WorkingMummy

I grew up in South Croydon and was allowed to hang out in my street with my mates from about the age of 3 - basically as soon as my parents trusted me not to run into the road or go beyond the geographic boundaries they set. Landed up in A&E plenty of times because of all the climbing in the nearby woods, and the frantic bike riding, but my parents seemed to think this was just part of growing up. Once I had started school - so from 5 - on summer nights, during the long holidays, I was allowed to stay out with the other kids after supper until, one-by-one, we'd be picked off by a mother or father calling out a name from a doorstep. I'm not saying this type of thing can be repeated nowadays in ED. My parents sense of security came from the fact that our little community, which was mixed ethnically, was extremely stable. Families would live on that street for a long time. The kids would all hang out together across age ranges, so there would always be slightly older ones to look out for the younger ones (although no one was specifically charged with this job). And if anyone got hurt the group would respond very quickly - one child jumping on a bike to race for help and the others staying with the hurt child to reassure him or her. I can't imagine it being like that where we live now, because people do come and go quite a lot. And it's just not done anymore, so there is not the critical mass to make it slightly safer I guess. But, I do consciously try to go a little bit outside my comfort zone with my kids - on the basis that what I am comfortable with is likely to be quite excessively safe! I already let my 4 (nearly 5) year old and 2 (nearly 3) year old play alone in the front garden. They both know not to open the garden gate and they have been drilled in stranger danger and all that. I keep an eye on things but I do not stand over them the whole time. We have a neighbour with slightly older children (4 and 6) who has the same attitude (in fact, she is inspirationally more relaxed than me) and so we have lovely scenes of the children spontaneously inviting each other over and climbing over the low garden fence to join forces, running in and out of each other's homes. Seeing that, it does remind me of the sense of independence and adventure which I experienced in my childhood, though sadly it really is just a glimpse. I also let the children, especially the older one, run out of sight quite a bit at the park/playground. I agree with Saffron that it depends on child, and place, but I recall that by the time I was 11 I was commuting back and forwards to school on public transport unassisted every day and hanging out in the park until bedtime once my homework was done. If at all possible, I'm going to give my children the same freedoms. But I have no real sense of how things might have changed for that age group since I was young. I certainly would not say yes to this situation presented as a surprise on my doorstep. I would have done exactly as you did: say no, and then have a think. But I would bring the subject up with my own child, and ask if it is something she would like to do. I'd ask her what her friends do, and where they would plan on going/being. I might even go out myself at about that time and just walk past the park or wherever, see who is there and what they are up to. If I then allowed it, I would do so on the basis of some very clear ground rules. Don't go beyond so far, what to do if someone you are not comfortable with joins the group, or if something you know is wrong (drugs, whatever) is suggested. And of course, if those ground rules were broken, there would be consequences. But I remember myself and (most of) my friends being very "good" about what we were and were not allowed to do. I'd want to extend the same trust to my kids that my parents showed to me. WMxx

This is a very interesting thread for me as I currently have an opportunity to take a contract that would relocate me and my family to the other side of the world for about 4 months. I have a colleague who took a 9 month sabbatical in which he and his wife and four children went travelling around Europe, focusing on Italy and the Med. At the time, his eldest two (twins) were in the last year of primary but had already secured a place where they wanted to be at 11+. His younger two were 8 and 7. They took some home schooling study aids and some material provided by the children's primary school. It was a great success and did not hold the children back academically - quite the opposite. I think it's a wonderful thing to do. But I'm not going to do it. I'm going to say no to the contract and here is why. My eldest starts school in September and it would interfere with that. But over and above that, I think that at the ages of my older two (4 and 2-and-a-half) my children have a real sense of place and connection with their community, and friends and wider family, which moving far away for an extended period would disrupt. I think they are old enough to miss their lives here very badly. And let's face it, what is there about travelling that is all that fabulous to a toddler or a 4 year old? They would not have playgroups and story-times where I would be placed. And I do not believe that they are old enough to benefit very much from the "Experience" (different culture, language, way of life etc). I know someone who went abroad at around this stage in her children's life and she said they spent the whole time trying to turn their temporary home into a place that felt like home to her tiny children, and/or replicating the activities that we all take for granted in London, and ultimately failing. So it is interesting that some people are saying to you that this is the perfect time to do it and that you cannot do it when your kids are older. I kind of think the opposite. If I only had my baby (who is 1 next week), I'd do it. If my children were all 5 or 6 years older, I'd think more seriously about doing it. But at this age, no. Personally I wouldn't (and won't).

