Strollerderby : british

Poolside Breastfeeding Violates No Food Rule

Brett Singer — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:00:00 GMT

This is annoying. And funny.

Laura Whotton of Nottingham (no relation to the Sheriff of Nottingham) was "rebuked" when she tried to breastfeed her son at the pool. Her older boy was swimming at the time, and she wanted to keep on eye on him while the baby had a snack.

The mother, of course, was upset. "People in bikinis were showing more skin and breast than I was." With all due respect, that seems unlikely since breastfeeding requires exposing a breast, although I suppose it's possible she was using a Hooter Hider (that's a real product name, by the way) or similar covering. Mrs. Whotton also said that the incident "could put people off going swimming," which seems a little overwrought. As for being "rebuked by a staff member at the John Carroll Leisure Centre" (hee hee -- the English talk funny), I see her point. It's annoying and uneccessary.

The City Council has since rewritten their rules on poolside noshing in order to accomodate future breastfeeders.

This is not the first time a mom was told to put "the girls" away at the pool. (I know, it's not like she was stripping, I'm just trying to turn a phrase.) Something similar occurred in Canada back in October of 2008.

Here's a funny angle on the story. In general, breastfeeding advocates will say things like, "It's just eating." Right? Well, doesn't that mean that breast milk is food? And therefore, if there is a ban on food and drink at the pool, why doesn't that rule apply to breastfeeding?

To me, the answer is that there's no crumbs. What do you think?

Source: Telegraph

Image: Amazon

Arrest Ordered for Mom of Boy who Refused Chemo

OctoMom's Kid - Bite Mark And Black Eye

Top 10 Pregnancy and Birth World Records

Does Madonna Spank Her Kids?

13 Year Old Alfie Definitely Not A Dad

Brett Singer — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:56:00 GMT

It's official -- Alfie Patten is not the father of baby Maisie. Biologically, at least.

Alfie thought that he had impregnated 15-year-old Chantelle Stedman when he was just 12 years old. Although I admit that science is not my strong suit, that didn't seem possible to me. I guess I was right. (Take THAT Mr. Knauer! He was my bio teacher a long time ago. But I digress.)

This news isn't completely new, but it has just now been released after a ban on the info by a British court was overturned. A judge had previously ruled that "the rights of the teenagers took precedence over the Press's right to report the case." Well, I guess not.

This is an interesting point, one that I've thought of a few times over the past few years. Maybe minors' names should never be released to the public. What possible reason is there for us to know their full names? Does it really enhance our ability to understand a story? I don't see how it could. In my opinion the idea the "the press has a right to know" or report or whatever is very suspect when it comes to matters like this. Why does the press have more rights than a kid?

Source: Daily Mail

FEMA Coloring Book Features 9/11 Image

10 Year Old Author Alec Greven Is Back

12 Year Old Knocks Em Dead On Britain's Got Talent

Australian Kiddie Show Star Appears In Laddie Mag

Abortion Ads On Television?

Brett Singer — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:00:00 GMT

British TV viewers may soon see "adverts" for abortions alongside the more typical commercials for tea and crisps.

According to ABC News, "the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practices [in the U.K.] is considering rewriting the TV rules regarding advertising as a way of tackling the problem" of an increased rate of teen pregnancy. Rules on condom ads would be relaxed as well; currently prophylactic TV pitches are only allowed to air after 9pm.

Groups like the British Pregnancy Advisory Service would applaud the changes, with chief executive Ann Furedi saying, "Why would we not want women to be able to know quickly and simply where they can get pregnancy testing and referral for abortion treatment or antenatal care, depending on what they decide is best for them?"

Speaking for the other side is Dr. Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship. "This is like having the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to deal with the casualties rather than putting up a safety rail at the top of the cliff to stop them falling off."

Well, not exactly. It's more like telling people the ambulance exists. While it's true that if there were no abortion clinics, there would be fewer abortions, is it really so wrong to actually let women know what their options are? Of course, cigarettes exist, and we don't allow television ads for those. (That's true in the United States at least; I don't know what the rules are across the pond.)

Should the rules be relaxed, and should ads for abortion clinics be allowed on television?

