X-post: Poisonous plants and childcare

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

Note: X-posted to aus.family and aus.gardens.

.... so our C&K centre has to sign a doc saying that there are no poisonous
plants on the premises .. and as a botanist (with a very different area of
specialty) they've turned to me for guidance.

Well.
From what I understand, we just have to sign off that there are no poisonous
plants on the place....the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an
official list of plants that we can sign off against, ..... and pretty much
any plant could kill you if you eat the wrong bit, don't prepare it properly
or you just eat enough of it.

I can tell them to sign off against what's on the Qld Health list of
poisonous plants and fungi (well nearly - there's cestrum growing through
the back fence from the neighbours yard and its a right bugger to get rid
of ), but what about the variegated croton and the Rhoeo which can cause
mild reactions. ....or even the green tomatoes which can contain a poisonous
substance (saponins)? Not sure about the Strelitzias by the front door
either..... Where does one draw the line?

Part of me thinks that its a matter of teaching kids not to eat stuff they
find in the garden (without asking first - like my kids do) but then I worry
about the kids that just don't get that concept (Bear in mind that the C&K
kids are aged between 3.5 y and up to 5.5 y).
(I also remember tutoring a poisonous plants class at uni and having a 19 yo
student pretend to eat a castor oil seed right after I emphasized that all
the plants were poisonous so to wear gloves, not touch their faces and to
wash their hands well and often. ... so I guess there's no accounting for
some.)

Hmmmm
Amanda

[len garden]

g'day amanda,

sometimes i wonder how we made it as kids hey??

guess the safest way is to replace living plants with fake plastic
ones, almost no worries then, i say almost because as i said a long
time ago somewhere "it doesn't matter how fool proof you make it -
there is always a fool out there how can circumvent any system", the
only way to make anything fool proof is to remove the fool.

so fake plants still look the safest bet, once you sign off on
something you may be where the litigation buck stops.



On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:03:42 GMT, "FlowerGirl"
> wrote:

snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[Chookie]

In article >,
"FlowerGirl" > wrote:

> Note: X-posted to aus.family and aus.gardens.
>
> ... so our C&K centre has to sign a doc saying that there are no poisonous
> plants on the premises .. and as a botanist (with a very different area of
> specialty) they've turned to me for guidance.
>
> Well.
> From what I understand, we just have to sign off that there are no poisonous
> plants on the place....the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an
> official list of plants that we can sign off against, ..... and pretty much
> any plant could kill you if you eat the wrong bit, don't prepare it properly
> or you just eat enough of it.

<snort>

No list??? I'd be back to the originators of the form!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[The Lady Gardener]

"FlowerGirl" > wrote in message
.... so our C&K centre has to sign a doc saying that there are no poisonous
plants on the premises .. and as a botanist (with a very different area of
specialty) they've turned to me for guidance.

From what I understand, we just have to sign off that there are no poisonous
plants on the place....the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an
official list of plants that we can sign off against, ..... and pretty much
any plant could kill you if you eat the wrong bit, don't prepare it properly
or you just eat enough of it.


I'm more of the mind to remove all warning labels from anything and
everything and let nature take its course......think of it as a 21st century
twist on survival of the fittest.

Joanne

[HC]

G'day Amanda

I have to agree with Len when he said...sometimes I wonder how we made
it as kids hey??

Everything (and I mean EVERYthing) seems to require some official
statement these days. What has happened to 'teaching' kids about plants,
and other 'dangerous' things? My son (now adult with his own kids) was
highly allergic to bee stings as a child and the school wouldn't allow
him to go on excursions, or play on the grass playground, because there
were trees/grass/etc there and he 'might' get stung....and die!!
Therefore he was forced to play on the concrete section of the
playground with absolutely NO shade trees and hardly any friends because
they were all down the back playing on the grass. In the end we were
sorry we had chosen to inform the school of his allergy because he was
victimised. He knew the procedure to follow if he was stung, knew where
to contact us at all times and to allow him to go on school excursions
(after the initial banning) I used to go as teacher's aide along with
the injection kit in my bag.

Besides growing seeds, one of his hobbies was keeping 'live'
spiders....at 3yo he had a Red Back, Sydney Funnel Web, White Tail
Spider and too many Huntsman's to count, all LIVE. Mind you, he didn't
have enough space to house the Huntsman's so they wandered around his
room, sometimes venturing out, but would always return where they knew
they would be handfed with fresh flies and other insects. I used to get
into strife if I used flyspray in the house, because these flies could
not be fed to his 'mates'. For his 4th birthday I tried to buy a Spider
Identification book that was in child's language.....no such creature!!
The only available book was full of language that he could not yet read.

At home, he had his own garden...from age 3 and he always played in the
yard where we had lots of trees/flowers/vegies/etc along with a
Callistemon that attracted swarming bees.....an apiarist friend used to
regularly call twice a week to collect the swarms, sometimes more often.
Now if we had been 'over' cautious I'm not sure what would have
happened. Sure, his condition was life threatening, but you can't wrap
kids in cotton wool as they usually choke on it!! BTW, we were not
neglectful parents either but didn't carry our concerns to the extreme,
which I feel happens within lots of areas these days. Don't let the
child to this, and don't let the child do that....it makes me wonder if
there will be any well adjusted adults in years to come.

Teach them the right and wrong way to handle plants and I'm sure this is
more likely to get them interested in gardening, than sitting around
with a long list of plant names that they can't identify. Start them
with a succulent/cactus garden, then progress to herbs and vegies...they
love growing what they eat for dinner.

Teaching is the best protection......imho!!
Bronwyn ;-)



len garden wrote:

> g'day amanda,
>
> sometimes i wonder how we made it as kids hey??
>
> guess the safest way is to replace living plants with fake plastic
> ones, almost no worries then, i say almost because as i said a long
> time ago somewhere "it doesn't matter how fool proof you make it -
> there is always a fool out there how can circumvent any system", the
> only way to make anything fool proof is to remove the fool.
>
> so fake plants still look the safest bet, once you sign off on
> something you may be where the litigation buck stops.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:03:42 GMT, "FlowerGirl"
> > wrote:
>
> snipped
> With peace and brightest of blessings,
>
> len & bev
>
> --
> "Be Content With What You Have And
> May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
> A World That You May Not Understand."
>
> http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[Cheryl[_2_]]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:03:42 GMT, "FlowerGirl"
> wrote:

>Note: X-posted to aus.family and aus.gardens.
>
>... so our C&K centre has to sign a doc saying that there are no poisonous
>plants on the premises .. and as a botanist (with a very different area of
>specialty) they've turned to me for guidance.
>
>Well.
>From what I understand, we just have to sign off that there are no poisonous
>plants on the place....the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an
>official list of plants that we can sign off against, ..... and pretty much
>any plant could kill you if you eat the wrong bit, don't prepare it properly
>or you just eat enough of it.
>
>I can tell them to sign off against what's on the Qld Health list of
>poisonous plants and fungi (well nearly - there's cestrum growing through
>the back fence from the neighbours yard and its a right bugger to get rid
>of ), but what about the variegated croton and the Rhoeo which can cause
>mild reactions. ....or even the green tomatoes which can contain a poisonous
>substance (saponins)? Not sure about the Strelitzias by the front door
>either..... Where does one draw the line?

I guess your easiest option is to contact the Dept of Community/Family
Services (Qld equivalent) and ask them what list they are using. They
are the ones who want the document so they must have a list they want
it checked against. If they are using the Qld Health list then you
can just go with that, if they are using something obscure or "use
your own judgement" then you have a bit more trouble.

Cheryl

[A & L Lane]

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:03:42 GMT, "FlowerGirl"
> > wrote:
>
>>Note: X-posted to aus.family and aus.gardens.
>>
>>... so our C&K centre has to sign a doc saying that there are no poisonous
>>plants on the premises .. and as a botanist (with a very different area of
>>specialty) they've turned to me for guidance.
>>
>>Well.
>>From what I understand, we just have to sign off that there are no
>>poisonous
>>plants on the place....the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an
>>official list of plants that we can sign off against, ..... and pretty
>>much
>>any plant could kill you if you eat the wrong bit, don't prepare it
>>properly
>>or you just eat enough of it.
>>
>>I can tell them to sign off against what's on the Qld Health list of
>>poisonous plants and fungi (well nearly - there's cestrum growing through
>>the back fence from the neighbours yard and its a right bugger to get rid
>>of ), but what about the variegated croton and the Rhoeo which can cause
>>mild reactions. ....or even the green tomatoes which can contain a
>>poisonous
>>substance (saponins)? Not sure about the Strelitzias by the front door
>>either..... Where does one draw the line?
>
> I guess your easiest option is to contact the Dept of Community/Family
> Services (Qld equivalent) and ask them what list they are using. They
> are the ones who want the document so they must have a list they want
> it checked against. If they are using the Qld Health list then you
> can just go with that, if they are using something obscure or "use
> your own judgement" then you have a bit more trouble.
>
> Cheryl

