Baby bump taking its toll at three months and other newspaper inaccuracies

That nonentity Imogen Thomas is in the Daily Mail yet again flaunting her baby bump.

Imogen, who is really only famous for being famous like so many other celebrities these days, has in fact been in the paper almost every day this week with some pointless non-development in her pregnancy.

But I have already given this woman, who is most famous for having an affair with Premiership footballer Ryan Giggs, a hard time in a previous article and finally had to settle for this being what she does - selling every single aspect of her personal life to the papers.

So what I actually want to focus on today is the journalists who are happy to report this tripe. (I am able to complain about this as a former journalist myself). And I want to say that if they really do insist on following in microscopic detail the ins and outs of every single minor celeb's pregnancy, they at least need to get their facts correct. Or even better, get a reporter on the case who has actually got some experience with pregnancies and babies – or does such a thing not exist at the Daily Mail – or any other red top paper for that matter, because they are all equally as bad when it comes to celeb babies.

But back to the Imogen case for example. There have been two ludicrous stories in the paper this week which show a complete lack of misunderstanding about expecting a child. First they decided to show snaps of Imogen walking down the road with a miserable look on her face, whether set up or not I'm not sure. And the headline was carrying her baby bump was taking its toll.

Hang on a minute, the woman is somewhere between three and four months pregnant. If that bump's taking its toll now she's got no hope for the next few months. She's seen nothing yet.

But the clueless reporter decided to elaborate even further, talking for paragraphs about how pregnancy can be a tough time for women, carrying that bump around blah, blah, blah. Yes – but not at three months. Is that what the reporter had read in a copy of Marie Claire magazine during her lunch break. Clueless.

And then there was a complete misunderstanding in another story over a comment Imogen had posted on Twitter. Again there was no real story here except to recount the details of how she had met her boyfriend and father of her child only ten months ago but how blissfully happy they were. And then this 'tweet' was used to elaborate on the situation. The drivel from Imogen ran that she was lying in bed with her boyfriend watching TV and there was nothing on. At the end she added 'feeling butterflies'.

The reporter used the butterflies statement as a reference to how Imogen feels about her partner. Hmm. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am, I'm pretty sure that comment is not about her boyfriend but a reference to Imogen feeling the first movements of her baby inside her. She's around that stage in her pregnancy when she would be starting to feel the first movements, even as a first-time mother. But that's the problem with putting a naive reporter on a story, or non-story, like this.

So I would say to all you newspapers who insist on giving us this drivel day in day out, at least make it accurate drivel – or am I asking too much?

Pregnant woman attacked to make her miscarry

Matthew Cherry deserves a place on the 'scum bag list'.

The 35-year-old, who also happens to be a police officer, has appeared in court charged with grievous bodily harm after attacking his former partner, who was six months pregnant at the time.

He disguised himself and pretended to be a cleaner to gain access to Caroline Craft's home and once inside proceeded to hit, punch and kick her to the stomach and back area in a bid to make her miscarry the baby.

The assault did not stop there. He then dragged her to the bathroom and threatened to tie her to the toilet and was only stopped by the doorbell ringing. It was an estate agent come to help Ms Craft sell the house.

Cherry had openly said he did not want to have a baby with Ms Craft. They had not been together long when she fell pregnant and they allegedly did not have a very happy relationship anyway.

They both attended the doctors and Cherry said he wished Ms Craft to have an abortion. Ms Craft was adamant she wanted to keep the baby. Eventually Cherry managed to convince her to book herself in for an abortion but at the last minute Ms Craft did not turn up for the appointment.

She had decided she was going to keep the baby irrespective of Cherry's wishes. Cherry broke off their relationship because of her decision.

Cherry then seemed to blow hot and cold, threatening, allegedly, that he was going to ensure Ms Craft miscarried the baby and then saying he was going to fight for custody for the child once it was born.

However, six months into the pregnancy it appeared his mind was set on getting rid of the baby one way or another and that was when the attack took place.

Ms Craft was taken to hospital but luckily had not sustained serious injury. Most importantly the baby was still alive and well. The little boy was born a year ago.

Who knows exactly what happened behind closed doors as this former couple discussed whether or not to keep this baby. On the face of it it must have been terribly hard for Cherry to have to deal with his partner keeping a baby which he did not want but at the same time Ms Craft should not have felt bullied into aborting a baby which she wanted to keep.

Either way it was not for Cherry to take it upon himself to get rid of the baby by any means once Ms Craft had decided she wanted to keep it, certainly not forcing entry into her home and attacking her.

It is repellent to want to inflict an injury so serious on anyone, never mind a former partner, in a bid to make them lose the baby they obviously want so much. Not only must it have been a terrible ordeal for Ms Craft but it is playing God with a life which has not even been born yet.

Let's hope the judge treats this case with the seriousness it deserves.

A happy and healthy mum is a working mum?

According to a study, working mums are much healthier and happier than stay-at-home mums.

The research by the University of Akron and Penn State University revealed that factors such as financial independence and the social interaction which comes with working, made working mums less likely to get depression than stay-at-home mums. In fact, 28 per cent of stay-at-home mums were more likely to go on and get the mental disorder over just 18 per cent of working mums.

They say the working mums felt like much rounder and fulfilled women, whilst stay-at-home mums were more likely to develop weight problems and feel bogged down by the mundane tasks of looking after children day in day out.

It seems to me this study has been specifically commissioned in order to show some supporting evidence in favour of mums returning to work after having children. It is obviously the perception of those behind this research that working mums are given a hard time for not being with their children as much as stay-at-home mums and this study is aimed at trying to redress the balance.

Because that is the main problem with studies. It is possible to manipulate the facts in any given direction dependent on who you talk to and which factors you take into consideration and which you don't.

I say this because the issue of whether to be a working mum or a stay-at-home mum, and how happy you may or may not be with that decision, is a highly personal one. A study, however extensive, can not eradicate the personal feelings of all those mums out there who have been confronted with the difficult task of deciding whether they are going to go back to work after their maternity leave is up.

For many mothers there is simply no option. Their family would be unable to afford for only one parent to be working, and obviously in the case of a single parent family, there is even less chance of the mother not returning to the work place.

