My rant about Abbey Clancy

That Abbey Clancy is getting on my nerves, or is she known as Abbey Crouch these days? Whatever. Either way she's getting on my nerves.

I really have no interest in seeing another photograph of her in her bikini. I didn't ask to see the snaps in the first place.

I mean we all get it. You are back to your super slender self again after having a baby. In fact, you're probably slimmer than ever before, slimmer than most people could ever be in their lifetimes, never mind a year after having a baby.

But it doesn't mean I want to see it again, and again, and again. I know I go on a bit about celebrities losing their baby weight, but the fact is on becoming a mother you realise just how important the issue of weight loss can be.

Abbey Clancy/Crouch however is really trying to ram the message down our throats. I don't really know who she is actually impressing, if anyone. There are more shots of her in her bikini than with her daughter for example. I fear her focus on what the important aspects of motherhood are are slightly skew whiff. I could be wrong and perhaps her daughter is there playing happily just out of shot but that's not the message we're getting.

These bikini shots seem to be saying look at me, look at me, I look like I haven't even sniffed a baby from fifty paces, never mind given birth to one.

Yes, Abbey Clancy/Crouch, congratulations on that phenomenal achievement - you runner bean.

It all smacks of unhappiness to me.

Mother throws her sons to their death

A mother has killed her two sons by throwing them off a 15^th floor balcony.

Galina Ryabkova, from Russia, told startled neighbours she had 'thrown her children away'.

The 30-year-old claims she was fed up with her two children, aged four and seven, and decided to 'get rid of them'.

Ryabkova is captured on CCTV in the block of flats where she lives after the incident.

She looks calm and untroubled and in one CCTV image looks like she has a smile on her face.

After her crime, she goes and sits calmly in the lobby of the block of flats.

Neighbours heard the thud of the children hitting the ground and their bodies were found just outside the main entrance to the building.

Ryabkova lives on the eighth floor of the building but led the two boys up to the 15^th floor to push them off.

Ryabkova has been sent to a psychiatric hospital for tests.

She reportedly tried to kill herself in the past and her husband is said to be cheating on her.

I feel I don't have to say much about this story as the facts rather speak for themselves.

Ryabkova quite clearly is mentally ill - whether this excuses her crime or not is up for debate - but it is certainly something which was evident when she tried to kill herself at a previous date. If only some kind of intervention had been made then, her children could still be safe and well now.

We do not know exactly what has pushed this woman to this point. Whatever it is, the children are the innocent victims in this. What haunts me a little is how she preyed on their trust in her as their mother, asking them to follow her up to the 15^th floor, only to reward them for their obedience by pushing them to their deaths.

A truly tragic story with an irredeemably tragic ending as nothing can bring these children back.

Little fingers crossed for the National Lottery

My daughter has learnt to cross her fingers.

This is yet another skill which leaves me in a puzzle about how it was acquired. I certainly don't go round crossing my fingers on a regular basis, if at all to be honest.

I can only think my daughter has worked out that her fingers can bend themselves in this way and she has since become quite taken with the nifty little manoeuvre. Well, she keeps on doing it.

So this is what I'm thinking. I'm thinking that I could loan her out to the National Lottery – for a fee of course – and they can use her on their promotional material.

I am assuming that the National Lottery still use the fingers-crossed emblem as I pay next to no attention to anything Lottery-esque. I know that makes it seem a little odd I'm even dreaming up a scenario where my daughter is involved with the organisation, but you know, when you see an opening...

I can picture it now. My daughter stood there, her little hand raised aloft, fingers proudly crossed. She may also have an alphabet building block in the other hand, dribble down her top and food in her hair but I think it will only add to the effect.

So what do you think Lottery bosses? Need a 15-month-old who can cross her fingers to help with your promotional material, cos I've got one.

You could even get her to 'push the button' to get the ball machine rolling. Just tell her not to press the button, and I can guarantee she'll press it.

Distraught mother mistakes son's homework for a suicide note

Let me lay out the facts for you. It is 14-year-old Wesley Walker's bedtime. He goes to say goodnight to his mother and at the same time hands her a piece of paper. He then goes up to bed.

His mother, Vicki Walker, reads what is written on the piece of paper and immediately feels sick to the stomach.

The note begins, Dear Mum, and continues along the lines of assuring his mother he loves her, how he would like bright colours at his funeral and how he would like his possessions divided up. He says do not be sad. He has gone to be with nan and grandad.

A distraught Mrs Walker bolts up the stairs to Wesley's bedroom fearing she is going to find him hanging from the ceiling.

She believes the note he handed her is a suicide note. She is relieved, to say the least, that Wesley is fine and well, if a little bit startled, lying in his bed.

It emerges that Wesley's note is a piece of school work which he was asked to produce for his creative arts class. The teacher set the class the task of imagining they were dying of a terminal illness and to pay tribute to their loved ones.

Mrs Walker has lashed out at the school saying they should have alerted parents about what their children were doing at school ahead of them bringing this piece of work home.

She is demanding an apology from the school and has sold her story to the newspapers to expose the school's actions.

I think it is completely understandable how Mrs Walker reacted initially. When faced with such a note I'm sure all mums would be led initially by their emotions rather than allowing common-sense to kick in. Any mum would probably have done the same and stormed up the stairs to see if their child was okay.

