« Previous | Main | Next »

The Glass Box for Tuesday

Post categories:

Eddie Mair | 16:26 UK time, Tuesday, 3 July 2007

The Glass Box is the place where you can comment on what you heard on PM, interact with other listeners and get responses from the people who make the programme.

Just click on the "comment" link.

The Glass Box is named after the booth outside the PM studio where we all discuss the programme at 18.00 every weeknight. We try to be honest and constructive. Sometimes there is criticism, and the criticised get a chance to explain themselves.

The people who make PM will read the comments posted, and will sometimes respond.

If you want to post a comment about something that is on your mind but was not on the programme - use the link on the right to The Furrowed Brow. Also on the right, you'll find FAQ: try it. And why not visit The Beach?


  1. At 04:39 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Okay, start the 15 minute countdown!....



  2. At 04:55 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    It's gonna be a good'un! (Inshallah)

  3. At 05:04 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Jason Good wrote:

    West Ham rate a mention?

  4. At 05:11 PM on 03 Jul 2007, David Traynier wrote:

    So the Telegraph wants British Muslims to march and protest against extremists who murder civilians.

    Why should they bother? In 2003, 2 million people marched to try to prevent a bunch of extremists murdering civilians -it didn't work.

  5. At 05:17 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Hmmm. So far an interesting programme. The piece on how to deal with Islamist groups (I hope I'm using the right term here). It showed more depth than other times this has ben addressed, both here on PM and on other TV/Radio programmes...

    Oh dear, now down to politics...

  6. At 05:33 PM on 03 Jul 2007, John Cooper wrote:

    The piece about Muslim attitudes was interesting but I must admit I was frustrated that it didn't tackle the impact of the Stop the War movement, which claims to have a wide number of muslims on board. Lets be honest - in terms of answering the criticisms being involved in some of the biggest demonstrations over the last 5 years is a major step that often isn't picked up on.

    So then, explanations please!


  7. At 05:34 PM on 03 Jul 2007, David Traynier wrote:

    Explanations for what John? I don't follow your point.

  8. At 05:42 PM on 03 Jul 2007, jonnie wrote:

    On the 8th March we heard the word 'Bastard' used 51 times - are we too young for a couple of 'shits'?

    Andrews Islington school meals contribution was fascinating. No it was, I wasn't being sarcastic.

  9. At 05:47 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Karen wrote:

    Love the approach. "We've done the research. It didn't give us the answer we really liked so we'll do some more research to get the answer we wanted all along!"


  10. At 05:53 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    So, is it €350 or "hundreds of millions"? Well, I tend to think the former, and the Conservative MEP and the UKIP Member are indulging in "kneejerk-ism". I've watched the clip (purely for scientific reasons, or course!) and there's nothing particularly "tittilating" about it. To be honest, watching it was more like watching one of old "Confessions Of..." series. Fun, though!

  11. At 05:57 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Colin McAuley wrote:

    This "nappy" report served only to boggle my mind! If we are going to nit-pick to the point of sending out a message that perhaps disposable nappies have equal "environmental footprint" to doing it the old way, then maybe all the nukes existing should be set off, so that whatever replaces the human species gets it all right!

  12. At 06:16 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Chris wrote:

    Spot on Karen @ 9
    I wanted a little more detail on the exact amount of our money this organisation has spent on helping us to do what they wanted. What standard of proof did the government aply before they funded this advertising. the interviewe seemed to recognise the need for facts to guide policy so how much do you get to spnd befor that modle comes in to operation.

  13. At 06:24 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Jacques wrote:

    Could not hear a word of thr interview with the children regarding school meals - too much background noise.

  14. At 06:33 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Team in general, I was slightly inclined to make a cup of coffee during the school meals thing, but only because we had threshed the matter out here already and I was expecting not to hear much that was new to me. I was glad that someone got the chance to say that it wasn't just that the menu had changed: it was also that the food is now being prepared on-site instead of being re-heated after being prepared elsewhere. That does seem to me to be a very important point.

    Apart from that, hey Eddie, I was mesmerised, ok? :-)

    FF @ 5, I did like the suggestion that the way to get through to people who are being influenced into extreme religious views is *not* just to say "You're wrong!" and hope they will believe it on no further evidence... what a revolutionary concept, eh?

