Bouncy

That's interesting, mrs.lotte, that you don't feel hungry on the fast days - for me it was the opposite...think this indicates primarily that each of us individually just has to figure out what works, and that this is not universal - for me, the sustained intake of SB worked, and I felt good on it. I presume we all have different metabolisms, psychologies, etc (know a little about the latter but nothing of the former, so grasping here!) - so you have to find your own personal fit... What's also interesting to be about the fasting diet (as portrayed on Horizon) and SB is that they are both reasonably grounded in 'sensible' evidence and science (compared to some other diets), and that's one of the things that appealed me about both...

I thought it looked really workable, too - then tried it and found it impossible! Just the wrong psychology for me in practice, I guess. Had much more success with South Beach - it really works (no, no affiliation!), and (crucially, it seems, for me) you're really not hungry on it...

"Generally speaking individuals don't choose which A&E to use - unless they are "walking wounded" in which case there are, generally, not urgent." This is not true of babies and children, who are bought in to the nearest hospital / hospital it is quickest to reach by their walking parents / carers. Babies and children deteriorate rapidly and cannot properly articulate what their symptoms are - hence the need for them to be seen as quickly as possible by medical staff who are qualified to assess them. I believe the threatened closure will include the specialist children's A and E at Lewisham, and dread to think what the consequences of this may be.

Don't know if this is infeasible, but could your other half not do the co-sleeping (sometimes?) rather than you? And you sleep by yourself elsewhere? The reason I ask is that we've discovered that my OH can actually sleep with ours without it disturbing him too much; he's a much deeper sleeper than me. It felt very weird at first when he did this - but, pragmatically, it works when it has to, for now: he actually gets enough sleep that way to funtion perfectly well, so does our toddler, and so do I. It's better than hours of crying, trying to sneak out, etc, etc... Just a thought, just in case...maybe the change would even mean that yours wouldn't want his bottles, if he's associating being around you with getting them? Never know?!

Hi TE44 - That is ambiguous, isn't it? Currently only anonymised data is provided outside of DfE...but that quote does imply that non-anonymised data may be provided...but maybe it's just a misphrasing if not in the proposals themselves?? Or not??

Hi Leecass...I'd also recommend Trinity Tots on the South Circular if it's not too far out of your way (might be quite easy, depending whereabouts you are)...very friendly, inclusive, and welcoming, really nice non-cliquy atmosphere and mix of people...

The Telegraph story is unrelated to proposals for revised usage of the National Pupil Database (NPD). It's about a private company losing personal information (including individual identifiers) which was aparently provided by the parents. Information provided from the NPD is anonymised, so it's highly unlikely that a situation could arise where information linked to individual pupils could become public, whoever it was provided to. (Though you never know how things are going to be further revised and to slip...) There is a debate to be had around the proposed extension of access, however, I agree. Perhaps the idea underpinning the media having access is that more nuanced analysis could more easily be conducted for news stories? I'm more wary of the opening up to commercial companies...

I have some slightly out-of-date knowledge of employment law from a previous job, and think you are right to be wary, particularly of clauses 1 and 2. Because I'm out-of-date, and there have been recent changes, I won't comment explicitly - but think you should definitely check out the ACAS website http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1360 and phone their free helpline 08457 47 47 47 - they'll be able to advise you properly on each point and on related issues. They were very helpful to a friend recently, and in my experience are competent, qualified and knowledgeable - and, to reiterate, free! Would be really interested to hear what the outcome of this is. Good luck!

That is fantastic! Seven days is brilliant!

Hello Buttercup - on a more general note, I did what it sounds like you're doing: packed a massive bag (actually, two) with everything I could conceivably need...and used none of it! The food went uneaten, because I was too busy giving birth(!) The special towels I'd bought to wrap the baby in went unused, because the midwife wrapped him up in a big blanket once all the drama and medical bit was over, and that was fine. The books went unread, because I was too tired from labour and distracted by my baby! I think I felt when planning that I wanted to exert control; that if I didn't get everything you could ever possibly need ready, things were more likely to go 'wrong.' In the event things didn't go at all as planned, pretty much nothing from the bags was used, BUT: it was all fine. The hospital have the essentials and their job is to make sure you and the baby do as well as possible - and that's the important bit. So don't worry too much about controlling things and being organised (if you can help it!) - this is a totally abnormal and unique experience and you can't be organised about it to the same extent / in the same way as other aspects of your life. I hope that makes sense!