It is at this point that the problems kick in for me. Do I think the school were wrong to set such a topic in their creative arts class. At first I thought absolutely, but it is Wesley's age which causes me to do an about turn on this gut decision. I feel it is right that children of this age do confront such important and inevitable life issues as death and the project has an admirable aim, for the children to show their love for their parents.

Ideally, the subject matter could have been slightly different in order to achieve similar aims. I think it could be a little upsetting for some children to have to think about their own death at a young age and I feel the subject of a terminal illness should be dealt with perhaps a little more gently.

However, over all I feel it would be wrong to lambaste a school for pushing the boundaries.

Mrs Walker is chiefly upset the school did not think to inform the parents about this project. Well maybe. However, I believe the real breakdown in communication is between Wesley and his mother. There appears to be no real dialogue between the pair about what Wesley is getting up to at school. This can be difficult to do when it comes to teenagers but that doesn't mean parents should give up trying to find out.

Then there is the role of Wesley himself in this. Wesley admits in his letter that he can be a pain at times and I think this is quite revealing. I think he is a bit of a trouble maker. I can't help thinking he was being rather provocative in handing his mother this note without an explanation. I think it would be naive to think Wesley didn't know what kind of reaction he would get.

One tiny step for my daughter...

Go on ask me, ask me the question. What question, you say?

The question. The question asked more often than any other when you have a baby more than three months old.

Is she walking yet?

Yes that's the one. And yes my daughter is walking.

Yesterday morning at 8.30am my daughter took her first steps. Four steps in actual fact. She may have gone a little further if one of her toys hadn't been in her path, but I guess we'll never know and that really is besides the point.

It may just be four steps but you know what they say, one tiny step for my daughter is one giant leap for mankind. At least that should be how the saying goes. Or even better, it should be one tiny step for my daughter, one in the eye for mankind.

Because as you may recall, just a week or so ago, I had a moan about how irritated I was becoming with people always asking “Is she walking yet?”

“Is she walking yet” became a standard greeting. It had replaced “Hello, how are you?”

Luckily I was in absolutely no hurry for my daughter to take those first few steps. If we had been living in our own little bunker underground with no contact with the outside world I wouldn't have minded when she first started to walk.

It was all the external pressure which was making me think that if she did walk, it would at least silence the questioners. Peer pressure if you like.

But I knew my daughter would walk when she felt good and ready, despite everyone's implied reaction - when I replied no she wasn’t walking - that she really should have been running around the garden by nine months old.

And it looks like my confidence wasn't misplaced. My daughter has done it. She has started walking in her own time, and at just turned 15 months old I really don't think that's bad going at all.

Little girls only doing 17 minutes of exercise a day

Am I alone in finding the fact little girls are only getting on average 17 minutes of exercise a day shocking?

Researchers themselves say they had no idea how early on girls became disillusioned about doing any kind of physical activity.

Previously it was believed it was when girls hit their teens that they went off taking part in sport.

Researchers from Newcastle University put monitors on around 500 eight to ten-year-olds to see how much exercise they did in their waking hours and the average was 17 minutes for girls and 24 minutes for boys a day. The recommended amount of exercise per day for children is an hour.

Exercise in this sense includes everything from brisk walking to skipping and running. It's not just about sports like football and netball.

Currently almost a third of two to 13-year-olds are too heavy for their height. The researchers say children need to make sure they are getting enough exercise a day from a young age to prevent this ticking obesity time bomb from exploding.

They say we are facing a very real situation where the next generation would be the first generation not to live to be as old as their parents.

What has shocked me even more is the comments online in reaction to this research, in particular on the Daily Mail website. The general consensus is that this is just another example of people being 'told' what to do. I can only interpret this as people having no idea how serious this problem is.

Even more worrying is these people are the older generation who are allegedly responsible for bringing up and instructing the younger generation. If they are so blasé about the grave problem we are facing, what chance is there?

Changes need to be made. Choice of role models need to alter. Instead of reality TV stars more emphasis needs to be on sports stars, particularly female sports stars. PE lessons need to be given an overhaul to include a range of more appealing activities like dance. Children need to be encouraged to run and skip and play ball games at playtimes. Why isn't this happening any more? And children need to walk to school. Going back to our grandparents generation, they would walk miles to school and back without a thought.

I just dread how any of this is going to come about when even 'responsible' adults are refusing to engage with the severity of the problem.

At this rate the obesity time bomb may be held back just a little by the few willing to change, but really, unless everyone gets on board, the inevitable will only be postponed. That bomb's going to go off.

The doctor's revolving door

Just how many times, do you think, is it acceptable to take your child to the doctors?

So far I've taken my daughter to the doctors four times in her 14-month life and my daughter's the healthiest baby I know. Three out of those four times it was a pointless exercise, in hindsight, because it turned out there was nothing actually wrong. It was me suffering from parental hysteria.

But how many times do other parents take their little ones to the quacks then? I personally have no idea but I would guess there are some parents who make it one of their regular pit stops. It is far too easy to make the door to the doctors' a revolving one.

Every day there is something which potentially could be cause for a doctor's trip. A cough, a snivel, a skin blemish.

It was the emergence of the latter on my daughter's cheek which got me thinking, enough of this doctor's business already. It will lead you to an early grave if you dash off to see the doctor with every single quibble.