I had a similar question once many moons ago and ran into the same problem -
no list!! Or no list that seemed to have relevance to the situation and was
official enough to be accepted. Cheryl's advice seems sound though - if
they want the guarantee, then they must have some guidelines that you can
follow - otherwise it is impossible to read their mind and becomes a
pointless exercise.

cheers
Leah

[Ally[_2_]]

"FlowerGirl" > wrote in message
...
> Note: X-posted to aus.family and aus.gardens.
>
> ... so our C&K centre has to sign a doc saying that there are no poisonous
> plants on the premises .. and as a botanist (with a very different area of
> specialty) they've turned to me for guidance.
>
> Well.
> From what I understand, we just have to sign off that there are no
> poisonous
> plants on the place....the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an
> official list of plants that we can sign off against, ..... and pretty
> much
> any plant could kill you if you eat the wrong bit, don't prepare it
> properly
> or you just eat enough of it.
>
> I can tell them to sign off against what's on the Qld Health list of
> poisonous plants and fungi (well nearly - there's cestrum growing through
> the back fence from the neighbours yard and its a right bugger to get rid
> of ), but what about the variegated croton and the Rhoeo which can cause
> mild reactions. ....or even the green tomatoes which can contain a
> poisonous
> substance (saponins)? Not sure about the Strelitzias by the front door
> either..... Where does one draw the line?
>
> Part of me thinks that its a matter of teaching kids not to eat stuff they
> find in the garden (without asking first - like my kids do) but then I
> worry
> about the kids that just don't get that concept (Bear in mind that the C&K
> kids are aged between 3.5 y and up to 5.5 y).
> (I also remember tutoring a poisonous plants class at uni and having a 19
> yo
> student pretend to eat a castor oil seed right after I emphasized that all
> the plants were poisonous so to wear gloves, not touch their faces and to
> wash their hands well and often. ... so I guess there's no accounting for
> some.)
>


Order a Leaflet from
http://www.health.qld.gov.au/poisonsinformationcentre/pamphlets.asp
Poisonous plants leaflet (limit 1 copy)
A leaflet that lists plants that is best not grown where children may have
access to them. Suitable for the home or child care facilities. QPIC is able
to supply a single copy only of the poisonous plants brochure. The brochure
can be printed directly from this website. Larger supplies can also be
ordered from GoPrint for a small charge. Telephone GoPrint on 07 3246 3500.

You story reminds me of the audit done at my kids child care centre. All of
the trees were cut down and replaced with shadecloth because it was decided
that they may drop limbs.

[len garden]

yes bronwyn,

educatiuon is the best protection, guess nowadays too many parents
don't have enough common sense or knowledge themsleves to be raising a
family with?

did you see the segment on a current affair program last night where a
volunteer older man at a school was known to the kids as "poppy" and
some "do gooder" complained as they saw it could lead their child into
danger??!! just an indictment of our society at present people don't
want to take the responsibility of raising and educating their own
kids to the "rights and wrongs", just look around our communities it's
all there to be seen, disenfranchised kids causing all sorts of
problems.

we used to have all sorts of indoor plants when our kids where babies
lots of them know for their toxisity we where able to teach our kids
not to touch certain things and that is how they learnt, no need for
heavy hand, even now our 1 year old granddaughter if she goes near
anything when crawling around we tell her no so she moves on, no play
pen here to keep her contained, they don't learn that way.

maybe some parents don't credit their kids with basic inteliigence?



On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:09:13 +1100, HC > wrote:

snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[len garden]

g'day cheryl,

for me even if some department did supply a list i for one would not
be putting my name to it, as bet you when the chips are down the
department will hang you out to dry.

take very special care amanda, might be time to seek out a good
litigation lawyers advice, and get that in writting too.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:45:05 +1100, Cheryl > wrote:

snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[eggs]

In article >,
len garden > wrote:

> yes bronwyn,
>
> educatiuon is the best protection, guess nowadays too many parents
> don't have enough common sense or knowledge themsleves to be raising a
> family with?

For a daycare centre you are talking about children between 0-5 years of
age. While you can educate a 3 year old not to eat the shrubbery, it's
kind of hard to do with a 1 year old who could toddle over and start
chewing on the foliage before anyone noticed. TBH, I am kind of
surprised that a check for poisonous plants isn't done as part of the
licensing assessment of a premises for child care purposes.

My kids have a variety of plants and trees (and related insects,
spiders, snails, etc) in their yard and we have never had a problem with
it, but I would certainly never purposefully plant something poisonous
in my yard. My kids might be safe, but I couldn't be sure visiting kids
would know enough to avoid dangerous plants.

eggs.

[Nina Pretty Ballerina]

"FlowerGirl" > wrote in message
...
> Note: X-posted to aus.family and aus.gardens.
>
> ... so our C&K centre has to sign a doc saying that there are no poisonous
> plants on the premises .. and as a botanist (with a very different area of
> specialty) they've turned to me for guidance.
>
> Well.
> From what I understand, we just have to sign off that there are no
> poisonous
> plants on the place....the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an
> official list of plants that we can sign off against, ..... and pretty
> much
> any plant could kill you if you eat the wrong bit, don't prepare it
> properly
> or you just eat enough of it.
>
> I can tell them to sign off against what's on the Qld Health list of
> poisonous plants and fungi (well nearly - there's cestrum growing through
> the back fence from the neighbours yard and its a right bugger to get rid
> of ), but what about the variegated croton and the Rhoeo which can cause
> mild reactions. ....or even the green tomatoes which can contain a
> poisonous
> substance (saponins)? Not sure about the Strelitzias by the front door
> either..... Where does one draw the line?
>
> Part of me thinks that its a matter of teaching kids not to eat stuff they
> find in the garden (without asking first - like my kids do) but then I
> worry
> about the kids that just don't get that concept (Bear in mind that the C&K
> kids are aged between 3.5 y and up to 5.5 y).
> (I also remember tutoring a poisonous plants class at uni and having a 19
> yo
> student pretend to eat a castor oil seed right after I emphasized that all
> the plants were poisonous so to wear gloves, not touch their faces and to
> wash their hands well and often. ... so I guess there's no accounting for
> some.)
>
> Hmmmm
> Amanda
>
>

it is all very well for people to say you should just educate your kids not
to eat dangerous plants etc etc, but i would also so that it is really not
too much to ask for a child care facility to check that they do not have any
known dangerous plants just hanging around.

sure, educate them about plants and animals as much as poss, but dont use
that as a guarantee that they wont go and eat the dangerous plants.

let people have plants around their own home to educate kids about if that
is what they want.

this whole argument bugs me, about well we did it when we were kids so it
must be safe....

did you not ever know one single kid when you were young that suffered
unnecessarily b/c of a car accident, bike accident, whatever??? did it make
us tougher? perhaps, but what about those that were badly injured or worse?

anywya, just a rant. and not directed at amanda..

chris

[Chookie]

In article >,
eggs > wrote:

> My kids have a variety of plants and trees (and related insects,
> spiders, snails, etc) in their yard and we have never had a problem with
> it, but I would certainly never purposefully plant something poisonous
> in my yard. My kids might be safe, but I couldn't be sure visiting kids
> would know enough to avoid dangerous plants.

I know for a fact that there are daffodil bulbs in my garden, and rhubarb. My
MIL kept pointing out that the Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow plant in my front
yard was poisonous until I told her that as I have no front fence, the kids
are unlikely to be out in the front yard without supervision. There are a
surprising number of plants with poisonous components.

IMHO children either put *everything* in their mouths or nothing. While I
wouldn't intentionally put an oleander hedge around the day care, one assumes
that the kids are supervised outside and that they're not likely to eat much
of anything before being spotted. Choking is probably a more likely hazard
than poisoning anyway.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[Chookie]

In article >, "Ally" > wrote:

> You story reminds me of the audit done at my kids child care centre. All of
> the trees were cut down and replaced with shadecloth because it was decided
> that they may drop limbs.

<sigh>

There are a known range of gums that do this -- Lemon-Scented Gum, for
example. But they don't do it wihtout a reason AFAIK. It's a response to
stress -- drop a limb to have more water/nutrients for the rest of the tree.
Keep the tree unstressed and it is fine.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[HC]

Yes, Len I saw that program....sad isn't it? People are litigation
crazy these days and trying to make us another state of the USA! Nobody
takes responsibility for their own actions, just blame someone else. In
some cases the kids who have more intelligence than the parents.