But there are a whole host of other factors at play as well. Some women simply feel unfulfilled if they do not return to work – and this is the aspect of the issue that this study is picking up on. But then there are a host of mothers – myself included – who feel a huge pull towards giving up work in order to look after their children.

I did very much enjoy my job and of course there are days when I think it would be nice to be earning for myself again or having the benefit of the social interaction the office gave but that all pales into insignificance when I think of how lucky I am to be at home with my daughter full time and getting so much out of watching her grow and learn.

I certainly feel far happier with this way of life than having to be at work and worrying the whole time about whether my daughter was okay. That certainly wouldn't be a lifestyle that would make me happier and healthier than I am now.

So I would say all mums are different and this study far from thoroughly explores the issue – an issue where sweeping statements simply cannot be made.

Mothers blame lack of advice on their failure to breastfeed

A survey has revealed that half of mums blame poor initial advice and instruction from midwives and health visitors on being unable to successfully breastfeed their babies.

Oh where to start on this complex issue? I should probably state, in order for my comments to have a context, that I breastfed by daughter for nine and a half months and only stopped then because she no longer wanted to do it.

However, I would say there is quite a bit of truth in the results to this survey. Those initial days in hospital after giving birth are hellish to be honest when you are trying to establish breastfeeding. Part of the problem involves another issue which has been in the news recently about a shortage of midwives, leading to expectant mums never seeing the same midwife twice. This story applied more to community midwives but the same can be said about hospital midwives in my experience. Whilst there seems to be around 20 of them milling around the maternity ward at any given time mums are not given their own dedicated midwife who can get to know mother and baby over the few days they are in the hospital, and most importantly, know exactly where mum and baby are when it comes to getting breastfeeding established.

Instead you have numerous midwives coming and going with very different ideas about the best ways to get your baby to feed and how long they should feed for, until you feel utterly perplexed and no further along in getting feeding established.

It does require a midwife to sit down for a proper period of time and show you exactly how to do it and it was one such no-nonsense midwife who in the end did just this that, with me and my daughter, and essentially saved us.

However, this is not the only problem. Britain has the most appalling statistics when it comes to how many mothers breastfeed their babies. Around 20 per cent don't even bother breastfeeding from the outset, whilst around 47 per cent of those mothers who start breastfeeding go on and continue after six weeks.

This is in start contrast to so many other countries like Spain, France, New Zealand and America where less than 10 per cent of mothers do not breastfeed their babies.

In Britain it appears that it is far too acceptable for babies to be bottle fed despite it being a much unhealthier option for the baby. Current culture makes breastfeeding mums feel they are the oddities and forces us into the corners of cafés, or in my case on days out, into the back seat of the car, whilst bottle feeding mums brazenly get out their formula and bottles. This attitude is far removed from so many other counties where it would be those with the formula who were frowned on.

If the attitude was more like this in Britain I can't help but feel more mothers would make an effort to breastfeed in the first place. Because yes breastfeeding is difficult to establish in most cases, and yes the first few months of it are difficult, but if there was not such a socially acceptable fall back for mums and babies, surely those mums who do give up, or did not even begin, would feel more pressured to give it a better go? Let's face it, a hundred years ago there was no formula and so the stark reality then was you had no option but to breastfeed your baby.

Jools Oliver's call for more imaginative baby names

The newspapers are all over a comment Jools Oliver, the wife of celebrity chef Jamie, made to a baby magazine recently.

Jools, a mother of four, was talking to Gurgle magazine when she said she wished parents would choose more imaginative names for their children. I have to say I have always found Jools and Jamie Oliver's choice of baby names a little odd, but actually looking closer at the situation the children's christian names are not too outlandish. In actual fact I would go as far as to say Daisy, Poppy and Petal are quite lovely names for girls (I'm a fan of a good flower name myself).

It is actually these names in combination with the middle names which make them seem a little more alternative. For example Petal's full moniker is actually Petal Blossom Rainbow, which is a little left field let's be honest.

I haven't mentioned their son's name because I do find it a little more difficult to justify the choice of Buddy Bear Morris but at least Buddy is a term of endearment, isn't it?!

The part the newspapers have also gone to town on is how Jools was allegedly influenced by the name of her My Little Pony toy, which she had as a little girl. In actual fact Jools says she thinks she may have been influenced by Rainbow her My Little Pony rather than actually just coming out and saying yes, I named my daughter after My Little Pony. But that is journalists misquoting again.

Because it turns out Jools was all for calling her third daughter Rainbow as a first name but had to settle for it as a middle name after Jamie told her to calm down.

I have to say though, whilst I don't think if I ever have a little boy I'll be calling him Buddy or Bear, there is a lot to be said for Jool's comment that parents should be more imaginative. I don't understand why parents tend to be driven towards names which they must realise several children in a class at school are going to have. I think one of the main criteria for a name is that your child isn't going to be brushing shoulders with children called exactly the same as them. In my mind it takes away some of their individuality before they have even begun.

When these top ten lists of baby names are released for the year, I immediately mentally cross off any of those names as potential baby names because the last thing I want is to be following the crowd. Obviously there are some parents who prefer names which will ensure their children fit in – but doesn't that say more about the parents themselves?

So if I had to stick my neck out I would say I'd much rather join Jool's camp and go for the more unusual, always baring in mind of course that whatever name you do choose, you are saddling your child with for life.

Yet another example of mothers being selfish

When I read Fiona Duff's article in the Daily Mail this week I actually felt a little lump gather in my throat.

The part-time journalist talks of how after falling pregnant again at 40 she felt like her life was over. She explains that she had been looking forward to finally getting her career back on track and was embarking on a new relationship, but after seeing that blue line appear on a pregnancy test she felt she was all set for yet another 'prison sentence'.

She already had two children, a six-year-old and a four-year-old who was just about to start school, and she was glad that changing nappies, potty training and the 'endless mundane tasks' were over with – or so she thought.

She said her new partner was supportive of what ever decision she made over the pregnancy and she said for some reason, whether hormones or maternal instinct, she couldn't get rid of the baby, but she was dreading what was to come, and those six inch heels she had spotted in a shop window were certainly out of the question (!)