It would be so easy to think that this emergence of a tiny patch of dry, red skin on my daughter's cheek was a sign of some terrible internal ailment or just the start of some gruesome, all-over-body rash. But no, I told myself, it is time to be rational about this. Babies get patches of bad skin like this all the time. It's not surprising my daughter's cheeks are a little rashy when she undergoes a full food face pack three times a day followed by a moisturise, cleanse and tone using numerous baby wipes.

I just don't want to be seen as an irrational parent, always at the doctors. I don't want to be the one the receptionists whisper about, “there she is again”.

Of course, if my daughter wakes up one morning covered in angry boils I'm going to do something about it. I'm not going to turn a complete blind eye. But this is leagues away from being sensationalist and running to the doctors over the slightest thing.

It is hard when you care so much and when you can't communicate with your child to ask if something hurts but as parents we have to sit back and give ourselves a good talking to from time to time. Otherwise all this panic and worry will leave us, the parents, needing medical assistance.

Top criticisms mothers hate to hear

I don't think this will be a surprising fact for any parent. A new survey has found one in three mothers fall out with someone who criticises how they are bringing up their child.

The survey, conducted by Pull-ups, the potty training experts, has released a list of the top ten touchy subjects which people have raised with mothers which have led the mothers to either get upset, led to an argument and in extreme circumstances, led to the mother not talking to that person again.

Common criticisms levelled at mothers include a child's behaviour, a child's growth and a child's eating and sleeping habits.

The top comment which has led to blow ups between mothers and family or friends is, interestingly, “Aren't they tall/short”.

This is followed by “when my child was that age they were already walking/talking”.

Over a quarter of mums have refused to speak to a person again after such a comment, whilst 56 per cent have been so worried by a comment they had spoken to a doctor or health visitor about it.

The full list of touchy subjects is as follows:

1. Aren't they tall/short
2. When my child was that age he/she was already walking/talking
3. Your child is very boisterous
4. They should be talking more by now
5. They should be sleeping through the night by now
6. You shouldn't give them a dummy
7. They don't eat very well, do they
8. They should be walking by now
9. They should be crawling by now
10. They should have given up their dummy by now

The survey found a proportion of mothers were able to take these comments on the chin but many others were left feeling upset, worried or angry.

Commenting on the results of the survey, psychologists said it could be difficult for parents to hear comments about their child's development because not only does it spark concern all is not well with the child, but it also implies the mother is not doing a good job.

They added people must remember all youngsters develop at different speeds.

The survey also found it was mother-in-laws who were most likely to dish out unwelcome comments.

I think the key thing to remember in this is that all children do develop at different rates. The mothers need to remember this but I really wish those who wield the comments would remember this too.

It would be very easy to say that mothers should just ignore the comments but it is very difficult to do this when you have so steadfastly put in the effort to do the best for your child. Besides no one likes criticism do they?

The fact the top criticism is “Aren't they tall/short”, is a little odd at first look but then I suppose it has made the top slot simply because it is such a pointless comment to make about a child. What is a parent really meant to do about that then. Make them sleep in a shoebox so they don't grow any taller or put them on a rack and stretch them a few inches. It is ridiculous.

It is the comments about a child's development which really irk me. Of course there will be times when a person is really concerned about how a child is being brought up but I think most of the time those dishing out the comments are either trying to make out how superior their own children are, in their eyes, or trying to cover up their own insecurities.

I think these people need to take a step back and have a think about how their comments will impact on a parent.

It is a sad thing that over half those surveyed have had to seek medical advise, so worried they have been about something that has been said.

Of course it is inevitable that people will always want to pass comment and maybe mothers should do their best to toughen up a little and be confident in their own parenting abilities but it does not mean we have to like it when people poke their noses into our business does it?

My 100th Blog

So this is a bit of a momentous blog. It is my 100^th entry since I founded Mummy's Daily Telegraph at the end of January this year.

I would like to take this moment to thank all my readers. You are a faceless presence which spurs me on and keeps me writing.

I hope you have enjoyed everything I have written here. I endeavour to get you thinking and laughing in equal measure.

Here's to another 100 blog entries.

To celebrate this special occasion I would like to share with you one of my daughter's greatest moments so far, which incidentally only happened the other day.

Read on for...

My daughter - the Andrex Puppy

You won't believe this when I tell you because I barely believe it myself and I witnessed it with my own eyes.

My daughter has got a new habit of stealing the spare toilet rolls out of the downstairs bathroom and unfurling them just like the puppy on the Andrex toilet tissue advert. No that's not the unbelievable bit. That comes next.

I was busy writing away, like usual, one morning recently, when I could hear a suspicious rustling noise coming from said downstairs bathroom. I knew instinctively what that meant. She was at those toilet rolls again.

I quickly saved my work and leapt to my feet to find my daughter sat at the bathroom door, a toilet roll at her feet and three neatly torn off pieces of tissue paper clasped to her nose. Though her mouth was obscured her eyes were smiling and when she saw me she made a 'meeeep' sound to imitate the blowing of her nose.

My daughter has this thing of laughing hysterically whenever she sees, and hears, me blowing my nose and it looks like now she has decided to imitate it. She's not even 15 months old and she managed such a skilful bit of mimicry!

I bent down next to her, laughing my head off, and she then put the tissue to my nose. 'Meeeep', I obliged her and she started to laugh with me.

Needless to say I couldn't be very angry with her for getting hold of the toilet roll.