    Karen @ 9, this would be about something the government set up? Nothing new there then.

  15. At 06:35 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    As to the nappy issue, while I understand that it isn't clear cut which has the greatest environmental impact, one thing is clear: disposable nappies take up a lot of room, and are contributing therefore in a very big way to the landfill problem.

    I suspect that they can be washed at a lower temperature ......

  16. At 06:35 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Margaret Cox wrote:

    Re: with disposable versus "real" nappies, nobody ever mentions 'potty training' nowadays and TV adverts show quite mature-looking toddlers parading around in ever more stylish disposables. My mother who had washed my nappies said she had potty trained me by 6-months. Maybe more emphasis needs to be put on early potty training-using "real" nappies would certainly encourage this.

  17. At 07:29 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Dee wrote:


    The nappy debate was interesting, but they forgot about the disposal nappies and pad for people tha use these products because incontinence. Some councils will take the products away as clinical waste so it get burnt so that it doesnt go to the landfill site.


  18. At 07:40 PM on 03 Jul 2007, john wrote:

    Al Gore and his fellow global warming believers should reflect on the following story contained in Genesis and the Koran.

    When Noah was six hundred years old, God, seeing the wickedness which had entered man's heart, was saddened, and decided to send a great flood to destroy mankind. But He saw that Noah was a righteous man, and instructed him to build a vessel for himself and his family, "and of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."[3] And so the Flood came, and all life was extinguished, except for those who were with Noah, "and the waters prevailed upon the earth for one-hundred and fifty days."

  19. At 07:57 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    john @ 18, I have to ask: why? Oh, and what they ought to do about the '[3]'?

  20. At 08:05 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Margaret Cox (16) Eh? I used ''real'' nappies for my first child, disposables for the other two. They all started to use the potty at about the same time - around 18 months old.
    I would say that the parents of 6 month old babies who are using potties haven't trained them.....they've just got a good sense of timing and a potty always at the ready!

    Something else that occurs to me.....I doubt very much that anyone has cloth nappies flapping on the outdoor washing line at the moment. What about the extra costs of using the tumble-drier every day? ;o(

  21. At 08:06 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Mr Snow wrote:

    John 18
    Please tell me that you are not trying to make out that global warming is in some way the wrath of god.

  22. At 08:36 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Oh Chris! I was hoping no-one would feed the tr*ll....

  23. At 08:48 PM on 03 Jul 2007, tony ferney wrote:

    I tried to post for the first time today and was told I couldn't post AGAIN so quickly.

    Let's see what happens this time.

  24. At 09:04 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Wash reusable nappies at 60 degrees, rinse with cupful of white vinegar, dry in sunshine when available, potty train early and occasionally use disposables when travelling or otherwise convenient.

    Minimise waste and energy use, maximise convenience, allow mothers to stay sane and not feel they are being blamed for all the ills of the world!

    Oh, and cut down on government spending on consultants and experts who get paid to tell us that life is quite complicated really...

  25. At 09:09 PM on 03 Jul 2007, CeciliaT wrote:

    Gillian (20) - my son's nappies are all hanging on a clothes horse drying right this second. Some people probably do use tumble driers, but a lot of us are still doing it the old fashioned way to try and lessen our environmental impact.

    And as for washing them at 100 degrees....of course the environmental impact came out the same if you factor in boil washing at absurd temperatures. Strategic use of Napisan and modern fabrics means ours are rarely washed above 60 degrees, generally 40 degrees. I suspect the influence of the big nappy manufacturers in the Environment Agency's report.

  26. At 09:15 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Stewart M wrote:

    Equal environmental footprints for Disposable versus cotton Nappies, I wonder if the commerical nappy producers have been lobbying? Saying that we used disposables on two children. There are enough things to wash without 5+ nappies a day.

  27. At 09:16 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Gillian, my mother's generation were brought up to start potty training about 6 months or earlier. I think it was mostly down to good timing, but Pavlovian conditioning's probably got something to do with it as well. In the days before even plastic pants were available, with towelling nappies and woollen pilches and washing everything by hand there was certainly an incentive to get them trained early!

  28. At 09:16 PM on 03 Jul 2007, john wrote:

    21 Mr Snow,

    No I don't! but half the Bishops in the C of E appear to, and the BBC seems to be tending that way.