Ms Duff assures her readers that she loves her daughter Ellen, who is now 11, but she found it hard to find any enjoyment in going to the endless school concerts and sports days and listening to the incessant babbling and dealing with the constant questions yet again.

She said her existing two children were also resentful of the new child.

So why did I feel so moved by this article? It certainly wasn't in sympathy for Ms Duff's plight. I by no means do not understand what she is trying to say, as it must have been a shock to think your life is set to go in a new direction only to be taken back down a track you thought you would never have to go down again.

What upset me was, I guess, the lack of selflessness in this woman and how her daughter would ever feel if she discovered what her mother had written about her, and more importantly, how she felt about her. Surely some things are better left unsaid even if you do feel that way?

Regardless of the shock Ms Duff felt, I can't understand how the love for her new child couldn't have taken over and irradiated any of the doubts. It's not as though her other two children were in their teens and she had fallen pregnant years later. With a four-year-old, and a six-year-old, I would say her child-rearing days were still very much with her anyway.

Life isn't the same once you have had children but at the same time it opens up a whole new chapter of enjoyment. Ms Duff seems to believe that once her children were at school she could shut the door on motherhood and somehow get back to how she was before she ever had babies.

Surely she should realise that it is never possible to ever not be a 'mother' once you have had children and I'm sure many other mums would agree with me when I say, neither would I want to cast off that label and go back to 'before'.

Should some people not be allowed to have children?

We've all probably said it at some point, even if it's just to murmur it to our partner when we see a parent f-ing and blinding at their kids out on the street – 'some people shouldn't be allowed to have children'.

But sometimes, in fact a little too often for my liking, a story comes along which makes me think – 'some people REALLY shouldn't have children'.

I'm talking about the case which has been in the papers this week of the 20-year-old mother who left her toddler in a filthy cot whilst she went to her friend's house for a drinking session – a drinking session which lasted the whole of the Christmas and New Year period from Boxing Day to January 2^nd.

Oh but don't fear, the mother popped back once a day to feed her little 15-month-old a bowl of Cheerio breakfast cereal, before heading back out to her friend's house to drink some more, failing to heed her baby's screams.

The police were finally alerted to what was going on when neighbours became aware of incessant screaming and crying coming from the house.

Police officers managed to get into the house and found the little girl in a cot in a dark and freezing room with filthy clothes on and a nappy which hadn't been changed for a number of days. All around the house were empty wine bottles and dirty nappies.

The little girl was starving and had nappy rash so bad she was bleeding.

The police gave her food and drink and the little thing couldn't snatch it from them quick enough.

The toddler is now being cared for by grandparents and the mother is serving a 15 month prison sentence. She is aiming to rebuild her relationship with her daughter once she is out of prison.

It's a rare situation when I would say this, but please don't let this 'mother' get hold of this child again – certainly not unless she is given some serious instruction on how to look after a toddler, and even then I'm not sure that would be enough – she's had her chance.

As you can see I feel strongly about this but it really does upset me as a mother with a daughter only a couple of months older than this poor neglected child, that this kind of thing is allowed to happen.

And this train of thought always leads me to think how is it that anyone, as long as they are biologically able, can have children. You have to have a licence to drive a car, you have to go through a job interview – usually – to secure a job, and even when it comes to finding a life partner you generally have to go through a spell when you have to ingratiate yourself on that person, but to become a parent there is no sanction in place to make sure only the best equipped are doing it, which seems ludicrous considering it is the most demanding and challenging job you will ever do.

Am I alone in actually supporting some kind of test being introduced to assess whether people are worthy of bringing children into this world? Yes, I know in reality it would never work but surely something has to be done to stop such horrendous child neglect?

But I don't want to go to Disneyland mummy

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

Officially primary school aged children prefer free fun activities like building dens and having water fights than elaborate and expensive treats like going to theme parks.

Supermarket chain Sainsbury's questioned a number of five to 11-year-olds on what their favourite activities were and almost all of them mentioned free things which all the family could do over anything expensive and indulgent.

Other favoured activities included eating ice-cream and going for bike rides.

Subconsciously the children seemed to be saying they valued activities which allowed all the family to get together and have fun over any elaborate and indulgent treat which caused their parents to have to dig deep into their pockets. It seemed the monetary value of certain activities had no impact on how much enjoyment the children were getting out of them.

Psychologists have confirmed this way of thinking, saying it has been found that simple activities are more often those which form happy childhood memories in later life rather than those which cost a lot of money, as children remember the amount of fun they had and how it bought their families close together.

The outcome of the survey will be welcome news to parents who have felt pressured to take their children away to places such as Disneyland. It seems they would in reality have just as much fun playing games in their own back gardens.

It is also heartening to see that in actual fact what children like and dislike hasn't radically changed since their grandparents and their great grandparents were growing up – a time when childhood games would revolve around simple things such as climbing trees or going for long bike rides with friends and family.

It seems that commercialism has tried to sneak in and make parents, and children, feel they want to go and spend lots of money going abroad or spending days going on theme park rides when really deep down everyone would enjoy a much simpler past time as long as they could all be together.

That is most welcome news and perhaps spells good things for the future in terms of a backlash on companies trying to force a certain expensive and glittering lifestyle on families, which in reality they do not necessarily want.

Pre-teen girls are having full body waxes

Girls as young as nine are having all their body hair removed at beauty salons.

As the age that girls, and boys, reach puberty is dropping, so it appears is the age when girls start becoming concerned about the way their bodies are changing. It is possible now for young girls to begin puberty as young as seven or eight.

And it appears mums are doing little to put their little girls off this obsession with removing any trace that they are maturing towards womanhood. Many beauty salons are reporting plenty of girls attending their salons in the company of their mums to have their legs and arms waxed, and in quite a few cases, their pubic hair too.

Talking to these girls it seems the influence has come from celebrities and reality TV show The Only Way is Essex which frequently shows its 'stars' going to beauty salons to be completely waxed. Once only reserved for the pornography industry, it seems it has become completely mainstream for women, and girls, to want to remove any trace of pubic hair.