Source: ABC News, BBC (Video report)

Image: SXC

Baby Born in Penn Station During Rush Hour

Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Surrogate Agency Disappears With Potential Parents Cash

British Parents Defend Son’s Suicide

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:30:00 GMT

After becoming paralyzed in a rugby training session, Daniel James repeatedly reiterated his desire for death to his friends and family. Last month, the 23-year-old Brit traveled to Switzerland, where he died at an assisted suicide clinic.

It goes without saying that Daniel’s parents, Julie and Mark James, are filled with grief. But they have stated that they respect their son’s decision. They wrote in a statement that his death, though a huge tragedy for those he left behind, was “no doubt a welcome relief from the 'prison' he felt his body had become and the day-to-day fear and loathing of his living existence.”

Helping someone take his life is illegal in Britain; prosecutors are looking into the circumstances of James’ death, but have not yet stated that they will press any charges.

Photo: MSNBC

British TV journo turns down big bucks for baby pics

Brett Singer — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:34:00 GMT

Natasha Kaplinsky, a British television journalist (is that an oxymoron? The television journalist part, not the British thing) recently turned down an offer of £500,000 from "several celebrity magazines" for photos of her newborn babe, according to Mail Online. At current exchange rates, that's… wait… carry the one… one hundred billion U.S. dollars, right? (It's not, but it's still a lot of money.)

"A source has revealed that the glamorous journalist is hoping to spend some time enjoying being a new mum before revealing the child's face to the world."

My question is, why not tell the "celebrity magazines" that they'll just have to wait? Maybe they wouldn't. Or she just didn't want to deal with them at all, which is fair. She doesn't need the money I suppose – she is probably well paid, and her husband is an investment banker. Wait, in this economy, maybe she should take that offer after all…

Famecrawler has been all over this story; see below for links.

Source/Image: dailymail.co.uk

Read more:

Giant Palin Poster

Lawyer sent twin sister to court when she was busy

Kurt Warner, family quarterback

Sarah Silverman says: make granny vote for Obama

Natasha Kaplinsky is Almost There

Natasha Kaplinsky is There (She Had the Baby)

Naked Harry Potter pics hit the web

Brett Singer — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Let's call it – The Full Muggle.

Some intrepid theatergoer snapped blurry cameraphone shots of Daniel Radcliffe nekkid onstage in 'Equus', currently on Broadway at the Broadhurst Theatre. Here are a couple of the pics:

Some fans that are flipping out over this. Some comments from the Daily News article:

The snapshot shows Radcliffe, 19, standing totally naked in front of co-star Anna Camp, who is also bare to the bone.
The scandal surrounding the teenage star's nudity has helped ticket sales with advance box office receipts topping $3 million.
Fans buying tickets vented their outrage at the sneaky snapper.
"They're turning art into pornography," said stage technician Rachel Juozapaitis, 27.
…
"Someone has violated his privacy," said Susan Zimmerman, 32, an NYU graduate student.

Um, not exactly. Someone – admittedly, someone kinda pervy – took pictures of something happened on a Broadway stage and posted them online. Porn? Violation of privacy? I don't think so.

"It's just wrong, he still has to do some more Harry Potter films for the kids."
…
"He didn't sign up for this, now it's for all time, forever on the Internet. What about all the Harry Potter children?"

Ah, yes. The children. Methinks very young children are unlikely to surf to these shots on their own, and I don't think any parent will show them to their kids. Even if they did (which would be nuts), there's not much to see. (That's a comment on the photo quality, not Mr. Radcliffe's, um, bangers and mash, as they say in the U.K.)

As for "he didn't sign on for this," the play calls for his character to be fully nude, and if he thought that someone wouldn't take pictures of it, Daniel needs to get out more. So, you know, sure, it's kinda lame, but the level of fan outrage is a bit kooky.

So why did I post it here? Honestly? I just wanted to use the phrase "The Full Muggle." Sorry.

Go to this site if you want to see all the pics.(Link via the Daily News.)

Source/image: nydailynews

non-naked pic: telegraph.co.uk

Awww…a baby otter…

Step on a Crack, Updated

5 reasons it's a good thing I had boys

Grand Theft Auto player saves family

I can tell how much you orgasm because of how you walk

Queens woman pregnant with sextuplets

Teaching Evolution as Theory not fact

25 Great Children's TV Shows That Aren't On DVD

Only 43% of British Moms Offered Home Birth! Outrage!

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:55:00 GMT

Here in the states, we know things are a little different across the pond. British nannies have a certain something, their weather lacks a certain something, and there's that whole royalty business.

