sillywoman

As I said, that argument can go round for ever, only ending with no welfare state at all and workhouses for the poor & elderly - & what sort of society is that? I just came on for a bit of a moan & a grumble at the blatant injustice of DC's proposals, was not really anticipating an analysis of how comparatively draining my family (who only claims CHB & nothing else) is to the taxpayer.

No NM, I quite agree that the taxpayer shouldn't fund my 4, or your 2 (though FYI 4 wasn't really what we'd intended) and I'm not really wanting to get into that whole how many children should people have debate as there's no correct answer to it - it just goes round in circles. We all make decisions based on our life circumstances at the time. It's not really for you to judge mine without knowing me & my circumstances intimately -and I don't think I'll be sharing my life story with you over the forum even if you wanted me to, which I sorely doubt ;-)!! If the principle behind the cuts was really 'the taxpayer not subsidising anyone's decision to have children' then surely they would be cutting very differently and applying cuts fairly to all families on or above a certain income. I don't think that's anything to do with the proposed cut to CHB. Fushia - ours are all at school now & I work from home so that we don't have to have afterschool childcare or it's attendant costs. Maybe I should reconsider though? Bummer eh?

Poor you SB. I wonder why your midwife isn't being positive about VBAC. In general Kings is extremely supportive of them & where physically possible they actively encourage. It might be worth speaking to another member of the Lanes team for another opinion or to find out specifically why they are not viewing it as an option for you. Other than that I would echo what's already been said on here. Try and speak to a consultant midwife at Kings if you can. Jill Demilew is good, but it's not really her area of specialism (though of course she would be able to advise). Another really good one is Cathy Walton - an old ED-er herself. Speaking to the consultant Obs could be of help too, but I would want a clearer picture of what the particular issues are with this pregnancy that means a vbac is out before I spoke to an OBs. Leonnie Penna is fab. Also, like the others, I would say that if vaginal birth isn't a possibility then most women I know who have had to have a planned CS have actually enjoyed the experience much more so than with an emergency CS. It's good you're planning ahead now. Get the facts and then see what's possible from there. You might be surprised.

Personally I'm gutted. Our CHB amounts to about 8% of our net monthly family income. I work part-time & Sensibleman falls over the HRT threshold by a couple of thousand a year. We'll certainly find it hard to lose the ?240 a month. I understand the need for national belt-tightening (though as someone pointed out elsewhere SamCam appearing in a ?750 dress at the conference didn't make me feel good about her hubby's understanding of our 'average family' finances), and would be content - though with a slight gulp - to give up the money if It wasn't for the outrageous injustice of Mr & Mrs Joe Bloggs down the road. They (entirely fictional BTW) both working but under the HRT limit, with a net family income of almost double ours, will be able to get CHB for their one child, whilst we on a much lower family income won't be able to for any of our 4. Surely some mistake? I'll have to go & do some serious maths, but it may be worth asking Sensibleman to consider taking a pay cut, as it may be more valuable for him to be paid below the HRT level & still be able to claim the CHB. Anyone good with numbers?

chantelle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm shocked by the laissez > faire attitude here - that it's acceptable to be > doing these things at 14 and going to unsupervised > parties, and that the child's privacy is regarded > as more important than their safety. > > It is not inevitable or normal that your child > will regularly do drugs and alcohol at age 14. And > they should be not be at unspervised parties until > age 16 or older, in my opinion. I think you've misread chantelle. I don't recall anyone condoning these things on this thread. No-one has said anything about doing drink & drugs regularly being inevitable or normal at 14, or saying that 14 year olds at unsupervised parties is acceptable. Quite the opposite actually. You might want to re-read the thread and reconsider your accusations? If our attitude to our children was laissez faire then we wouldn't be posting for discussion now would we?

yes WOD, I agree. It was a house party, & a local boy in her year so I can & will easily investigate that particular instance further (though without going overboard I think) to see who was the adult in charge. Actually as I type I'm recalling that she & her friend came home early from that party saying that the boy's older (6th form) sister had invited lots of her mates & they kind of took over the party. That might explain the bong (are they still called that)? I think you are all kind of backing up my instinct, which is to trust her (whilst keeping a watchful eye) and let her have the privacy she needs on FB. Don't you find that every now & again someone comes along and questions whether what you're doing with your kids is right - I love this forum for being available for some common sense when I doubt myself - and silliness when I need it too!