But it is a pressure even the girls doing it are not necessarily happy about. One 15-year-old girl, who began having all her body hair removed aged 12, said she wished she hadn't started so young as now she is stuck with having to keep getting it done. But at the same time she says there were girls at school who were terribly teased for having visibly hairy legs or arms and she was glad she never had to go through that.

One mum said she took her daughter to a beauty salon at 12 at the first sign her daughter was starting to get upset at the sight of hair on her legs to prevent any possible teasing before it had even begun.

Well, some thing’s gone wrong hasn't it. On the one hand it appears that young girls have gone so far down the road of wanting to emulate their favourite celebrities and wanting to be mini adults that there are no boundaries to what they are prepared to put themselves through to achieve it.

At the same time, the removal of all their body hair spells serious trouble, to me, about their psychological and emotional adaptation to becoming young women. If they are removing any trace of hair as soon as it appears they are not going through any kind of proper transitional period where they can adjust to the changes they are going through.

At the same time, boys are going to be growing up with a very distorted view of how a woman should be. For them to be raised on the idea that women should in actual fact look very much like children, without a trace of hair, is alarming.

Something must be done to stop society going further down this road of artifice and physical appearance over any other quality. The problem is it is going to take a movement involving everyone to bring about a proper change. The harsh reality is it is not enough for a lone mum to protest against their daughter having her legs waved because then that girl will be made to feel an outsider at school and will be picked on for being different. Yes, that in the long run can be character building and make for a stronger person in adulthood, but as a parent you do not want to willingly throw your child into that sort of situation.

If all girls were disgruntally looking at their legs and wishing they were hair free but knew there was no way they were going to be able to do anything about it, then at least they would all be in the same boat, and surely eventually the issue would start to subside and they could make the most of the time when they didn't have to worry about that kind of thing, because - and this is what their mothers should tell them - once you do start it is a life long bind.

Child birth as traumatic as a terrorist attack?!

According to research into the effects of child birth on mothers, many experience the same kinds of lasting trauma as those who have experienced a terrorist attack.

To be precise, one in three mothers are said to suffer from some degree of Post Traumatic Stress, which is also commonly suffered by those who have been victim of terrorist activity.

Symptoms include heart palpitations, avoidance of any discussion about the event and flash backs.

Not surprisingly in light of this, these mothers showed great reluctance to have another child.

The scientists behind this research talked to 89 women in the first month after they had given birth. Out of that 89, 80 per cent had given birth naturally. It was found just over three per cent suffered full blown Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, whilst just over 25 per cent suffered some symptoms of it.

The main cause was found to be the pain they went through, but other contributing factors were fear of serious or fatal complications for themselves or their child, or a traumatic delivery. It was also found the fact women had been undressed for some time in front of others had left a lasting mark.

The effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder can reduce over time but they can stay with you all your life.

With this research I actually find it difficult to quite know where to place myself. In reality the percentage of mothers developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the full-blown sense is quite low, only a good three per cent. Though the fact just over a quarter of mothers suffer some symptoms of it is actually quite significant.

There are of course some mothers who go through horrendous births where their own or their baby's life is threatened, while others seem to be unable to come to terms with how degrading or painful the experience was. It is quite understandable that these women should be marked for life.

But whether this trauma is on a par with say, being involved in the London bombings or the twin towers I don't know.

The fact the women involved in this study were interviewed in the first month after giving birth is surely going to effect the findings somewhat. I can tell you a month after giving birth there was no way I wanted to go through that again but you find that over time you gradually change you mind.

I don't like to dwell on what went on in that labour room, I try not to think about it and I avoid pretty much any discussion about it but am I traumatised – no. As for the indignity of the event, well you kind of just have to laugh about it as you have to remember the midwives just see it as doing their job and you just have to think it is all a means to an end – and what an end when the reward is the birth of your own baby.

My heart goes out to all those mothers who do have to deal with life-long stress as a result of giving birth but to the majority, I would say you have to get it into perspective. If you had a choice whether to give birth or find yourself caught up in a terrorist attack, which would you rather go through? There's really no comparison in my book.

Does your baby really sleep through the night?

According to a new poll, well over a third of mums and dads have lied about their children's sleep patterns.

The survey, conducted to mark the beginning of National Child Sleep Week in the UK, has attempted to lift the lid on the untruths parents tell about their children in order to make themselves look better mothers and fathers.

And it appears that there is no greater area where parents lie than when it comes to their little ones sleep routine. The survey by NetMums found 43 per cent claim their child sleeps through the night while meanwhile, 11 per cent of parents admit having to get up and down two or three times in the night.

This survey is obviously meant to be representing the truth of the matter, but to be honest who is to say that in actual fact the number of children really sleeping through isn't lower and the number of children waking up several times in the night isn't higher?

The survey is nevertheless certainly a revelation to a lot of parents who will have felt completely isolated in their suffering with a child who refuses to sleep through until morning. The majority of parents like to give the impression that they have no problems with getting their children to sleep through the night, so the fact that over half have actually admitted in this survey that in reality their children are not sleeping well is a positive step in the right direction.

Of course in essence it doesn't matter if most parents make out their children are sleeping better than they are because they still have to deal with the reality of the matter when they get home.

But the problem does come when it leads to other parents feeling so down and depressed about the fact they can't get their children to sleep as well as others seem to be. And with so few people being open about how they too are feeling exhausted and frustrated this probably only adds to and exacerbates the problem.

I've been there myself. I still recall with a shudder those first few weeks, no let's be honest, few months, when my newborn daughter's ability to sleep through the night was literally nil. I remember my husband coming home from work and recounting the tale one of his work colleagues had told him about how his own daughter had not only slept through the night from six weeks old but had even gone into her own room.

Through my sleep deprived haze I managed to compute these words and thought, well I feel a complete failure. It didn't help that every parenting book and website you turned to rammed the message home that you must get your newborn baby into a routine immediately and they should be getting this amount of hours sleep at this time of the day and another amount of hours at this point and then if you do this and this you are guaranteed they will sleep through the night.

Luckily now I not only see the lunacy of the advise of these so-called parenting experts but realise that most of those parents who made out their children were such amazing sleepers were just lying or at least trying to kid themselves.

