Saffron

My daughter was a tummy sleeper from day 1. She could also lift and turn her head pretty much from birth, so the midwives just shrugged. I mean, my daughter would absolutely HOWL if put on her back. Since her head control was so strong, the midwives suggested that this probably mitigated some of the risk of tummy sleeping, although I don't think there is any actual data on head control/tummy sleeping. Also, I do remember reading about some baby positioners being recalled because they were associated with an increased risk of suffocation or SIDS (it was not clear which, due to the small number of fatalities, I think). I think these may have been specifically positioners for co-sleeping, so other risk factors would apply. I will try to find the article. When co-sleeping, my daughter naturally positioned herself on her tummy in the middle of my chest, which seemed natural for both of us. When she was a little older (~3 months), I bought an Amby baby hammock and finally got her to sleep on her back. Maybe a baby hammock would be better than a plain positioner?

Forumite dulwichpsychology has an informal group for mothers of children under 2 yo. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1245470,1278622#msg-1278622 Was that what you were looking for? xx

Oh, I think when that happens the Rule Book says that Mother's day begins at sundown the preceding day, right? ;-) So, technically we're entitled to fine dining on Saturday evening AND breakfast in bed on Sunday.

------------------------------------------------------- > I based my > view on what I was told by some older interviewers > and what they wrote to me. I did not look at them, > see they were older and decide they would not hire > a younger person. Perhaps you didn't read ''it's > not a 22 year old's job''? (I am not 22, though I > am told I look younger than that). I also > mentioned older employers that did hire me... It > seems you think the discrimination was acceptable. > Thank you for your support. I do not think it is > simply 'confusing age with experience', some > people do have an age in mind there is little to > confuse in that. I'd like to revisit this, but take the personal angle out of it. I think it's fair to say that we can discuss attitudes without discussing individuals. The attitude that older interviews will prefer older applicants is most definitely a sweeping generalisation, Indeed the very definition of a prejudice is that which is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. So it appears the prejudice can run either way. Potential employees have opinions about the effect of potential employers' ages on their attitudes towards others and vice versa. Is that not because a private individual/family, inviting another private individual into their own home is a very personal process on both accounts? This is an important point to consider, in relevance to the overall understanding of the actions between private individuals within a family setting. In which case, let us look at age from another perspective, and return to the question of "not a 22 year old's job", leaving aside the fact that some individuals may confuse age with experience. Let's explore the reasons why a family might specify a particular age (or any other 'cohort' characteristic) for an applicant. Keeping age as the main example for simplicity, age confers a necessary and exclusive membership to the cohort of age-related peers, whose experience of the zeitgeist of their time relative to age will have shaped their life experience and their perceptions of the world around them. Now, if a nanny can be understood by many common definitions as having the role of a stand-in parent, or as an adjunct mother/father within a family, then some families may wish to employ an individual of a similar age-related cohort to improve cohesion within the family unit. Thus the occupational requirement is defined by age. Interestingly, this definition of age-related occupational requirement can also be flipped on its head. Families may seek nannies older or younger than the parents in order to provide complementary points of view within the family dynamic. Defining the age-related occupational requirement in this fashion thus gives to each family the potential to define whatever cohort-relevant occupational requirements that family sees as necessary and appropriate to its functioning when seeking to employ an individual with those occupational attributes, as being both necessary and sufficient to the functioning of the nanny within the family dynamic.

A-chan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saffron, I in no way find SBot's comment 'legit'. > If she read my post, she would have known the > answer. Well, that's your opinion of SBot's post, and that's fine. Other opinions will differ. However, Yunna's criticism of SBot's post might also have been seen as non-legit and in no way adding to the thread. And, actually, the answer to SBot's question is NOT stated directly in your original post. SBot is not necessarily asking how YOU answered about YOUR specific age at a PRECISE interview, but how these questions are handled in general. So if you've changed your approach due to your personal understanding of the law, how has that affected your answers? Feel free not to answer. There's no obligation on this forum. What's the point in rubbishing other people's questions simply because one's own point of view differs, without offering any logical, rhetorical underpinning? > Also, my previous posts being brought up > did not add to the discussion. That was an attempt > to deflect my message, forcing me to have to > explain myself. Well, again, that's your opinion of SBot's intent. But quite frankly, on a public forum I think everyone should have to explain themselves! I totally agree with SBot that the fact that you have removed so many of your previous posts indeed limits your credibility. On public forums such as this, individual posters are anonymised by the veil of social media. Therefore, your credibility on serious topics is frequently judged by your reputation to post in a logical, rhetorically meticulous, and open fashion. > > I did not think it is simply 'my' interpretation > of the law. I have spoken to lawyers who agree > that parents are not exempt from the law; the > Equality Act applies to all jobs unless it a job > like I wrote above (police, military, government, > club etc.) otherwise employers would have to > justify the discrimination. I doubt they could - > that is my interpretation. Well, of course some lawyers agree with you. That's their job. And other lawyers will disagree. That's how litigation works. And in this scenario, as stated previously, the burden of proof rests with the claimant. The defendant would not have to justify his/her choice, merely he/she would have to define "occupational requirement" in such a way as to include age. Incidentally, those profession which you mention as excluded from equality legislation are NOT excluded entirely. They are only excluded by the minimum age, and are subject internally to the same scrutiny. For example, although you must be of a minimum age to serve alcohol in a pub/club, once hired two individual of differing ages but with the same occupational skills must be treated equally. > Some people seem to have taken what I wrote in a > way I had not imagined. I'm not sure 'critical > analysis' was necessary if you wanted to read my > message and not read into me as a person. I > thought you were nitpicking. My point was not to > start a discussion (that's not to write I wasn't > open to it) but to inform people and cause them to > see things differently. I originally thought > ageism only really happened to older people. > > Please stop focussing on me and what I say and > what I don't say in an interview. This isn't a > question and answer. This was my experience and > what I learnt and how I am making others aware. > Unfortunately, I now think people will focus on me > and not my message due to certain comments. That is the discourse to which you open yourself by posting about yourself on a public forum. You say your point was to inform people, and to cause them to see things differently. Well, that is also what I have done. It just happens that my point of view is different, and is supported by a different piece of legislation as I stated previously. The law is not black and white on this topic.

