Saffron

buggie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tbf this doesn't show him in a great light... This might be worthy of a thread in its own right. Something like... 'Crazy stuff my partner has said/done'! Mr Saff has done some real whoppers from time to time!! :-D Although tbh, the retaliation factor could be fairly high. ...where was that 'safe room', again? xx

Some of the posts are a bit harsh on here, imho. (Maybe they are meant in jest / lost in translation?) None of us are infallible as parents, or indeed as people. I've never met Buggie, though from her long history of posting on this forum, she seems like a thoughtful and educated person. It stands to reason that her husband is a pretty decent guy too. He may be totally aware that his views are irrational but still feels uncomfortable with suggestions of acting otherwise. We all dress and speak and act within a certain comfort zone. When taken out of that zone we may feel tremendously uncomfortable, although we know our fears are unjustified. If you think you'd be happy wearing (or having your children wear) any colour, try all dressing in black like Goths for a day... or if you're Goths, try dressing in bright/not black clothes! I'm joking good-naturedly, lest anyone (Goth or otherwise) be offended, of course. But my point is that everyone has boundaries*. Simply having boundaries doesn't automatically make you a bad person, or unenlightened. It's great to push boundaries but probably best if it's done in supportive, inclusive ways. I'm not sure that stigmatizing otherwise seemingly decent individuals for their boundaries doesn't just end up in them retreating further into their comfort zones. I like Otta's suggested use of humour to resolve the situation! The sublime is often very close to the ridiculous. *"boundaries" as in the context of the original post.

Old threads here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1577885,1578269#msg-1578269 And here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1567563 Hope that helps. xx

From Reception year (5yos) onwards.

You may have difficulty getting it privately too. There have been on/off shortages of the BCG throughout 2015. Unless a close family member has TB, the transmission risk is very low, so its supply and use have been prioritised for high risk populations. We opted not to do the BCG, but we've had other private imms at South London Travel Clinic in the past. Prices were competitive, and we were able to get weekend appointments. If you search the Forum, there are a couple of old threads on BCG/private imms with more info. xx

The James Haymore case was dropped, so we'll never know for sure what chance it would have stood in the courts: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/press-releases/prosecution-dropped-school-absence-case Here is info on the more recent Platt case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-34543101

Essentially no change, afaik. The fine is ?60, doubling to ?120 if not paid within 21 days. Anecdotally, I've read this can be applied to both parents, potentially doubling the fees, but I couldn't find confirmation of that. In theory, following the tightening of guidelines on term time absence a few years ago, head teachers still had the power to make personal judgment calls on what constituted 'exceptional circumstances', in allowing absences. However, in practice it seems most heads were automatically rejecting almost everything but the most serious cases (eg, absence for a death in the immediate family), for fear of falling foul of the guidelines. Although it has been suggested that the ruling in favour of Jon Platt (Isle of Wight case) would lead to more flexibility in the system, no change to the laws has been made, to the best of my knowledge. Best practice would be to discuss your situation with the head teacher, and apply for an exemption for exceptional circumstances, if you feel that you qualify. If you're denied and exemption, I think your options are to (a) change your dates to comply, (b) keep your dates and accept the fine, © defend your case to court (i.e., face prosecution). Stupid crock of horseshit IMHO, unfairly punishing lower income families and families with many overseas relatives, also unfairly diverting authority away from head teachers for fear of being overruled from above. :-/ At least that's my understanding of it. xx

How about one dry week for four months? :)

Did you find anywhere in the end? :)

I can't help, but I didn't want to read-and-run. Have you posted in other local forums? I really hope you find what you need. xx