Am really coming at this from the angle of a Mum with teens. DD14 has always refused to allow me to be her friend on Facebook & I've agreed (with a bit of moaning) as I can see she needs some areas of privacy from her parents. I talk to her frequently about upcoming issues - drink, smoking, sex, not putting herself in dangerous situation - I meet up with her friends Mums regularly to compare notes on various parties, should they be allowed to go, what's your line on makeup, How short are the skirts etc. etc. But, yesterday a younger, mutual friend with access to DD's Fb account emailed me with some concerns - essentially photo's posted of a party she went to where alcohol & what looks like a bong were present, none with DD partaking though. She is adamant that I should insist on being DD's friend on FB so that I can monitor what she's up to. Frankly I feel uncomfortable with this as she's growing up & surely I have to be able to trust her to run some areas of her life herself? What to do? What's your view? If you have teens are you their FB friend? If you don't what do you think is reasonable?

Hi Molly, I empathise deeply. Every school morning I hit the kitchen at 7.15am and begin the tyranny that is packed lunches for 5. Mine tend to be fairly conservative in their tastes though. Eldest likes pasta or rice salads (leftovers from night before rehashed with chopped fresh veg & salad dressing), or a PBJ sandwich, or a salad-y wrap. Boy likes a plain bagel (he's odd like that), but bagels are very versatile I find, middle boy likes either hot pasta in a flask with grated cheese - parm if we have it or more usually cheddar- or cheese & crackers, youngest has pitta with various insides, currently mayo & cucumber), or hot pasta with sauce (he & middle boy take it in turns to have the flask). Sensibleman has brie & tomato chutney, or pickled onion (oh yeah - thank goodness I don't work with him), or coleslaw, sandwiches. All have some fruit (various depending on person & taste), a yoghurt or frube (age dependant), a chocolate biscuit or bit of cake, & sometimes some mini cocktail sausages or whatever little bits I've got in the fridge I think they'll like. Sometimes those snack-a-jack packets, or something like, can be a treat too. I barely open my eyes till it's done & my kids/husband have learned not to expect conversation until it's all over & I have my first cup of tea in my hand! I bet you soon find a rhythm to it, and it's quite nice to be able to send in a little bit of home for them to have in the middle of the day. I once knew someone who used to put little notes in her child's lunchbox. I thought that was quite sweet, but usually only get it together to do it on birthdays or if I think they need a boost.

. . . and why don't you?

On the other hand, I didn't wash anything that wasn't dirty (passed down from older sibs) before mine were born. It didn't seem to make a blind bit of difference. They didn't seem uncomfortable or get any odd rashes. they certainly didn't complain! And no-one pointed a finger saying "OMG you haven't washed those new baby clothes before you put them on the baby, call social services!". I would say; wash them if you want, don't if you're not fussed but don't feel pressured into it by anyone else. It's very easy to get a bit too precious over these things for no good reason. But I'm a lazy moo so I would say that. And when I did wash I used non-bio, though I don't really know why? Less itchy on the skin people say? Never seen any research though - Fuschia, over to you . . . .

Will check out the Jags sessions. It's close to us, I like that it's drop in and that it's ?3. Did try footballmagiccoaching Bellenden Jo but at ?10 a session(!) it's out of our price range - I don't think we're talking the next David Beckham here, just a little boy of 6. Little Kickers, hmmm maybe, I have a non-specific aversion to them that I just can't put my finger on, but if Jags doesn't work out I may give them a go. Thanks everyone.

Sorry, I know that this has been done before, but for some reason when I search it the page goes blank. Would like for my littlest boy to have some football lessons once a week now that he's old enough for extra curricular stuff. Any recommendations?

