Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We started using one at 6 months with just the baby set, used a jumper round his back & side to start with as he was still a little wobbly but now at 8 months he's fine. I'd also go for the baby set over the harness in the early days though not sure what's going to happen as he gets older and we can't squeeze him through the baby set holes!
We've never had a harness for our tripp trapp just the baby seat/set (?) but it means our daughter can stand up in the chair, don't know if it's because she's quite small and skinny or just an excellent escape artist but I have to keep a close eye on her...
I never bothered with a high chair harness until baby no 3 when aged 8 mths old stood up in her high chair and clapped in delight at her own ability. I squealed in horror and Mr TP performed a heroic dive across the kitchen to scoop her out of the chair - v. hairy moment. From then on she was strapped in but hated the shoulder straps and so we compromised with waist straps only, which did the trick. Would sometimes sneakily hook the shoulder straps onto her trouser belt hooks. Depends on the child but air on the side of caution.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
    • It's not magistrates that are needed, it's judges and they will rattle through these cases whether the loos are working or not. Barristers get a brief fee and a day rate. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...