Convex Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i agree, of course, but you know i do have the odd > twinge when my son asks for something super girly > and although i am very pro gender neutral etc i > guess we are all socially conditioned etc > > so although he is of course being unreasonable i > do understand where he is coming from! > Snap! Just yesterday we were coat shopping, and my daughter was looking at a very boyish (to my eye) style of coat. I started to say, that's not really for a girl. Then I bit my tongue and rechecked the elastic on my judge-y pants! She didn't choose it in the end, but I felt a pang of sympathy for Mr Buggie. I think the main thing is that children have the freedom to make their own choices, unfettered by our bias. And sometimes karma comes round to bite you in the bum anyway: When my friend wanted to buy her toddler son a little play kitchen, her husband was opposed (bc kitchens aren't for boys?!?). So, in the end her mother-in-law bought one as a surprise -- a PINK one. > as an aside, my son wants some makeup. to be like > me (extremely unusual as he is a daddys boy) i am > thinking of getting him some facepaint. any ideas? > am worried about his skin. other idea is to buy > him a makeup brush so he can pretend. We use eyeliners as face paint. Buy them cheap in a rainbow of colours. The ones you don't have to sharpen are best. If you dust the skin with a little translucent powder afterwards, they last all day. xx

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Scientist debunks claims that e-cigarettes are as > dangerous as tobacco. > > http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/scientist-debunk > s-latest-claim-that-e-cigarettes-are-as-dangerous- > as-tobacco/ Your statement is misrepresenting that article somewhat. The article is about scientific criticism of one small but highly publicised study. The interpretation of the study is up for academic debate, but nothing is either confirmed or debunked, beyond the authors' own scopes in the study or its criticism. Personally, I'm beginning to think we don't know enough about the long term effects of ecigs to draw any firm conclusions of safety because ecigs have changed massively since their inception, now including many different chemicals beyond nicotine alone. It should be worrying to anyone concerned about public health that ANY toxic effects are noted. Are ecigs a 'safe' alternative to smoking? They are, if anything, a marginally less toxic way of supporting nicotine addiction.

Binned because of the technical requirements, or because of the bureaucratic box ticking?

Nothing wrong with a pink scooter! xx

The lungs are highly reactive tissue, which is slow to heal, since secretory cells have to differentiate into gas-exchanging cells to replace damaged cells. So it follows that anything reaching the lungs, which is not highly biocompatible, will lead to reactionary cellular responses (ie inflammation/immune activation). Ecigs are full of multiple chemicals. No surprise they're being associated with lung damage. They should absolutely be subject to the same advertising control as cigarettes. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/scin.2015.188001019/abstract;jsessionid=059BD583404B1578989D89FB575D780D.f04t02?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/02February/Pages/E-cigarettes-may-make-lungs-vulnerable-to-infection.aspx http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116732 It's irresponsible to advertise ecigs, where underage and vulnerable populations can easily be given the message that these are 'safe' or 'cool'. I think all drugs should be legalised. I don't think they should be advertised.

Nicotine is pharmacologically considered a drug with high addiction potential. Its effect is receptor-mediated, and the mechanism is well characterised. The fact that not everyone who smokes becomes addicted is not the definition of addiction. Addiction is relevant not only to dose but to length of exposure (and route of exposure). Also not everyone who smokes crack becomes addicted, but some people are clearly addicted to tea as noted by the physiological withdrawal syndrome. I agree we need to move away from 'demonising' addiction, as suggested in the SA piece. However, that is a shift in cultural values, and not a statement of the biochemical potential for addiction. The mechanisms for nicotine addiction at the cellular level demonstrate addiction quite clearly both in vitro and in vivo. I object to the high profile campaigns glamorising the use of e cigarettes. Their advertising should be regulated in the same way as cigarettes. They are now clearly being advertised to non smokers and underage groups. What does a 12 year old girl think when she sees a glamorous woman in an add with an e cig? E cigs make you glamorous? Addiction is beautiful? :-(

No luck on the appeal yet? I'd have you back in the main section. Special Christmas Edition? :)

There is nothing judgemental or satirical about asking for clarification. You may not like my straightforward style, but that doesn't make the post trolling. And talking-up neighbours' supposed bad behaviour without concerted efforts to actually speak to the neighbours, or get a response from the Noise Team to confirm it, does the community no good imho.