Nothing much to add, other than to concur with what others have said. Mine all went through a 'death' phase and just needed to understand in some way. It's making sense of the world around them & my feeling is that to ignore or obfuscate the issue just makes it scarier and more mysterious. I really think that whoever at the nursery gave you that advice was actually wrong, and is giving advice that is potentially damaging to children. I'm sure I've read that the approach everyone else has mentioned (discuss it factually & openly in age appropriate language) and that you instinctively want to take is currently thought to be best? I wonder if you might raise this again with the nursery and ask for specifics as to what piece of research/ child development literature they are basing their advice on; I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out to be the personal opinion of whoever you spoke to? Also, as Molly mentioned, pets are so useful for making some sense of death now that most children don't live with it as closely connected to their everyday lives as it once was - thank goodness!

Nah, if you want a narrow perspective of the truth defined by what they hear in the playground you ask the kids. If you want the real truth you do masses of research and investigation and untangle the complex webs of personal circumstance and political expediency yourself (can you be bothered?). Kids don't really know that much - they just think they do.

There were 18 months between my number 1 and number 2 and it was definitely the best gap (though unplanned). It's true I disappeared for the first year after number 2 was born (I was a slave to their joint nap times - my bits of sanity), but after that it was brilliant. It was like having twins in many ways and they are still very close now and entertain each other brilliantly - though at 13 & 14 they'd rather have their fingernails pulled out than admit it - how 'uncool' They've always got someone to go on the big rollercoaster with, or watch the scary movies I won't watch. My other gaps were 2 1/2 years and 3 1/2 years. Personally the last and biggest gap was a killer and not something I'd ever wish to repeat for all the reasons Molly mentions, having to go back to nappies and night waking and all that - what a nightmare! even now I find it frustrating, and I think number 4 does too. Poor little soul is constantly running to keep up with his older siblings. Nope, a smaller gap was definitely the better one for me (and them too).

Also, does anyone know Kingsdale's 2010 stats, standard version; i.e. what percentage gained 5 or more GCSE's, grade A*-C, including Maths & English?

I think that link's been proved Molly. Certainly I always mention it to my classes when I talk about induction dates, also relevant is if you have a family history of significantly late/early babies (i.e. your Mum, Granny, sister(s), cousins, auntie's etc.etc.).

first: 10 days late second: bang on due date third: 10 days early fourth: 8 days late (go figure). I seem to remember reading somewhere that the research on which the 'average gestation cycle for women in the UK' was based was very small scale (about 74 women?), in Norfolk - or Lincolnshire, a long time ago (50's or 60's?) and never intended as to be used in the way it has been. Wish I could recall where I read that.

At the primary my kids were at I was shocked to realise that a significant proportion of their peers ( about 40-50% at an estimate) were tutored fairly rigorously from the end of year 4 (age 9-10) with the sole purpose of getting a place at the local independent schools. Makes something of a mockery of their selection processes really.

North Dulwich Station, so Herne Hill triangle really, but a goodly percentage of it's intake is from ED. Kingsdale (also super popular) is West Dulwich, maybe you're thinking of that one?

duchessofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder what on earth is going on with the > schooling in this area? > We have two ends of the spectrum here Expensive > selective private schools and state schools which > clearly have issues that arent being addressed. Hmmmm, I don't see it that way at all dod, The state secondaries around ED are in general pretty good, with people falling over themselves to get places in couple of them, & for good reason too. Of course they can't do what private schools do. That particular utopia is a whole other thread. But with my experience limited to 3 years of The Charter, I would say it's very successful and actually does what it says it will - i.e. provides a good secondary education in a safe environment for local children. I haven't encountered any 'issues that aren't being addressed' there yet.

randomv Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh ok...but unlike a grammar they don't simply > cream off the top 2% of test applicants - they > take applicants from across the test results and > they apply very rigorous streaming once in the > school. Isn't that exactly what Haberdashers used to do, the whole banding thing - taking the top whatever percentage from each band? Interesting to notice the massive drop in their results now they've stopped doing it. Down from 90% A-C's to 70% in a year.

Wow BB100, does that stat include 'English & maths'? or is it for all their GCSE's whatever they may be? Oops sorry - just read through above post properly. Please ignore this one. Doh!

Holy Cow Lee scoresby! Bl*$dy well done for standing up for your boy & pulling him out. Would you consider coming to check out The Charter? We've got a couple there & though we have some anxieties over low homework levels they seem to be pretty good pastorally & both kids (very different) are being encouraged academically. Mine are only GCSE level so can't comment on 6th form though.

SFX????