Your DGD is the same age as my youngest one...great aren't they?
;-)

len garden wrote:
> yes bronwyn,
>
> educatiuon is the best protection, guess nowadays too many parents
> don't have enough common sense or knowledge themsleves to be raising a
> family with?
>
> did you see the segment on a current affair program last night where a
> volunteer older man at a school was known to the kids as "poppy" and
> some "do gooder" complained as they saw it could lead their child into
> danger??!! just an indictment of our society at present people don't
> want to take the responsibility of raising and educating their own
> kids to the "rights and wrongs", just look around our communities it's
> all there to be seen, disenfranchised kids causing all sorts of
> problems.
>
> we used to have all sorts of indoor plants when our kids where babies
> lots of them know for their toxisity we where able to teach our kids
> not to touch certain things and that is how they learnt, no need for
> heavy hand, even now our 1 year old granddaughter if she goes near
> anything when crawling around we tell her no so she moves on, no play
> pen here to keep her contained, they don't learn that way.
>
> maybe some parents don't credit their kids with basic inteliigence?
>
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:09:13 +1100, HC > wrote:
>
> snipped
> With peace and brightest of blessings,
>
> len & bev
>
> --
> "Be Content With What You Have And
> May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
> A World That You May Not Understand."
>
> http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[eggs]

In article >,
Chookie > wrote:

> In article >, "Ally" > wrote:
>
> > You story reminds me of the audit done at my kids child care centre. All of
> > the trees were cut down and replaced with shadecloth because it was decided
> > that they may drop limbs.
>
> <sigh>
>
> There are a known range of gums that do this -- Lemon-Scented Gum, for
> example. But they don't do it wihtout a reason AFAIK. It's a response to
> stress -- drop a limb to have more water/nutrients for the rest of the tree.
> Keep the tree unstressed and it is fine.

We had a bigish lemon scented gum in our backyard when we moved in 4
years ago. As the drought has progressed, it's branches started dying
off and I started chopping them off before they fell on the kids. Now
it only has a couple of branches and it looks really stupid in the
middle of the yard with a big trunk and not much else. I was just about
ready to chop it down when it started raining again and now those couple
of branches are all leafy again. I might chop it down anyway and plant
something more suitable as I'm pretty sure this is only a break in the
drought, not the end of it. Any suggestions for a nice shade tree for
the courtyard (space is about 6m X 6m where the current tree stands)?
I'd prefer something with a non-invasive root system as there is a city
sewer pipe down there under the yard.

eggs.

[Chookie]

In article >,
eggs > wrote:

> I might chop it down anyway and plant
> something more suitable as I'm pretty sure this is only a break in the
> drought, not the end of it. Any suggestions for a nice shade tree for
> the courtyard (space is about 6m X 6m where the current tree stands)?
> I'd prefer something with a non-invasive root system as there is a city
> sewer pipe down there under the yard.

There's no such thing as a non-invasive root system. What you need are the
new sewer pipes, not the old terracotta ones. In general, no trees should be
planted within 5m of a sewer line.

You'd probably need to work out if you only want summer shade or if you'd
prefer light cover all year round. Which way does it face?

Possibilities:
Deciduous
Crepe myrtle
Mulberry
FLowering prunus (or even a multigrafted stone-fruit tree)
Silk tree (Albizia julibrissin)
Quince (the fruiting kind, not the flowering quince)
Frangipani

Evergreen
Bull banksia
Australian frangipani (Hymenosporum flavum)
Willow myrtle (Agonis flexuosa, but it may have had a recent name change)
NSW CHristmas bush
Melaleuca linariifolia
Tree wisteria
Bauhinia
Olive
A wattle would grow fast if you want shade in the next few years.


YOu could also consider putting up a pergola and growing a creeper -- no
problems with roots then. Passionfruit for all-year shade, Chinese star
jasmine for light shade, a grape vine if you want something deciduous.

HTH,

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[Terryc]

eggs wrote:

> I'd prefer something with a non-invasive root system as there is a city
> sewer pipe down there under the yard.

Its the water board/sydney water's problem, not yours. My gum tree (our
5 gum trees) were all there before the sewer main went through. Once in
20 years they have been out to a blockage that might have been our gums.

[len garden]

g'day eggs,

our granddaughter is just 12 months ans she is getting taught and
learning, only takes a couple of times of "no! don't touch" same
worked with our daughters we started their training if you like as
soon as they where mobile.


On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:08:26 +1100, eggs >
wrote:
snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[len garden]

g'day hc,

yes the doogooders of society take no responsibility they just sue the
pants off someone or something, all because they can't take their
parental role properly.

yes she is a little darling the light of our life along with the other
4 grandies as well. she is learning very easily what not to touch,
they don't play pen her at home anymore either.

gotta love 'em hey?

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:43:01 +1100, HC > wrote:

snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[len garden]

g'day chris,

educatiuon of kids pirmarily is the responsibility of parents, it is
up to the parent to ascertain any risk to their child before they lob
them into someone elses care, it's all about parents being
responsible.

and yes as kids we did get hurt on odd occassion someone broke a bone
we all had fun in a very much safer world then and yes our parents had
things like angels trumpets and arum lillies in the garden that was
very common and no! once we were told not to touch the plant or put it
near our mouths i guess none of us where dumb enough to do so as none
of us ever did.

you can't cotton wool kids in their development, and you can't rely on
litigation to do what good parenting should do.

i am seeing a lot more accidents involving kids around schools
nowadays some fatal and it appears to me that neither the schools or
the parents are teaching kids basic road safety rules. even at 40k a
vehicle can kill a pedestrian and when a kid does something wrong like
run out from behind a bus there isn't much a driver can do as most
drivers aren't blessed with those sort of reaction times.

if i was amanda i wouldn't be too keen on signing off on anything like
that nowadays it smells of scapegoating.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:25:10 +1100, "Nina Pretty Ballerina"
> wrote:

snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"len garden" > wrote in message
...
> yes bronwyn,
>
> educatiuon is the best protection, guess nowadays too many parents
> don't have enough common sense or knowledge themsleves to be raising a
> family with?

Hold on a minute there - plenty of parents made great errors in judgement
going back a few years too, so its not just confined to "parents of today"
..... my 65 yo Mum remembers learning about the heat of chillies the hard way
.... and on another tack, my sister in law (now 51) was about 6 when the
family visited a neighbouring farm and the little girls made a tea party
.....and I think it was tordon that they used for the "tea".

Education is great, but C&Ks are inclusive kindys and there a several
children with added difficulties like autism and Downs syndrome where
education might not sink in as well as it does with other kids (or sink in
too well so they won't eat anything from the garden).

I guess the point is that you can't just rely on education alone when you
are legally responsible for 22 kids between 2 adults so making the play
environment as safe as possible is the best option.
Amanda

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"len garden" > wrote in message
...
> g'day eggs,
>
> our granddaughter is just 12 months ans she is getting taught and
> learning, only takes a couple of times of "no! don't touch" same
> worked with our daughters we started their training if you like as
> soon as they where mobile.
>
Thats great Len - but multiply her by 20, add some learning difficulties and
behavioural problems to some of those kids and go play with them in a patch
of oleander!
;)
Amanda

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...

> > From what I understand, we just have to sign off that there are no
poisonous
> > plants on the place....the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an
> > official list of plants that we can sign off against, ..... and pretty
much
> > any plant could kill you if you eat the wrong bit, don't prepare it
properly
> > or you just eat enough of it.
>
> <snort>
>
> No list??? I'd be back to the originators of the form!

I fear that is some lawyer :(
The poisons information centre can't even tell you what the guidelines
should be.
A

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"len garden" > wrote in message
>
> take very special care amanda, might be time to seek out a good
> litigation lawyers advice, and get that in writting too.

Thanks Len ... but its not my signature on the form ;)
I'm just doing an unofficial walk through and noting anything suspect (the
cestrum poking through the back fence is really the only thing I'm
particularly concerned about).

A

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"len garden" > wrote in message
...
> g'day chris,
>
> educatiuon of kids pirmarily is the responsibility of parents, it is
> up to the parent to ascertain any risk to their child before they lob
> them into someone elses care, it's all about parents being
> responsible.
>
> and yes as kids we did get hurt on odd occassion someone broke a bone
> we all had fun in a very much safer world then and yes our parents had
> things like angels trumpets and arum lillies in the garden that was
> very common and no! once we were told not to touch the plant or put it
> near our mouths i guess none of us where dumb enough to do so as none
> of us ever did.

With all due respect Len, its a very different world today than when you
were small or when your own kids were small.
Just think of the reidiculous insurance claims for a start.
AND I do know of kids from my Dad's era who died from plant poisoning
(castor bean no less), so its not really a generational thing.
>
> you can't cotton wool kids in their development, and you can't rely on
> litigation to do what good parenting should do.

I see you point Len, but bare in mind, people take a lot of offence if their
parenting skills are questioned.
Childcare was probably not a major option in your young day - its a necesary
thing in today's world and a parent has a right to expect that the
environment is safe if they are paying for a person to caer for their child
in that environment.
>
> i am seeing a lot more accidents involving kids around schools
> nowadays some fatal and it appears to me that neither the schools or
> the parents are teaching kids basic road safety rules. even at 40k a
> vehicle can kill a pedestrian and when a kid does something wrong like
> run out from behind a bus there isn't much a driver can do as most
> drivers aren't blessed with those sort of reaction times.

Again Len - not wanting to have a go at you, but do you perhaps think that
a) there are considerably more cars on the road now than back in the olden
days? and b) that kids still did stupid things back then but it might not
have made the evening news. From what I know from my parents and
grandparents era, it wasn't uncommon to have had a sibling die from an
accident of some sort .... or an illness that hadn't been described.
>
> if i was amanda i wouldn't be too keen on signing off on anything like
> that nowadays it smells of scapegoating.