Yes, I interpretted that as optician / similar too! But thanks - think I should properly get checked out properly!

Hello Strawbs...I'm afraid I'm not a medical professional, so can't offer advice, only sympathy...but I think you'd be totally justified in getting pushy in order to get you concerns properly addressed at this point. Good luck - it sounds really stressful - really hope you get some proper advice / treatment soon...

Why can't I see at night? Seriously: I wear normal-strength glasses and am fine in the daytime - but things are different at night - particularly when driving - to the point that I try to avoid driving after dark if at all possible, because I don't feel safe!

It's my understanding also that wheelchair-users have priority on buses and on trains, and I would always move for a wheelchair-user (in the sleeping baby situation, that would mean getting off the bus). I'm surprised that people don't - I thought it was commonly understood (and there are big signs!!) NorthcrossJo - I have massive respect for your positivity and for your active use of the public transport system. Since becoming a buggy-pusher, I've been routinely astounded and disgusted by how inaccessible so much of London remains, and have wondered many times how on earth wheelchair-users negotiate travel. I'm glad to hear that you think things are improving - let's hope that they continue that way. Your comments have also made me think back to when I worked with children in a SEN school, some of whom were wheelchair-users. We used to get them taxis when we went on trips because using the bus was so difficult (or we perceived it as so). Now I'm wondering if that wasn't actually a really bad approach and ultimately more for the convenience of the staff than the children, who may have been better served by encouragement to asert their rights and negotiate rather than avoid the system. Hmmm, wish I'd thought about that more at the time when I worked there and could do something about it!

I agree that there is an argument that the word 'discrimination' itself has connotations beyond those intended here, and perhaps was ill-used (though I also think there's an argument that its use was semantically accurate). However, having been in a similar situation (in a different cafe) with a friend who (in a shaky state, like many of us when our babies are young) was knocked off the end of her tether and into tears by treatment akin to that described above, I don't think calls for 'perspective' which belittle the experience of the original poster and the effect this kind of treatment can have are justified. We're humans living in a close society together; actions like this (however admittedly minor compared to war, famine, and any other polarising example you can think of!) do have an impact on people. Why try to trivialise people's experiences and feelings? If you don't think this issue is worth worrying about, perhaps don't read and contribute to this thread?! (Having said that, I'd be interested to hear concrete descriptions of how the observed entitled examples enact their entitlement!)

I've never actually met one of these self-entitled parents, except in the imaginations of people who write opinion pieces for newspapers. Are they really so prevalent? Or are they just a convenient (lazy) construct?

Mine also self-weaned at 10/11 months - but I definitely wasn't pregnant!! Felt rather put out by it - after all the emmotional and physical energy put into the whole thing, to suddenly be met with a total lack of interest was a bit upsetting, really! And I guess I'd always imagined that I'd be the one to decide when the last feed was. But decided eventually that, actually, it's great when they decide to wean themsleves - you're not having to force it and 'deprive' them of something they still want - and I suppose they're getting their comfort and nutrition in other ways, and just don't need it any more...

I agree that the Oliver James book is interesting, but would warn very strongly that a) he is a horrible cherry-picker of evidence, and that b) he subscribes to a specific theory on child-rearing, which has a limited ammount of suporting evidence (that which he cherry-picks!) There are alternative theories and there is alternative evidence out there on what's 'best' (depending on how you define that!) for children. Personally, I think what's 'best' varies enormously depending on the child and the family - if you don't go with what you're comfortable with, what 'works' for you, and a choice that you can justify to yourself (NOT anyone else!), your discomfort is going to be reflected in your interactions with your child. So definitely read around, but don't fall for the argument from (media-friendly) authority...