    I can only describe their treatment of Al Gore as reverential even worshipping.

    I find this fascinating, its as if we want it to be true, and make sacrifice, whereas in reality the planet doesn't care!

  29. At 09:16 PM on 03 Jul 2007, tony ferney wrote:

    Anything for a laugh, I'm going to post again just for the hell of it.

    Oh the thrill of it all!

  30. At 09:49 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Angi wrote:

    nappies - most of mine have been used for all my 4 and some of them which have been leant out, bought 2nd hand or handed down, for more -
    I don't wash at 90 or 100 deg rarely tumble dry and don't use napisan or other bleaching agents.

    I'm saving landfill space, saving manufacturing processes ( something that is rarely considered when discussing the eco impact of both types - disp nappies cost lots in terms of water & oil just to manufacture -) and I'm only doing a couple of washes more than otherwise.
    I can't see how disps could equal that?
    oh and I'm saving myself a fortune!!
    My Dh did the sums when we had our first baby - he was convinced it was cheaper, and that says a lot !!

  31. At 09:55 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Tony, yes, it's an amazing sense of power, isn't it?

    FF, sorry; I wanted to know what that [3] was about. Oh well.

    In general, on nappies: 3 sprogs, one set of 36 square white towelling nappies lasted for all three using them for an average of fifteen months each, no tumble-dryer, one case of nappy-rash before we realised that talcum powder reconstitutes itself into little rocks when it gets wet and digs into the skin so it isn't a good idea. The nappies were not stark white after the first three months, but who cares? Who is going to see them? Napisan is wonderful stuff, and as far as I know we never had a washing-machine that could do a wash at 100 degrees. 50 degrees was fine.

    Seventeen years later we still have some of the best, most absorbent floor-cloths and silver-polishing cloths and motorbike-seat-drying rags ever: six of those nappies are still in use, though not for their original purpose. We didn't keep them for putative grandchildren! I suggested it to the eldest when the youngest stopped using them, but for some reason he wasn't interested. :-) He wanted them for his own nine-year-old purposes, like cleaning up after essential paint-flinging, I think.

  32. At 10:22 PM on 03 Jul 2007, noa lachman wrote:

    Re: nappies, there is yet a third option which I bought from Waitrose, that is disposable nappies made out of degradable materials which were friendly to the environment.

  33. At 10:55 PM on 03 Jul 2007, john wrote:

    [3] The Answer

    Now look everybody, in these days of equality and diversity I couldn't just put that we would have just male and female on the Ark, I had to leave room for those who weren't quite sure!

  34. At 11:03 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Elizabeth wrote:

    I used old fashioned cotton nappies, soaked them, then washed them by hand and dried them on the line when I could - tumbler if absolutely necessary. Babies all potty trained asap. Had to use disps when living for a while with inlaws, unfortunately, and grudged every penny!

  35. At 11:27 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Ester wrote:

    I have a 7 month old baby and we use cloth nappies.

    Four points:

    1) Now that being green is so fashionable, the big disposable nappy manufacturers should catch up with everyone else and start making their products more environmentally friendly and biodegradable.

    2) The Minister interviewed this afternoon on PM was wrong to suggest that cloth nappies are washed at 100 degrees. The Real Nappy Campaign and cloth nappy manufacturers recommend washing nappies at 60 degrees.

    3) The environmental impact of manufacturing cloth nappies is not relevant. I have bought 18 cloth nappies for my daughter. I will reuse them for future children. The harm done by pesticides used to grow the cotton for them is miniscule compared to the environmental impact of washing them, and the energy and materials used to manufacture the hundreds of disposable nappies I would need to use otherwise.

    4) The taxpayer-funded incentives that are in place in some councils are not just about reducing landfill waste - cloth nappies also help keep bins from overflowing where there are fortnightly bin collections.

  36. At 11:43 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    John @ 33, thank you for explaining. Now I can sleep easy tonight.

    Even in those days there were hermaphrodite creatures around. And I bet Noah didn't even try to sex the barnacles. :-)

  37. At 11:56 PM on 03 Jul 2007, Sam Boskey wrote:

    Re Nappy debate - is anybody really debating this one or is it only a sense of guilt and a rather false "balance"? We use organic nappies, use environmentally-friendly Ecover, and many of the nappies are already recycled by being second-hand, and they are so well-made that they will last for years yet. Line-drying and washing at 60 reduces our energy usage further.