O poor you, nausea is the pits. Very thin slices of apple on my tongue and lemon water helped me. A bit.

Agree with Saffron. Do not want to throw doubt on the good intentions of anyone on this thread, but someone very close to me suffers from (among other things) severe, chronic anxiety. I accompanied this person to a consultation with a professor of psychology at a London teaching hospital. His advice was very clear that there is very good evidence to support the effectiveness of drug therapy and/or CBT for most (obviously, not all) sufferers of anxiety AND that the evidence is that any other type of therapy (which is not, broadly, aimed at giving you SKILLS, or helping you work out effective coping strategies) is actually counterproductive. He was particularly clear that psychotherapies, for example aimed at making connections between childhood experiences and current anxiety, have been shown to make some forms of anxiety worse. This is my exact (vicarious) experience with my loved one, who IMO has become hooked on a therapist who gives him what he wants, which is lots of reinforcement that his anxious/negative world view is justified (and supports his ignoring medical advice about treatment), when this obviously isn't helping his symptoms. I don't want to scare or aggravate anyone's anxiety by saying this. In a sense, any treatment which you find helpful is helpful to you. But I do question the legitimacy of a lot of private "therapy" when nowadays evidenced based options are widely available on the NHS.

Helpplease, I don't know exactly what you are going through, but I did have experience, after my first and second babies, of being plauged by a kind of sense of doom. Just lots of awful thoughts about what could happen to my baby. Like, I'd be walking down my hall towards a window (some four meters away) and I'd be struck by a really vivid picture of falling against the glass and dropping my baby through it onto the pavement four storeys below. That was just one example of the kind of thoughts that I suffered. After baby no 2, it wasn't as bad, but I did keep panicking every time the baby was out of sight, that the person caring for her might lose her. It was horrible, but my first midwife reassured me that this is a very common feature of normal post-partum experience. (In fact, on about her second visit after my first baby was born, she looked at my huge windows and said, "Are you plagued by an image of falling through that window and ..." This experience is so common, she was actually able to look around my home and predict my exact fears!) As you say, the fears are "irrational". But that does not mean they serve no purpose. They are just a natural side effect of your psyche/mind/brain/whatever adjusting to a huge, new, incomparable level of responsibility. It's like, you are playing a load of worse case scenarios (which are NEVER actually going to happen) through in your head, while you grow into your new role. It's almost like the thoughts are training exercises for your new (actually very daunting) role as a parent. I suffered all that, and I have pretty low levels of background anxiety. I don't happen to have any kind of issue in that regard. But I feel for you because your background anxiety must make it harder to handle these "irrational" fears. Maybe one of the things that background anxiety does is to make you worry ABOUT the very difficult and unpleasant but normal things you are experiencing post-partum. "I'm a bad mother/can't cope/am a drain on my husband/am losing my mind." None of which is true. You can have these fears and still be the only mother your children will ever need (which you are). In fact, these fears are symptoms of you BEING the only mother your children will ever want or need! Having said all that, anxiety at large can be a big challenge to bear and I would encourage you to see a kind GP if you really think you have a longstanding issue with it. There is not a mother in the world who does not need all the help she can get, especially post partum, and you should reach out for the very best help you can get. All the best. Xxx

He talks a lot about anger. Best bits from my POV.

To anyone who doesn't whole heatedly believe in the diagnosis of ADHD, or just wants to take a look at the alternatives, a useful resource might be www.wildestcolts.com You do not have to buy into Prof John Breeding's whole nine yards of "western psychiatric pharmacology is oppression" (I don't) to find his approach to highly spirited and unusual children very helpful. To me, his website (and his book, Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses) was a godsend and really transformed the way I thought about my parenting and my relationship with my oldest child.

The issue of children's exposure to pornography via the internet is being debated (again) on Radio 4 right now. A contributor who is 1) pro opt-in and 2) against the inclusion of the topic of pornography in compulsory sex education classes keeps saying how terrible it would be if parents were criminally prosecuted for refusing to allow their 5 and 6 year olds to study extreme images of sex in class. Talk about a straw man argument. As if that is what anyone is suggesting.

El Pibe, then why is the entire bible there on a high lectern near the altar of every church, and in the version of every "good news" bible handed out to kids. WHY not go with the Jefferson bible? Instead of keeping the evil claptrap but having small print (not on the lectern or in the good news) to try to gloss over it, why not treat it as it deserves and cut it out?