Forcing a private family to undertake interviews with private individual candidates to work in the home of that family with the private members of that family, when the family deems the candidate unsuitable according to their "occupation requirements" could be seen as in direct contravention of Article 8 on the European Convention on Humans Rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-8-right-to-respect-for-private-and-family-life.html This is in no way a personal comment on the OP's experience, which remains his/her own. This is a question of the interpretation of the legislation. Therefore there is nothing inherently abhorrent or oppositional in pursuing this line of enquiry. It is merely opening another avenue of critical reflection, albeit one that some people will find difficult to process. It nevertheless persists.

A lawyer's opinion is just that: an opinion. It does not define or codify the law.

A-chan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please stop focussing on me and what I say and > what I don't say in an interview. This isn't a > question and answer. This was my experience and > what I learnt and how I am making others aware. > Unfortunately, I now think people will focus on me > and not my message due to certain comments. When you post a comment on a public forum, you open yourself up for public debate. Particularly, but not limited to the fact that you've made the post specifically about *your* experience: > I am also making the point that part of the problem is my perceived age, due to my appearance, something I could not change if even I had ten years of experience.

Yuuna Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SBot Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's my opinion within this discussion, no > intent > > to discredit. So if at an interview you we're > > asked "how old are you?", what do you say?? > > > Are you serious? What exactly are you discussing? > Trying to find out her age? Will you please stop > ruining this thread? SBot's question seems legit. And, in fact, if the OP's goal was to educate and inform both parents and carers, it would be helpful for prospective nannies to know how other prospective nannies are dealing with these questions, which can be awkward for both parties. That's not ruining the thread in anyway. It's simply adding to the discussion, IMHO.

Yuuna Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saffron I believe you took the quote out of > context. Not at all. My comment was phrased in the form of a question, in order to pursue critical analysis. > I think it is true. I'm not sure A-chan > wrote that she asked for the age of the potential > employers... They knew her age, because they asked > for it. I actually agree with what was written > wholeheartedly. > > It's a shame the first comment from another forum > user was less than supportive. Actually my opening comment was supportive: > The point of the > post was try and open people's minds. I disagree > that families should be exempt from the law in > regards to employment. Age isn't the only form of > discrimination potential as well as current > employees face. Obviously, the complainant would > have to prove the discrimination. I actually think > the Equality Act is a good thing and more people > should be aware of it. If parents want to employ > staff, abide by the law. I think Equality is a good thing. I never said I didn't think so. However, I do think that the Equality Act is not the best piece of written legislation. And actually, because of the manner in which it is written, it is currently not clear what whether or not individual families (not agencies) can advertise for certain characteristics. Until such time as this issue comes up to be tested in court, or the law is otherwise amended, it remains unclear. > > I believe A-chan was trying to turn her > experiences into a positive by educating others > and being supportive of those experiencing similar > situations. That is how I read it. I have > experienced discrimination based on my age, > gender, skin colour/ethnicity so I do empathise > with people who are discriminated against. I have also experienced discrimination, but I don't think you have to experience it to understand it. And, I agree that the OP appears to be trying to educate others. BUT, that is HER interpretation of the law. I have offered a different view point. That is all.

Thanks, canela, I will look for them. xx

How much volume are the oral antibiotics in a single dose? For example 2 mL? You can try using a dropper to give mini-doses, as these are easier to swallow and harder to spit out. For example, give just 0.2-0.5 mL in a single dose, and repeat this every couple of minutes until you've given the entire dose. Definitely worth pursing the results from the swab, just to be sure. So sorry you and your LO are going through this! xx

Why are the spots so bad then? Did the doctor think it was just a really profound individual response? How were they quantitatively able to exclude secondary infection? They did a swab test? Or visual inspection was suitable?

