Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi. Just a quick one, before I part with my hard earned cash on an expensive bouncy chair are they worth the price tag? I have found one on sale for ?80 but that's still a fair whack of cash when I could get a regular one for half that. Calling on the wisdom of folks who may have bought one of these already. Thanks! X
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/41117-baby-bjorne-bouncy-chair/
Share on other sites

I couldn't afford them (have got twins) so just had normal bouncy chairs, which mine were more than happy in. But I have two friends who had these and they said they were definitely worth the money. Your babies do spend a lot of time in bouncy chairs when they are little, so I reckon if you've got the cash, I don't think you'd regret it.

I borrowed one from a forumite when I had #3 and it was miles better than the cheap ones I had for my other babies.


Not sure I would pay ?80 for one, but we definitely used it more than the ones we had previously (possibly a function of having more than one child though - I seem to remember not using one for #1 very often as I had time/hands free to hold him more!).


Worth advertising on here to see if anyone has one to sell or lend out?


P x

Strawbs we had one but as a baby our now 3.4yo only wanted to be lay flat or in arms! He hated his bouncy chair :(


No reflection on this particular model I'm sure, but perhaps worth bearing in mind before parting with lots of cash? We have held onto ours just in case baby number 2 is a bit more flexible!

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

    • This is why the NFU are so unhappy that Clarkson is involved as it distracts from the issues for real farmers. Your assumption that all land is purchased as a tax dodge is a wide sweeping dog whistle generalisation and, I suspect, a long way from the truth but something to government would love for people to think. Again, read this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo          
    • Anyone got any feedback on Transgender Awareness Week over the last week? I don't. And neither has my wife. And neither have my sisters. And neither has my mum, nor my daughter   x
    • It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly. It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately.  If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.
    • Because it's only a windfall if they sell it - until that time it is an asset - and in this case a working asset but, as far a the government is concerned a taxable asset. The farm is the tool that they use to earn a living - a living that they will be taxed on in the same way a nurse is - it's just to do their job they are now expected to pay extra tax for the privilege - just because the farm was passed to them. Or are you advocating nurses pay tax on the tools they are provided to do their job too? 😉  Now, if they sell the farm then yes, they should pay inheritance tax in the same way people who are left items of value from relatives are because they have realised the value and taken the asset as cash.  Our farming industry is built upon family business - generations of farmers from the same families working the land and this is an ideological attack and, like so many of Labour's policies, is aimed at a few rich farmers/farm owners (insert pensioners on Fuel Duty), but creates collateral damage for a whole load of other farmers who aren't rich (insert 50,000 pensioners now struggling in relative poverty due to Winter Fuel) and will have to sell land to fund it because, well, they are farmers who don't earn much at all doing a very tough job - the average wage of someone in agriculture is, according to the BBC around £500 a week and the national average is £671. Do you see the point now and why so many farmers are upset about this? It's another tax the many to get to the few. Maybe farmers should wear Donkey jackets rather than Barbour's and the government may look on them a little more favourably.... Some good background from the BBC on why farmers are fighting so hard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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