Single mum prepared to hoodwink a stranger to get pregnant

The story goes that single mother Sally Windsor is desperate to have another child. She has felt the yearning to have another baby since her daughter, Ruby, turned two. Ruby is now four-years-old.

Sally has now come up with a plan however to get that much-wanted baby.

She is going to go off to Italy – her favourite country apparently – and stake out the bars and the pool side to find a foreigner to have a one night stand with.

If all goes well she will become pregnant straight away and jobs a good 'un.

And how about if this man wants to be an active father towards this child? Well Sally's thought about this too. She is adamant she is going to raise this baby alone. That is just the way she wants it and so she is not going to tell the man she plans to have a one night stand with that she is trying to conceive.

Sally believes that her plan does not hurt anyone. Her daughter is desperate to have a sibling, Sally herself is desperate to have another baby, so in her mind she and her daughter will be fulfilled if her plan comes off. And as for the foreign stranger, well she seems to be thinking what he doesn't know won't hurt him.

She argues that throughout history men have been hoodwinked into marriage and providing for their offspring by women who have fallen pregnant on the sly and Sally feels she is being far more moral in her version by not telling the man involved at all. This way, she believes she is freeing him from any parental responsibility.

Sally knows she is going to have critics. She says she knows she will be called selfish, irresponsible and reckless.

This is the problem with this woman. She makes a very well-thought out and intelligent case for what she is planning to do.

However, her intelligence will only get her so far. The fact she is trying to be one step ahead of those opposing her does not mean she is any less selfish, irresponsible and reckless in her actions.

Sally says she is not hurting anyone but I can't actually see anyone who won't be hurt by this. The man she is tricking is the obvious victim in this. Sally is assuming all men would welcome not having to be there for a child they fathered. I think Sally is underestimating a lot of men there. I think most men who found out they had unwittingly fathered a child would at the very least feel a little bit sick about it. She is also preying on a foreigner, assuming it will be more difficult for him to track Sally and his child down. I guess she is also hoping that somehow her actions will get lost in translation. That's just taking advantage.

Then there is the child. Sally says she is going to be open with him or her about how they were conceived. I can't see how this is not going to harm the child in some way psychologically. The same goes for her existing daughter. The four-year-old may be all for the idea of having a little brother or sister now, but how about what she matures and fully starts to realise what her mum actually did.

And finally Sally is hurting herself, or certainly deluding herself. She mentions that the relationship with Ruby's father fell apart soon after Ruby was born. It seems like Sally is trying to prevent this happening to her again. In reality Sally is still young enough to spend some time finding another man to settle down with and then have children.

Because this is the other crucial point here. Is it no longer an argument to say that children should ideally be brought into this world through the love of two people. Obviously this does not always happen in reality but to actively go out and seek to put yourself into the position of a single mother is something else indeed.

Six-year-old girl opens her own chain of sweet shops

Little Mollie Price has just opened her third sweet shop in her home town of Welshpool in Wales.

The stores sell a mixture of British sweets and American candy and are named after the alleged brainchild of the whole venture, Mollie herself.

The success of the 'Mollies' chain has led to the six-year-old being declared one of the youngest entrepreneurs in the UK.

Mollie has had 'some' help from her mother Becky but proud mum insists that Mollie organises and selects all of the stock for the shops and even has plans to expand her sweet shop venture further.

Mum Becky explains that Mollie loved shops which sold pick and mix and felt there was a real gap in the market for sweet shops which specialised in these kinds of sweets.

Mollie works in one of the shops every Saturday and even gets up at 5am every Sunday morning to go to the wholesalers in Birmingham.

She has been inspired by her favourite film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and has a 'Wonka' range. Her brothers Alfie and George are not forgotten either. At the entrance to her latest shop are two large tin soldiers named after her brothers.

Mollie will always speak out if she feels an idea will not work and gets all her friends to try out the sweets and rate them on taste factor.

Mollie is also apparently responsible for such gems as a thermometer on the wall which determines the price of their Mr Whippy ice-creams. If it is a cold day the ice-cream will be sold more cheaply than on a warm day.

Her mum says Mollie is already leaning towards a career in business and wants to take over the sweet shops completely when she is older.

It would be easy to be cynical about this story and say that really Mollie's mum is driving this venture and simply trading on her daughter's name.

What is unquestionable is Mollie has parents who have been able to come up with the cash to fund her idea. Something which a lot of parents simply would not be able to do.

There is also the glaring issue of the fact putting the sweet shops in Mollie's name lends itself to a nice tax loophole as Mollie is still a child.

Yet, I really want to believe Mollie is the brains behind this venture. The fact lending itself to this possibility is the business is sweet shops. What better way to ensure you are appealing to youngsters than to have a child choosing the products, coming up with highly-imaginative ideas and making sure visually the store has 'child-appeal'. This is obviously what is driving the success of the business as it is no mean feat to have a chain of three shops in these tough economic times.

I also think Mollie should be used as a fantastic example to other children. She evidently has buckets of enthusiasm, ambition and imagination and stories like hers are a refreshing change to tales of yobbo youth culture which the media is usually saturated with.

Men's fertility not affected by an unhealthy lifestyle

New research has found that men who smoke, drink, take recreational drugs or who are overweight are just as fertile as those who have a far more healthy lifestyle.

