peckhamboy

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly why Cambridge Council spent a year working > with residents to get such changes just right. > > Nappies stored for a week probably not a problem > if tightly wrapped in plastic bag but people will > think it a problem and look to take them elsewhere > to dispose of. Unintended consequences of any > proposed scheme can kill it. But what you're suggesting is nappies stored for two weeks, not one. And especially in the height of summer, that is going to be extremely unpleasant, even if tightly wrapped. That said, food waste collection would be a great idea and reduce the amount of rubbish in the green bin for us at least - regrettably, because we both work unpredictable long hours, food waste ends up being a large part of our rubbish at times, and we don't have enough garden to warrant doing our own composting. So a weekly garden/food collection and a weekly green bin collection (with a half-size green bin) would seem to work for us. Others might have different ideas. Agreed that the blue bins are not large enough at times, but we've somehow ended up with two of them so that does the trick.

Starbucks do a lovely one, I've heard.

We've found that trying to structure the day around naps has helped settle our daughter into a better rhythm at night. Of course, she's not always co-operative - you can take a horse to water etc... She normally sleeps around 3-4 hrs in total during the day now though, and since starting to do that has settled quicker at night and slept longer. Of course, it might just be coincidence. Timing-wise, it's (very) loosely based on Gina Ford's routine but we've ignored pretty much everything she says apart from using her rough timings - it's just too much like hard work and seems to create more stress to follow it to the letter! We're trying to put her in her moses basket when she's very sleepy but not asleep, but it's very rare that she will get herself to sleep on her own. She seems to be able to settle herself when she wakes in the night though, so we've been pretty lucky so far. I think so much depends on your baby that I'm sure someone else doing exactly what we do would have a totally different experience. So, go with what feels right, and reduces rather than creates stress, and you'll find that you've got a happy little family before too long. Just don't have any expectations of sleeping through the night in the first two or three months! And you'll soon realise in any case that "through the night" actually means 11pm-5am, without needing a feed (rather than not waking at all), and not 7pm-7am in blissful silence...

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is a poster from Athena DJKQ...back in fashion > in an ironic post-modern sort of way...does anyone > else see the blokes' cock draped over the womans > face in the Picasso, or should I book myself in > for electric shock aversion therapy? That was the first thing I noticed about it too. The second thing I noticed was the position of her hands... If you're having that electric shock therapy, maybe see if we can get a 2 for 1 deal?

We had a leaflet through our door from the Met Police, saying that they're clamping down on irresponsible dog owners round here and asking for people to report them to the Safer Neighbourhood Teams if they know who they are/where they live. So clearly someone is taking it seriously. Problem is, most of the time people can identify areas that are prone to it rather than the individuals themselves, and I doubt the police are going to start staking out the corner of Hayes grove or the path by peckham rye park cafe to catch them in the act (and tbh I think there are certainly more pressing things to which they could allocate the resource). But - if you do know who any of the culprits are (even if it's just a number plate), grass them up to the old bill.

I think a lot of it depends on whether the baby has regained birth weight and is putting on weight at the right rate (1oz/day) - our daughter was very slow to put on weight and we were told not to go more than 3 hours (from start to start) during the day and no more than 4 hours at night. Now that she is gaining weight rapidly and thriving (at 8 weeks), we're trying to extend the sleep time but we're still waking her at 10.30pm for a feed and then letting her go as long as she can after that - normally to 4.30am. Formula fed babies can go longer though I think, as they feed less frequently but in greater quantities. Even though your grand-daughter is still young, if she's gaining weight properly maybe your daughter just has a very co-operative baby!

That's because you're a cyber bully Sean, who's afraid to say boo to a goose in public.

Not wishing to be pedantic, but the legislation you quote in fact prohibits forms of behaviour intended to kill the child. As you suggest, both extreme and well off topic. Edited to say: and as for - the point is that as the law currently stands it is not illegal to smoke whilst pregnant. In the meantime, verbally abusing those who are considered by the abuser to be in breach of an as yet unwritten law is unacceptable - and could even be assault (which is an actual offence).

HeidiHi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He was an African man, so I was telling him that > in his country it might be acceptable to beat > children since their human rights is appalling, > but in the UK it is against the law. > Dear oh dear oh dear. Where do I start? This probably merits a whole new thread just to itself. Suffice to say, there is a casual assumption that the man in question does not consider the uk to be his country, there is a casual assumption that all African countries are the same (or even that Africa is a country), and there is a casual assumption that all African countries (or the mythical country of Africa) have appalling human rights records. And all that in a post by someone who appears to spend their time condemning the ignorance of others.