No but it's not open to interpretation that I should not touch my husband while bleeding, is it? You make my point, it's clearly nuts. So axe it. But anyway, banning touching menstruating females is NOTHING compared to the worst (and prolific) evil in the scriptures. Even just on the theme of women. Read the story of Jephthah's daughter. Instead of just (hypocritically) revering the scriptures but ignoring the horror, moderates should excise the evil from their holy books. And until they do, sorry, but Jihad (and a lot of other crazy sxxt) can be done in the name of your holy book/creed.

Most religious people are law abiding, of course. But it's not "a rotten element among a few fringe members". It's a horrid, central theme running through the scriptures religious people revere. And the many, evil aspects of the scriptures are not really "open to interpretation" as El Pibe has said. What's open to interpretation about "god" ordering Hebrew people to commit genocide in the land of canan (sparing only virgin females, whose fate you can guess), or ordering the stoning of homosexuals? It's not grey. It's clear, evil, psychopathy. And it's dangerous. The priests/clerics should take the red pen to the scriptures. Then they could say, "This is not in the name of Islam."

I am with Quids, 100% on this one. The problem is, as soon as you start believing, and teaching your kids, that there is a supreme creator, who: made THE UNIVERSE on the one hand; but cares to an incredibly high level about the incredibly small details of your life; and demands your love on pain of brutal eternal living hell, you are, well, dare I say, fucking yourself and all around you up a bit. Don't really care if it's Catholic or Muslim. It's all a bit unhealthy, if you ask me. And likely to spin off into dodgy behaviour. As it does, all the time. Of course, lots of other stuff can fuck you up. And of course, there are some parts of all the "holy" books that can be used to mandate acts of humanity. As far as I have knowledge of the scriptures, which is only really extensive with the bible, these passages are in the minority. I do think that any religion which endorses literature has a responsibility for acts which take that literature seriously. If religious moderates want to wash their hands of crimes committed in the name of their creed, they should rid their creed of the evil nastiness. Like Thomas Jefferson did, by taking a red pen to the bible and publishing a version which promoted only good deeds (rather than murder, genocide, human sacrifice, scape goating, mutilation, etc). He was left with a very slim book! Can't think why the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Pope and peaceful Muslim and Jewish leaders cannot follow Jefferson's lead.

I am with Quids, 100% on this one. The problem is, as soon as you start believing, and teaching your kids, that there is a supreme creator, who: made THE UNIVERSE on the one hand; but cares to an incredibly high level about the incredibly small details of your life; and demands your love on pain of brutal eternal living hell, you are, we, dare I say, fucking yourself and all around you up a bit. Don't really care if it's Catholic or Muslim. It's all a bit unhealthy, if you ask me. And likely to spin off into dodgy behaviour. As it does, all the time. Of course, lots of other stuff can fuck you up. And of course, there are some parts of all the "holy" books that can be used to mandate acts of humanity. As far as I have knowledge of the scriptures, which is only really extensive with the bible, these passages are in the minority. I do think that any religion which endorses literature has a responsibility for acts which take that literature seriously. If religious moderates want to wash their hands of crimes committed in the name of their creed, they should rid their creed of the evil nastiness. Like Thomas Jefferson did, by taking a red pen to the bible and publishing a version which promoted only good deeds (rather than murder, genocide, human sacrifice, scape goating, mutilation, etc). Can't think why the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Pope and peaceful Muslim and Jewish leaders cannot follow Jefferson's lead.

Any one know of one? Virtual or real. Either would be helpful. If it makes a difference, the issue is suspected to be on the schizophrenia spectrum. (Although unclear, as the suffering partner resists help and will not see a doctor, other than when presenting to A&E believing self to be dying.) Many thanks.

Without Me - Eminem

I am exporting some with me for nieces and nephews abroad next week.

A Rainy Night in Soho - Pogues

ClareC a genuine 3 day week (ie requiring 3 days' worth of work) would be my ideal if do-able. V hard to make happen. I love the idea of a new "8th day" mummy sabbath. To pick up what others have said about statutory maternity pay - you are right of course, not zero. But it is not necessarily ?5000 either. It's ?137 per week. Only if you and your family can afford for you to earn ?137 per week for a whole 9 months will you get ?5000. I'm the only earner in the family. We can't live off ?137 per week. That's not the food bill. So I took about 2 weeks off each time. It was not worth the paper work for me to claim ?274. So I didn't.

