KateW

iaineasy wrote: And why are we forced to give in aid of the soldiers in this conflict when it seems to be of no benefit to us for them to be there? We aren't forced to give aid for the soldiers; the poster campaign is completely about voluntary giving. And I echo what brum says - it's the politicians that put our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and if you want to vent, vent your frustrations at them rather than the men and women who are sent out to war without proper equipment. It makes me sick to think that MP's have claimed millions on expenses and yet they are quite happy to send our soldiers out to fight in wars which have dubious motives, yet they consistently slash the defence budget, meaning our soldiers don't have the necessary equipment to do their jobs. I speak with a husband in the army who has done tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia etc etc and a brother-in-law who is in Afghanistan at the moment. Warfare is different to what it was in WW1 yet it doesn't mean that the sacrifices made by soldiers today are any less worthy of our rememberance.

Yes, it's now free to send parcels up to 2kg in weight, although you need to send it to a named soldier (rather than just to a regiment/squadron) otherwise the BFPO get overwhelmed by kindly donated parcels that sometimes they can't send them all through. If you are going to send things, try and send things that they can't buy there (they can buy deoderant and shampoo etc) better to send good quality chocolate (they can only buy cheap chocolate), cereal bars (as long as they're the type that won't break to pieces during transiT), sachets of drinking chocolate, wet wipes etc etc.

Thanks Nero. We're stopping off in Singapore for the night on the way out but doing it in one go on the return leg (urgh!). Still, I can't complain as husband then has a 24 hr flight to the Falkands on the day we get back to the UK! (Oh the joys of the army!)

You guys are wonderful! Thank you sooo much for the tips. The only thing booked so far is three nights in a lodge in Wanaka on Christmas eve/day/boxing day and the rest will be an adventure! One more question please: what's the best way of getting from south to north island - fly or ferry?

Husband and I are off to New Zealand on honeymoon for three weeks over Christmas and I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations of places to go, things to see etc? We're planning on two weeks in the south island and one week in the north. Remote lodges/cabins would be ideal. Thanks folks!

I saw Ruth near Highgate tube about a year ago and my mouth actually fell open and I just stared at her (I was a bit star struck). Soooo glad Spooks is back and even more happy to see Ruth back. Shame Malcolm is leaving though :o(

I agree with the ratprincess; don't just stop at Windermere and Keswick, push on through to the north Lakes. Wastwater is breathtaking and is a world away from the busy streets of Ambleside.

My husband-to-be and I would like to stay in a luxury spa hotel for a couple of nights before we head to France for honeymoon (we have a couple of days before honeymoon to fill). We'll be getting the ferry from Dover so I was wondering if anyone can recommend somewhere between East Dulwich and Dover (so ideally SE Kent)? As it's a special treat, I'm looking for something 4 or 5 star with a good restaurant too. Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you > want Waitrose, shop online, or drive to Putney. Beckenham Junction Waitrose is nearer. Far more pleasant in there on a Sunday afternoon than the hell hole that is Sainsburys.

Kids Company have a base in Camberwell (www.kidsco.org.uk) who take volunteers. Also you could contact Southwark Youth Service and ask if they are taking on volunteers.

Thanks Susie, I was beginning to feel like I was making a bit of fuss about nothing but I will contact the council today and ask them to review the lighting currently being used. I do walk down the middle of the road in the dark and have a light above our front door (which we got after all three flats in our house were broken into in January) and I'll keep doing it until we have better lights. Thanks too Libra Carr, if I don't get a response I'll do what you suggest.

I'm not suggesting 'extreme lamplighting', just something a bit better than the poor orange lighting that is sporadic down the road. Sorry Inkmaiden, but having been mugged once already, it's precisely the 'pools of darkness' that make me jumpy.

Can anyone suggest who I should write to about the poor street lighting on Oakhurst Grove? It's almost pitch black on half the street and I really don't feel safe walking down there when it's dark. Turn the corner into Hindmans Rd and it's another story; practically floodlit!

Many thanks nylonmeals!

Anybody cycle this way to work? If so, which is the nicest route? Thanks in advance, Kate. (Sorry, meant to post this in the 'recommendations' section and not sure how to remove it from here).

Keef, get a grip. No-one, certainly not me, was solely blaming SS for the Climibie case; notice the 'etc' at the end.

Loz, re: your point about 'does the paranoia far exceed the risk?' I think we need to be clear about whether a concern for a child's safety is paranoia or genuine concern. What I mean is that the Huntley case (and also that of the Victoria Climbie case) highlights the failure of social services (SS), the police etc to share their concerns about a person - if I have concerns about the man in the park filming kids, I might report it to the police. If several other people also shared their concerns and the police felt it necessary to explore further, they would hopefully share their information with SS etc who might also have gathered information which by itself might not cause great concern, but coupled with other bits of information form a different picture. For me, a chap filming kids in a playground is cause for concern. What it isn't is cause for a man to be hung, drawn and quartered right there and then. I just think it needs checking out and following up.

No Keef, it is relevant - see my post above. Social services, the police and the school failed to communicate the information they had about about Huntley being a paedophile.

Cdonline - the point about the Holly and Jessica murders is about how someone who had previous allegations of sexual assault of young girls had managed to get a job working as a caretaker in a school.

You raise some good points Loz. From what I've watched/read of interviews with paedophiles, part of the thrill is actually being near to children, watching them in person, thus fuelling their fantasies. Paedophiles will try and convince themselves that what they are doing isn't wrong, thus trying to justify their actions. For example, he (you're right, most paedophiles are men) might argue to himself that he's just walking through the playground full of children because it's on the way to the newsagent. This might then escalate to taking a camera with him because he's a keen photographer etc etc. (To use a real example, 10 years ago I worked for a local authority youth service where one of the volunteers - who ran the photography club at a local youth centre - got convicted for paedophilia). Re: the safer recruitment, in the Ian Huntley case, certain basic steps weren't taken in his recruitment which gave him access to children which resulted in the murders of Holly and Jessica. It's not about creating hysteria and making people paranoid, it's saying 'how can we create more obstacles which might detract a paedophile from applying for/getting a job with children'. This includes have thorough CRB checks, asking questions about their motivations for working with children, getting verbal references from past employers spanning the last 5 years, having thorough safe guarding training for all staff, regular supervision etc etc.

I'm completely with Louisa on this one. It's not normal behaviour to film other people's children, without their permission, using a video camera that is at waist level (suggesting to me he was trying to hide the fact he was filming the kids). Loz, in answer to your question, paedophile's circulate and exchange footage of children for their own sick pleasure. Not so long ago I attended a training day about 'safer recruitment' ie how to make sure we in the childcare profession take all the necessary steps to try and prevent paedophiles getting jobs that give them access to children. The training featured interviews with paedophiles and every one of them spoke about the images of children they had collected/gathered/exchanged.

The difference being Pierre that he was FILMING the children.

I've worked in the child protection field for a number of years and in my last job worked with girls who had been sexually abused. Paedophiles target areas where children play and I would view the behaviour of the man mentioned as highly suspicious; certainly the police officers I used to work with would like to know about this.

Keef: Maybe we could open a mine under dulwich to make them feel more at home. No need Keef, the ferrets down our trousers (more portable than mines) offset the homesickness. I wouldn't say no, however, to some gravy on my chips; southern chippies are rubbish.

We weren't able to get a connection all yesterday evening.