Agree really with what people have been saying...it's hard to push and to steer, and the handle doesn't adjust to a hight comfortable for me...not great for the back...

Fridge Phonics is good - they can play with it in their own time... http://www.amazon.co.uk/LeapFrog-Scout-Fridge-Phonics-Storage/dp/B009UC464K/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1350992006&sr=8-6 (link to illustrate but sure we got it a lot cheaper than this; must be possible still, if you look around...)

Me too with the dummies! :-] Yes, Peppa Pig is very problematic, because he loves her - but any threat of dinosaurs appearing (e.g. a present is delivered - might it have a dinosaur in it?!) and he needs me to pick him up and protect him!

Hi LondonMix - re. the LA ensuring you get a place in one of your nearest 6 if you put them all down: no, this doesn't happen, sadly. During the first round of allocations, each school sees in isolation ever applicantion made to it through the central system. They then use their own admissions criteria to determine who they'll offer a place to. They feed this back to the council and the council allocates the school which is highest on the applicant's list and which has made an offer to the applicant. So, at this point in the system, religious families are more likely to have met the selection criteria of a larger number of schools and to be offered a place. If the 6 schools you have applied to are oversubscribed (as many are), and you are not offered a place at one of them during this first sift, you are offered a place at one of the undersubscribed schools in the borough. So non-religious parents who put down their 6 most local state schools are less likely to be offered at place at one of these 6 if any of the schools are faith schools. (As I understand it, the creation of buldge classes is not related to that particular year's demand - it's a more long term strategy, and doesn't react post-application to numbers of applicants in an area that particular year.) My issue here is that, given the way the allocation system works, non-religious families are actively penalised. You and I are less likely to get our child into a local state school than an equivalent non-religious family, and more likely to be offered an undersubscribed, 'undesirable' school, which is further away. (Whether faith schools should be state-funded at all is of course a whole additional matter!)

Hi LondonMix - I think where we mainly differ, then, is in our opionion on whether there should be a perogative of the religious to have an increased chance of attending a school which better meets their desires at the expense of the non-religious having an increased chance of being sent to a school that's both further away and less likely to meet THEIR desires (because if it's not filled in the first round, it will usually be undersubscribed because it's unpopular). I think this perogative should not exist, but guess you would argue that the advantage for the religious justifies the consequences? (though don't want to put words in your mouth!)

Hi LondonMix, The issue is that, given the current system, if any of those 6 schools is religious, a disproportionate number of religious families (who are equal to the non-religious according to every other factor accounted for in admissions) in the area local to them will get a place. A disproportionate number of non-religious families will be sent outside of that local area. There is a bias in the system towards religious families (/ those in the know prepared publicly to subscribe to a religion for more choice), in that sense...

Hi Simonethebeaver - I feel the same as you (both about religious teaching in schools and the issues with the system), and yes, it's true: there is a fundamental inequality in access to local, state-funded schools depending on whether you subscribe to and demonstrate commitment to a particular faith. Though state religious and non-faith schools are both funded under the same system, they are allowed to set different admissions criteria. (In Lewisham, at least, where I live) non-faith school have to adhere to the LA's policy, which transparently allocates places according to distance, siblings, SEN status, distance to school, etc. Faith schools, however, define their own criteria - which allow them to discriminate based on 'faith.' As you say, this means that non-religious families have less chance of getting into a local state primary than religious families - though the schools are funded by the same pot of public money. Compounding this problem is the lack of acknowledgement of it in the centralised admissions system ? all families are allowed to apply for up to 6 places, regardless of whether they are religious: though if a religious and a non-religious family, equivalent in all other ways, living next door to one another, applied to the same 6 most local state schools, the former would have more chance of a place if any of these were faith schools. What amazes me is the lack of (local or national) political interest / appetite for changing this. I guess that voting behaviours among religious parents / middle class parents pretending a faith in order to play the system and have more choice (and why not, if you can stomach the indoctrination of your children?) serve as a disincentive.