    But quite apart from the benefit of saving our family considerable amounts of money, it is also more comfortable for babies and potentially safer for boys - there have been studies linking the higher body temperatures caused by disposable nappy use vs. cloth to decreasing sperm counts. I think this is an important point which has not yet been highlighted.

  38. At 02:47 AM on 04 Jul 2007, Ian Johnson in NZ wrote:

    Nappies - wash at 100 deg? You've got to be kidding.

    We recently bought reusable nappies which are a doddle to use and wash, and much more absorbent than disposables. They are not cotton based so dry very quickly.

    We use a small front loader on night-rate, using water from our hot water cylinder. If the soiling is bad, they are washed at 60deg (the manufacturer recommends no higher than 60deg anyway) and otherwise 40 or 50deg.

    They dry outside or during winter (as it is now) overnight on a rack and 10min to finish off in dryer.

    It saves us heaps of money, and our power bill has not changed noticeably. So I'm convinced this is both more environmentally friendly and also cheaper for us.

    Regards, Ian

  39. At 08:25 AM on 04 Jul 2007, Peter Rippon PM Editor wrote:

    I'm glad the great Nappy debate seems to have started. After the interview both Eddie and Joan Ruddock agreed it was the longest discussion either had ever had about nappies.
    The news about Alan Johnston is dominating our thoughts today. Its just so fantastic to hear him again in such good spirits. It has been hard knowing that things were coming to a crunch point in recent days so we are overwhelmed with relief at having him back.

  40. At 08:59 AM on 04 Jul 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    As I shall be going out later today and may therefore miss any new threads relating to this issue, can I just say this:

    Today's news from Jerusalem concerning the release of Alan Johnstone is absolutely wonderful. To hear him speak was even more wonderful.

    I'm so glad he had the comfort of hearing the words of his colleagues, Terry Waite and others during the time of his captivity. But I was sorry to hear of the violence shown against him immediately prior to his release. His captors, up until that moment, had shown restraint, for which I'm sure everyone is grateful.

    If, as I suspect, a thread is set up to celebrate this wonderful news, please would a regular post this on my behalf in the event that I've already logged off.

    Wonderful, wonderful news. Welcome back, Alan.

  41. At 09:00 AM on 04 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Hello Peter Rippon

    And refreshing to be noting the change in language as well. Affirmation to all at the BBC and let's hope things are moving in a positive direction at last.

    Despite my natural cynicism, I was impressed by Brown's suggestions yesterday and especially thought Jack Straw was on excellent form. Straw has always seemed to me to be one of the best and least comfortable with spin/untruth.

    Anyway, All the best to all of y'all at the coalface.

    Yours Aye,



  42. At 10:53 AM on 04 Jul 2007, Nigel N wrote:

    Agree with Stewart at 26 regarding manufacturers' influence. The extreme arguments used by Joan Ruddock were very similar to those used when my son (now 16) was in nappies – although she did miss off the cost of buying the washing machine.
    Joan did appear keen to compare the whole-life enviromental impact of terry with the disposal impact of dispasables. I hope that the final research will take full account of the manufacturing and transport of the disposables.
    As for comparison in use, the only time our son went down with nappy rash was when we used disposables for holidays etc.

  43. At 11:39 AM on 04 Jul 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    As a consultant, I'd like to tell you that life can be complicated. But I'd need lots of money before telling you that.

    By using cotton, remember, you are helping to provide work for people who live in cotton-producing countries. Is cotton a sustainable product? I hope so.

    And I haven't seen a washing machine capable of 100 degrees for years. It was a twin-tub. We used a Burco boiler.

  44. At 11:56 AM on 04 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Vyle (43),

    "By using cotton, remember, you are helping to provide work for people who live in cotton-producing countries. "

    Those who remain after being driven to the wall by US subsidies to fat-a*sed American cotton farmers using every chemical and GM aid to grow one of the most soil-exhausting of crops.