Sorry - its the kindy that has to sign off, and I'm not officially offering
an expert opinion so I'm not signing.

Its interesting to get this "generational" discussion though.

Amanda

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:03:42 GMT, "FlowerGirl"
> > wrote:
>
> >Note: X-posted to aus.family and aus.gardens.
> >
> >... so our C&K centre has to sign a doc saying that there are no
poisonous
> >plants on the premises .. and as a botanist (with a very different area
of
> >specialty) they've turned to me for guidance.
> >
> >Well.
> >From what I understand, we just have to sign off that there are no
poisonous
> >plants on the place....the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an
> >official list of plants that we can sign off against, ..... and pretty
much
> >any plant could kill you if you eat the wrong bit, don't prepare it
properly
> >or you just eat enough of it.
> >
> >I can tell them to sign off against what's on the Qld Health list of
> >poisonous plants and fungi (well nearly - there's cestrum growing through
> >the back fence from the neighbours yard and its a right bugger to get rid
> >of ), but what about the variegated croton and the Rhoeo which can cause
> >mild reactions. ....or even the green tomatoes which can contain a
poisonous
> >substance (saponins)? Not sure about the Strelitzias by the front door
> >either..... Where does one draw the line?
>
> I guess your easiest option is to contact the Dept of Community/Family
> Services (Qld equivalent) and ask them what list they are using. They
> are the ones who want the document so they must have a list they want
> it checked against. If they are using the Qld Health list then you
> can just go with that, if they are using something obscure or "use
> your own judgement" then you have a bit more trouble.

Thanks Cheryl - that's probably the department I should contact for the
"legal" list.

The kids planted sweet peas this week and they aren't on the Qld health list
so hopefully that means its all systems go for some sweet smelling flowers
in a little while.

Amanda

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"Ally" > wrote in message
...
>

>
>
> Order a Leaflet from
> http://www.health.qld.gov.au/poisonsinformationcentre/pamphlets.asp
> Poisonous plants leaflet (limit 1 copy)


Thanks Alley - all the plants are listed on that website (with common names,
latin names and pictures) and I do have an older copy of that leaflet. The
problem is that we don't officially know if this is the list we have to
check against (its OK and only lists things which really shouldn't be
planted ... like *&^% duranta)

> A leaflet that lists plants that is best not grown where children may have
> access to them. Suitable for the home or child care facilities. QPIC is
able
> to supply a single copy only of the poisonous plants brochure. The
brochure
> can be printed directly from this website. Larger supplies can also be
> ordered from GoPrint for a small charge. Telephone GoPrint on 07 3246
3500.
>
> You story reminds me of the audit done at my kids child care centre. All
of
> the trees were cut down and replaced with shadecloth because it was
decided
> that they may drop limbs.

This is where it gets a bit sad IMHO.

Some trees do drop limbs with alarming indiscrimination (like the
aforementioned lemon-scented gums where the tree may not look stressed at
all and still drop a limb). But others are perfectly OK.
Perhaps a niche market for a couple with the joint skills of law and
arboriculture to do inspections for childcare centres (although I'm almost
certain that the legal insurance costs would be prohibitive).
Amanda

[eggs]

In article >,
len garden > wrote:

> g'day eggs,
>
> our granddaughter is just 12 months ans she is getting taught and
> learning, only takes a couple of times of "no! don't touch" same
> worked with our daughters we started their training if you like as
> soon as they where mobile.


My child raising practices are pretty much the same as yours - but
adopting the position of "it's the parent's responsibility to teach
them" means that the child ends up being punished for their parent's
behavior (i.e. it's the kid not the parent who gets poisoned because the
parent didn't teach the kid not to eat plants). That seems grossly
unfair to me, especially as it could result in the death of a child.

eggs.

[eggs]

In article >,
Chookie > wrote:

> In article >,
> eggs > wrote:
>
> > I might chop it down anyway and plant
> > something more suitable as I'm pretty sure this is only a break in the
> > drought, not the end of it. Any suggestions for a nice shade tree for
> > the courtyard (space is about 6m X 6m where the current tree stands)?
> > I'd prefer something with a non-invasive root system as there is a city
> > sewer pipe down there under the yard.
>
> There's no such thing as a non-invasive root system. What you need are the
> new sewer pipes, not the old terracotta ones. In general, no trees should be
> planted within 5m of a sewer line.
>
> You'd probably need to work out if you only want summer shade or if you'd
> prefer light cover all year round. Which way does it face?
>
> Possibilities:
> Deciduous
> Crepe myrtle
> Mulberry
> FLowering prunus (or even a multigrafted stone-fruit tree)
> Silk tree (Albizia julibrissin)
> Quince (the fruiting kind, not the flowering quince)
> Frangipani

Thanks! We only want shade in the summer as we have a high wall at the
back that shades us for much of the day in the winter, so one of these
sounds good. I think I like the idea of a fruiting plant and I love
Mulberries (hadn't even thought of that!). Off to google mulberry trees
....

eggs.

[Narelle]

eggs wrote:
> In article >,
I think I like the idea of a fruiting plant and I love
> Mulberries (hadn't even thought of that!). Off to google mulberry trees
> ...
>
> eggs.

And you'll get to be the local silk worm food supplier

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"HC" > wrote in message
...
> G'day Amanda
>
> I have to agree with Len when he said...sometimes I wonder how we made
> it as kids hey??

Sorry Bronwyn - this touches a nerve with me as its the argument my father
uses when asking *why* my kids have to be strapped in to car seats when
"when you were little we just put you on a cushion so what's wrong with
that??"
Kids did die from accidents and poisonings in the "olden days" too you know
:(

>
> Everything (and I mean EVERYthing) seems to require some official
> statement these days. What has happened to 'teaching' kids about plants,

Ummm - well as I said *we do* teach our kids about plants.
BUT what about the child who doesn't fit the rules and who isn't so easy to
teach?
What about K's autistic classmate who sometimes can't discern the difference
between the plastic wrapping and his sandwich? .. (and yes, the teacher are
onto him straight away, but there are 22 kids for them to monitor at once).
I'd really hate it if he decided the black berries on the cestrum poking
through the back fence looked particularly delectable while the teacher and
the aide were dealing with any of the other 21 kids (who are not above
wetting their duds, scraping their knee, hitting each other etc).


snip

> Teach them the right and wrong way to handle plants and I'm sure this is
> more likely to get them interested in gardening, than sitting around
> with a long list of plant names that they can't identify.

Sorry - I'm not suggesting that the kids sit around with long lists of
plants.... and they *are* growing things like beans and sweat peas and
strawberries.
BUT - in order to sign the official document stating that there are no
poisonois plants on the place, *I* need that long list of plants so that I
know what the centre needs to ensure *isn't* on the premises. Things like
not surrounding the centre with an oleander hedge and soforth....

I also think you forget just how much information a 3 yo kid can remember /
take in. For exaple, they do have taste tests on the tomatoes,
strawberries and beans that they grow (both at kindy and at home) .... but
personally, I wouldn't like to be responsible for a kid that got confused
and sampled the cestrum as well.

They aren't all perfect (nor are their parents ... or grandparents for that
matter) and sometimes 3 yo kids don't do exactly what they are told to do
.... I know I didn't ... and I actually pity the 3yo that *always* does as
they are told (what a serious lack of imagination;).

My own kids are pretty good about what grows in the garden - they sample
things they know they are allowed to eat, and don't tend to eat the other
stuff.
But I personally wouldn't like to be responsible for somebody else's kid in
a a garden with poisonous plants everywhere. ...

Amanda

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"eggs" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>
> Thanks! We only want shade in the summer as we have a high wall at the
> back that shades us for much of the day in the winter, so one of these
> sounds good. I think I like the idea of a fruiting plant and I love
> Mulberries (hadn't even thought of that!). Off to google mulberry trees

Well - if you deign to drop in here next time your in Qld, I can give you
some cuttings of *the* best mulberry tree in Queensland (well actually it'll
be a cutting off a plant grown from a cutting off a plant grown from a
cutting of *the* best mulberry tree in Qld ... which was a cutting from a
bloody good mulberry tree in Footscray, Vic).

Amanda

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> eggs > wrote:
>
> > My kids have a variety of plants and trees (and related insects,
> > spiders, snails, etc) in their yard and we have never had a problem with
> > it, but I would certainly never purposefully plant something poisonous
> > in my yard. My kids might be safe, but I couldn't be sure visiting kids
> > would know enough to avoid dangerous plants.
>
> I know for a fact that there are daffodil bulbs in my garden, and rhubarb.
My
> MIL kept pointing out that the Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow plant in my
front
> yard was poisonous until I told her that as I have no front fence, the
kids
> are unlikely to be out in the front yard without supervision.

Same here - there's not a particularly large number of plants that could do
much more than give you a belly ache in our garden, but my kids know about
the plants in our garden ...and other *little* kids don't tend to visit
without their mothers.