No more 'pregnancy scare' headlines please

Why do expectant z-list celebrities feel they have to share every single aspect of their pregnancies with us?

I'm talking chiefly about z-lister Imogen Thomas who hasn't disappeared from the headlines of the red top newspapers since announcing her pregnancy last week.

Who, you may justifiably be asking. And yes that is the point, she is one of a whole new breed of celebrities who are famous simply for being famous, and as in the case of so many of them, her origins were in a reality TV show – namely Big Brother several years ago.

Her most famous act to date was that affair with premiership footballer Ryan Giggs.

You would have thought being involved in such a scandal would have caused her to rethink her love of the spotlight. Instead though, she is now back with vengeance with every detail of her pregnancy with her new boyfriend of just 10 months.

Last week we had the news of her morning sickness and her desire for potatoes of all varieties and how she was convinced she was having a girl. We also got to see her baby bump for the first time (excitement) which livened up the discussion boards on the Daily Mail website as people churned out comments about how she looked far more than 12 weeks pregnant, blah, blah, blah.

But then things took a darker turn this week when we were presented with the story of her baby scare. Now personally I don't like to read any kind of headline like this and I'm sure I'm not alone. When I was pregnant with my daughter I had to deal with both actress Amanda Holden and pop singer Lily Allen losing their unborn babies and quite far into their pregnancies too. It certainly did not calm my nerves about the health of my own unborn baby and I'm sure there will be many pregnant women now squirming at Imogen Thomas' news.

Or should that be lack of it, because it turns out that whilst she did have a scare – she had some bleeding – she went to the hospital the next day and was offered another scan and all was well with the baby.

So this is my main point. If all was well and it was just one of those heart-stopping but nevertheless pretty innocuous moments, then don't share it with the public at all. We didn't need to know about it, you are not such a major celebrity that people are going to be particularly interested to know about this, and all you have probably done is sow a seed of worry in the minds of so many pregnant women out there.

I know the difficulty is this is what Imogen Thomas essentially does for a living. She makes a profit out of selling her personal life to the papers and as a first time mum-to-be she has a great opportunity to rake in a few more pounds, which you could argue – if you are going to try and see this situation in a positive light – could go towards providing for her baby when it is born.

But then it really comes down to a matter of both personal and social conscience. On a social level she is not being responsible to all those other pregnant women out there who do not want to have to confront any kind of pregnancy scare stories in the paper. And then on a personal level there is the fact she should not want, as a mum-to-be, to tout all the details of her pregnancy to the world.

It is not fair to be using her unborn child as a commodity to make money out of surely, and anyway, why is she prepared to be so open about this pregnancy? Doesn't she feel nervous about sharing every detail about what she is going through and how delighted she is lest she tempts fate and it all goes wrong? I know that is how I would feel.

Hard-hitting adverts are proving too upsetting for some children

Children are being left distressed over hard-hitting adverts.

International Aids Charity, children's charity and animal charity adverts have all come under fire for containing violent and upsetting content.

A poll by the Advertising Standards Agency found almost half of 11 to 16-year-olds had been left upset over such adverts in the last year.

Other offenders include drink-drive and anti-rape advertising campaigns.

The main problem was the use of shocking scenes of animals or children suffering in order to encourage people to donate money to the charity.

One particularly shocking advert which featured a woman being dragged to the shops to buy cigarettes through the use of a fish hook inserted into her mouth was banned in 2006 following masses of complaints.

But there are plenty of adverts still being shown on television which have been found to leave children feeling worried, anxious or even guilty.

One advert for an anti-rape charity shows a boy in his bedroom ignoring the 'no' pleas of his girlfriend while one drink-drive advert deemed distressing features a boy playing football in his garden shortly before being knocked down by a car driven by a drunk footballer.

Girls were particularly offended by scenes of violence, whilst boys and girls found nudity embarrassing. Smaller children did say they did not always understand what was going on in the adverts.

The Advertising Standards Agency said they would listen to the perspective of children far more in the future.

This is really quite a difficult one. The very point of the adverts mentioned is to shock people and to spark them into action, whether this is to donate money or to actively campaign in their own areas. Even if a person treats their own pets a little better after watching an animal cruelty advert then surely the advertising campaign has done some good?

If these adverts weren't upsetting to some degree they would have no impact. Besides how would you illustrate an issue such as drink driving without showing the very real repercussions?

Where I then hesitate is when considering how children are getting caught up in all this. Of course you cannot protect children forever from the terrible realities of life. But I think it really depends on the age of the child. If a boy of 15 or 16 is made to feel uncomfortable watching an anti-rape advert then surely the advert is doing its work. However if a boy of 11 or 12 is made to feel uncomfortable and he is as yet unarmed with the full understanding of what it is all about then that is a little unfair. A dramatic advert on television is surely not the first time these children should be coming across such hard-hitting subjects.

The solution is obviously for advertising bosses to be more considered when it comes to what time of day certain adverts are shown and also between what programmes they are shown. It would perhaps be best if they worked alongside parents and educational establishments to work out what the best age young people should be introduced to certain subjects is and schedule the adverts accordingly.

Of course it is also down to the parents to police the television and to explain these matters to their children when the time comes.

Two-year-old drowns whilst mother sleeps

Two-year-old Isabella Crump drowned after falling into the swimming pool whilst on holiday.

The whole family were staying in a relative's villa on the Costa Blanca in Spain when the tragedy struck.

The family – including mother, father, grandparents, and Isabella's four-year-old brother – were all having an afternoon siesta by the pool.

Isabella had snuggled up with her mother in a hammock to have a nap as well. However, the two-year-old woke before the rest of the family and climbing out of the hammock, fell in the nearby pool whilst her mother slept on.

When the family awoke they found Isabella floating face down in the pool. She had drowned. It took the sleep grogged family a little while to fully comprehend what had happened.

The police are now investigating the incident and are talking to all the family, but it is thought Isabella's death was nothing more than a tragic accident.

I can't even begin to imagine the pain this family must be going through at the moment. It is nothing but tragic to have your toddler taken away from you in such a way after carefully nurturing them up to this point.