V interesting Piaf! There are challenges to being self-employed. Within self-employment, challenges vary with what you do. In the law, practice area can make a big difference. The big downer with being self-employed, is zero paid maternity leave (which a lot of my friends cannot compute when I have responded to their criticisms for returning to work so soon each time). I absolutely get the equation: returning your cases in time for the baby = winding down your practice very early, and then not accepting work for a period + not knowing how long it will take you to get things up and running with a good cash flow if and when you return = ??? what? for the future. I didn't really have that, though. Because of various health issues my husband has had, I am the sole bread winner for my family. But he can't do the childcare either. With no maternity pay, it was either not have children (no way!) or have children but don't give up work. So, I worked to the wire and then was back at my desk (off and on, when cases needed servicing) within 7 days each time. When I say the wire, I mean, the wire. I was not working a 90 hour week (by week 36, I was not even working a 30 hour week), but if something needed doing, I had to do it. So with my first baby, I was into early labour, with real contractions, when I emailed an instructing solicitor from home to say, "Er, the attached skeleton argument is 90% there, but you and the silk are going to need to finish it. I'm about to give birth." Had my daughter about 15 hours later. BUT on the plus side, I have a lot of flexibility now. I look at mothers who are - say - partners in law firms, where you actually have a profit/loss responsibility to the firm, plus responsibility towards staff, and I think, "How do they do that? And how lucky am I?" I have a good relationship with my clerks. I can say yes and no to the work I want. Within certain restrictions (and aside from court work - which for me is not the dominant feature of my time) I can work whenever and wherever the hell I want AND, the biggest bonus for me, when I DO work, it is money directly into my back pocket for the family. I am not working to earn money for someone else. I completely understand what you say about comparing yourself with your peers who are not mothers (inc your husband). Sometimes I ask myself, if my situation was different, would I have done it differently, taken more time off? Would I be working now? Truth probably is: I'd have wanted to do it exactly the same, but wouldn't have, because of the guilt/social expectation etc etc. Economic necessity denied me the choice, but I cannot complain. More than once when I have been working on an interesting argument late into the night, with a newborn asleep in the room next door, I've thought, "Look at what I have! Everything I love within a radius of 5 yards from me." Edited to say: PS: This all will certainly have an effect on my career. My application for QC, if and when I make it, will be 5, maybe even 10 years later than it otherwise would be. I simply do not carry the caseload necessary to collect 12 judicial references within any 2 year period. This used to bother me. It doesn't now. I feel like my cup is full. I have a great life. It's working now and it is what I and the kids need now. Career progression can wait.

I completely understand the sense of regret and sadness over the "breakfast and bedtime/when I am in a rush and/or exhausted" thing. I am lucky to be self-employed (barrister) which gives me a degree of choice and flexibility about work. But I have the breakfast/bedtime restraint whenever I am appearing in court for a stretch (up to three months). I get through those times by going to bed as early as possible myself, so that I am well rested when I wake up. I get up a little early, to be ready for work before the kids are awake and then when they do wake up, I put work out of my mind until 8am, and I am just there with them. Ditto in the evenings. I actually took the clock out of the girls' room, and I never wear a watch or have a phone near me at bedtime, so that I cannot rush them for the sake of work. I let them take as long as they need over bath, stories, cuddles in bed etc and I give them that time each night without holding back at all. I just put work out of my head and don't even check the time until they are asleep. This, plus being in bed by 10pm most nights, may, on occasions, mean I do slightly less work on a particular project then I would if I was not a mother. But I have made a conscious decision that, since work has me all day, work can pay that price! Experience has shown me that this is what is best for both me and the kids AND my work, as it happens. Keeps me thinking nice and straight. I have found that this strategy leaves me with two, very roomy, unrushed slots with the children every day. And it has made things a lot easier. I also have a rule of absolutely no work at the weekends. Ever.

Thank you! Have no iCloud but am relieved to hear photos should be on phone.

Negative Creep - Nirvana

Story is - left iPhone at a friend's yesterday. Asked him to look for it. He couldn't find it after several hunts. So had to assume had dropped it on tube. Today, work arranged for my SIM to be blocked for security reasons and ordered a new iPhone for me (to arrive tomorrow). Misery and mourning for lost photographic record of last 6 months of my children's rapidly changing lives. Now, friend finds phone. Before I start to indulge the hope of recovering lost photographic record, can anyone tell me, will I be able to extract my photos or not? Many thanks. WM

Call Your Girlfriend - Robyn

Everything - Alanis Morissette