But sometimes we forget just how deep the differences can go. Take maternity care. In fact, in order to avoid a rose-colored-glasses look, take what bugs Brits about their maternity care, as described in a government-sponsored survey, and reported under headlines like "Maternity Nightmares!"

The top concerns, according to one TV station that has done a recent follow up, are:

"43% of women were not offered a home birth
23% said they were underfed in hospital
36% were not offered antenatal classes
18% said toilets and bathrooms on wards were not clean"

Well now. Certainly dirty bathrooms and not feeding new mothers enough is unacceptable. Sounds like there's some serious funding and staffing issues at NHS.

But to American eyes that top item feels a little like hearing someone complaining about the freshness and flavor of their food while you're starving. Natural childbirth and midwifery advocates here would be doing a ~~little~~ major happy dance if anywhere near 57 percent of pregnant American women were offered a home birth. (Or, you know, even if fully trained home birth midwives were no longer treated as criminals.)

Even though the survey found only about 3 percent of British moms actually did give birth at home, even the mainstream British media clearly thinks having the choice presented to everyone is important. How strangely refreshing. Perhaps the AMA (which is trying to make home birth illegal) is overdue for a British invasion.

BirthChoice logo used with permission.

Not So Hot - Male Strip Tease Teach Suspended

Brett Singer — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:00:00 GMT

If you heard that a teacher did a strip tease in front of their class, you probably would think of a Van Halen-esque scene ("I got my pencil -- give me something to write on." Ah, the 80's.) At least that's what I would think of.

But, once again, I would be wrong. An English teacher at the Sudbury Upper School in the U.K. was trying to get his students to calm down. They wouldn't, so he threatened to take his clothes off. The teacher is not, shall we say, in the best physical condition. When the wild rumpus continued, he made good on his promise, "whipping off his shirt…before flexing his muscles…topless for a few seconds then spending half a minute getting his shirt back on."

A student filmed Mr. Rose Lee (not his real name, I just made that up) with her cellphone and posted the footage to YouTube. Unlike R. Kelly, he was unable to convince anyone that it wasn't him, and was promptly "sacked" as they say in Britain.

Bizarrely, some people actually seem to think this was an extreme punishment. Over at the Daily Mail, one commenter said, "I just think it's sick to take a bloke's job away for that. At least he got the pupils' attention." Another weighed in with, "I suppose this was a bit of fun, he never really hurt anyone, things like this make school life all a bit more fun."

The video is gone from YouTube, but some screenshots survived. For comparison, here is the classic Van Halen "Hot For Teacher" video. Even if the teacher looked more like the Van Halen girl and less like Fatty Arbuckle (actually, he kind of looks like Rob Reiner), I still think a firing isn't exactly unwarranted. Maybe he should hook up with this guy and start a day care center.

images: DailyMail

Harry Potter and the Schlong of Broadway

Brett Singer — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Daniel Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter, is coming to Broadway this September to star in "Equus." If you're not familiar with the play, it involves a boy, his therapist, and the horse that the boy is, um, sexually attracted to.

Plus, Daniel gets to show the world his birthday suit. Its Full Frontal Muggle, girls!

Now, will there be a massive public outcry, the way there was with Miley and her seemingly never-ending supply of vaguely suggestive photos?

Nah. This is "art." If Daniel were to be photographed nude in Hyde Park with his special someone, that would be one thing. But stripping down and showing the world "Harry Potter Jr." in a play is something else. It's not like he has a choice, the script actually calls for his character to take it all off. (Besides, we think it's time to lay off Miley, but that's a topic for another post.)

That said, it's entirely possible that some unsuspecting parents will bring their little ones to the theater and be shocked – shocked! – at what they see. When the play "Take Me Out" was on Broadway a few years ago, a woman brought a little league team to see what she thought was a pleasant little baseball play. When she arrived, one of the ushers tried to warn her that the play might not be what she thought it was. Pish-tosh, she scoffed. But when the shower scene started – featuring a row of naked Broadway actors soaping each other up – she charged out of the theater, team in tow, and demanded her money back.

"Avenue Q" has a disclaimer that tells people the show features 'full puppet nudity'; this is meant to discourage parents from bringing their Sesame Street-aged spawn to a show that features a song called 'The Internet is for Porn.'