> There are a
> surprising number of plants with poisonous components.

and there's the problem for the C&K. Techincally the sweet peas and the
cherry tomatoes could cause problems.
>
> IMHO children either put *everything* in their mouths or nothing. While I
> wouldn't intentionally put an oleander hedge around the day care, one
assumes
> that the kids are supervised outside and that they're not likely to eat
much
> of anything before being spotted. Choking is probably a more likely
hazard
> than poisoning anyway.

True - so I'm hoping its just the particularly nasty plants that they have
to remove (and fair enough I say) ... maybe I can add murraya to the list on
the sly so they get rid of that &^*% stuff as well ;)

BUT - I don't have to tell you about what happens when a legal form to
certify there's no poisonous plants gets involved in the equation.

Amanda

[eggs]

In article >,
"FlowerGirl" > wrote:

> "eggs" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> >
> > Thanks! We only want shade in the summer as we have a high wall at the
> > back that shades us for much of the day in the winter, so one of these
> > sounds good. I think I like the idea of a fruiting plant and I love
> > Mulberries (hadn't even thought of that!). Off to google mulberry trees
>
> Well - if you deign to drop in here next time your in Qld, I can give you
> some cuttings of *the* best mulberry tree in Queensland (well actually it'll
> be a cutting off a plant grown from a cutting off a plant grown from a
> cutting of *the* best mulberry tree in Qld ... which was a cutting from a
> bloody good mulberry tree in Footscray, Vic).
>
> Amanda

How far north of the border are you?

eggs.

[Nina Pretty Ballerina]

"len garden" > wrote in message
...
> g'day chris,
>
> educatiuon of kids pirmarily is the responsibility of parents, it is
> up to the parent to ascertain any risk to their child before they lob
> them into someone elses care, it's all about parents being
> responsible.
>

g'day len..

i think if an organisation is going to hang their shingle out and charge
their fee to look after kids, then it is fair enough to expect that the
organisation is going to abide by the rules re any dangerous items.

different matter if you are at a park, or in a florist or something.

and yes, amanda is in a difficult position. i dont envy her!

chris

[Jack[_7_]]

Ms Leebee wrote:
> FlowerGirl wrote:
>> "HC" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> G'day Amanda
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Len when he said...sometimes I wonder how we
>>> made it as kids hey??
>> Sorry Bronwyn - this touches a nerve with me as its the argument my
>> father uses when asking *why* my kids have to be strapped in to car
>> seats when "when you were little we just put you on a cushion so
>> what's wrong with that??"
>> Kids did die from accidents and poisonings in the "olden days" too
>> you know :(
>>
>>> Everything (and I mean EVERYthing) seems to require some official
>>> statement these days. What has happened to 'teaching' kids about
>>> plants,
>> Ummm - well as I said *we do* teach our kids about plants.
>> BUT what about the child who doesn't fit the rules and who isn't so
>> easy to teach?
>> What about K's autistic classmate who sometimes can't discern the
>> difference between the plastic wrapping and his sandwich? .. (and
>> yes, the teacher are onto him straight away, but there are 22 kids
>> for them to monitor at once). I'd really hate it if he decided the
>> black berries on the cestrum poking through the back fence looked
>> particularly delectable while the teacher and the aide were dealing
>> with any of the other 21 kids (who are not above wetting their duds,
>> scraping their knee, hitting each other etc).
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> Teach them the right and wrong way to handle plants and I'm sure
>>> this is more likely to get them interested in gardening, than
>>> sitting around with a long list of plant names that they can't
>>> identify.
>> Sorry - I'm not suggesting that the kids sit around with long lists of
>> plants.... and they *are* growing things like beans and sweat peas and
>> strawberries.
>> BUT - in order to sign the official document stating that there are no
>> poisonois plants on the place, *I* need that long list of plants so
>> that I know what the centre needs to ensure *isn't* on the premises.
>> Things like not surrounding the centre with an oleander hedge and
>> soforth....
>>
>> I also think you forget just how much information a 3 yo kid can
>> remember / take in. For exaple, they do have taste tests on the
>> tomatoes, strawberries and beans that they grow (both at kindy and at
>> home) .... but personally, I wouldn't like to be responsible for a
>> kid that got confused and sampled the cestrum as well.
>>
>> They aren't all perfect (nor are their parents ... or grandparents
>> for that matter) and sometimes 3 yo kids don't do exactly what they
>> are told to do ... I know I didn't ... and I actually pity the 3yo
>> that *always* does as they are told (what a serious lack of
>> imagination;).
>>
>> My own kids are pretty good about what grows in the garden - they
>> sample things they know they are allowed to eat, and don't tend to
>> eat the other stuff.
>> But I personally wouldn't like to be responsible for somebody else's
>> kid in a a garden with poisonous plants everywhere. ...
>>
>> Amanda
>
> Good post, Amanda.
>
OK allready, but who's gonna protect us from those kids that
eat ANYTHING. Those goats!

[Chookie]

In article >,
eggs > wrote:

> Thanks! We only want shade in the summer as we have a high wall at the
> back that shades us for much of the day in the winter, so one of these
> sounds good. I think I like the idea of a fruiting plant and I love
> Mulberries (hadn't even thought of that!). Off to google mulberry trees

Er, you do have somewhere else to hang your washing, I hope?

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[len garden]

g'day amanda,

i understand that but if you have oleander there i would strongly
recommend to remove it, but having said that as far as i am aware
there are no recorded severe illnesses or death from someone consuming
oleander sap that is the toxic bit.

maybe some of the plants of concern could be fenced so the kids can't
get to them?

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:57:26 GMT, "FlowerGirl"
> wrote:

snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[len garden]

yes i understand that eggs,

but you still can't make it the total respoinsibility of the rest of
society to pick up where bad parents leave off, need to get back to
the root cause or we are always going to have problems.

that is why we end up with adolescents who have no respect for
themselves their parents and even less for the society around them,
the end result a 79 year old man doing his morning walk gets punched
by 4 boys for no reason.

so i stick with what i say if a child suffers then the parents should
be bought to task not the people that the parents leave their child
with.

the longer we cover up bad parenting then i guess the longer problems
will go on, an do gooders don't see the later problems they cause in
society so we need better values.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:02:40 +1100, eggs >
wrote:

snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[Leanne]

> but you still can't make it the total respoinsibility of the rest of
> society to pick up where bad parents leave off, need to get back to
> the root cause or we are always going to have problems.

I think wanting a safe environment with the people you pay to leave your
kids with is a far cry from anything you are talking about IMO. Kids don't
go a beat people up because they had poisonous plants removed from their DCC
when they were younger ;)

Even if your kids know not to eat plants, toddlers tend to have a lack of
judgment at the best of times and may still eat a plant. My eldest (nearly
3) wouldn't eat plants, well I Highly doubt it. But my youngest (nearly 1)
will shove anything in his mouth no matter how many times we say no. By
putting things in their mouth they are exploring the world. I doubt you can
hinder a instinct like that until they just grow out of it.

--
Leanne
----------------------
Don't demand respect as a parent.
Demand civility and insist on honesty.
Respect is something you must earn.

[eggs]

In article >,
Chookie > wrote:

> In article >,
> eggs > wrote:
>
> > Thanks! We only want shade in the summer as we have a high wall at the
> > back that shades us for much of the day in the winter, so one of these
> > sounds good. I think I like the idea of a fruiting plant and I love
> > Mulberries (hadn't even thought of that!). Off to google mulberry trees
>
> Er, you do have somewhere else to hang your washing, I hope?

We use a tragic system of those little "clotheslines" they sell at the
supermarket, strung from fence to tree and move them around with the
seasons due to shadowing from nearby buildings. DS eventually cuts them
down to use the string for one of his projects and I have to buy another
one. In the winter we have to use a dryer as there isn't a long enough
period of sunlight to get the clothes dry in one day (shade from about
11am).

eggs.

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"eggs" > wrote in message news:seggleto-
> How far north of the border are you?
Bris-Vegas ... by the bay and ~ 15 minutes drive from the Gateway Bridge and
with very simple directions to get here.

Kettles on....(or perhaps I should say the bubbly is chillin)
A

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"Ms Leebee" > wrote in message
...
> FlowerGirl wrote:
> > Note: X-posted to aus.family and aus.gardens.
> >
> > ... so our C&K centre has to sign a doc saying that there are no
> > poisonous plants on the premises .. and as a botanist (with a very
> > different area of specialty) they've turned to me for guidance.
> >
> > Well.
> > From what I understand, we just have to sign off that there are no
> > poisonous plants on the place....the problem is that there doesn't
> > seem to be an official list of plants that we can sign off against,
> > ..... and pretty much any plant could kill you if you eat the wrong
> > bit, don't prepare it properly or you just eat enough of it.
>
> <snip>
>
> Interesting, on many levels.
>
> I hope you are not personally held accountable if you sign off and some
kid
> eats a weed grown from bird poop
> ( I really can't see how they can monitor this - ESP. without a list to
> tick off, and as you say ... everything in moderation .. heh ;)
>
I remember that the C&K have parents sign some sort of legal thingy saying
that they can't sue members of the P&C.... and as I'm not actually signing
the form, just pointing out what plants are iffy.

