WorkingMummy

You cannot remove a den of foxes, addicted to domesticated cat food, without killing them. We tried. For weeks. (Like to see you get rid of bed bugs by non fatal means too. And what do you do with the rats? Dump em next door to move in there instead?) With or without your contribution of extra food, the fox population of London will reach a maximum sustainable level each year and those in excess will die naturally anyway. You feed them, you increase the population size, but you do not change the fact that a percentage will die off. In fact, you may even increase the actual numbers that starve if you create a situation where an artificially high number of cubs survive so that the population explodes over a couple of years. It's basic population statistics. (Wild animals do not assess the size of their resources and then practice family planning.)

Foxes do go for children; I've seen it with my own eyes. They are wild carnivores. And two different mothers in this thread alone have told you of foxes either in their houses, crapping in the kitchen (Mollydoodle) or constantly try to get in (me). Foxes do attack even when well fed. "Our" foxes ate a rich diet of domesticated cat food, thanks to next door. They were no less eager to bite at our children and get into the house. Indeed, I'm sure it is BECAUSE they were artificially fed by the human next door that 1) they denned on our back door step (to top it all, next door's garden is paved so they couldn't live there) 2) they had no need to leave our garden to hunt or scavenge, so their territory shrank to the size of a postage stamp and they had nothing better to do than hang around in our gardn and try to get into our house 3) they became emboldened around humans. My husband is a large man. They would not run away even from him unless he stomped about and waved a large broom handle at them. If you feed foxes to prevent them from starving, you are defying nature, not helping it. Nature has its own way of controlling populations. The urban fox has evolved to live very successfully and discretely alongside us and is in no danger of dying out (I'm glad to say). Leaving the population to find its own balance on available resources is the kindest and most respectful thing to do. Feeding foxes is not compassionate; it is cruel. I have witnessed first hand how it turns magestic, clever, welcome visitors passing through a garden into a semi-domesticated but unpredictable, permanent nuisance. Like many interferences in nature, artificially feeding foxes only creates a need for greater, more drastic intervention, like selective culling, down the line.

Susiq, out of line, and yelling at the wrong person. I do not think I am the only creature who should exist. As I quite clearly stated , I do not even support a general fox cull. Only the selective, humane control of foxes that are posing an immediate threat to small children. Since last year, we have had many foxes passing through our garden, with no harm from us. We only drew the line when we could not open our back door without a couple of cubs trying to bounce their way past our legs into our house and adult foxes snapping at our babies whenever we ventured out. I do not approve of cruelty to any living thing. I will simply protect my children from attack and danger, same as any mammalian mother of any species. And I do so with as much compassion as is consistent with that end, which is more than Mother Nature ever does. The natural downward pressure on any population of any animal is predation, starvation and disease. The foxes in our garden suffered way less than they would have had they died of natural causes. Responsible, compassionate management of our environment, yes please. If you have a constructive suggestion as to how I might discourage another fox den in my garden, so as to avoid the need to bring in exterminators in future, then I'm all ears. (If my neighbour would quit feeding them, this would help.) But handwringing over the bald fact of our place at the top of the food chain, or in your case, venom towards a human mother who "unfortunately" (as civil servant said) succeeded in removing a real threat posed to her children by a non-endangered, non rare, wild animal, it's just idiotic. Don't think I'll return to the lounge if yours is seriously the prevailing view of regulars to this space.

Just to prove the wisdom of what you all said, now the last of his most recent solid food is through him, he hasn't had a dirty nappy (ie not since 7am). He's keeping breast milk down/in and is passing a lot of urine. Still farting like a demon and not himself but much better than during the night.

Thank you, forum mummies. Once again, forum so valuable.

Lot of truth in that, S P. Perhaps it's loss of extended family units and loss of community child rearing that's knocked our confidence and books are marketed to fill that void. Also we have more time to worry about the minutiae. My grandmother, who never did a paid day's work after her first child, was a million times more busy with her three children than I am with mine. Don't think she had time to read a patenting manual. Just accepted what help was on offer from families around her and gave freely in return.