This finding flies directly in the face of previous thinking. The official 2004 NHS guidelines state GPs should 'warn men diagnosed with infertility of the dangers of alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs and being overweight'.

It also arguably flies in the face of common sense.

However the research, which took place in Britain and involved handing out a detailed lifestyle questionnaire to over 2,000 men, is adamant that the long held belief that men with an unhealthy lifestyle are more likely to find it difficult to father a child is wrong and the lifestyle factors which were thought to contribute to sperm problems actually have very little impact.

This could in essence lead to a whole new way of doling out fertility treatment.

At the moment, some couples trying to get IVF on the NHS are forced to delay any treatment until they improve their lifestyles. In some cases, IVF treatment may be withheld.

The new research found that low sperm count is more likely to be found in those who have had testicular surgery (makes sense) those who wear tight underwear (ooh err) and those of black ethnicity (controversial). It was also found to be low in those who had not had a child before.

A researcher behind the study is quoted as saying: “Men should still take care of themselves without feeling the need to become monks”.

So let's have a look at this. I think is it no real revelation that overweight men who drink, smoke, and take recreational drugs are able to father children. You only have to watch an episode of the Jeremy Kyle show to realise this – for those not acquainted with Jeremy Kyle, think Jeremy Springer.

But surely, even if this type of man is physically able to produce a child that is not the end of the story anyway.

What I mean is, these men need to be able to attract a woman who wants to have children with them in the first place. I doubt such a man is really any woman's idea of dream father material. Obviously there are some women who end up having children with these men anyway. Again think Jeremy Kyle.

However, then there is the issue of the man supporting the woman during the pregnancy. Pregnant women may not always act in the most responsible of manners, drinking and smoking regardless and often they are overweight, but it is only going to put further temptation in their way if their partner is drinking, smoking and chowing down on unhealthy food in front of them.

Then how about the father wanting to prolong his life to be there for his children? All these bad lifestyle choices are going to be steadily taking years off their overall life expectancy. And what kind of role model are they going to be to their child if they are perceived by little eyes as always having a drink or a cigarette on the go and being too porky to run around with them at the park?

And finally, here is my ace card. The research includes the fact, in the small print if you like, that whilst an unhealthy lifestyle in men does not decrease their fertility, the researchers cannot be sure that their poor lifestyles won't detrimentally effect such things as the quality of the DNA.

So it is all very well that these men are able to father children but what kind of children are they going to become – certainly not the best children they could be when faulty DNA can lead to all sorts of abnormalities and problems in the child. Surely there could be no more incentive to want to live healthier?

Is she walking yet?

I think if anyone else asks me this question I may scream. It seems your baby's whole development is assessed on this one skill.

They may be the most intelligent, loving, funny and charming child you have ever met but if they can't walk yet, well that's it, bottom of the class.

It's crazy really why this one skill is considered the ultimate one to achieve. I guess because it it the most visual and the one which starts to distinguish a baby from a toddler – some kind of right of passage. For me, I just don't value the physical skills as highly as the mental.

The only reason I can see parents wanting to hurry on their babies to this stage is bragging rights, yet again. Because in reality, the difficulties of dealing with a walking child are phenomenal. Okay so it may save on aching arms having to carry them here, there, and everywhere. But I'm under no illusion that once my daughter is walking she will obediently follow me where ever I lead her like a puppy. When I tell her to go one way, she's going to be off in the opposite direction.

The pressure is so immense however, that even I find myself falling for it. To that all so 'important' question, “is she walking yet”, I hear myself replying, “oh yes whilst holding our hands, but it won't be long before she let's go, any time now, any time”, like I need to make excuses for my daughter.

I put this whole situation to my health visitor recently. I said should we be worried that's she's 14 months and not walking. I could have kissed her for her reply that there was absolutely no need to worry, she would simply do it in her own time. She even added that it generally was the babies who were not so well attended to who walked first as they quite literally had to go and seek things out for themselves.

So there you go. I have to say though, the day my daughter does start to walk will be one to celebrate, if only to quell those incessant questioners. “Walking, walking,” I'll say, “she's moonwalking”.

David Cameron misplaces his daughter

So, the big story in the papers is about our wonderful Prime Minister David 'Dave' Cameron managing to leave his eight-year-old daughter behind at the pub where the family had been dining.

The story goes that eight-year-old Nancy decided to slip off to the toilet without telling anyone just before Cameron, his wife and their other two children were due to leave. Cameron went off alone in his 'special' car, whilst Samantha Cameron and the other two children went off in another vehicle. Both Cameron and his wife thought Nancy was with the other parent.

When Cameron got home and realised the mistake they had made he swiftly returned to the pub where his daughter was happily helping the pub staff. Nancy had been left unattended by her parents for a total of 15 minutes. Cameron was reportedly left 'distraught' by the incident.

Before we all degenerate into a mixture of astonished faces, gasps and 'how could yous' however, I have to interject and say, do we really think for a minute Dave was not privy to this story being 'leaked' to the media?

I can see the discussion around the table with his PR man at Cameron Towers now.

“It's in your interest Dave. The people get hold of this story. What do they think, 'tut, tut Prime Minister?' Yes, but only for a fleeting moment and then”, the PR man leans forward rubbing his palms together, “then they will think, oh that's so like us. Us simple folk make mistakes just like that. Old Dave C isn't infallible after all. I like him so much more now.”