    Ian Johnson's kind sounds better. (38)


  45. At 12:47 PM on 04 Jul 2007, jonnie wrote:

    Gosh Vyle - a Burco boiler, I remeber them! We had a blue one - or had a blue lid. Mum used to boil things in it (as I recall).

    I have to say that all of our machines have a white wash function with (95deg) written buy it. Apart from two machines which are industrial - the othes are a mixture of Hotpoint and Zanussi. However, they are all over 5 years old, so next time I visit Curry's I'll have a look. There really should be no necessity these days.

  46. At 01:07 PM on 04 Jul 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Ed (44) Sorry, I'd forgotten the US contingent, was thinking if India etc.

    Jonnie (45) If what I've been told about fridges is anything to go by, white goods can't be expected to last more than 5 years nowadays, so hang on to what you have for as long as you can.

  47. At 01:15 PM on 04 Jul 2007, siobhan wrote:

    Dear Person In Charge Of PM:

    A propos of nothing in particular, please can I be one of the PM voices that tells listeners what number to call/address to write or email to?

    Oh go on, please?

  48. At 01:20 PM on 04 Jul 2007, Helen Burr wrote:

    Dear PM Team
    I was so sorry that the facts for the real nappy feature were based on inaccurate and very one-sided information. I have a few points to make on this:

    WRAP received £2.3 million over three years for promoting real nappies. UK taxpayers spend £40 million per year on disposing of disposable nappies.

    If the Government doesn’t re-dress the balance on promoting cloth nappies who will? The cloth nappy industry is made up of small, usually parent-run, businesses which simply do not have the resources to promote cloth nappies. Disposable nappies on the other hand are manufactured and promoted by some of the largest organisations in the World.

    The Environment Agency research quoted in the feature has been heavily criticized as seriously methodologically flawed and is currently being re-evaluated. For example people interviewed in the research ironed their nappies apparently! This is absurd - no-one sane would do this as they would melt!

    Finally, there was no mention of other reasons for using real nappies. For example reusables perform better. An independent report published in July 2007 Which? Magazine rigorously tested 16 types of nappies. A reusable nappy out-performed most leading brands of disposable nappies.

    As a real nappy seller myself I would be glad if some of the other side of the debate could be given in tonight's program.

  49. At 02:07 PM on 04 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Helen Burr (48),

    What an unfortunate name for a seller of intimate products!

    Seriously, I cannot accept for one moment that cloth versus one-use-plastic-wrapped padding is a choice between equals. It boggles the logical imagination, and I suspect serious vested interests have had an unhealthy influence in any 'survey' or 'research' which turns up such dotty conclusions.

    The amount of supermarket shelf space given over to these products should indicate how profitable they are for all in the distribution chain.

    As to washing, 40° with a modern powder is more than sufficient, sunlight is an added aid to sterility. We are far too frightened of 'bugs' and many of our children (and ourselves) suffer from diminished acquired immune responses. Just what is expected to contaminate a child but what comes from his/her own internal flora?

    We raised two children using cotton nappies which are still in use as wipes/dusters, etc., the youngest now being 27 and the eldest rising 36.

    We also drink untreated spring water and I can't recall the last time anyone here had any sort of infection, except perhaps following a visit to 'civilisation' and the consumption of chlorinated water.


    And that's malicious! Harrrrumpfhh! Last post 11.56; this one Wednesday July 04, 2007 at 14:08:00 GMT

  50. At 03:22 PM on 04 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Fighting my way through sheaves of accusations of malice (you're not alone, Ed)

    Helen Burr @ 48, I rather tend to agree.

    As far as I was concerned twenty-six years ago, disposable nappies were the answer to a question that nobody had actually asked. I still feel that if they hadn't been invented, we would have muddled along without them, and there'd be a lot less chance of explosive landfill sites.

    I would also have had fewer revolting experiences during the past twenty-five years of arriving where sluttish young women who seem to think it is ok to dump their brats' used disposable nappies on train-seats, in other people's halls, on the floor in department store toilets, on the picnic-tables at motorway service areas, and wherever else they happened to be when the nappy was changed, had been before me. I don't suppose they would so casually abandon towelling nappies that they would have to pay extra to replace.

    That of course is something that a Government Inquiry isn't going to take into account. It isn't widespread (or at least I hope it isn't!) but it certainly does happen. Yuck.