Karinoushka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let me get this straight Saffron. At least I'm > doing something about it you troll. I didn't say > it will be easy. There's nothing trollish about making an enquiry for clarification. The question was quite genuine, as your post clearly stated "I'm pretty sure it's the house with brown bricks and the black framed bay window, plus all the stores were down today. But Huggers makes me wonder." Not sure what you mean by "I didn't say it will be easy". I never referenced the difficulty level of your task. > > I'm 99.9999% sure. I've also sensibly added to > ignore the note if that happens to be the wrong > address. If I was to receive this note wrongly I > wouldn't get on my high horses, I'd actually be > glad the situation is being taken care of and I'd > gladly drop it in the rightful place because I too > didn't sleep much last night (especially right > next to it). If that was the case, it would be > either of their neighbours. > How exactly is the situation "taken care of", if there's no way of knowing if the right people received the note, and if no one knows if the Noise Team were called at the time? > I'm not gonna play the cop making sure they > actually go to the end of it either. Go to the end of what? > I don't have > psychic powers and I'm not their mother either. I > don't think you would be in the position either if > you were at my place. I have absolutely no idea what you're on about there. If the right house did get your note, I hope it made better sense than this post. Good luck getting it sorted.

Karinoushka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They were sleeping I guessed so I left a note > through the letterbox inviting them to check this > post. Let's see what happens. I'm pretty sure it's > the house with brown bricks and the black framed > bay window, plus all the stores were down today. > But Huggers makes me wonder. Let me get this straight... a note to which the addressee might or might not responsd, may or may not have been put through the wrong letterbox???

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What spirit is that Louisa that needs a church? There's a church for Lambrini? Though not really a true spirit... more a ghost of an alcopop. Anyhoo... DF, could your electronics have come in contact with something magnetic?

Bacterial ear infections often follow viral upper respiratory infections in young children. The swelling caused by the virus traps microbes in the inner ear, where they multiple and cause a secodary bacterial infection. If there was no sign of infection, then the physician's decision may have been that, on balance, addressing the diarrhoea by discontinuing the antibiotic was best -- not nec that the infection wasn't bacterial. In the future, if you're offered the same antibiotic preparation for your LO, you should let the prescribing dr know that your child has had very bad GI upset with this formulation. They may be able to offer you something different. Or, if there is no other preparation available, you'll know to start pro-biotics at the same time. xx

You could speak to the registered Pharmacist at your local pharmacy. He or she might be able to advise on offering a different formulation of the same antibiotic. It could be that the sugar substitute is causing diarrhoea. It could also be the antibiotic itself causing GI upset. In which case you may want to ask for a probiotic supplement that is age appropriate, since not all adult supplements are suitable for very young children. If the diarrhoea worsens profoundly over 24hr, or doesn't start to improve after 3-5 days, I would personally want to go back to the GP. Of course in the meantime you could always phone your GP or NHS 111 for more advice. Hope all's better soon. xx

And another. xx http://www.richereducation.co.uk/

I think many of the myths surrounding singleton children are passing with the turn of a generation, and it's no longer a stigma to have an only child... at least not in many Western cultures. Still, people say dumb stuff -- usually well meaning / without thinking -- but people say dumb stuff about all sorts of things regarding parenting of multiples as well! It's very supportive to read about how other people deal with varying parenting challenges, but ultimately you have to figure out what works for you. There was a Forum group for only-child playdates for while. It was interesting and useful to meet other parents, and see how different everyone was. But we all had one thing in common:- the myths about onlys were absolutely unfounded. Our children were not lonely, or spoilt, or arrogant, or sheltered, or self-centred! This is an interesting article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/only-child-myths-lauren-sandler_n_3424272.html. Maybe the books it mentions would interesting too? xx