Cyberia

I wouldn't worry about it... When we were living in a Southwark conservation area, the neighbours built a truly hideous shed right on their front boundary. No planning permission! It's still there - I see it from time to time. Must be at least 3 years it's been there now. Zero enforcement - just like fly-tipping!

Maybe the best solution is for groups of sahms to train as childminders, then look after each other's children for money - in practice, they could all hang out together at the softplay, the park, cafe, each other's houses - whatever - and then perhaps they could be eligible for this kind of incentive. If it's full time work, why not get the training? Not sure if it would benefit the exchequer but can't be bad for the kids...

WorkingMummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Comparing "your hospitals" with N Staff is not an > argument. And N Staff, however awful, is not an > argument for the privatisation of the NHS. You do > not have to look far into the private sector, in > any industry, to find incompetence and corruption. > The ultimate private system of all time (barring > its recent immunity agsinst failure) is the modern > banking sector and its not exactly a paradigm of > efficiency and virtue is it. > > You privatise a system, you introduce the > interests of corporate business and you remove > money from the system in the form of profit. How > many industries do we need to privatise in this > country in order to learn that lesson? Only this > week, when gas prices are at an all time high for > consumers, what does British Gas announce: a huge > fat corporate profit. Not sure how relevant this is. Didn't MM say he works for a charity? > My big area of concern (and knowledge) is women > and children's health. And my comparators are the > UK and the US. In the UK, we have NICE - until > recently, wholly independent commissioner of > evidenced based research for the development of > national standards for effective, affordable > treatment. We have a National coordination centre > which facilitates collaboration between different > stakeholders (RCOG, the midwifery council, > mumsnet, etc etc) for the provision of guidelines. > Result: gold standard, world respected standards > for the treatment of pregnant women and new > mothers, in which doctors, surgeons, midwives and > most mothers are fully invested, with procedure > and protocol based on what has proven to be best > for mother and child. In the States, what d'ya > got? You've got obstetricians and midwives > COMPETING for pregnant customers, using tactics of > advertising, negative campaigning and outright > scare propaganda to convince individual pregnant > women that they are better off in xyz unit/with > midwife led care, whatever. It's crazy. It makes > no sense. Would I feel different I was a pregnant > mother who wanted to demand right to a > non-indicated elective caesarean? Maybe. But I am > glad that it is not up to me as an individual to > decide what the evidence and economics indicate > should be my options. Well I have no experience of the US system, but I have used maternity services (in Lewisham) and they were pretty appalling. The inefficiency is extraordinary - and I can't believe no one warned me quite how many mixed messages I would receive - doctors contradicting each other, nurses, midwives, paediatricians all giving conflicting advice and opinions - it was a bewildering mess and as a mother I can only say I would never willingly go there again. > Yes the NHS is complex and yes it could be > improved. But turning it into a competitive, for > profit business is not the answer. Restoring NICE > independence and letting it continue to get on > with standardisation is part of the answer. > > The NHS is the last good reason to pay taxes in > the country. In that case I think I'd better start investigating some good avoidance schemes. So I can donate the proceeds to an organisation that's actually getting things right. Other hospitals may be better - but some are surely much worse. After all, in Lewisham - people are actually campaigning for the hospital, so however horrendous it is, it can't be as bad as some others (that I haven't experienced yet though presumably these people have) - the campaigners must be comparing it favourably with something!

Any chance you could stop in at a bf clinic or phone a helpline and ask a bf expert? There are some websites that also list medications that aren't recommended while breasfeeding though no idea if they are reliable. I vaguely remember reading something about certain decongestants interfering with milk production so might affect your milk supply - not sure about effect on the baby though.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (although the unemployed do pay taxes, and the > benefits they receive count towards taxable income > too). > > What tax do they pay? They pay VAT, for a start...

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Yeah, and parked cars are positively lethal. Absolutely, Loz - silly me, I just didn't think it through. Of course cars that are parked in London are never driven there... why, that would just create a whole lot of traffic and pollution and noise!

And 'advanced warnings' - these are much too complicated for me, can I have a basic or intermediate please? (Have to say I tend to chuckle rather than rage at these)

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We don't need computers or central heating > either.... What's your point? Are computers and central heating causing deaths or serious injuries in inner London?

Unbelievably sad. We are being let down. People just should not need cars in zone 2. Where are our tram routes and new train connections? Safe cycling routes to schools etc? Is it time to start supporting the Greens, or are they just as bad as the rest?

Haven't been on here in a while, but just saw - Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally I have ... no issue with a mother > ... being forced to take that > path for whatever reason. Are you seriously serious? Fine to be forced down that path for whatever reason? What about incompetent advice and misleading information from health professionals (which forced me down that path... and I am not alone)? I very much have an issue with that. I know I edited your post to take out the bits about the third world, but if I'm misunderstanding your point here, let me know, because otherwise it looks even more depressing out there than I already thought... (given no one else seems to disagree)

And for those interested in other options... this is also being discussed in the ED Issues forum. Link below: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1006604

Some extraordinary attitudes here! Why not educate yourselves a bit: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-benefits-of-bilingualism.html?_r=0 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17892521 http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/educators-once-opposed-raising-bilingual-children-experts-now-say-its-beneficial/2012/06/08/gJQAdz9gUV_story.html

There was a thread on here not so long ago about motorists failing to stop at zebra crossings. As I recall this was a local issue - Goose Green roundabout and ED Grove. Quite a few drivers came up with various spurious justifications for this. Not to mention all the complaints about having to comply with parking restrictions. Other complain that cyclists don't stop at the lights. And the last time I checked, 'jay-walking' wasn't illegal in this country - you don't have to live in London long to see that when it comes to going through red lights, pedestrians are also at it. What is it with this culture of law-breaking? Maybe we really do need a more Dutch-style system where cyclists have their own routes around the neighbourhood, separate from the rest of the traffic... I know which routes I'd choose to walk along! Or maybe everyone could just obey the rules. But if many drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists simply won't, well - maybe our transport options need a re-think.

Anytime, J-dog. B)

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mynamehere Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The law should be: > > > > 1. if a car touches a cyclist or a pedestrian > it's > > the driver's fault > > Fantastic idea! I could give up my job, and spend > my time cycling into cars and then taking the > drivers to court! Erm... cycling into cars is a cyclist touching a car and not the other way around. If you're proposing actually getting hit by cars deliberately you may find you give up more than just your job.