Thank you!

Second night in a row up with baby. Last night was vomiting. Tonight it is the most hellish, stinky, runny nappies I have ever seen. The gas he is letting off constantly: whole bedroom and bathroom smell like a sulpher mine!! Temperature a little high but comes down with calpol/neurofen, so not worried should be in hospital or anything. He's also doing his best to be perky (including right now bless him). Only question: do I keep b/fing him? I've stopped his solid feeds, obviously. But does breast milk prolong a bug of this kind, (by feeding it or whatever -very technical I know.) I would have thought breast milk a good thing, to keep up fluids etc, but wanted to check with anyone with more experience. Gosh, what a stink.

There's value in some of it as beautiful poetry. It's an interesting (if mostly unattractive) historical record of cultural norms in different periods. As allegorical prose, it has value, IF you are trying to sell the moral that divine right trumps reason/natural justice and that relationship (between mortals, between god and mortals) should all be about control and obedience. Cue all the institutions in history that have adopted it...

Absolutely, acceptance is fully sighted. I meant, blind faith when you decide to try to have a child (that you'll be able to cope, that all be well, etc etc) followed by acceptance once the child arrives, whoever they are. :-)

My kids are definitely better at it than me. I find it slightly minefield-ish and my oldest is not at school yet. Mine only have play dates thanks to our nanny really. Mind you, we do have a couple of friends with kids the same age and we have them over of course. But not specifically for the kids to "date". I do think there is something about we modern parents spending more and more of our and our family's time revolving around our children's immediate points of interest, rather than getting on with our own stuff and adjusting that to welcome the children into it.

Yes, civil servant, like I said, a family of foxes. Of course defence of territory is about rearing young. I wasn't under the impression that the vixen was pissed off at us for ruining the bleeding roses or something! And I did not have the foxes removed as a way of expressing moral judgment on her aggression! I well understood it, which was precisely why I feared it. What mother wouldn't put her children's lives and safety above the life of a fox? ??

mollydoodle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think foxes are issue to be dealt with I have > had at least one in my house that came through the > catflap and left me a rather nasty poo on my > floor. They have since tried to get in again as > the catflap is now locked and we find them banging > against it. I have a cat, a toddler and about to > have a newborn and it does concern me that foxes > will still try and get in. We looked at ways to > deter them but all the info people like the RSPCA > had was how to feed them!! Mollydoodle we had something very similar with an incredibly daring family of foxes denned in our garden. They constantly tried to get in the house, and we could not allow our three small children outside the back door. The idea that these foxes were afraid of humans (as per RSPCA) was a joke. They did not run away from us unless we shook a large stick at them. They saw us as intruders onto their territory and frequently showed their teeth. I have no doubt that given any chance they would have tried to take our newborn, just as they would a chicken or rabbit. We tried everything to deter them. Water jets, sonic devices, the works. Pointless. Eventually we had them trapped and humanely killed. It was not cheap but it was necessary. Totally unapologetic for that. Whoever said (above)'keep your backdoor shut to keep foxes AND peodophiles (?!?) away from your children" simply has not faced this situation. And while I wouldn't support attempts to eradicate them I think feeding them is a real nuisance to others and disturbs the natural balance which their presence in our cities helps to preserve.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pickle Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think the only people that can make that > > decision are you and your partner. > > > What pickle said. > > To base the decision on whether they may or may > not get on as adults seems ridiculous to me. You > have no more way of knowing that than knowing > whether your child will grow up with mental health > issues You can't predict these things, it's > basically about blind faith and doing your best to > give them a good start. What Otta said. Blind faith, being prepared to accept and do your best for whomever you get. You can no more control who your kids are than they can control which parents they get. (Speaking as one of 5 siblings, two of whom have mental health issues and are extremely challenging.)

