Bouncy

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.

Dinosaurs...and for an animal that's extinct, they are everywhere in the world of toddlers. Even a mention of them causes terror. Plus any place where they might possibly be hiding. Don't know what to do either, but feel for you!

Vaida's on Honour Oak Park repaired mine, if that one doesn't work out...

Hi Karen, There's loads of (mostly free) family-friendly stuff on the South Bank, around the Royal Festival Hall: http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/ You can also walk down the river to the Tate Modern, which has a kids' bit and space to run about. The Real Food Market http://www.realfoodfestival.co.uk/markets/real-food-market-at-southbank-centre is good - you can buy lunch there, then eat it in the RFH and watch whatever's going on. Enjoy!

Hi Suzy...I'd be pretty p****d off - I think you have a right to be. I have friend with a child with worse allergies than yours; the consequences could be even worse. Could you try the advertising standards agency (as the product was not as advertised)?- or local trading standards? (I think such a thing exists). I emailed the ASA in a Groupon rage quite recently and they got back to me quickly...

I remember having a conversation with a friend about why our toddlers were 'self-harming' when mine was around that age - though the weird thing is, I can't remember now exactly what they were doing, so I guess it must have passed fairly quickly! A few friends have had issues like this...I remeber being quite disturbed by it, but maybe it is just a stage a lot of them go through???

Yes, Peckham for babies, or the nice low-level, baby-friendly soft play at the Museum of Docklands...

I would really like to know what goes on there as I've been past and wondered if we're allowed in, on what basis, etc... Just a sign outside stating who it's for and when it's open would be good!

Or maybe try the NCT BF counsellors? - http://www.nct.org.uk/sites/default/files/related_documents/nctbf%20SUPPORT%20feb12%5B1%5D.doc - they should know??

Hi Convex... do you know roughly how much Carly would charge for below-shoulder thick-ish hair?? Thanks!

Dulwichdame - just a warning - DON'T get a Groupon Brazilian Blow dry deal with Ginger Group. The advert is totally fraudulent and basically you won't be able to get an appointment. Got my money back through Groupon once I realised this, but what a hassle and disappointment! Looked like a really good deal at ?69...but NOT!

You poor things. A couple of things: You SHOULD be referred to a hospital consultant. Mine had reflux and was referred by our GP. They can do it really easily. MAKE your GP! Similarly, a friend's baby has allergies, and was referred to St Thomas', where they have some kind of special allergy clinic. (My consultant was at Lewisham and was excellent). We were very lucky because weaning did start to 'cure' the reflux. But the fact that weaning is going as it is for you, and that your little one has reflux AND allergies means that you should definitely be seeing a hospital consultant who knows what they are talking about and is supportive. They are out there! Is it possible to self-refer? Having said that weaning started to 'cure' things, we did have several spectacular instances when I thought the food had gone down and it came out again in unfortunate places (mega ectoplasm green sick in a restaurant was good). We also had several reversions back to just milk or just yoghurt, as late as 10 / 11 months. Until my baby was about one it felt like one step forward, two back, a lot of the time. But this was also the case for friends with babies with no known issues. I think the linear progress through weaning presented in books, by health visitors, etc, is for many people an utterly misleading myth. By about one year, things were okay for us (mostly eating 'normal' toddler food) - but it didn't feel like that was going to be the case in the lead-up! So please don't let people mislead you with the idea that if your baby isn't progressing neatly through the rather arbitrarily prescribed stages you are somehow failing. You are certainly not! Lastly, you would never know all the things that went on in the first year looking at my toddler now. He's bright and energetic and (mostly!) happy and eats lots! I hope that for you it will be the same. You will get through all this, however impossible it all feels at times!