> Without a list, how does the non-Botanist/average Jane know her poison
from
> her delicious treat ?

The web site alley mentioned has a good list of the really bad ones which
are probably the only real dangers. I have an old version of the booklet
which is quite informative too.
Duranta (sheena's gold) is a plant that heaps of people use as hedges here
.... I hate the thing anyway as its a *weed* but the berries are quite
poisonous.
I think kidsafe also have information on this which is useful.

Amanda

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"len garden" > wrote in message
...
> g'day amanda,
:) hi Len
>
> i understand that but if you have oleander there i would strongly
> recommend to remove it, but having said that as far as i am aware
> there are no recorded severe illnesses or death from someone consuming
> oleander sap that is the toxic bit.

Yes - not so common anymore in Australia, but there are recorded illnesses
and deaths from not just the sap but also the seeds of both the common and
the yellow oleander (different genus). According to the Toxic Exposure
Surveillance System (TESS) in 2002 there were 847 known human poisonings in
the United States related to Oleander (Watson 2003) ... rare enough but
still recorded.

>
> maybe some of the plants of concern could be fenced so the kids can't
> get to them?

Ah now see the fence would cost too much money for a C&K who are non-profit.
I do agree that we need to teach kids about the wonders of plants ... so why
not use plants that aren't so likely to cause serious illness.

On another tack I'm reminded of a story about my dear FIL ... on a visit to
Brisbane, he was concerned about all the oleander planted between the north
and south-bound lanes of the Gateway Motorway. DH pointed out that any kid
that managed to negotiate 2 lanes of 100km/hr traffic to get to them would
hopefully also be lucky enough not to start eating the hedges!

Amanda

[eggs]

In article >,
"FlowerGirl" > wrote:

> "eggs" > wrote in message news:seggleto-
> > How far north of the border are you?
> Bris-Vegas ... by the bay and ~ 15 minutes drive from the Gateway Bridge and
> with very simple directions to get here.
>
> Kettles on....(or perhaps I should say the bubbly is chillin)
> A

Hmmmm. My trip up the coast will only be a flying stop for a wedding.
I might be up for a border run in the July holidays. I've always wanted
a tree with an actual pedigree ...

eggs.

[len garden]

g'day amanda,

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:15:31 GMT, "FlowerGirl"
> wrote:

>
>"len garden" > wrote in message
...
>>snipped
>
>With all due respect Len, its a very different world today than when you
>were small or when your own kids were small.
> Just think of the reidiculous insurance claims for a start.
>AND I do know of kids from my Dad's era who died from plant poisoning
>(castor bean no less), so its not really a generational thing.

i wasn't saying kids or anyone never suffered even fataly, but you
still can't cotton woll them with any more guarantees that something
won't happen, it still comes back to parenting. just recently now we
ahve ahd 2 deaths involving contained water one in a pool with the
obligatory required fence the otehr in a horse trough in the middle of
a horse enclosure (these unfortunate people sadly also lost another
child 3 years ago the same way).

and not that long ago another child who apparently had an epileptic
fit in a pool swimming unsupervised.

you still can't get away from making poarents responsible and take
away the road to litigation. litigation is not saving paind or death
sad to say.
>>
>snipped

>I see you point Len, but bare in mind, people take a lot of offence if their
>parenting skills are questioned.
>Childcare was probably not a major option in your young day - its a necesary
>thing in today's world and a parent has a right to expect that the
>environment is safe if they are paying for a person to caer for their child
>in that environment.

of course i would expect subjective parents to take offense what other
defense ahve they got for not being objective and that does not take
from the debate, just because someone doesn't like the truth under the
morale "if the shoe fits wear it" then they beter get their act into
gear and become responsible then there may be some hope that some of
those unfortunate incidences will cease.

all that is ahppening amanda is the regulators are bringing in
bamdaides in an effort to save trauma, lets get back to the difficult
course of "cause & effect" and find the real cause to issues not
target and effect and try and fix it from that end.

take pool fences just this summer there have been at least 4 deaths
still and that is only the ones we here about, so pool fences aren't
working because they are a band aide, without too much trouble at all
these pool incicences can all be bouhgt home to bad parenting.
>>
snipped
>
>Again Len - not wanting to have a go at you, but do you perhaps think that
>a) there are considerably more cars on the road now than back in the olden
>days? and b) that kids still did stupid things back then but it might not
>have made the evening news. From what I know from my parents and
>grandparents era, it wasn't uncommon to have had a sibling die from an
>accident of some sort .... or an illness that hadn't been described.

i know that amanda but the regulator doesn't seem to know that neither
do the educators or the parents or the standard of road safety
education would be elevated at the same level as the road traffic and
population grows. not wait for something to hapen then band aid it.

don't where you r parents/grandparents lived but i was a kid and we
lost none of our friends to accidents or poisonings.
>>
>> if i was amanda i wouldn't be too keen on signing off on anything like
>> that nowadays it smells of scapegoating.
>
>Sorry - its the kindy that has to sign off, and I'm not officially offering
>an expert opinion so I'm not signing.
>
>Its interesting to get this "generational" discussion though.
>
>Amanda
>
thanks for the cross post i have never been in this sort of discussion
before, we as grandparents & parents would hate to lose any of our
children/grandchildren to any of those preventable accicents that is
why we are so high on proactivity and prevention. this wait until the
horse has bolted before closing the gate system we seem to have is
reactive and so far isn't preventive long term because the real causes
are treated as sacred cows. we are not allowed to point the finger at
bad parenting.

i am not highlighting those with special needs they need special
circumstances, the cases i have mentioned apart from one where totaly
preventable if the parents where dispatching their responsibilities
responsibly.

my heart goes out to the grandparents (my status) and the parents of
that family that lost 2 toddlers in 3 years in same like circumstances
on the same property.

please forgive my typo's
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[len garden]

g'day chris,

it is still the parents responsibility to ascertain they are not for
the sake of convenience leaving their children in a less than
desirable situation, there are many pressures on modern parents for
both to work for the families betterment.

maybe a safer option for families if families became more extended and
grandparents took on the child care duties for their married siblings,
might be subsidy money better spent than try and regulate a profit
making industry that may just have its priorities wrong.

the ceo of one such child care group proundlu lauds his status from
this profit making venture by flaunting his ferarri cars.

think outside the square maybe?

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:51:32 +1100, "Nina Pretty Ballerina"
> wrote:

snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[Cheryl[_2_]]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:58:47 GMT, len garden >
wrote:

>
>maybe a safer option for families if families became more extended and
>grandparents took on the child care duties for their married siblings,

(I assume you mean married children, although they aren't the only
children that will be requiring childcare) That's fine for those who
chose to have their children at a young age, but it's not so good for
those who didn't have children before their late 30's/early 40's.
Their parents would be heading into their 70's and trying to look
after very active toddlers, which could be a recipe for disaster. The
next generation, those of us who had children later, could potentially
be nearly 80 before our first grandchildren are born.

Cheryl

[len garden]

there are a lot of grandparents out there who are more than capable of
looking after their offsprings offsprings.

just the gov' would have too many strings attached for it to work, so
we get the pleasuer of filling in the gaps for the gov' for nought
while the gov' subsudises profits into private franchises.

be proactive not reactive.

rearing children is a family matter prinarily and community/society
matter secondary, we seem to be putting all our eggs into the
secondary basket.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:49:53 +1000, Cheryl > wrote:

snipped
With peace and brightest of blessings,

len & bev

--
"Be Content With What You Have And
May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In
A World That You May Not Understand."

http://www.lensgarden.com.au/

[John Savage]

"FlowerGirl" > writes:
>(I also remember tutoring a poisonous plants class at uni and having a 19 yo
>student pretend to eat a castor oil seed right after I emphasized that all
>the plants were poisonous so to wear gloves, not touch their faces and to
>wash their hands well and often. ... so I guess there's no accounting for
>some.)

The giant-leafed weed we know as the castor oil plant and find growing on
disturbed wasteland -- is it that the self same plant from which castor
oil is commercially extracted?
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"len garden" > wrote in message
...
> g'day amanda,
>
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:15:31 GMT, "FlowerGirl"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"len garden" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>snipped
> >
> >With all due respect Len, its a very different world today than when you
> >were small or when your own kids were small.
> > Just think of the reidiculous insurance claims for a start.
> >AND I do know of kids from my Dad's era who died from plant poisoning
> >(castor bean no less), so its not really a generational thing.
>
> i wasn't saying kids or anyone never suffered even fataly, but you
> still can't cotton woll them with any more guarantees that something
> won't happen, it still comes back to parenting. just recently now we
> ahve ahd 2 deaths involving contained water one in a pool with the
> obligatory required fence the otehr in a horse trough in the middle of
> a horse enclosure (these unfortunate people sadly also lost another
> child 3 years ago the same way).