Does anyone know if any of those brands are physical sunscreens, or are they all chemical sunscreens? I'm looking for a physical sunscreen cream that doesn't cost a fortune and is readily easy to find. xx

Being discriminated against is indeed a terrible thing to feel. It's a shame that in the childcare sector, potential employers likely confuse the use of 'age' with the use of 'experience' as descriptors when hiring a nanny. However, are you not falling into your own pit by judging potential employers based on their age? I actually think the Equality Act as regards personal employees in private homes hired by individuals (not as applies to agencies) is a very poorly written piece of legislation, as there is neither the provision to police it nor the scope to enforce it. If families have a particular style of person in mind that will suit their needs and personalities, it's a waste of their time and applicants' time to interview non-suitable candidates. And personally I think families should be able to specify and hire whomever they want and the government (except for lawful collection of taxes) should stay the hell out of it. Btw, the Equality Act does not appear to define the term "occupational requirement", under which employers may claim personal exemptions if sufficiently justified. In which case, my understanding is that the burden of proof would be with the claimant.

FYI, anyone reading this thread with children or friends' children who haven't yet had CP. If you want the imms - SLTC offers the vaccine at a very reasonable price. The vaccine is still highly effective if given 3-5 days after exposure; it can reduce the likelihood of outbreak and/or reduce the severity of symptoms. See the thread here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1262769,1282503#msg-1282503 Hope all your LOs are better soon. xx

simonethebeaver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks. We opted not to stay in last night but to > try antibiotics at home. Two attempts to get the > full (enormous) dose in have failed and new sores > are still appearing so I'm asking them to admit > her for IV now. The sores are bleeding and > enormous. That sounds like a wise decision. I hope your LO will be better soon. xx

How long has she been ill? CP doesn't usually produce such large blisters. I would speak to your GP to rule out other problems. Secondary infection? Complicated with eczema or another skin condition, different virus? There might be a prescription cream that would be better than otcs. When my LO has scabs or wounds that she won't let me bandage, I do it when she falls asleep. Often she doesn't even notice the next day. xx

Actually you don't want them to scab or dry completely. Scabbing is counterproductive to healing and can lead to scarring. Try putting the tiniest blister plasters you can find on the worst affected spots (you know the tiny round blister plasters like you put on your little toe from Scholl or Nexcare). The idea that wounds and blisters heal better when they scab and dry is completely scientifically wrong. It's a holdover from victorian times when bandages were routinely reused and couldn't be fully sterilized. You could also try savlon on those little round plasters. Or buy hydrocolloid sheets and cut them into tiny squares. Afix with micropore tape, which is kinder to the skin than most plasters. Remove old plasters or tape with olive oilwhich disolves the adhesive. xx

Hi- That sounds like a lovely job for a local teen. Sorry little Saff is still 5-10 years away from this type of chore, but I hope you find someone! xx

Any advice on a child safety seat for an adult bicycle? My daughter is 4 but on the 98th centile for height and weight. Looking at the mini seats with just shoulder straps, no sides, I can't help thinking these don't look very safe for such a young child. But are the chair-like seats with high sides going to be too small?

I've had teen and adult acne. Tbh, I didn't necessarily find dermatologists all that helpful. You need to find a dermatologist that specialises more in skin care than skin disease. IPL was the treatment that cleared up my skin the best for the longest. Proactiv brand products are also very good. https://www.proactiv.co.uk/ Roaccutane (isotretinoin) is really only used to treat severe cystic acne, or lesser types of acne that are refractory to all other treatments. This is due to the fact that Accutane has a rather nasty set of side effects that can occur even at lower doses, including inhibition of bone growth. So if you want to go down the Accutane route for such a young teen, be sure you get a second opinion on the dose and duration of treatment, and keep your child closely monitored for adverse effects. xx

esmeonline Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks so much both. > > I had initially been quite glad that the pool was > chlorine free - it just sounded gentler - but then > happened to come across an article online about > swimming in pregnancy where a throwaway remark was > made about chlorine being safe and much less > hazardous than un-chlorinated pools. > Do you have a link to the article? It would be interesting to know in what context the remark was made. Major competitive and university pools are sometimes cleaned with non-chlorinated methods. There are definitely safe non-chlorinated methods available. xx

YES, you need to step in on playdates to mediate this behaviour. 5 yo is too young to know how to handle this without consistently having seen an adult do it. And if you have another playdate, try to make it on neutral territory like park/caf?, not your home. Otherwise you could be back in the same pickle again no matter how closely you watch. Tbh, at this age I wouldn't personally go out of my way to arrange playdates in my home if I don't feel I can also be ok with the parents. If the parents aren't comfortable with each other, the children will notice and play up on it even if they don't realise that's what they're doing. (And even families we ARE great mates with we still sometimes meet in neutral places to reduce friction among the children!) Good luck. Hope the toy turns up soon. xx

Agreed the water will still be disinfected, just not with chlorine. Ion filters or UV treatment might be used instead. I can't see this presenting any particular hazard in pregnancy. xx