Fuschia

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I'd acknowledge that anyone that runs deliberately > into a fire to rescue someone is a useful member > of society, but so is a school crossing lady, a > school teacher, a nurse, a doctor, a soldier, a > lawyer, a sailor, a chef, a social worker ... I'd be opposed to the wholesale sacking of ANY of these workers to force acceptance of major cutbacks in the service....

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm interested in the 'naive' bit, Fuschia. > > Can you educate me? What have I missed? Regurgitating what you hear in the media... believing that this is just about "lazy firefighters not wanting to change" and not making any link with the massive reductions going on in public services...

I find it a bit sad that some many people in ED seem to be so smug and naive.

Says it's normal to 6w and beyond. Though I'm sure you'll feel happier when the dr has checked her out and confirmed it's nothing untoward.

No personal experience but this might be useful: http://www.promom.org/bf_info/Jaundice.htm Is she breastfed?

On holiday to France MrF, I and the twins were in our car and child no 1 was in MrF's brother's car... the occasional morbid thought crossed my mind

I think people are being very naive if they fail to realise this is about a reduction in the levels of service we all rely on. In the words of my friend (married to a SE London firefighter) "The main issue is that no-one has given any real argument for how this will actually increase productivity. They may be able to keep firefighters awake all night, but what can they actually do? They can't go knocking on doors putting up smoke alarms, or out doing drills in the early hours of the morning, any more than they could now. The real reason behind these changes is to save money by making it easier to shut stations at night! Some of the stuff currently going on by management is shocking and will not stand up in court. Any fireman who normally 'acts up' but not officially promoted (ie. they're paid the rate tho),but has stopped acting up because of the dispute (they don't have to, its not in their contract) has been docked 20% of their pay with immediate effect, taking their pay lower than that of a firefighter. They have taken 27 pumps off the run in preparation of strikes before they were even announced, leaving 27 stations as singles. A station that only has one appliance has to carry more equipment than one that has two (because the extra kit is on the other vehicle). These stations left as singles do not have this kit (in the main, the right length ladders). Fire stations should not be run if they do not have the correct kit, but any firefighter who has refused to man a vehicle without the right kit has also has his pay docked by 20%! They have disciplined people for putting their views on forums such as facebook or for wearing stickers saying solely - 'say no mass sackings' - on their kit. Much of this seems to be hidden by/from the press. Any shows such as tonight's LBC radio show make me honestly feel sick, with tory David Mellor cutting anyone off with a valid point to make whilst allowing his fellow Tory toad Coleman an open platform to put his point across. He is a clever man, and appearing to be unbiased to those who aren't in the know, but its just not true! The strike threat will immediately go away if management take away their threat of mass sackings and enforcement of new contracts. There are other details to this but they're the main ones. The photo was a bit of a joke. But in all seriousness no firefighter wants to go on strike. They are NOT fighting for a pay increase of any sort, they are NOT striking over a change of shift in principal (the union have put other, more practical hours on the table, which have been ignored). They are fighting to save London's firecover, because they know what's coming!!"

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I understand it the point of dispute is over > shift patterns - with the present being 2 9 hour > day shifts followed by two 15 hour night shifts > followed by four days off - which averages out at > 30 hours a 5 day week. Management has proposed two > 12 hour day shifts followed by two 12 hour night > shifts followed by four days off - which averages > at 30 hours for a 5 day week. Now imagine you live in Kent (which many SE London FF do as they can't afford to live in London) and add on a 75-90 min commute. Those 12 hour days would make for a very long day, an unsafe journey home, and rarely seeing their families...

Though as often as not we use a cheap black rucksack... DP happier to carry that and in the car/public transport etc can be more practical than a bag onthe buggy handle

I have a single skip hop for the tandem and a double for our dble buggy, like the way they go on the buggy handle and have various pockets etc

A close friend of ours is a firefighter and was telling us how the plans would see him having to make his way to alternative stations in his own time and for a flat travel rate of ?30 instead of being paid overtime and reimbursed actual travel costs (his role means he gets sent to other stations)

Think he might have had it if it's the hib or whatever.. he's had all he's supposed to anyway. He just seems ot eb prone to chest infections while his sister is prone to urine infections...

