LondonMix

Show them, tempt them with food and give it a few days. Also, if there is a magnetic latch, disable it at first so there is as little resistance as possible. They'll try it when you aren't watching them intently.

Yes, its a tricky one. Other groups (free loading students etc) don't usually need quite as much space and probably more importantly don't put other users off in the same way. That might make the family trade more problematic for small cafes. Figuring out the best business plan in this economic environment must be fraught with challenges. I agree of a weekend everywhere seems fairly mixed with only a couple of notable exceptions.

Saffron, I agree only a sociopath would want their buggy to annoy someone. There is a difference between actively wanting to annoy someone and doing something you genuinely find convenient without considering /caring if it will annoy and inconvenience others though (which everyone is guilty of sometimes). The family trade being better than having no one is a chicken and egg kind of question. People go to coffee shops to relax and an establishment filled with small children and babies doesn?t give off a relaxing vibe to the childless. Only families might currently go there because they are putting off other users. A place doesn?t need to be full with babies either before it starts to give off the feel of a cr?che. Not sure how large the non-baby demographic is in ED but there do seem to be a lot of writers, literary agents, musicians etc in the area so who knows.

I agree Otta. That kind of parental entitlement complex is an example of some of the worst kind of anti-social behaviour and should be treated as such.

Had a fresh look at the signs this morning during my commute and its clear that wheelchairs get full priority and that if the bus becomes crowded buggies should be folded to create more standing room (even if there is no wheelchair user). The corollary to this is that parents who need to hold children on their laps get priority seating. I agree with Zeban that you don't get a seat as a parent just because you have a child but only if the child is out of the buggy and needs to sit on your lap.

Yes, being rude is never called for. I've also found the service patchy and prefer the food at other places.

Agree, I always thought wheelchairs had priority. Twins are a special case. However, when you think of the inconvenience of public transport during the baby years and then imagine that many wheelchair users will contend with that inconvenience for life, I can't see how we can't justify giving them priority in most circumstances.

That's really the point oimissus. We selected ED because its is so accommodating to young families. However, when making decisions about what products are best we all need to consider what is convenient for our lifestyles. If you rely on public transport you have to think about if the pram you like can fit on the bus and if it can easily fold down. If you enjoy travelling, you need to think about what can be accommodated on planes (if you can still afford to travel :)). If you enjoy going to cafes, you need to think about what will fit in a typical shop without potentially inconveniencing the owner and other customers by limiting the number of people that can be served or creating an unsafe environment. There use to be a time when people made decisions about what was best considering not only what was convenient for them but also what was convenient for the wider community they would be interacting with. Lot's of stores around here are thankfully very accommodating because they are targeting young families and its no crime to have a massive pram. However, the complaints about "entitlement" come up when it appears that no thought has been given to how your choices might impact others.

Sorry but the very use of the word discriminate suggests an entitlement complex. My partner read that over my shoulder and groaned without having seen the protracted discussion that followed. The restaurant was not accommodating, which may or may not be a bad business decision. The term discriminate shows a total lack of perspective.

People are just pulling susierose up on a rather unhelpful and potentially inaccurate description. A good description would have described what they and the van actually look like (age, height, number of indviduals, etc, type of van, colour of van ect. The potentially incorrect part is that its become clear she has no idea where these people are actually from. Why you think taking issue with this makes someone a tree-hugging liberal is beyond me.

Are Eastern Europeans / slavs not considered white anymore?

Agree with all the people Jeremy agrees with. Regarding the stats, what's interesting is inflation asjusted disposable income (including benefit payments to households) is only down 2.9 percent vs pre-crisis income across the country. However, a large part of this is lower interest rates for those with mortgages so the reality is homeowners have suffered the least in terms of real income (some even seeing an improvement) while those without mortgages have suffered steeper declines in disposable income. As I have said, this is business decision taken by large corporations based on their own analysis of demgraphics etc. We should make sure the redevelopment of the store is appropriate though.