Dave pauses, adjusts his Dolce and Gabanna tie and flicks a speck of (gold) dust off his Versace trousered leg. “Let's do it”, he beams.

The thing is, David Cameron is not far off in thinking this story is showing him as behaving like any other normal father and husband but in a slightly different way to perhaps he intended. I'm talking about the amount of couples who seem to think it acceptable to drag their children along to the pub with them on a Sunday lunch time and staying there well into the afternoon.

Whilst you could argue the children are picking up some valuable social skills, their enjoyment is really going to be short-lived. They may get a little more out of it if there is a play area for them but even so, there are other places a family can go where they have such facilities.

I think some parents are so adamant on continuing to live their lives as they did before children came along. In my opinion there is nothing wrong in planning a day which the whole family can enjoy. There is nothing defeatist in wanting the children to be entertained on a day out as much as the adults.

Okay Mr Cameron and co, you may consider that your children are having a wonderful time sat in a pub all afternoon but do you really believe there is nothing better you could be doing together?

Leave our children at home while we go to Tesco?!

Humans must be the most over-protective of species when it comes to looking after their young.

I was watching a nature programme the other day which featured a fox going out to search for food for her cubs. She left her children alone to play near the den while she went on her food-scavenging mission and for the first time I thought just how different animal behaviour is to human behaviour in this respect.

The vixen leaving her cubs behind while going out to get food is just like us mums going out to Tesco – other supermarkets are available – and leaving our children behind to fend for themselves.

This would obviously be unthinkable and would probably lead to an arrest or the intervention of social services, or both, if found out.

The female fox on the other hand, along with almost all animals and birds in the animal kingdom, thinks it much safer for the children to stay at home than venture out with them on a daring food searching mission.

Obviously the situation is a lot different between animals and birds when it comes to getting the food. Often animals will have to put their necks on the line to get a scrap of food for their families. Tesco can be a dangerous place especially on a Friday afternoon, what with trolley rage and people's appalling manners, but generally speaking it is not a death-defying mission.

At the same time, humans have made their homes dangerous places for their children to remain in alone if you think about it.

The worst that can happen to a baby animal when left alone is that it is attacked and killed by a predator. This is not a hazard of their making. For human babies there are all sorts of hazards such as electric cables, stairs, items of heavy furniture to pull down on top of themselves and toxic plants and cleaning fluids to gorge on.

If we went back to stone age days there would be none of these hazards in our caves. It was of course the men who went out hunting, but if the children had been left behind, their plight would have been no different to the baby animal's. The sabre toothed tiger would have posed the biggest threat, not the cooker.

Our homes do not have that same sense of sanctuary as they do for animals - a place where we can reliably leave our young safe and protected.

New mothers flock to Facebook

A study has found that new mothers tend to increase the amount of time they spend on Facebook once their baby is born. This suggests that these mothers are preferring to spend more time in a virtual world, posting up photos of their newborn and commenting on their sleepless nights, rather than living in the real world with the newborn baby itself.

This seems terribly sad because whilst trading tips and tribulations with other mothers on the web they are perhaps missing vital bonding time with their babies.

In contrast fathers are found to spend on average just the same amount of time on Facebook once a new baby is born so the arrival has no effect on their wish to social network more, it appears.

It was also discovered through the study that those mothers who flocked to Facebook had higher stress levels. What the study was unable to establish was whether these mothers were stressed initially and so turned to Facebook or whether interacting on Facebook had brought about the stress.

Those who conducted the survey concluded, perhaps a little rashly, that it was probably stressed out mothers who were turning to Facebook for much needed support rather than Facebook bringing about the stress.

I believe an argument can be made either way. I do not have a Facebook account, unbelievably perhaps, but there was many a time when I would turn to the internet for support during those tricky first few months as a new parent, whether to find out tips on how to get my daughter to drink out of a bottle, or to try and diagnose the causes of a rash.

I found however, for every useful comment on a discussion board or even on an official website like Bounty or Mumsnet, there were a whole host of other posts and official guidelines which made me want to put my head in my hands in despair.

Out there on the internet there are a whole breed of mums who seem to make it their mission to make you feel like the most rubbish parent in the world and your baby, the most difficult and awkward. They are there trumpeting how amazing and advanced their children are and how carefree and untroubled they are as mothers.

The web is only really reflecting the world in general. For every mum who will take you aside and calmly help you through a problem, there is one who will laugh in your face. On the internet however, this broad range of opinions becomes ever more concentrated and overwhelming. Facebook is no different from what I have observed.

Yes there are the mums who will despairing post up on there about their sleepless nights but then there are the mums who brag about their little ones achievements. If you own baby hasn't met those milestones by the same age you can't help but think you have somehow failed.

Mums used to cope before Facebook and even before the internet. Parenting advise was gleaned from family and friends and mums met at parenting groups. People tend to be far more helpful and kind face to face. There is something about typing onto a computer screen, I guess because of the anonymity, which allows people's spiteful side to pour out.

There's nothing wrong with posting a photo of your newborn on your Facebook page and posting the occasional comment about how you and baby are getting on, but I think there is something a little dangerous about relying on it as a major prop during those difficult first few months of motherhood.

Babies to be bar coded at birth

Author Elizabeth Moon, who is known for penning Science Fiction novels, has told BBC radio programme The Forum that she believes every individual should have a unique ID permanently attached to them in the form of an implanted chip, or bar code, to provide an “easy, fast inexpensive way to identify individuals”.

