Hepburn's comb and wattles (the red fleshy bits on her head and under her beak) have gone a lot paler since the above picture was taken, which looks awful but is entirely normal as a hen gets more and more into her broody state. She's also become a lot more hostile and I'm leaving her well alone. I'm only going to disturb her today when the eggs are replaced with the real deal. She won't have as many - probably just seven, odd numbers are better apparently because of the way the hen arranges the eggs in a kind of oval beneath her body - but we've got 13 eggs in total, the remaining six going into an incubator a friend has bought and is kindly loaning to us. If timings are close we should be able to get Hepburn to adopt the incubated chicks along with those she is going to be hatching.

Thank you Ruthie. I think we take so much for granted, there is so much convenience, and yes, many people have forgotten how to recognise their blessings or were never taught in the first place. So the cry is that of the hungry bird: always more, more, more.

Just testing out the return of IntenseDebate comments on the blog. New comments should replace old ones in the sidebar, and no comments ever made have been lost, they are still on the posts on which you left them.

No. I don't think anybody except the Daily Mail is actually saying that. First, we only have the word of the newspaper that age is the deciding factor. This, coming from a newspaper that routinely lies, is more likely lie than truth--but it is true to say that many other factors would have been considered before the grandparents were ruled out.

As I went to great pains to say, yes, there have to be rules, there will always be some who fall outside them. I am also saying a sensationalist resorting to homophobia is NOT the answer for the families who feel they somehow suffer under whatever rules are currently in place. And the tabloid press meddle not for the sake of the children, but for meddling's sake alone to make waves and pursue the agenda of editors and owners. The families are best served by taking matters to those who can change things, if change is needed--MPs, charities, campaign groups whose agendas are not fuelled by hatred. But it remains the case that, in this situation, the grandparents were most likely ruled out for reasons we don't and won't know. Age was unlikely to be the driving factor behind the decision. But age is a convenient 'hook' to engage the rage of Daily Mail readers addicted to moral outrage: one day asylum seekers, the next day poofters.

And frankly, while I have nothing but praise for your apparent loathing of ageism, it fails to be accompanied in what you write in your comment by an equal defence of people's rights not to be judged on sex, sexuality, ability and skin colour. I rather think therefore that it comes across as somewhat one-sided. If we are to get a fairer world we cannot pick and mix who can be bullied and who can't. The Mail sets great store on defending the old only because it's readership is aged and/or ageing, and of particular mind-sets. It gives not a shit for anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia. If it did, it would not be the Daily Mail.

Richard Littlejohn, it's long-time columnist and infamously vicious homophobe, today features on the front page displaying his usual ignorance, mouthing off about how wrong it is to take kids and give them to two gay men instead of the grandparents. He knows fuck all about this specific circumstance, or the rules applied. But this absence of informed knowledge has never stopped him shooting his mouth off whenever there's a story involving the minorities he despises, and all because he doesn't like being who he is. This story is NOT about the children. It is about stirring up hatred of gay men. Anything else you may glean from it is illusory. The children are a way in to the main event of hatemongering.

We don't know in what ways the grandparents did not successfully address the concerns of Social Services. Such information is kept confidential, for the safety and respect of all involved. It is only right. So to suggest that the decision against the grandparents is ageism is at best based on the word of a scurrilous tabloid newspaper, which may be putting words in people's mouths, and at worst downright deceptive.

Blood relations do not have a right to take on their grandchildren without being assessed. Not in 2009. People can, of course, campaign for change. But then one day the time would surely come when a relative adopted, say, a grandchild, and something dreadful happened to that kid afterwards. Where would the naysayers of today be then? I suggest no wrongdoing or crime on the part of the grandparents in this story. None whatsoever. I know nothing about them. But I do know that every murderer, every rapist, every thief, every paedophile, every criminal is someone's brother or sister, someone's daughter or son, someone's mother or father, someone's grandma or grandfather. They do not grow in pots. If we allowed blood relativity to provide an open and unquestioned right to adopt within the family without investigation and assessment by professionals, the risks to the children's welfare would frankly be unacceptable. To me, at least. Perhaps not to the gutter press, for any outrage or horror would, of course, make front-page headlines and sell to people who like to get angry about those they perceive as taking their jobs, their children, their way of life.

Turns out it wasn't viral tonsilitis, it's glandular fever and it's hubby who's got it reallllll bad. With me, it or something just skimmed the edges and moved on. He's still poorly, in bed, and no sign yet of recovery. It could take a while. x

Coming across this entry again, in January 09, while prepping a new blog entry, I was struck by the fact that Galadriel never did get her voice back properly. She can holler, but the noises she made before the accident never came back. It changed her voice, so I can only assume her vocal chords suffered permanent, albeit not painful in the long-term, damage. Still, a lucky hen.

She's moulting at present, and looks absolutely dreadful. She'll be fully re-feathered in about a month's time. And she's as personable and clever, as hens go, as she ever was. See, that makes the tragedy of battery hens all the more horrific: they are the friendliest, cleverest of chickens and yet they're forced to endure absolute hell in a box for a year before most of them end up as pet food, fertiliser or takeaway curries. My view, it's evil.

Yeah, but even that pain barrier if approached with a positive spirit can be rewarding, just like going to a gym works the muscles, makes 'em hurt, makes 'em better. I've personally found none of the sustainability and recycling etc options I've moved towards painful, because they keep me busy, keep me active, and make me think instead of just blindly consume. There's definitely some 'waking up from the dream' to get done to start helping ourselves and the environment. And the government and opposition need kicking awake as well, not only for the environment, but for the economy as a whole.

Yes, the audio chap is quite funny sometimes! It's a feature not useful to all but hopefully useful to some or, as with you on this occasion, simply something curious to try out. :-)

I just don't know on the 'voting back in' part. I suspect more people than we might in down times expect do see the Tories as being part of the problem and not the solution--but as you say, what is the solution, where are the choices?

Some of them are edible, most aren't, but they do make you sit up and take notice! You can also get some hens that eat eggs, thankfully not something I've encountered yet (well, they eat accidentally broken ones but haven't connected those to unbroken eggs!). A hen that eats eggs would be quite the nuisance.

I'm learning from scratch as you know, Sue. It's all new to me too and I suspect you never get to the point where you know everything about these little creatures. x