She probably wasn't a regular smoker at all anyway. A lot of people I know wouldn't classify themselves as smokers, but occasionally just have a fag or two when they've had a few too many drinks. That's probably what happened here.

You're right HeidiHi, all food is potentially dangerous. In fact it's worse thanm smoking, because you only need to eat a single piece of cheese that contains listeria to damage the foetus, but you can smoke literally hundreds of cigarettes and the baby will probably still be ok. People should be warned. From now on, I intend to verbally abuse any pregnant woman I see eating, to make sure she is aware of the possible consequences of her actions.

If you were in Green & Blue one lunch time and saw a pregnant woman chowing down on a nice organic goats cheese salad, or a prawn sandwich, would you give her verbal abuse too? After all, they're on the banned list too, and listeria is much worse for the foetus than a couple of cigarettes or a half of shandy. Where does it all stop, once you choose to interfere in the way in which a complete stranger chooses to live their life in a law-abiding manner? Some people on here are unbelievably smug and sanctimonious at times.

Are you sure she was pregnant? She may just have been fat, and have started smoking to suppress her appetite and help lose weight. But back to the topic - whether a pregnant lady has a cigarette or a glass of wine is frankly no business of anyone else's. There is no evidence whatsoever that an occasional glass of wine or other alcoholic drink has any negative impact on an unborn baby. Yes, heavy drinking (even as a one-off) can harm the baby but you have to drink significant amounts before sufficient quantities cross the placenta to cause any harm. But the hallmark of our previous government was a refusal to allow people to make up their own minds so they preferred blanket scaremongering because they thought if they said the odd drink was ok, pregnant women would think it was ok to get absolutely legless. With cigarettes, there is a greater risk to the baby but the risks are well documented. As long as it continues to be legal to smoke, people are free to make their own decisions about whether to smoke or not. I may not like the idea of a pregnant woman smoking but I will defend to the death her right to do it. And what about pregnant women driving, or crossing roads? They are both voluntary activities, and there is a risk of death by doing either, but I've never seen anyone shout at pregnant women who do them. Maybe the OP should extend the range of her vigilante-style attacks to include this sort of dangerous activity as well.

Not exactly local but the Oxford Pram Centre were pretty good when we got our icandy - worth popping in if you're up that way. Icandy don't allow online sales or price advertising, which is really annoying, as you need to phone around different stockists. We didn't find much variation though to be honest.

We had our first recently with the Lanes, and they have been excellent throughout. We were unusual in that we were planning a hospital birth but ended up having the baby at home... Anyway, either way the midwives will aim to stay with you from 4cm dilated up to and just past the birth, whether at hospital or home. There are a couple of exceptions though - they work shifts so if you have a long labour you may not finish with the same midwife who started; and home births get priority (they have to have 2 midwives present for a homebirth) so if a number of women go into labour at the same time, your Lanes midwife may have to leave you once you are in the hands of Kings. Understandably, they are hugely in demand but limit the number of women they take on who are due in any one month, in order to reduce the chances of a clash that they can't cope with. Of course, there will be peaks and troughs though (apparently the recent hot weather brought on a number of labours for example, so there was a bit of a cluster at the time we had ours). The other thing to bear in mind is that they are pretty flexible so don't feel that you need to make a decision now and can't change it. In fact, I wouldn't get too hung up about the birthing plan at all - I doubt that any birth goes entirely to plan!

Its amazing how one day can start out great and then go so wrong. Its the Morning and I decide to try and plug my company Horizon window cleaning by pretending to be a happy customer. But I forget to create a new username and end up looking a little bit silly. And then lots of people take the mickey but no-one asks me to clean their windows. And to top it off, I trod in dog poo on my way to drown my sorrows at the pub. The scenes where ugly! Does anyones elses day start off well and finishes ugly or am i the only one?

I agree about needing more screens for the London Bridge platform - ideally one at the bottom of the ramp or by the ticket machines, and at least one extra display on the platform itself. The one at the top of the ramp can't be seen from the front of the platform because the shelter is in the way and can't be seen from the other end because it's too far away. As far as the grassy areas are concerned, the difference since Barry took over is remarkable and they're kpet pretty clear already in my opinion (try comparing them to the scrubby area between the road and the station at Denmark Hill). One other thought that occurs to me is whether the steps to the southbound platform could be removed (and replaced with a ramp!) to make it easier for buggies and wheelchairs?