She proposes that this chipping should take place as soon as a baby is born. How can I put this – over my dead body.

Current surveillance and identification tools such as video cameras and DNA testing have come alarmingly far already, if you ask me, but Ms Moon claims as methods, they are too slow and expensive.

Scarily the technology to bar code babies at birth already exists and there were real moves made in 2010 to made this method of chipping commonplace.

It took civil liberty advocates to intervene and prevent this bar coding becoming a reality. However, only two years on the issue has raised its ugly head again and I really do worry this could be made a reality in only a matter of years unless there is a real movement to stop it.

Proponents of this bar coding believe it will be invaluable to parents as it will enable them to keep constant tabs on their children and also help in the battle against kidnapping and paedophilia. While those in favour also say it will work wonders with the elderly, especially those suffering from illnesses such as dementia, as they too will be able to be easily tracked if they go missing.

Ms Moon and her fellow supporters also say it will revolutionise airport check-ins, while it will also enable medical records to be accessed instantly.

Yes these are all honourable causes but I truly believe the trade-off is not worth it.

How can you say this, I hear you cry, when it could mean kidnapped children are found. I just don't buy that this tracking is going to be that effective. Any kidnapper with the slightest brain is going to remove a chip from a child and I'm sure that if a bar coding system was made commonplace very quickly there would be a system to counteract against it and not only bring the tracking system down but most likely lead to the greatest instance of identity theft ever known.

The very act of placing a chip into a person seems to be the most monumental invasion of human liberties. The very thought of their being a record of everyone's movements and what they are doing at any given time is far too Orwellian for my liking.

For criminals, then yes this could be a positive, but this proposal is not just for a select sector of society but for everyone.

This is surely going to lead to a world of rather stunted and repressed people as we would no longer feel we were free-thinking individuals but just components of a great computer software system overseen by a modern day Big Brother.

Who would have thought that comedy moment in the opening sequence of cartoon The Simpsons when Maggie the baby is swiped by the checkout assistant could become so eerily close to the reality we are now facing.

I can tell you if anyone tried to bar code any future children I may have there will be all hell to pay. I think I'd probably leap out of that hospital bed, seize my newborn baby and be off, before anyone could say 'beep beep'.

Good to see the future popularity of the monarchy is secured?!

So what was my stand out moment of the television coverage of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee?

Was it the River Pageant – no sorry I had some paint I needed to watch dry.

Was it the Jubilee Concert? Well I did get a little excited when Elton John came on stage but it was at that moment that the TV started to play up, as it keeps doing on BBC stations these days, so no.

Was it the Jubilee Service? You're getting warmer. In fact it was an interview with a ten-year-old after the service which really grabbed my attention.

I was in the process of giving my daughter her lunch when this particularly marvellous nugget of broadcasting took place. However, I realised I just had to pause between spoonfuls of pasta stars to listen in.

At first I have to say I wasn't quite sure whether it was a boy or girl being interviewed. As I say I was a little distracted and the child was called Darcy and had shoulder length hair. It confused me a little. I think it was a little boy. He certainly looked very dapper in his suit jacket and bow tie and that isn't most little girl's usual attire.

For some reason this interview was being conducted whilst kneeling down on the thoroughfare leading up to Buckingham Palace.

Darcy was kneeling on the ground and the BBC interviewer was doing the same. I may have missed a vital reason why the questioning was taking place on the tarmac.

Anyway, little Darcy was being billed as a young royalist. His major claim to fame was that not only was he present at this Diamond Jubilee but he had also been present at the Queen's fiftieth celebrations as a baby of no more than 3 months old. He had a framed photograph to prove it and spent a lot of time explaining that his father was not strangling him in the photo but just holding him up in a very strange way.

Darcy gave a quite impressive answer to the question, why should future generations support the monarchy. He said it was because the monarchy had been around for such a long time and so was worthy of supporting. The best kind of answer to this question in my opinion and indeed tradition is the very best reason for the continuation of a monarchy in this country.

The interviewer also obviously thought he had quite a class act here in the form of a little ten-year-old boy and so continued to pick his brains for more royal pearls of wisdom.

So he asks Darcy, who is your favourite member of the royal family? Without hesitation Darcy answers Charles II because 'he knew how to party'.

Right, well he knows his history then and knows how to give it a current twist, the interviewer thinks, but really that's not the question I was asking.

Who is your favourite current member of the royal family, he tries again.

There is a huge pause, to the point I start thinking, you're going to have to intervene here mate, Darcy's cracking.

Hang on give him a few more moments. There's an answer coming. What's it going to be Darcy, come on, let's have it.

I begin to speculate – Prince Harry perhaps – well he 'knows how to party', Prince William, due to the vast amount of coverage of him recently, or perhaps he'll stick to the Queen herself as she is the most famous.

Here comes the answer, wait for it...

Darcy says, 'I like the corgis best'.

Oh heck, you can hear the producers in the interviewer's ear. Cut the interview, cut.

The interviewer hurriedly wraps up with 'well I must stand up, my knees are killing', or something to that effect. I'm not sure, I'm too busy laughing.

Good to see the future popularity of the monarchy is in such safe hands.

NHS plan to reprint their pregnancy manual to remove the word 'dad'

The NHS is all set to re-print its pregnancy handbooks to remove the word 'dad'.