  51. At 11:00 PM on 04 Jul 2007, Richard H wrote:

    The report on cloth nappies factored in a series of laughably unrealistic scenarios in order to reach the conclusion that they were environmentally unsound, i.e.: that one would wash them at 90-100 degrees, tumble dry and then iron them. IRON them?!! Are they having a laugh? As a new father, I'd be very interested to hear a serious comparison between cloth and disposable nappies, not some piece of ludicrous junk. Ironing nappies, indeed. Tcha!!

  52. At 05:15 AM on 05 Jul 2007, Mike H. wrote:

    re the NAPPY DEBATE

    PM and Joan Ruddock missed the main policy issue in this debate: how disposable nappies bought can become more rapidly biodegradable. Biodegradable disposables presently cost more so few buy them. Please Joan & PM: look into how govt can change any tax/subsidies, regulations, promotion (eg via NHS) and sponsored research, so that this goal can be achieved.

  53. At 12:39 PM on 05 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Mike H @ 52, however biodegradable the nappy itself its contents will still be human excrement, though. That's another aspect of the problem. The contents of a towelling nappy are likely to be put down a lavatory together with the (biodegradable) paper liner, those of a disposable nappy to be put into the dustbin for collection and removal to landfill sites.

    Sewage treatment works by their nature and function are specifically geared up to deal with this particular bio-hazard, whereas landfill sites mostly are not. Even apart from the risk of disease (a baby may have diseases transmitable through its faeces just as an adult may) the gases produced by the degradation of this human waste-product in combination with other refuse in landfill may explode in the wrong conditions, such as being contained under a layer of soil. oh, eek, argh, YUCK! or words to that effect.

  54. At 01:16 PM on 05 Jul 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Chris (53),

    Actually, many landfill sites also accept sewage. I visited the big one in Eastlothian, which takes the bulk of Edinburgh's solid waste and noticed a characteristic smell. I asked our guide if they used sewage as an innoculant (it was a Human Ecology field trip) for the eventual methane, and he replied, "No, it's just more landfill."

    The site is completely contained in a membrane with re-circulation of liquids (no effluent) and will be sealed completely when full and the methane will be drawn off and used.

    It was eerie, as I've never been to a dump without seagulls, in fact it's the best place to see Bald Eagles (the American symbol eats carrion-eating seagulls!). This one is within five miles of a major gullery, but not a bird in sight. Our guide said it was the Perigrine, sitting tied to its perch a couple of hundred yards away. "They know he's here!"


  55. At 03:25 PM on 05 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Thanks, Ed (@54) -- that's reassuring. Now all I need is to know that all landfill sites (both here and abroad, where I gather quite a lot of our garbage gets sent) are as well-able to cope with human excrement... but I don't know how many fall into which category, so I shall probably have to go on worrying mildly about this potential nastiness. I have to admit that it doesn't actually keep me awake o' nights, it's just one more minor "where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?" factor in my life.

  56. At 04:05 PM on 05 Jul 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Why on earth aren't the contents of disposable nappies placed in the lavatory? I wouldn't dream of just placing the whole thing in a bin somewhere. Chris, you are describing folk who merit ASBOs.

    [Dream of.. oo-er, nightmares]

  57. At 07:33 PM on 05 Jul 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Vyle @ 56, My most recent experience of nappy-changing was seventeen years ago, but I had to go out to get a pint of milk just now, so I asked about the disposable nappies on sale in the local shop, and as I understand it many (maybe all: opinions seemed to vary) sorts of disposable nappy come with the liner attached. This was presented as a plus point for them: you don't have to buy liners as well, and certainly there weren't any liners there, though they seemed to have a dizzying variety of shapes and sizes of disposable nappies for sale. I extrapolate from this that to remove the contents and dispose of them separately would involve scraping, in many cases... The towelling nappy has to have a separate paper liner, which is thrown away with its contents while the nappy itself is put to soak ready for washing, and that makes it easier to put the contents down the loo rather than into a bin.

    Dumping disposables into a bin contents and all is probably what happens as a matter of course, is what I suppose from this minor outbreak of research. It's what always seems to have happened (minus the 'bin' part of the evolution) when I encounter one of the wretched things cluttering up the scenery, anyhow.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.