It would be illegal if employees didn't know they were on CCTV. Have a look on the Information Commissioner's website for guidance on laws relating to CCTV monitoring.

Is Home Secretary not a key Cabinet position any longer?

Kind of depends on how they react though - they'll need strong leadership and vision to retake the centre ground. Easy to see scenarios in which either Miliband wins and struggles to keep the loony left engaged so that the party effectively splits, or Balls wins with the support of the unions and makes Brown look popular in comparison, resulting in the party effectively splitting. In the same way as the Conservatives took 13 years to reunite the centre and the right, Labour could take just as long to reunite the centre and the left. The difference is that the Lib Dems could usurp them in the meantime whereas the Conservatives have never had a viable alternative on the right of centre. Interesting times.

I would say it would be more popular than a Labour government - by about 1/3, approximately, judging by the results of the election. Why can't Labour supporters just accept that after 13 years in power they are about as popular as athlete's foot?

Has anyone even considered that if this works, it could in fact marginalise the more right-wing element of the Conservatives and result in a more centrist government that adopts policies from both left and right of centre? After all, who is it that decreed that all politics must be one side or the other of the centre? My guess is that in practice the vast majority of the country are neither die-hard conservatives nor die-hard socialists so why should the government not reflect that? Personally I voted conservative because I felt that Gordon was so far up his own backside he was no longer capable of rational government, and because Labour overspent so much in the good times that the cupboard is bare now so tax and spend is no longer a viable option and the public sector is in danger of becoming far too expensive to sustain. I liked some of the LD's policies (especially on the income tax threshold) but felt that they would have been dangerously naive in government. I am nervertheless slightly nervous about the small core of very right-wing MPs in the Conservatives. As far as I'm concerned, this arrangement with the LDs is the best of all possible worlds and I hope that both sides give it the chance to succeed. It may prove to be a false dawn but I for one am quite excited about what this could mean for politics in this country. So please, set aside tribal loyalties and class war and give it a chance. It really can't be worse than Gordon.

In what way are we a "Christian country"? I suspect there are more atheists and agnostics than practising Christians and that's before we even get to the very large populations of other religions. If the church wants to provide schools that promote Christian teaching and only accept practising Christians, good luck to them. But the state should provide schools that accept anyone on an equal basis and treat people of all religions or no religion equally. Or do you suggest that the state should also support atheist schools that exclude anyone who has attended church of their own free will (if you believe in such a thing) in the previous year?

Although the service/expertise might not be. I would ask the first firm to explain the difference in fees - it may be that they have quoted on the basis that the work would be done by a partner whereas other firms have quoted for a legal exec or junior solicitor to do the work. I'm sure they could suggest a way of bringing costs down if you ask them, but make sure you're comparing apples with apples before just going for the cheaper option - it's not always better.

charliecharlie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > results so far... > > Conservative 10,091,687 36.1 +3.9 > Labour 8,144,932 29.2 -6.3 > Liberal Dem 6,400,096 22.9 +1.0 > > 14.5 million people (who voted for the 3 main > parties... so the full figure is considerably > more) DO NOT WANT a Tory government! > > I am hoping for a Labour/Lib Dem coalition... > > what are your views... > > ps bit muzzy headed as went to bed at 3 and got up > at 6 so will definitely need that gin and tonic > tonight at the Gowlett Interestingly, by the same token, 16.5 million people DO NOT WANT a Labour government, yet you're suggesting that would be the most democratic result? Despite the efforts of old school Labour activists, this election was not about left and right, and neither is politics generally about that any more either. Whatever your thoughts on first past the post (and Labour supporters might like to recall that it actually works more in their favour than the Tories'), more than 70% of those who voted chose a party other than Labour. I think that what this election has shown above all is that the country as a whole is not divided in clean left and right lines. Any party that was prepared to be honest, practical, pragmatic and sensible (and to listen to the electorate) would have done very well. Unfortunately none of them ticked all the boxes. Under most forms of PR, we would end up with this type of mess every election. We could also find that Lib Dems, with the support of just 20% of the country, get to govern (in coalition) on an almost permanent basis. How democratic is that? Personally, for the sake of the country's finances and for the sake of the political system, I would like to see a Conservative government with Lib Dem support (how much more democratic and in the national interest would it be if Labour took that supporting role?). If they can make it work, the Lib Dems could gain enormously from this.