According to a recent review, the use of the word dad was seen as discriminatory to same-sex couples.

It is after all only weeks since NICE approved one round of fertility treatment on the NHS for same sex couples, allowing gay and lesbian couples more chance to have children.

But opponents of the removal of the word dad say it undermines the idea of the traditional family and I have to say I agree.

I believe the traditional family unit is being severely undermined in this modern age. It is becoming far less common for a family to consist of a married couple with children. Instead there are a lot of people simply co-habiting and having children, while there are also new boyfriends and girlfriends, step-parents and so on.

While it is not right to prejudice against any kind of family set-up, at the same time I feel that is it right to champion the traditional family unit and uphold it as the family ideal because otherwise less and less people will try and strive for it.

If the notion of a married mother and father becomes obsolete from public information then the notion of it in practise will slide and slide.

The NHS consider that the term partner is all-encompassing but I don't believe this is the case. To me the word partner is used when a couple are unmarried and a lot of married couples would be upset to have to play down their relationship to each other.

It is tricky when it comes to same-sex partnerships. Of course it is not right in this day and age if they feel something so public as an NHS guide is not including them but at the same time surely this is a rather trivial point when their recognised rights to have a family have come so far.

To further compound the pointlessness of this exercise, the re-printing of this pregnancy manual will cost £100,000. This is £100,000 that the NHS could really do with putting into far more worthy causes during these cash-strapped times.

The NHS argue that the pregnancy manual was due a reprint anyway but that sounds a little too convenient an excuse to me.

Old MacDonald had a Farm...

Our house is turning into a farmyard.

I'm not talking about the state of the living room with all the toys strewn over the place or the amount of food splattered around my daughter's high chair.

I'm talking about my daughter's latest trick to mimic animal noises.

Very steadily my daughter has been building up her animal noise repertoire to the point that now I can say sheep and she will reply 'merrrr' or doggie and she goes 'oof, oof'.

She also knows cow 'mooo' and the word horse is always greeted with a 'click, click' of her tongue, to indicate its hooves of course.

She will often make these sounds just by seeing a picture of one of these animals in a book, while if she hears a sheep baaing through the open window – we have fields next door to our house – she will 'merrr' back.

My daughter is also good at making these sounds at completely inappropriate moments like when we get out of the car she will shout 'merrr' at the top of her voice or call out 'oof, oof' at a passer-by on the street. Luckily they almost always have a dog with them at the time.

She knows that 'merr' is a funny noise to make because you can hear the edge of hilarity to her voice as she says it. She'll repeat it over and over again knowing she'll get a laugh, just like a naughty school boy sat at the back of the class.

She has even decided to adapt my name to incorporate this sound. Rarely am I now 'mama' but 'merr merr'. I'm not so keen on this latest development. I don't really want to be referred to as a sheep but my daughter, ever the comedian, finds it hilarious.

Controlled crying – good or bad?

I believe the BBC's recent coverage of the thorny issue of controlled crying for babies was completely unbalanced and ultimately irresponsible.

I would hate to be a brand new parent right now watching this bad piece of journalism as the only conclusion I would have been able to come to was that controlled crying as a method was completely out of the question.

They had one very vehement lady on there from some kind of baby nurture centre who was covering the tired old ground of how controlled crying will leave your child psychologically scarred for life and should by no means be used.

Another lady who was, I guess, supposed to be giving the counter argument, was obviously feeling a little intimidated by the other woman and said, well controlled crying should be available as just one of many tools to potentially be used by parents. Hardly a ringing endorsement of controlled crying and she gave no evidence about why it is a good method to use.

They should have got me on there. I would have had much to say about its benefits.

I find that as a parent you have to really dig your heels in about the methods you use because for every person who agrees with what you do there will be ten who don't.

Controlled crying seems to be a very controversial issue but without it I don't think my daughter would be such a well-behaved and happy baby – she is far from the psychologically mistreated, miserable child she should be according to the likes of the lady on the BBC sofa.

When people think of controlled crying they have this image of leaving a baby to cry for hours on end without any comfort from their parent. This is not the case.

For it to be effective you as a parent have to judge the situation and base your decision on how well you know your child.

After those difficult first few months are over when your baby is probably always crying for a very immediate need such as hunger or a dirty nappy there comes a slow transition when as a parent you can start to be slightly more discriminate about when to go rushing to your baby's cot and when to leave them to cry for a few minutes to see if they will settle themselves.

You should get to know whether their cries are related to any immediate problem or whether, as in a lot of cases as they get older and wiser, they are simply after a cuddle or do not want to be put down for a sleep.

If you suspect the latter it is okay to leave them to cry for five to ten minutes. If they still do not settle or start to sound distressed then it is fine to go into their room and comfort them for a minute but then it is best to leave them again for a further five to ten minutes. At first you may be frequently returning to their room but after a few days of this your baby will realise that you are not going to come running as soon as they burst into tears and so settle down to sleep without the crying preamble.

It is this method which means my daughter sleeps through the night and takes two naps throughout the day. She is happy and contented and knows her routine and the fact there is no point trying to protest about it.

It also means as parents, me and my husband do not have to worry we will have to bring our daughter into bed with us at night, it gives us a little time during her scheduled naps to get on with our own thing and we have the evenings completely to ourselves.

I can't see where the psychological scarring comes into this happy domestic picture can you?