In the famous words of Chris Rock... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVIs0D2acgw Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dunno. Snobbery/discrimination is unpleasant > either way, but there is something particularly > distasteful about those in a privileged position > looking down on those less fortunate.

It's great. When we go to the Ritzy we normally try to get a table at Mama Lan the dim sum place. The wait can be 20 minutes though. The Italian gelato place is good too.

Again, I think this is a cultural difference. The vast majority of the kids in my program in the US were what most would consider working class though not everyone. There was a really wide mixture of backgrounds in part because it was also an international school (race, religion, economic circumstances, origin). All backgrounds who attended thrived and became friends. Therefore I don't associate meritocratic selective education with elitism at all. Again, its very interesting to hear your thoughts and your experiences with respect to the 11+. Again, completely different system in the US. I literally don't know one person who studied for the American standardised exams and its hardly a life-defining moment. The way you describe the pressure and the judgement associated with the entire thing makes the UK system sound wretched! I fully understand why some of you have such strong feelings about it. I have to say that is not the impression I have of the system in the UK these days but I could be way off as my experience is very anecdotal. My partner's little brothers are more than a decade younger than him so I watched them go through it. Neither of them got into grammar school, both went to uni and one is now working for a top firm along with graduates from Oxford and Cambridge (which he didn't attend), the other one is still at uni. My mother-in-law comes from a very working class background and was a grammar school girl. She didn't make many friends so skipped class a lot. She managed to still get all A's on her O-levels but dropped out at 16 as she didn't really see the point of finishing school back then in the 60s. My partner's best friend went to grammar school (the only one out of 4 siblings) and now works a minimum wage job in a seaside hotel. One of my partner's best friends didn't even get his A-levels (got a U) but did a foundation year at uni, then became a top engineer for a world-class company and is now a mid-level manager there earning a top wage. My partner didn't go to grammar school by the way and has done just fine in life and doesn't remember being scarred by the entire thing but we are in our early 30s so perhaps things would have changed by the time he was going through all of this. I also know of positive outcomes regarding grammar schools of course-- one colleague of mine grew up on what he calls one of the roughest council estates in London (near Clapham Jct) and went to grammar school and believes it changed his life. I'm sure all of your notions about the unfairness of the system, the psychological damage it causes and the potential damage it does to the so called "failures" is true but it really surprises me as it doesn't at all match with the outcomes and experiences I've witnessed. Grammar schools are clearly a very sensitive issue and the history behind them has deep meaning to all of you. As an outsider though without the "baggage," the issue really is much less of a polemic for me. I hope comprehensives can cater to even the brightest 1% and keep them stimulated and engaged. My experience of streaming prior to joining my high school suggests not. My partner's experience of streaming at a comprehensive also suggests not as he was in the top-stream and was bored out of his mind. That might just be a question of implementation though. Also, the idea that all parents think their kids are the brightest has not been my experience at all. My work colleagues and friends always seem to be fairly realistic about how clever (or not) their kids are and only once have I met someone who was openly very hung up about the entire thing. I mean, who really cares? Everyone has clever and not so clever friends and family. Being clever is just that. Its a talent like any other but it doesn't define the self-worth. Overall, my personal experience with selective schooling was great and I am truly grateful for the education I received and the people I met. I didn't suffer as a result of the commute but again it will depend on the child. I participated in 3 different after school activities and had a part-time job in high-school-- I was basically a ball of energy that was very easily bored and didn't need much "down time". My parents were chauffeurs but they didn't mind enough not to do it. It's clearly not for everyone but it works fine for some families. prickle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, a v. interesting thread. > > LondonMix said "My high school catered for the top > 1% of peformers nationally (standardized tests > back then in the US were on relative not absolute > performance). It seems unreasonable to expect a > state comprehensive to cater appropriately for > such a small percentage of the student population > given the tiny numbers involved. While a state > comprehensive is greate for 99% of children, the > few who go to grammar school probably do benefit > and I can't see why that's so controversial. " > > I would say it was perfectly reasonable for the > state comprehensives to cater for all students > including the 'top' 1%. They have special > sessions/programmes for the top (and bottom) > ability groups. > > The so called 'top' students will benefit from a > more rounded education as what a local > comprehensive system teaches you is that there is > more to learn about life than just academics. It > teaches you how society works, rich/poor, > clever/dim, white/black, powerful/powerless. By > learning to rub along with the rest of us and not > be creamed off into some super-elite school, your > children will be far better equipped to deal with > the intricacies of real life when they are older.