Chillaxed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK maybe I'm just trying to ramp up the 'heated > debate' factor on a slow Friday, and I hate people > commenting in ignorance on others parenting, but > 'you've been so good, don't spoil it now' doesn't > rank up there with the worst comments I've heard > or heard of. I doubt very much that these ladies > were conscious of your interpretation of their use > of the word 'good'. Who hasn't described a baby > as a 'good boy/girl'? > I disagree, and identify with Zedd's annoyance. It's not that they said her baby was good. It was the idea that a good baby is a silent baby, and a baby who makes noise is the opposite of good. It's not true, and an unkind thing to say. Sure, it's not the worst thing they could have said. But had they -say- started calling the baby nasty names, then Zedd would have been entitled to feel more than unwelcome and then annoyed. She would on that scenario have been entitled to call the management over and ask the two women to leave...

I'm sure there is not a "right" number of weekly play dates for a child, susyp, and that you are best placed to know what works for you and yours. I would go for honesty-lite if I was you. If the other mother is trying to arrange new friends because she is worried that her daughter is on the wrong end of some unfriendly behaviour from other children, she should in theory be open to you saying that maybe that is what is happening to your daughter here. But in reality it'll probably make her more resistant to the idea. And it'll cause a big rumpus and may make things tricky for the girls at school. Plus, children change. I would go instead for being honest one invitation at a time. And involve your daughter in whether she wants to go. If its a no, then no, not today thanks. And if asked why, say your LO's just not that into the idea right now. Could that work? Maybe talk to your LO about play dates in general too. Is there anyone she would like to invite home? Does she enjoy them/would she like more. You'll work it out.

That is very unpleasant. And very common. But you get used to it and soon it will be water off a duck's back. What silly women, though. I'm not sure if UK is uniquely unfriendly to little people. (Try breast feeding in public, or even in some private homes, in the States, for example.) But I think a lot of continental Europe is way better. Italy obviously is amazing. And there are some v nice child friendly Italian restaurants in London. A little Sicilian place just off Leather Market in the City is superb for dosing you and your bambi with only natural adoration. Can't remember it's name immediately....

I'd be v interested in this too. Nothing with too much focus on discipline, something fun.

Like Shuanug I did nighttime weaning cold turkey at about 21 months. Awful at first but very rapidly got better. Kick started it by sending LO to her favourite aunty's overnight, which worked really well. Agree with others that it will help you both if someone else could step in as a circuit breaker. Sounds like you understandably have mixed feelings about stopping nightime b/f??? You sound exhausted, and are annoyed when she needs it, but on the other hand when she was very ill your b/f really improved her chances/helped her. Also after 7 years it must be a difficult thing to say goodbye to, on one level. This sounds a bit cringey, and just ignore if unhelpful, but do you need to give yourself permission to take your sleep back after all these years of satisfying but exhausting devotion to successive children; to put your need for sleep above your daughter's wanting you at night? I may be talking to my own situation when I say this. Like I say, please ignore if not helpful.

I didn't say any of that. I said, I don't like the church's concept of god. I think that god is, page after page in the bible, a childish, violent, controlling, and heartless figure. Therefore I think your proposition that the "west" (including, er, me? Other people in ED?) is "morally bankrupt", compared to the glorious bride of Christ/the church, um, how should I put it: CHEEKY NONSENSE! But as it happens the bible DOES say that homosexuals should be put to death. Is that Deuteronomy or Numbers, maybe you can tell me? And on at least one occasion that I remember (other than the Great Flood) god personally intervened to murder them on mass, did he not? Maybe ask the potential new popes what their apologia is for that crime against humanity, and maybe go with the man with the least offensive/self-deluded answer...

