Originally Posted by
bunyip
Sing-low, I think you've hit upon an excellent solution if the OP will but push your suggestion just a wee bit further.
One of the bog-standard questions we can all pretty much rely on a pre-reg inspector to ask is, "Do you understand how many children you can look after?" Then we all roll out the answer about 6 under-8's, of which no more than 3 under-5's, of which no more than 1 under-1, and then the exceptions about baby twins, 'rising 5s' blah-di-blah-di-blah.
How very simple. :idea: When Mrs O pops that particular question, all our OP need do is reply, "yes, I know the numbers but I intend to discount them and overmind from the start, especially if I can find a forum member to agree with me." Then all s/he has to do is see if Mrs O will register him/her on that basis, and find out whether the last few months of CYPOP 5, PFA training, and goD knows how much spent on resources has been a complete waste of time and effort. Sorted! :thumbsup:
Simona: I fully understand your campaigning approach to this matter, and have every sympathy, sharing your frustration over the fuzziness of issues surrounding ratios. But I think it behooves us on the forum to exercise extreme caution when responding to posts about specific cases. We all know that many aspects of the regs are illogical, but unless/until they are changed, we have to live with a "rules is rules" situation, and advise members accordingly. Hope you understand my uber-cautious approach: I don't want any CM to get into trouble and think, "but those lovely forum people led me to believe I had a case for getting away with this." :(