I don't think it would be appropriate to apportion blame onto anyone. It is exhausting trying to keep you inquisitive little toddler out of trouble, keeping them away from dangers like roads and open water and no matter how hard you try to protect them, their long-term safety also has a lot to do with luck. You can try and monitor them around the clock but all it takes is a terrible twist of fate to bring about disaster, as this story clearly shows.

It appears that Isabella's mum was doing her best to be responsible. She hadn't simply fallen asleep in a hammock and left her two-year-old to her own devises. She had specifically ensured her daughter curled up to sleep with her and had probably banked on being woken up if Isabella had tried to get out of the hammock without her.

The only way the family could have ensured Isabella's safety any further would be to have chosen not to take a nap by the pool. At least if they had been inside the villa, Isabella would not have had such easy access to the water – but then who is to say another tragedy could not have befallen her indoors.

I'm sure the family do not need to be told they shouldn't have slept by the pool, or even fallen asleep at all, because they will have run this fact over and over in their heads numerous times and will continue to do so.

Unless we can say we are perfect parents ourselves, then it is not for us to judge.

Fathers banned from children's play centre

A play centre has come under fire for banning all men and boys over the age of nine.

Kids Go Wild in Birmingham has introduced the ban for 'cultural reasons' it claims as it is based in Sparkhill, which has a high Muslim population.

However, many of the complainants are Muslims themselves and as a result a Watchdog is currently looking into the situation.

Under Equality Laws it is possible to ban a whole sex from an establishment but there must be a very good reason why. According to equality experts it is uncertain whether Kids Go Wild has a strong enough case to completely ban men when instead it could have introduced all female sessions or days of the week instead.

One Muslim mum who lives in the area says she has four boys and luckily they are all under nine but if one was over the age limit it would mean none of her sons would be able to attend the play centre. She believes it would be unfair to leave one of them out.

The manager of Kids Go Wild, who wishes to remain anonymous, said that the local community had welcomed the decision to exclude men and it was actually them who had called for the exclusion. She said Muslim women wanted a place where they could go and relax and not feel the need to cover up.

To me, the idea of setting up a play centre which can only be attended by women seems a terribly backward step. Surely society has come on so much further than this?

I don't feel fully equipped to comment on the cultural issues behind this exclusion but it does appear that certainly a significant proportion of the Muslim population is not in favour of this move. And it is very telling that experts believe that equality laws are being broken by the play centre bosses.

From my experience attending children's centres and groups it is very rare to see men in this kind of setting anyway. This is chiefly because women tend to be the main carers of their children, especially during weekdays, and men are simply not available. Having said this I would not be surprised if some men would feel a little bit uncomfortable entering this kind of maternal environment anyway, so the last thing I would imagine any sensible play centre would want to do is expressly put a ban on men entering the building. And as for banning boys over nine-years-old – well that's completely incomprehensible to me.

Anything you can do...

A certain nappy advert has got a lot to answer for. I'd better not mention exactly what brand of nappies it is advertising in the interests of fairness – and also because I can't remember which brand it is. But I can tell you it is one of the two major nappy brands and it features lots of babies and toddlers learning to climb.

I knew as soon as I saw this advert the first time that it would spell trouble. I knew as soon as my highly perceptive little daughter feasted her eyes on all those babies trying to climb up onto dining chairs and sofas she would want to learn to do just the same.

The fateful day came. She clapped eyes on those nappy-clad youngsters trying to pull their chubby limbs up onto chairs and giggling enthusiastically when they managed to do it, and I could see her brain ticking over.

She was thinking, hang on, those little people are just like me, like them I wear nappies, like them the world of furniture looks like a big jungle and like them I'm finding out all sorts of exciting things I can do with my newly mobile legs.

I'm going to pull myself up onto the sofa just like them.

And sure enough, that very afternoon she was there gripping onto the sofa cushion trying desperately to ease her knee up. Occasionally she would look up at me with appeal in her eyes, 'help me up mummy' she was blatantly saying, and then she would strain and pull away at the sofa again. Sneakily I thought to myself, at least the leather sofa was impeding her efforts somewhat. The last thing I wanted was to come into the room one day to find her splatted on the floor after managing to get up onto the sofa, only to then swiftly fall off it again.

So I relented and lifted her up to sit by me. But then she realised the back of the sofa also opened up a whole new wealth of climbing opportunities. Before I knew it she had a knee halfway up the back of the sofa and was looking precariously over the top of it to the floor below. It took quite an effort to prise her little hands, and her mouth – yes her mouth – off the back of the sofa, to bring her back down to safety.

Yes that nappy advert has a lot to answer for. At least she hasn't seen the Weetabix advert yet where the toddler runs around with a potty on his head, drawing on the walls.

My very first children's book

I'm indulging in a bit of self-promotion today I'm afraid. But if you can't promote yourself on your own blog then where can you?
I have written my first children's book. It has been a few years in the making but now I'm a stay-at-home mum I have finally grabbed the opportunity to knuckle down and get it completed.

The final product is Through the Cat Flap by Philippa Mingins and it is available to purchase in e-book form on Amazon right now.

It is a children's story about a brave young cat who finds himself sucked into a great big adventure. It is a perfect story for animal-lovers of all ages, lovers of adventure and fans of magic.

I have copied the blurb of the book below to give you a better idea.

Please check it out on Amazon and buy a copy if you like. It's a snip at just £3.09 or $5.00 to my friends over the pond.

Thank you in advance.

End of self-promotion.


Through the Cat Flap by Philippa Mingins

Walter is just an ordinary Siamese cat. He loves nothing more than snoozing in his favourite spot under the radiator in the spare room, devouring his dish of choice - tuna chunks - and rolling around in father bean's compost heap.

Yet there is one thing that sets Walter apart and that is his deep love for his sister Sophie.

When Sophie disappears there is no question in Walter's mind that he must go and find her.

This signals the start of Walter's big adventure, which sees him plunge through the cat flap and into a whole new world where magic rules, but misery reigns.

Can Walter find Sophie and bring her home, and ultimately can he show the residents of Solitaire that love conquers all things?

