing so seems > unnecessary and petulant. No, Huguenot I'm not arguing that they can be used as a weapon - I'm merely illustrating how wearing one doesn't suddenly change someone into a responsible citizen. Wearing one without having the sentiments it holds is actually disrespectful, don't you think? It's not about ego or a whim. It's about making a personal decision and the right to make that decision. No one has the right to impose their values and beliefs on others. My nephew is not insensitive to other people's feelings and is respectful and wouldn't go talking or walking during the silence, however what about respect for his beliefs and views? It works both ways. It is not my nephew that is attracting attention to himself but the school creating an unnecessary atmosphere of fear of not wearing one. We should surely learn lessons from history as to how to treat others who take different views from our own - with respect not punishment. Just to note: If you check the British Legion website you will find that the purpose of wearing a poppy was originally to remember the dead but also now represents an outward show that you are supporting British Troops. Also the white poppy was a symbol of peace and was introduced by the women's guild in the 1930's as a challenge to on-going war but not to oppose the red poppy. But the British Legion felt it diverted funds away from the red poppy collection. You can wear a purple one as well to remember animals who die in the war.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It sounds a bit ridiculous BB100 - one school > asking their pupils to honour remembrance day is > not "rearing a nation of children that just obeys > orders". But at what point does it stop? Where do you draw the line? My nephew (whom this is about) came home today saying they were told that if they don't wear a poppy tomorrow they will get a detention. > It is also ridiculous to assume that children can > always decide for themselves what is right or > wrong. Sometimes adults need to know where to draw > boundaries. Yes, and he has his parents to help him do that and they support his decision and views. if you > disagree don't send your kids to that school. It didn't come in the perspectus! There seems to be an implicit assumption here that if you don't wear a poppy you can't possibly 'respect and give recognition for the sacrifices and horrors of war' and that wearing one somehow magically makes you non-apathetic and responsible. Last year my son was stabbed with a poppy pin by a classmate so I don't see how children wearing them teaches them very much at all sometimes. Yes, I totally agree children need to be taught respect and manners and if you read my nephew's school report it says he is a perfect gentleman (yes those exact words). He is also a thoughtful and sensitive boy who has made a personal decision (not a whim) that I think ought to be respected too. Whatever happened to rights of freedom of thought and conscience? Young people are not all rioters you know, but the thought police seem to be out in force.

Sorry that you feel like that but I was using the example more for the principle of forcing someone to do something and expecting conformity, rather than the direct comparison of all what Hitler represents. The Poppy stands for many things, and whilst it does not hold the connotations of the cross, it does represent certain values and beliefs, and in that way I am uncomfortable that a school feels it can exercise its power to enforce such a rule. Wouldn't wholesale wearing of poppies in a school identify and single out minorities of children who didn't want to wear one? So David I'm not sure I agree with you on that one, and although your point about the gas chambers is valid I am talking about principles here, not actions. Are we rearing a nation of children who can think for themselves or one that just obeys orders? Doesn't making someone wear one somehow devalue the pride that people wear it for?

I wouldn't say poppies could be classed as uniform in the same way as a tie, etc, and I very much doubt schools could get away with enforcing the wearing of a cross in the same way (unless they were a religious school). I know which school it is but didn't really want to post that bit of info because journalists sometimes read these forums. Some teachers approached the children in the dinner queue and asked why they didn't have one and told them they must wear one the next day and for the rest of the week. I know of someone else who used to make people wear symbols and his name was Hitler - That's the way I'm feeling about it. My apologies for the time of my opening post - it was purely coincidental and nothing was intended by it at all.