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.

Thanks for sharing, all - and reading through the above, in some ways I wish my fear of childbirth could be solved by a planned c-section... unfortunately, a c-section is the very thing I fear! It may be irrational, but there you are, on this point I guess I just am. So far I've been lucky enough not to need one, but given the stats for London hospitals it's a possibility that looms very large when I think of possibly having another baby. Wouldn't want to push my luck. No guarantee can be made that it won't happen. And it's all very well discussing these things in the NCT/NHS ante-natal classes (most of the parts on birth in both of these, for me anyway, were focussed on 'complications'!) but that didn't help me at all. Not sure counselling would help either, given the fundamental problem can't be solved...

Never mind comparisons with Germany and Ireland - according to the article, UK is competing with IoM - zero%. Here's the relevant quote: "Although the vast majority of Caffe Nero?s business is conducted in the UK, its parent company is based in the Isle of Man for tax purposes. Despite its geographical proximity to the UK, the standard rate of ?corporate income tax? is 0pc on the island." And apparently the UK profits are all eliminated with 'PIK' notes, at a high rate of interest... Doubtless all very much legal, but not exactly making it easy for the UK to compete!

Trams Car clubs Good bicycle routes

I've never been to Ireland, so I don't know what they think there - does it show? I would have thought it's more usual to agree with the O'Dwyer statement that "no treatment should ever be withheld from a woman if she needed it to save her life, even if that treatment resulted in the loss of life of her unborn child" than to take the view that the woman's life is unimportant, as you seemed to be implying. I could be wrong - clearly you know more about Ireland than I do! But wherever you go in the world, you are going to find people who don't follow protocols - I don't think this is unique to Ireland... Care of women in labour in the UK, for example, often leaves much to be desired and appalling stories crop up with depressing regularity. It just seems odd to leap on this one instance of supposed prejudice and backwardness - though to be fair we really don't have all the facts here - as if it were some sort of institutional or legal failing that just couldn't happen in a 'civilised' country like the UK. Sorry if that's controversial. I'm not trying to justify some kind of weird pro-life (as long as it's a fetus not a grown woman) approach here.

If this is true: "There is nothing in Ireland's constitution which prevents this treatment from being given, as medical abortions are permitted in Ireland to save the life of the mother. This is absolutely clear in article 40.3.3 of the Constitution" And this is true: "Ireland is 6th safest place in the world to have a baby. The UK is 23rd" Then I object to the heading "It could be worse, we could be in Ireland" That is all.

"How barbaric to force any woman to endure a painful miscarriage at any stage of pregnancy, when medical interventions could be made. A woman is now DEAD. People are going to judge." I think the issue is, people are implying that such a thing couldn't happen in other parts of the UK. Completely wrong. Look at a couple of recently reported cases: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/midwife-simply-laughed-at-my-torment-over-stillborn-baby-7303668.html http://www.metro.co.uk/news/909281-hospital-payout-over-baby-delivery-heartbreak Usually these stories don't even make it into the broadsheets. Then there's the depressing story about the baby who died through overfeeding (I mean, seriously, how could 210ml per hour even be an option in a specialised machine like that? I would have thought there would be strict parameters... or is such a high dose ever appropriate?) Slightly OT but like the NI story, it made me cry. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20323497 I think Dudley is 100% right that (a) we just don't know the facts here and (b) it is a media witchhunt. Mistakes and lack of judgement happen everywhere. This should not have happened, but it didn't happen because of the law in NI, whether we agree with that law or not (and I don't).

Well, if a majority of people really think it makes no difference (or very little) then no wonder: - that there is exactly one baby-friendly hospital in all of London (accounting for just 3.54% of births) - as of about a year ago! - health professionals in the NHS simply couldn't care less and rather than provide bf support they simply give or recommend formula (sorry, can't rely on Unicef for this one, but it happened to me - and when I finally found help outside the NHS, no one seemed surprised to hear it... 'happens all the time'... apparently) Seriously, is there a single OB or paediatrician in all of South London who is also an IBCLC? It would be delightful to hear that such a person exists. What me, bitter? ;-/

"i.e.: being 1 minute late for their appointments, for not attending one interview, for which they had no chance of getting the job, or the job had already gone" Are you serious? If it's important to be on time, you get there early. Any job interview is excellent experience and practice for the next one. What does it matter if you had 'no chance of getting the job'? This sounds like a recipe for how to stay unemployed and make excuses for it.

incest

Seems an odd approach to put a ban on nannies, given the aims of the programme. Why ghettoise those who need assistance? They could presumably learn a few childcare tips or techniques from nannies and other experienced childcarers as well as from other mums or the staff at the centre. Fair enough if that's the policy, but it seems short-sighted to me, and as someone pointed out earlier, also likely to stigmatise. And bear in mind too that it's the children - both those who are isolated in the programme and those turned away - rather than the nannies, who are missing out...