McDonald’s staff receive award for saving choking baby

I think there are a number of lessons to be learnt from the story of 14-month-old Nevaeh who almost choked to death on a french frie in a McDonald’s fast food restaurant in Sydney.

Before we get into the lecture part of this article though, of course it has to be said that it must have been beyond terrifying for the parents of little Nevaeh to have to stand by helpless as their precious daughter started to go blue in the face.

And there is also the good news element of this story of how McDonald’s staff, and even some customers, rushed to the little girl's aid to save her.

To backtrack, what basically happened was Nevaeh and her family were sat in the McDonald’s restaurant tucking into some food when Nevaeh choked on a french frie. Her parents were unable to do anything to help her and so rushed her over to the McDonald’s counter where they cried out for staff to help their daughter.

Nevaeh then spent three minutes face down on the counter as staff, and customers – including one who had been in the queue for the drive-through – rubbed her back – hoping to get the chip back up.

Meanwhile, Nevaeh had turned blue, and at one point, a staff member is seen to lean down and listen to Nevaeh's chest to see if she is still breathing. Her parents are in the background crying helplessly.

Luckily, Nevaeh is saved as the chip dislodges and she can breath again. She was taken to hospital and kept in overnight for observation but fully recovered.

So for the lessons to be learnt aspect. My initial thought when I saw this story, and I know it's going to be a controversial one for some parents, was why was a 14-month-old baby being fed McDonald’s in the first place? I know these days there is a whole movement towards ensuring once your baby is weaned onto solids they move onto family food as soon as possible but I really feel McDonald’s is not going to be very nutritious for such a little girl. I certainly wouldn't dream of feeding my daughter such food. She is 16-months-old and she hasn't even had a home cooked chip yet.

But then this issue really does pale into insignificance when we consider how close to death Nevaeh came from eating the french frie. The obvious point is that all parents should learn first aid so they can deal with these events, even if it is just to read up on the internet what they should do. I hold my hands up and say I'm just as guilty in not being fully informed on what to do if my daughter choked.

But the other thing is, I feel parents need to be wary of what food they are giving their children. Not just in terms of its health benefits, as mentioned, but whether their child is going to be able to cope with its consistency and be able to chew it effectively. At 14-months-old babies still do not have a full set of teeth so if it is a food which is not going to easily dissolve in their mouths, parents do need to keep a very close eye on their baby whilst they eat it. Let's hope parents are more mindful about this issue after reading this story in the newspapers.

Hard-hitting adverts are proving too upsetting for some children

Children are being left distressed over hard-hitting adverts.

International Aids Charity, children's charity and animal charity adverts have all come under fire for containing violent and upsetting content.

A poll by the Advertising Standards Agency found almost half of 11 to 16-year-olds had been left upset over such adverts in the last year.

Other offenders include drink-drive and anti-rape advertising campaigns.

The main problem was the use of shocking scenes of animals or children suffering in order to encourage people to donate money to the charity.

One particularly shocking advert which featured a woman being dragged to the shops to buy cigarettes through the use of a fish hook inserted into her mouth was banned in 2006 following masses of complaints.

But there are plenty of adverts still being shown on television which have been found to leave children feeling worried, anxious or even guilty.

One advert for an anti-rape charity shows a boy in his bedroom ignoring the 'no' pleas of his girlfriend while one drink-drive advert deemed distressing features a boy playing football in his garden shortly before being knocked down by a car driven by a drunk footballer.

Girls were particularly offended by scenes of violence, whilst boys and girls found nudity embarrassing. Smaller children did say they did not always understand what was going on in the adverts.

The Advertising Standards Agency said they would listen to the perspective of children far more in the future.

This is really quite a difficult one. The very point of the adverts mentioned is to shock people and to spark them into action, whether this is to donate money or to actively campaign in their own areas. Even if a person treats their own pets a little better after watching an animal cruelty advert then surely the advertising campaign has done some good?

If these adverts weren't upsetting to some degree they would have no impact. Besides how would you illustrate an issue such as drink driving without showing the very real repercussions?

Where I then hesitate is when considering how children are getting caught up in all this. Of course you cannot protect children forever from the terrible realities of life. But I think it really depends on the age of the child. If a boy of 15 or 16 is made to feel uncomfortable watching an anti-rape advert then surely the advert is doing its work. However if a boy of 11 or 12 is made to feel uncomfortable and he is as yet unarmed with the full understanding of what it is all about then that is a little unfair. A dramatic advert on television is surely not the first time these children should be coming across such hard-hitting subjects.

The solution is obviously for advertising bosses to be more considered when it comes to what time of day certain adverts are shown and also between what programmes they are shown. It would perhaps be best if they worked alongside parents and educational establishments to work out what the best age young people should be introduced to certain subjects is and schedule the adverts accordingly.

Of course it is also down to the parents to police the television and to explain these matters to their children when the time comes.

Caesareans more dangerous than previously thought

Caesareans are more dangerous than previously thought, experts say.

As a result, midwives are calling for them to be used as a last resort only. The warning comes after it was realised just how high the risk of infection was after the operation.

One in ten women get an infection following a caesarian, a recent study has found. This leaves these women facing a much longer spell in hospital to recover. Meanwhile it is often difficult for these women to bond with, and care for, their babies.

Midwives have deemed caesareans should only be carried out when there is a 'high clinical need'. This decision may however seem confusing to those who last year welcomed the news the NHS were prepared to give caesareans to those mothers anxious about giving birth.

A quarter of babies are now delivered by caesarian. High clinical need situations include twins and triplets, mothers with high blood pressure and diabetes.

It has even been found that caesarian scarring, resulting from infections spreading to the womb, make it harder for women to conceive in the future.

I personally think this is welcome news. Controversial as it may seem, I really do believe that women should give birth naturally unless there is very strong medical reasons why they cannot. No one likes the idea of giving birth but it is all part of the process. To me, this idea of electing for a caesarian is yet another symptom of the 'something for nothing' culture we live in. Mothers are coming across as too lazy to bother going through the natural process.