Yes that's about it. Ultimately, just a means of one powerful group of human beings exercising control over everyone else. And not in a particularly cool way. A wonderful bit of NT self-contradiction is: "God is love, and everyone who lives in love, lives in God, and he in them." Now there's a creed I could go for. Just not a very accurate description of the (blood thirsty) god of the bible. For example, not a great fit with the god of the book of Job (opening scene, god and the devil having a chat, god agrees to ruin this guy Job's life, for the sake of a bet (that Job will not respond by cursing god). god then proceeds to impoverish Job, kill all his children and strike him down with a sickness worse than death. Very, very not loving. Hideously narcissistic/sadistic.) And people who somehow try to argue that the (same?) god of the NT is somehow better (has he grown up?) ignore the fact that the sacrifice of Christ - which is I think THE point of the NT - follows same sadistic theme. Speaking for myself, no way would I take a steer on family values from the institution which venerates this god. No matter what continent its leader hailed from.

It's surely highly dubious to talk of "moral bankruptcy" in relation to a belief set that revolves around the idea of the existence of a supreme being who: created the universe including humanity; then decided humanity was not too appealing after all on the grounds that it would not do as it was told (amongst its crimes - a thirst for knowledge, eating forbidden fruit and copulation outside of marriage/with a wrongly gendered partner); condemned humanity to eternal damnation in hell for said unruliness; then decided, ok, maybe not, I would quite like to absolve the fallen but, hey, I can't just forgive them and get over it, no! I am righteous and SOMEone has to pay; soooo, how-very-lovingly incarnated his own son as flesh and blood in order that he might be a "perfect sacrifice" in a terrible act of torture and murder; and after that sordid business was out the way could think about letting humanity into heaven, as long as any particular individual had heard of said loving sacrifice of own son and joined a group to worship him. IMO, hypocrisy goes even higher than the church. It's right deep in he heart of the church's supreme being itself.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or maybe we can all just label our feelings before > we start throwing things. That will stop us in > our tracks from being bad parents and make us > reflect on our feelings. (Ha, as if.) O The labelling feelings thing can be really annoying. Really well meant but really, very annoying. It's a feeling. It's non-verbal. That's the point. Why should parents, or children, have to talk about their inner lives if they don't want to, anymore than anyone else? Great to listen if they want to talk, about their feelings or anything else, but seriously how often do you want to talk about your emotions? Isn't it better simply to, er, feel it and let it be ? I've noticed that my kids don't need any dialogue to discern how they feel, or to find their own resolution. Example last night: no 1 crawled into bed beside me, obviously slightly shakey. She seemed afraid. I asked her what was wrong, she didn't reply. Fine. I let it go. I did not say, "You seem really terrified to me, are you completely terrified, is that what it is?" I figured, she doesn't want to talk about it. We just snuggled up instead and she went back to sleep. In the morning, when she woke up, happy and completely unafraid, the very first thing she said to me was, "Mummy, the really big rock that CRASHED into the earth and made the moon, that's not going to happen ever again, is it? Cos it only happened once." All it needed from me was a "That's right my darling," and off she skipped for her porridge. All sorted, and not an emo-label in sight.

Scottish grandmother. Who would have disapproved of topless photos too. But would have laughed at the idea that anybody should have a legally enforceable "expectation" entitling her to take her top off under gods own sunshine without anyone other than her husband and a few servants seeing her xxxxxxxx. (Scottish word for breasts.)

Is anyone else bored at best, at worst pretty annoyed, by the latest expression of "disappointment" from St James' Palace over sunny pictures of the "Cambridge Three" (him, her and the wee bump) on an exclusive beach, in swimsuits, being - shock horror - printed in an Italian glossy? Chi magazine is not exactly my cup of tea: I prefer the FT. And I realise this might be an unpopular view. But it bewilders me that the "expectation of privacy" of the Cambridges - or any other ridiculously wealthy and privileged person - should be treated as a newsworthy topic by the BBC. And while I have no interest in viewing the pictures myself, I find the obscuring of the "offending" shots on BBC images of the Chi front page as, well, just silly. Hgrumf!