Which is a heartbreaking case ... but Len, I think you'll find the number of
backyard pool drownings has decreased since fencing became mandatory - and
sorry, but I don't think this is "cotton balling" children.

>
> and not that long ago another child who apparently had an epileptic
> fit in a pool swimming unsupervised.
>
> you still can't get away from making poarents responsible and take
> away the road to litigation. litigation is not saving paind or death
> sad to say.
> >>
> >snipped
>
> >I see you point Len, but bare in mind, people take a lot of offence if
their
> >parenting skills are questioned.
> >Childcare was probably not a major option in your young day - its a
necesary
> >thing in today's world and a parent has a right to expect that the
> >environment is safe if they are paying for a person to caer for their
child
> >in that environment.
>
> of course i would expect subjective parents to take offense what other
> defense ahve they got for not being objective and that does not take
> from the debate, just because someone doesn't like the truth under the
> morale "if the shoe fits wear it" then they beter get their act into
> gear and become responsible then there may be some hope that some of
> those unfortunate incidences will cease.

Wait on a minute - I don't think you are actually being very objective in
your assumption that its the fault of "parents of today" and seemingly not
admitting any mistakes from previous generations.
I personally would have to say the standard of parenting in today's world is
actually an improvement on the mistakes made in the past myself. ... but
that's my opinion. ... and I myself have a mother who should be sainted as
the best mother of all time (she's my Mummy so I get to say it!) and a
father who I wouldn't trust to look after either of my children safely in a
pink fit, whilst otherwise being an OK Dad (he just doesn't *get* that 2
year olds don't think like adults).

>
> all that is ahppening amanda is the regulators are bringing in
> bamdaides in an effort to save trauma, lets get back to the difficult
> course of "cause & effect" and find the real cause to issues not
> target and effect and try and fix it from that end.
>
> take pool fences just this summer there have been at least 4 deaths
> still and that is only the ones we here about, so pool fences aren't
> working because they are a band aide, without too much trouble at all
> these pool incicences can all be bouhgt home to bad parenting.


Care to share some facts and figures here Len? From what I've read,
mandatory fencing has dramatically reduced the numbers drownings of toddlers
in the 0-5 y age bracket. Fencing does work when used properly and in
conjunction with parental supervision.
Nobody is saying that this means you don't need parental supervision, given
that a child can drown in under 2 minutes, that's not a large time span and
you also cannot convince me that parents in the past watched their children
24 hour a day without missing 2 minutes of each child's waking activities...
even as the most wonderful parent in the world, I must occasionally go to
the toilet and trust while I am there, that my 2.5 yo son has not caused
himself or his sister any harm. If I had an unfenced pool at my back door,
I think *that* would be bad parenting

I think you might also find that the number of backyard pools has increased
dramatically in the past 50 years as well and this would have implications
on the numbers of drownings you would expect.

> >>
> snipped
> >
> >Again Len - not wanting to have a go at you, but do you perhaps think
that
> >a) there are considerably more cars on the road now than back in the
olden
> >days? and b) that kids still did stupid things back then but it might not
> >have made the evening news. From what I know from my parents and
> >grandparents era, it wasn't uncommon to have had a sibling die from an
> >accident of some sort .... or an illness that hadn't been described.
>
> i know that amanda but the regulator doesn't seem to know that neither
> do the educators or the parents or the standard of road safety
> education would be elevated at the same level as the road traffic and
> population grows. not wait for something to hapen then band aid it.

Len - believe it or not, we do teach our children about road safety. It may
interest you to know that a child's field of vision is not as great as an
adult due to their different head shape. Adults have a lot more peripheral
vision.

...and while we are on road safety, let me tell you about the 60ish year old,
fit looking man who, whilst chatting on his mobile phone, stepped out in
front of my car last Friday when he decided to cross against the light, just
as my light went green ... there wasn't even a break in conversation as he
meandered across 4 lanes of traffic while we all politely waited for him! I
suspect he was so engrossed in his conversation that he failed to realise
that the red flashing stick-man on the light facing him meant he should
probably stop at the kerb.
:P

>
> don't where you r parents/grandparents lived but i was a kid and we
> lost none of our friends to accidents or poisonings.

Really... bully for your lot. Perhaps you didn't grow up on a farm or you
were just lucky.
Perhaps we could start with my father's cousin who died from castor bean
poisoning, another cousin who we now suspect died from an allergic reaction,
Dad's friend who died in a motorcycle accident, Grandma's cousin who died in
a farm accident, FIL's sister who died from malnutrition, and a friend's
great grandmother who drowned in the farm dam. My own DH grew up on a farm
and frankly had some fairly scary accidents as a child.... and his parents
were excellent parents.
All of these families were *good* families and good parents who had some
very unlucky circumstances (well - not FIL's parents - they were atrocious,
but he survived them and turned out to be one of the best fathers of his
generation).

> >>
> >> if i was amanda i wouldn't be too keen on signing off on anything like
> >> that nowadays it smells of scapegoating.
> >
> >Sorry - its the kindy that has to sign off, and I'm not officially
offering
> >an expert opinion so I'm not signing.
> >
> >Its interesting to get this "generational" discussion though.
> >
> >Amanda
> >
> thanks for the cross post i have never been in this sort of discussion
> before, we as grandparents & parents would hate to lose any of our
> children/grandchildren to any of those preventable accicents that is
> why we are so high on proactivity and prevention.

I agree - and this is absolutely no different to what we are doing as
"today's parents".

....and I must admit I had thought this conversation might have lead to a few
more suggestions of plants to watch out for and not so much a discussion of
values and parenting whe nI cross-posted it! It is interesting though.

this wait until the
> horse has bolted before closing the gate system we seem to have is
> reactive and so far isn't preventive long term because the real causes
> are treated as sacred cows. we are not allowed to point the finger at
> bad parenting.

Only if you are equally pointing it in your own generation's direction.
There will always be "good" and "bad" parents ... and what one person thinks
is "good parenting" may be totally unthinkable to another parent in a
different generation.
Goodness knows how often I've smiled an nodded my way through "parenting
advice" from well-meaning grannies who suggest things they think would help,
but which could actually harm my kids.

>
> i am not highlighting those with special needs they need special
> circumstances, the cases i have mentioned apart from one where totaly
> preventable if the parents where dispatching their responsibilities
> responsibly.

....and since special needs children are included in the same schools and
centres as "normal" kids, we need to make sure they are safe as well as the
"normal" kids. If a centre hangs out its shingle and charges a fee to care
for children, one could reasonably expect it to have a safe environment and
have qualified child carers available for the children so that the parent
can expect that their child is safe while there.
..... much like one expects a hire car not to have serious and potentially
dangerous mechanical defects, charter boats not to have leaky hulls and
surgeons to have some sort of qualification in medicine, and some idea of
what they are doing before performing operations.

>
> my heart goes out to the grandparents (my status) and the parents of
> that family that lost 2 toddlers in 3 years in same like circumstances
> on the same property.

Yes indeed - a very sad story.
Amanda
>

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"len garden" > wrote in message
...
> there are a lot of grandparents out there who are more than capable of
> looking after their offsprings offsprings.

Yes - but what if a) they are working themselves, b) live too far away, c)
are completely incompetent / untrustworthy as child carers or d) not
remotely interested in taking care of 1 or more children for 9-10 hours a
day, for up to 5 days a week?.
>
> just the gov' would have too many strings attached for it to work, so
> we get the pleasuer of filling in the gaps for the gov' for nought
> while the gov' subsudises profits into private franchises.

Some grandparents don't see it as a "pleasure" I'm afraid. ...and its a 5
day a week full time job.

Having said that, I'm grateful that Mum looks afer my son 1 day a week while
I go in to the office ... but that suits us both at the moment.

>
> be proactive not reactive.
>
> rearing children is a family matter prinarily and community/society
> matter secondary, we seem to be putting all our eggs into the
> secondary basket.

Many parents would love to have a parent at home with the children full time
.... but since mortgages have skyrocketed in the last 30 years along with
many other things, many families simply cannot afford this luxury.
Also - since its mostly mothers who do the staying at home bit anyway, we do
tend to have slightly better careers than our forebears and some of us feel
the need to continue with our chosen work as well as have children. Its not
an "all-or-nothing" choice.
Amanda

[FlowerGirl[_2_]]

"len garden" > wrote in message
...
> g'day chris,
>
> it is still the parents responsibility to ascertain they are not for
> the sake of convenience leaving their children in a less than
> desirable situation, there are many pressures on modern parents for
> both to work for the families betterment.


Len - do you really think you could walk into a childcare centre (or
somebody's house for that matter) and find every single thing that could
cause harm to a toddler? Its not as easy as you would think.
Amanda

[Leanne]

> there are a lot of grandparents out there who are more than capable of
> looking after their offsprings offsprings.

why should my parents be responsible for watching my kids? If I want to go
out and make money I shoulds expect to pay someone for their time. (although
I know a few peoples parents who are happy with that kind of arrangment,
most are not) And if I pay for a service, I expect it to be a safe thing.