I also cannot think of anything worse than having a caesarian. I cannot bare the thought of being cut open and then having a horrible wound which takes weeks to heal. Obviously a whole lot of recovery is required after a natural birth but there is something comforting in knowing nature intended you to do it that way and will aid the process of helping you get back to normal.

For anyone in favour of a caesarian, I would ask you, would you really get the same satisfaction when your baby is placed in your arms, knowing the baby had been pulled out of you by a surgeon's hands, over putting your all, and then some, into bringing that baby into the world with your own blood, sweat and tears?

God save the 'Queen'

This Diamond Jubilee/Olympics year is leaving my daughter's mind a little befuddled.

She already has a startlingly good vocabulary and can put a name to a whole host of different objects. And recently into this mix she has added the word 'Queen'.

Initially it took my husband and me a little while to realise exactly what our daughter was referring to when she repeatedly chanted 'Queen, Queen' at the television.

We got off to a misleading start when on her first using the word, the Queen was indeed there staring out at us from the screen.

We thought, well that's clever, that she's identifying the Queen already but we put it down to the fact the television and life in general had been saturated with images and discussion of the Queen all year so far and so it was only inevitable, we guessed, that our clever daughter would pick up on it.

But then the chants of 'Queen, Queen' came again and there was absolutely no sign of the Queen at all. And then we realised. Our daughter wasn't referring to the Queen, the person at all. She was chanting 'Queen, Queen' every time she saw the union jack flag.

Somewhere along the way she had heard the constant repetition of the word Queen, spouted alongside repeated images of the union jack flying and come to the conclusion that this prettily coloured piece of cloth was called a Queen.

This is obviously completely wrong but at the same time I can't help but think it is a stroke of genius. What a conclusion to draw.

It does of course raise an interesting question of how we go about informing our daughter that this object is not actually a Queen but a flag. For now, however, it is just too endearing to contradict and I have to say it is quite a fitting name for it. I'm so used to it already that I don't flinch when we walk down a particularly patriotic high street or come across a Jubilee display in a shop and my daughter cries out 'Queen' in delight on seeing the flags or union jack bunting. Yes, Queen I confirm. And why not for now. There's no harm.

It certainly adds new meaning to the National Anthem. God save our Queen? Yes hear hear, long live those union jack flags!

Mothers desperate to dress their children like Harper Beckham

Most mothers spend more money on clothes for their children than they do on clothes for themselves.

A recent poll found that 94 per cent of mothers put their children's wardrobes first over their own, many not hesitating at spending over £100 a time on an outfit for their little one.

Meanwhile the same mothers felt intensely guilty if they bought an item of clothing for themselves and would mull over purchasing a single item for some time before doing so.

And who are these mothers trying to emulate in their extortionate outfit choices for their children – Victoria Beckham of course.

According to those who carried out this latest bit of research, the mothers were determined their little ones could be as stylish as Harper “Seven” Beckham, and so were not letting the small matter of a high price tag get in their way.

The survey also found that many mothers would set aside a day a week to shop for their children to make sure their were wearing the latest fashions and were not fazed by the fact their little ones would grow out of the expensive designer outfits quickly.

I think there are two different strands to this article which need discussing further. The fact that most mothers are prepared to put their children's needs before their own can only be a good thing. Motherhood is after all about sacrifice.

But then there is a desperately sad side to this story – the fact mothers are breaking the bank to emulate the style of a celebrity – and a very wealthy celebrity at that’s – daughter. Living beyond your means in any aspect of life is never going to lead to happiness in the end and in the case of clothes for your children there is no need to break the bank.

From what I have seen of Harper Beckham, the style Victoria has chosen for her is very simple. It involves a lot of pretty dresses and woolly tights. This is a look which can easily be replicated on the high street. Admittedly there are far more separates available in your average shops but there are always dresses and tights available in smaller quantities. It is easy to therefore replicate the look on a much cheaper budget if you look hard enough.

It is foolish, in my view, for even wealthy celebrities, to spend hundreds of pounds on designer outfits for their children when they are going to grow out of them so quickly, especially when they are Harper's age.

This behaviour really shows what a spell so many people are under when it comes to celebrities. I personally feel under no pressure to emulate the way Victoria Beckham dresses her daughter. I would actually be far more impressed if there was finally a snap of her and Harper interacting and smiling at each other, rather than the constant photos of glum-faced mother toting daughter around like the latest designer handbag.

All nine-year-olds want is to be skinny

When a class of nine-year-old girls were asked what they wanted to be when they grew up, the majority said they wanted to be 'skinny'.

The factors which have brought about this attitude are rife in modern society and so in this sense, their answer is not surprising. This does not however take away from just how sad it is.

There are more shocking statistics. Nearly 200 five to ten-year-olds have been hospitalised with severe anorexia. Ten-years-old is the average age when girls go on a diet. And a third of ten-year-old girls and 22 per cent of ten-year-old boys' main concern is what their bodies look like.

On this basis, it is swiftly becoming myth that primary school children are enjoying a childhood where their main concerns are their friends and school work. Instead they are worrying about what they look like in the mirror.

Of course modern culture can be blamed. Far too much weight is put on appearance with everything from advertising to TV to magazines portraying a single image of perfection, which young children are taking in and seeing as their one aim. Even many dolls portray a single image of prettiness. Young girls as a result are seeing that in order to be successful they must be pretty and skinny.

Boys are not immune from male images either. Many teenage boys are taking steroids to get a muscular body. While at primary school, boys are reporting feelings of uselessness because they do not have muscles.

Going back in time children were certainly not so consumed with appearance because there were so few public images which they were forced to aspire to. I would argue that a lot also has to do with previous childhood lifestyles. Children would play and run around more and eat less processed and junk food, naturally making them more healthy looking.

I think it would be a long hard road to push back the tide of modern obsession with appearance, though I do hope bit by bit things will change and one day again we will be able to embrace a variety of body types.

In the meantime, this problem must be initially tackled in the home. All efforts must be made to educate children about what makes a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent them becoming overweight in the first place. At the same time, parents must lead the way in showing that self-confidence comes from within and it does not matter if you do not fit into one ideal mould.

If all children see is their own parents calorie counting and complaining about how fat they are, they are going to absorb these attitudes as their own.