Thanks James for your reply.. I agree the council's position is stupid though. Most counsils now have comingling and offer large receptacles/bins. To expect us to have multiple blue crates - we have 4 - is just silly!

Yes, my experiences of haematology and paediatrics have always been good. i wonder how come the reception staff in particular, but also some midwives, in women's services, seem to be so rude and abrupt at times...

she is 2 1;/2

They didn't say bronchiolitis (s that the word for viral infection of the bronchial tubes?) I think her narrowing and blockage was more lungs/pneumonia. I am hoping it's not asthma... does run in the family bigtime but she hasn't had any chest problems before and DS1 once had an inhaler for a while after a chest infetion but never went on to develop asthma

Nov 28th for me, no 4, boy.. I am sort of squeezed between autumn and winter babies

No, she was thr big one the smaller obne has had pneumonia twice mind you

Is NHS direct beng cut? I fear it might be...

So last night TwinII's nasty cough turned into horrible panting, never seen this before with any of my children but I could tell it was unusual (lying very lethargic, chest going rapily up and down, sucking in, nostrils flaring) Called NHS direct who sent a paramedic... but when nebulisers didnt help we ended up in a blue light ambulance to hospital after more nebulisers, oxygen and steroids she improved but we were there till past 1am being monitored.... finally got home at 2am, she has an inhaler, steroids to take and antibiotics and we have to go back if she needs the inhaler too frequently Tbey decided was a viral infection causing the wheeze on both sides, possibly will turn to be asthma... and all the crackling is likely to be a bacterial infection starting hence the antibiotics. All the staff we saw were great and very kind. It;s not easy being in a and e alone at 1am heavily pregnant with a sick toddler. There was another little boy there (also a twin) with exactly the same, so definitely something to watch out for. I had forgotten how good NHS direct can be, the way they decide over the phone what's necessary ad send an ambulance etc if needed.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I've now had a more senior council officer tell me > the policy hasn't changed and the policy on blue > wheelie bins has been explained as: > Residents can have a blue wheelie bin IF the > property has been divided into flats. Did you put in a request for me James? We do live in a property divided into flats...

Going a bit offtopic.. I think any mother will get the best from the money she spends on childcare if she is aware that the person she is paying is a real person entitled to respect, and doesn't expect more of her than the mother would do herself... It's a bit of a false saving I think, to attempt to extract far too much from a childcarer, then keep having to look around for someone new and go through the settling in all over again...

I can second that Christine Neillands is fantastic and a very safe caring place to talk through birth fears and previous bad experiences as well as tailored hypnotherapy to promote positive thinking and relaxation for the next birth...

brum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I admit to being baffled. In recent weeks I've > regularly visited this park on weekday mornings > and virtually every time I've seen school kids > using the sports fields. These are kids usually > arriving by coach. What is the difference, then, > with kids from a school so close to the park, > using the same facilities? Its barmy. James' point is that schools do use playing fields in that way (and it's certainly common practice) The point others are making is that as a sports academy with no green space, objections amde at the planing meetings were met with promises that the school wouldn't be relying on P Rye as its green space. Who knows what spare capacity there is at P Rye? I work at a school in E London nd we have playung fields opposite but they are in so much demand we ca't book them for more than a fraction of the time we need. Certainly if a new secondary school was bult in our area and was going to be using the same facility, we would object on the basis that the fields are already inadequate for the needs of existing schools. That's what it will come down to in the end will be my guess. If there is spare capacity at P Rye, the council will want/need the income and it is stupid for the academy to ship children off by bus. But it was clearly dishonest if false assurances were given at planning meetings. If P Rye is already fully used by local schools, then it's all the more an issue regarding the original planning discussion...

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We all want kids to be more active. Hating this > school and insisting all sports are undertaken a > bus journey away seems rather sad. > > Well maybe if existing schools hadn't sold off > their playing fields for development and new > schools weren't built without adaquate grounds > (which you would think would be a necessity for a > Sports Academy) there wouldn't be the need for > this debate. Academy issue aside, most London schools without playing fields that I know of, never had any! Think the traditional victorian building - Heber, Goodrich and secondaries built at the same time. I think it's a bit of an urban myth. the sale of playing fields. Schools can't sell their grounds and wouldn't retain the capital receipt even if they did.