Most peoples parents are at an age where they are ready to have fun, travel
and do what they want.. not be stuck down with more kids.

--
Leanne
----------------------
Don't demand respect as a parent.
Demand civility and insist on honesty.
Respect is something you must earn.

[Chookie]

In article >,
len garden > wrote:

> rearing children is a family matter prinarily and community/society
> matter secondary, we seem to be putting all our eggs into the
> secondary basket.

I'd disagree with that. Try going in to Sydney CBD with a 2yo in a stroller.
You find out exactly how much time hasn't been devoted to making it easy to
get round. At least DS2 will be out of his stroller in a year or two. If I
were a wheelchair person, I'd be out the front of the Town Hall with a
placard. And if our society is so child-friendly, where's the decent
maternity leave (to hark back to another thread), and the jobs that allow you
to pick the kids up from school?

Getting off my soapbox before things get out of control...

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[Barbara[_2_]]

Chookie wrote:
> In article >,
> len garden > wrote:
>
>> rearing children is a family matter prinarily and community/society
>> matter secondary, we seem to be putting all our eggs into the
>> secondary basket.
>
> I'd disagree with that. Try going in to Sydney CBD with a 2yo in a
> stroller. You find out exactly how much time hasn't been devoted to
> making it easy to get round. At least DS2 will be out of his
> stroller in a year or two. If I were a wheelchair person, I'd be out
> the front of the Town Hall with a placard. And if our society is so
> child-friendly, where's the decent maternity leave (to hark back to
> another thread), and the jobs that allow you to pick the kids up from
> school?
>
> Getting off my soapbox before things get out of control...

OK I will admit I came in late and can't be bothered going back through all
the posts but...
Why do you think employers should bear the cost of work place disruption,
that maternity leave causes, ditto with allowing people to knock off work to
pick up the kids?

[eggs]

In article >,
"Barbara" > wrote:

> Chookie wrote:
> > In article >,
> > len garden > wrote:
> >
> >> rearing children is a family matter prinarily and community/society
> >> matter secondary, we seem to be putting all our eggs into the
> >> secondary basket.
> >
> > I'd disagree with that. Try going in to Sydney CBD with a 2yo in a
> > stroller. You find out exactly how much time hasn't been devoted to
> > making it easy to get round. At least DS2 will be out of his
> > stroller in a year or two. If I were a wheelchair person, I'd be out
> > the front of the Town Hall with a placard. And if our society is so
> > child-friendly, where's the decent maternity leave (to hark back to
> > another thread), and the jobs that allow you to pick the kids up from
> > school?
> >
> > Getting off my soapbox before things get out of control...
>
> OK I will admit I came in late and can't be bothered going back through all
> the posts but...
> Why do you think employers should bear the cost of work place disruption,
> that maternity leave causes, ditto with allowing people to knock off work to
> pick up the kids?

What's wrong with shifting hours (where possible) so that people can
pick up their kids? There are plenty of jobs out there where it would
be completely feasible for folks to start work at 7am and stop at 3pm so
they can go pick their kids up from school. In fact, I wouldn't be
surprised if people got more work done if the working day was staggered
so everyone didn't start and finish at the same time. I bet there'd be
a lot of people (including those who don't have kids) who would like a
staggered start/end time option for their jobs.

eggs.

[Cheryl[_2_]]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:33:54 +1000, eggs >
wrote:

>What's wrong with shifting hours (where possible) so that people can
>pick up their kids? There are plenty of jobs out there where it would
>be completely feasible for folks to start work at 7am and stop at 3pm so
>they can go pick their kids up from school. In fact, I wouldn't be
>surprised if people got more work done if the working day was staggered
>so everyone didn't start and finish at the same time. I bet there'd be
>a lot of people (including those who don't have kids) who would like a
>staggered start/end time option for their jobs.
>
You're right. I have some friends who don't have kids (and never will
have kids), who like to start work at 7.30am so they can knock off
around 4-4.30pm and miss all the traffic. A boss I used to have would
start work at 9.30-10am and work through to 6pm so she could miss the
traffic. Before I had children I used to work from 7.30am to 3.30pm
at a defence force base and it was perfect, plus since we had flex
time I could work to 4pm, leave earlier than most people and take a
day off once a month. Flex time with set core hours is a great idea
if the company can swing it.

Cheryl

[Chookie]

In article >,
"Leanne" > wrote:

> > there are a lot of grandparents out there who are more than capable of
> > looking after their offsprings offsprings.
>
> why should my parents be responsible for watching my kids? [...]
>
> Most peoples parents are at an age where they are ready to have fun, travel
> and do what they want.. not be stuck down with more kids.

It's interesting how the view on this has changed. Once upon a time the
family was the smallest economic unit -- all the members of the family
believed it was their duty to support each other. The oldies cared for the
littlies, but were themselves cared for if they became feeble. This was
before the age of the SKINs, though!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[A & L Lane]

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:33:54 +1000, eggs >
> wrote:
>
>>What's wrong with shifting hours (where possible) so that people can
>>pick up their kids? There are plenty of jobs out there where it would
>>be completely feasible for folks to start work at 7am and stop at 3pm so
>>they can go pick their kids up from school. In fact, I wouldn't be
>>surprised if people got more work done if the working day was staggered
>>so everyone didn't start and finish at the same time. I bet there'd be
>>a lot of people (including those who don't have kids) who would like a
>>staggered start/end time option for their jobs.
>>
> You're right. I have some friends who don't have kids (and never will
> have kids), who like to start work at 7.30am so they can knock off
> around 4-4.30pm and miss all the traffic. A boss I used to have would
> start work at 9.30-10am and work through to 6pm so she could miss the
> traffic. Before I had children I used to work from 7.30am to 3.30pm
> at a defence force base and it was perfect, plus since we had flex
> time I could work to 4pm, leave earlier than most people and take a
> day off once a month. Flex time with set core hours is a great idea
> if the company can swing it.
>
> Cheryl

I have flex time with core hours and it is so fantastic. Before kids, I
used to do 7:30 - 3:30 with shorter lunch break so I could have the
occasional flexi day (I accumulated much more flexi time than I took
though) - gave you heaps of time to do a full day's work and do lots of
other things in the afternoon. When Angus was in childcare which didnt open
until 8:00, I started at 8:30 so I could drop him off and be there by 8:30.
Now they are both at school, I am mostly starting at 8:00 and knocking off
at 4:00. All flexible though so if we need to meet a deadline or jobs get
moved due to rain or something, then I can rearrange, stay later, start
earlier or whatever. Flexitime works out great for me and my employer but
my particular kind of job allows that flexibility. More employers should
consider it though as it could be win-win for everyone.

cheers
Leah

[Chookie]

In article >,
"Barbara" > wrote:

> OK I will admit I came in late and can't be bothered going back through all
> the posts but...
> Why do you think employers should bear the cost of work place disruption,
> that maternity leave causes, ditto with allowing people to knock off work to
> pick up the kids?

I think you need to go back to the other thread.

Let me tell you a little story. There was once an engineering firm on
Sydney's Northern Beaches which (at some point) had one of those annoying
employees who take a lot of private calls, fiddled his flextime, came in late
and was generally a pain. Of course the correct way to deal with such a
person is to confront him and punish him, but this firm didn't. Instead they
instituted policies like: no personal phone calls or e-mail under any
circumstances, and they ditched flextime. A friend of ours got a job there.
He said he'd never ever seen an engineering firm where the engineers all left
on the dot of 5pm -- generally engineers love their jobs and happily put in
lots of hours when necessary -- but because they were being treated like
naughty little kids (when none of them had done anything wong in the first
place), they bundied off with the enthusiasm of process workers. Moral: treat
your employees fairly and well, and you'll get not just good work, but
excellence and enthusiasm.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

[Teh Most Revernd Bishop of Willesden]

Chookie wrote:
> Moral: treat
> your employees fairly and well, and you'll get not just good work, but
> excellence and enthusiasm.


X-theory Vs Y-theory management.

X-theory (treat employees like they are lazy and stupid) is a
self-fulfilling prophecy.


--
That's_ the message; "Donut sit behind leaning cats that have just
farted you blind"!

Dr HotSalt in A.R.K.

[Staycalm]

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:58:47 GMT, len garden >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>maybe a safer option for families if families became more extended and
>>grandparents took on the child care duties for their married siblings,
>
> (I assume you mean married children, although they aren't the only
> children that will be requiring childcare) That's fine for those who
> chose to have their children at a young age, but it's not so good for
> those who didn't have children before their late 30's/early 40's.
> Their parents would be heading into their 70's and trying to look
> after very active toddlers, which could be a recipe for disaster. The
> next generation, those of us who had children later, could potentially
> be nearly 80 before our first grandchildren are born.
>
Coming in late on this thread - this is us. DH and I are in our 40s, my
parents (the only close family we have in Melbourne) are in their 80s. While
they can do the occasional mind of their first and only GD for a few hours
they just don't have what it takes to look after P for any extended time.
They give in to her rather than deal with any battles.
I will be in my 60s when P is most likely to be a parent.

Liz

Liz