Nice people thread part 3- Nice as pie

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

Interesting. Haven't seen any starlings around here, just crows, pidgeons and magpies as well as some black bird (possibly even a blackbird) so far. It would be nice to have starlings though, I like watching them play, they are more fun than the others. I watch them in my Mum's birdbath sometimes and the only thing that would give them more fun I think would be a miniature swan pedalo.

I'm not sure, but it could be the corvids too I think.

STing

I don't have voicemail activated. If I haven't answered, they call back or text if it's important.

Has voicemail been secured now?

STing

Public opinion is finally behind MPs against the NOTW.

This is going to be interesting.

Generali

The way forward is your choice. If you are happy to buy a newspaper that gathers scoops in a particular way then continue to buy it. If you are uncomfortable about the way the newspaper (or any other company you do business with) acts then buy a different one.

I was looking forward to reading The Times when I was in the UK. I won't buy it for now.

LydiaJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

Article: The Solar Panel Myth http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-2011540/Energy-experts-slash-estimates-household-savings-using-solar-panels.html

Solar panels that cost up to £16,000 will knock just £70 a year off household bills, which is almost half the original estimate, energy experts have admitted.

Environmental advisers the Energy Saving Trust (EST) has cut its estimate on how much households could save on their electricity bill using solar panels from the previous £120 a year.

What an incredibly badly written article. Nobody has ever pretended that it was worth paying £16,000 just for the reduction in electricity bills. One option is to pay the £16,000 (actually it's mostly rather less than that these days) in order to get the FiTs of several hundred a year - and many people are actually raking in more than a £1000 a year in FiTs. The other option is to get a company to put the panels on your roof for free, so that you get the reduction in bills without any outlay at all (while the company collects the FiTs.)

Amongst those who are properly informed, there's a sensible debate about whether the proposed scheme is good for the economy, the country, or the environment, but there's a pretty solid consensus that it's good for the person collecting the FiTs.

The Telegraph article on the same EST findings is much more balanced:

The admission will be a blow to the growing number of "rent-a-roof" schemes, where households receive free solar panels in return for savings on their electricity bill. However, as many of these schemes lock households into a 25-year contract, many householders are expected to be reluctant to take part for such paltry savings.

Under "rent-a-roof" schemes, the company that installs the panels, which typically cost around £14,000, keeps the income generated from selling the surplus energy back to the grid via the Government's feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme – typically earning more than £1,000 each year.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Fair enough. My mother was quite disappointed she needed 4 sections for 4 children - but after having a crash section with me, they insisted she had planned elective sections for my younger siblings. Labour was more risky, apparently.

Isaac was born by c-section too. Initially I'd wanted a more natural birth. After being in labour for nearly 3 days, I was happy to get it all over with!

Your mother may well have had the old kind of section - with a vertical incision, which created much more weakness in the uterine wall than the horizontal incision they use now. That could be the reason they advised her not to try for a normal labour and vaginal delivery. Or perhaps they felt that the reasons she needed a section with you were likely to occur again - perhaps her pelvis was narrow or something. Plenty of people these days do have what's called a VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarian).

lir - I'm not an earth mother type either, but a section really isn't an easy option. It takes a lot longer to recover from, and the stats show it carries risks for the baby - although not as big a risk as an obstructed labour, of course. The easist option for non-Earth-mother wimp-types is vaginal delivery with epidural.

michaels wrote: »

Yes - July going on October.

At least we have half a roof tonight - half more than last night although I did insist on them covering over the huge hole in our bedroom ceiling which they had fallen though (2 days after they did the kids room ceiling) before they went home last night - still no upstairs lights though.

Sounds hideous. But also interesting for those of us who aren't being personally inconvenienced by it. What's the latest news on the progress of your building work, michaels?

neverdespairgirl

lostinrates wrote: »

Never having had a baby a planned caesarian sounds like the ''nicer'' option to me. (I know its not very earth mother, but it would be easier in a lot of eways, e.g. dh would be able to book time off work) I'd want to know the sex in advance too.

A crash section (like my mother had with me) isn't nice at all - they basically bashed her over the head and carved a huge hole to get me out as my heart rate fell.

Even a more normal section, either emergency or planned, is major abdominal surgery. Muscles pushed out of the way, deep incisions, stapled back together, catheters, weird drain things, it's not that nice, promise! You aren't allowed to drive for 6 weeks afterwards, if I remember rightly, and it hurts. Not at the time (obviously) but for a few weeks afterwards.

neverdespairgirl

LydiaJ wrote: »

Your mother may well have had the old kind of section - with a vertical incision, which created much more weakness in the uterine wall than the horizontal incision they use now. That could be the reason they advised her not to try for a normal labour and vaginal delivery.

She did have a "classical" section, because it was a massive rush - my heartbeat dropped like a stone, so they bashed her over the head and carved her up, sharpish. She had the smaller horizontal ones for my sisters and brother.

LydiaJ

I meant to say, NDG, sympathies for 3 day labour with Isaac. Glad you both ended up OK. Let's all be grateful that in this country safe and hygienic sections are available for those who need them. It's not the case everywhere.

neverdespairgirl

That, and the 9 months non-stop sickness beforehand, have helped me delay no. 2 (-: I was induced a day after term because Isaac was going to be "huge", they estimated 11.5lb (!) After a cascade of intervention, he emerged at a bang-on-average 8lb. Long and skinny. He still is.

John_Pierpoint

PasturesNew wrote: »

Mine's diesel, so I had to look up the unleaded.

£1.34, £1.37, £1.40

It's cheap in London isn't it! 6p cheaper than my cheapest.

If you ever need to travel East then the cheapest fuel is (usually):
In the shadow of the Beckton "Alp".
At the southern end of the Dartford crossing (but Tesco is nearer at the north end to M25).
In the area where the A127 drops into North Southend-o-s.
I'm diesel too but petrol is usually 2 - 3 p cheaper.
Diesel:
132.9 Surprisingly a scatter of Sains./Morris./Wait. in S.Essex with a
133.7 standardised ASDA lots of places (Have they discovered the others have to end in .9 ??)
132.7 yes the winner is ASDA Beckton:T:T

lostinrates wrote: »

Gen, that just makes me envious.

Sorry LiR it makes me feel ill - how is that for empathy with "earth mothers".

Is it just me - I cannot get worked up about the NoW - because I am not a bit surprised by having the behaviour confirmed.

I got beaten up on here some years ago for "revealing" that the phone companies record not just phone mail but all our mobile calls.
The information leaks out in court from time to time.
I am 95% convinced that the technology developed for monitoring the Russians etc. etc. at GCHQ is used to monitor the rest of us (for our own good of course, how many 7/7 do we want - I need roll eyes or some other irony key).

The NoW has transgressed by forgetting "you can look but you'd better not touch" - hubris borne of arrogance?