Despite the fact that it should be obvious to anyone that "Equus" is not for kids, methinks the producers of the show may want to make an effort to educate Radcliffe's wizard loving public so as to avoid any unpleasantness. (Insert a really bad "wand" joke here.)

image: telegraph.co.uk

Sins of the father: bin Laden's son can't live in UK

Brett Singer — Fri, 16 May 2008 12:30:00 GMT

Omar Osama bin Laden, the son of, yes, the Osama bin Laden, has been denied a visa to live in the United Kingdom. He currently lives in Cairo, Egypt with his wife, Zaina Alsabah, who is British. Alsabah -- who used to be called Jane Felix-Browne -- wanted to return home. Omar is 27, his wife is 52. (Um, you go girl?)

British authorities told Omar that they found "evidence of continuing loyalty to your father who is ultimately held responsible for the London bombing" which took place on July 7, 2005, killing 52 people. Omar has also allegedly said that his father's guilt in the World Trade Center attacks "could not be proved."

Alsabah says that the couple will appeal the ruling, because, "The decision can't be based on media reports." In other words, she believes that the British government denied the visa based partly on what they read in the newspaper about her husband. According to CNN, "Omar has not renounced his father, but says he wants to be an 'ambassador for peace' between Muslims and the West. The couple plan a 3,000-mile horse race across North Africa to draw attention to the cause of peace." Ooookay.

Look, if it were anyone else, it would be fairly easy to say that you shouldn't blame the son for his father's actions. In this case, I can kind of see the British government's point. When they say, "Your presence in the UK could...cause considerable public concern," that might be the understatement of the year. You also have to wonder about the mental state of someone who wants to move to a place where it is unlikely that he'll be able to move around freely. I mean, not only is he the son of the most notorious terrorist on the planet, he has the same name. Not just the same last name. THE SAME NAME. So maybe the Brits are actually doing him a favor.

image: CNN.com

Office plus Baby = No Work?

Brett Singer — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:30:00 GMT

As an experiment, three Guardian staffers brought their rugrats to the office and blogged about the experience. The result? Not much work got done. Zoe Williams, who brought 6 month old Thurston (love those British names) to the Guardian offices, points out that letting babies hang out at the workplace "irks non-parents," acknowledges that "parents are annoying," and quotes something called the Parenting in the Workplace institute, which is so enthusiastic about parents bringing babies to work they sound like a group funded by companies that don't want to pay for extended maternity leave (note: I don't know if I'm right about that, that's just a guess.) Bottom line: none of the three people in this particular group dug the experience, at least in terms of productivity. Williams puts it best when she says that Thurston is, "a nuisance. A lovely nuisance, but nevertheless..."

As someone who brought Thing 1 to my place of business a few times when he was very young, I can say that there is a way to get stuff done and also have the kid there. One is the Baby Bjorn. I developed a knack for answering email while Thing 1 napped away peacefully (I have long arms). I could even take phone calls using a headset, which prompted a colleague down the hall to joke, "The kid's first words are going to be 'can you hold, please?'" (For what it's worth, they weren't.)

Admittedly, I was in a small office, and I was the boss, so everyone just had to deal. But the fact is that no one minded; if anything, they seemed to enjoy it. Of course, Thing 1 was THE GREATEST BABY EVER. But he still pooped, required bottles of expressed milk (which I stored in the office fridge), and all that good stuff. I didn't do it every day, just sometimes, when it was realistic. But any loss in productivity was offset by the fact that I was able to spend more time with my son and also give my wife a much-needed break while she was on maternity leave.

One idea that never seems to get enough attention is onsite daycare. There was an episode of 'Desperate Housewives' where Lynette's employer adds a facility for employees, and I think it worked out OK (although, if memory serves, she and her husband are now running a pizza place, so maybe it was a nightmare. I don't watch that show anymore.) Some companies will pay for offsite day care at a facility such as Bright Horizons; sometimes you can even visit your little one for lunch if you are so inclined. In this case, I'm talking about Manhattan, which doesn't have affordable childcare; your choices are a nanny, a pricey pre-school or an almost-as-pricey day care. The little amount of telecommuting I've seen first-hand is basically paying people to stay home with the kids, since very little work actually gets done. (Of course, your experience may be different.)

Anyone had any experience with kids at the office -- yours or other people's? And does anyone's company offer onsite daycare?

image: guardian.co.uk