Not nearly as exciting as I was anticipating though being American my perspective is skewed. You'd find that number of guns in at least 50% of American homes! To make the news you'd need to uncover a true cache or something exotic like a missile. the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From twitty. > Expand > 1h Southwark News ‏@Southwark_News > http://ow.ly/i/12lWd Arrests have followed the > seizure of weapons from an East Dulwich home. > Drugs & Ammo also seized. #Trident > Expand > > Bit Crap isnt it!

Do you have a link to the story?

My PA's daughter got a scholarship to a school with a fantastic performing arts program. We can argue if these opportunities are accessible enough to the less well-off but that hardly undermines the idea that getting the opportunity to do so is seen as valuable and worthwhile. I doubt you?d find what my PA and her daughter did so unacceptable despite the travel involved. It's clear that your issue really isn't with the "pathetic parents" forcing their kids to travel but with the very idea of grammar schools as you've admitted. What exactly do you dislike about the system. You've mentioned you associate it with entitlement, is that it?

I assume you aren't including the fee paying secondaries in your numbers Otta. I don't think everyone lives within the catchment of a state secondary that is necessarily appropriate and I'm not sure it would really make sense for a comprehensive to cater to what would be just a few top performing students within their catchment area. There is a reason why grammar schools need to pull from a broad area: the number of students who benefit from that sort of education are so few. Academic ability is just like every other gift or talent such as sporting talent or musical talent etc. I think if we were talking about a specialst music school this wouldn't be nearly as controversial. Of course, a talented kid of any sort wouldn't have their life ruined by not having their specific talent catered to. But I really don't understand why with respect to academic ability this is such a polemic. Perhaps again it has to do with the fact that parents try to game the system (which I know happens).

Agree with DaveR. Perhpas my own experiences color my view on this too much but I went from an ordinary stream to an advanced stream and then to a selective high school. In ordinary classes I severely underperformed due to being bored out of mind and thus perferring to chat with my friends rather than pay attention. In advanced classes my grades improved dramatically as the work was more interesting though I still found it a doddle and didn't particularly enjoy school as it was still mostly dull. I only started loving school and learning once I joined my selective high school and performed well as a result, in addition to developing a better work ethic etc. My high school catered for the top 1% of peformers nationally (standardized tests back then in the US were on relative not absolute performance). It seems unreasonable to expect a state comprehensive to cater appropriately for such a small percentage of the student population given the tiny numbers involved. While a state comprehensive is greate for 99% of children, the few who go to grammar school probably do benefit and I can't see why that's so controversial. Within the greater London area, what percentage of the student body actually performs well enough to get into grammar school anyway? I know nationally, grammar schools are less than 5% of secondaries and in Greater London I imagine its much, much less. What I do have a problem with is the idea of all the extra tutoring and prep from age 8. If some of the grammar schools have devised a testing system that can't be studied for that would be great though that's a nearly impossible task I imagine.

I've been interested in going there since watching Waltz with Bashir. I'm sure its nothing like I'd expect.

There is no legal limit on how many children a nanny can watch but typically even with a nanny share you would expect there to be fewer children than a childminder. Yes, the other main differences are a child minder works out of their home and is self-employed (so yes, paid like nursery). My friends have a child minder they love (not in ED) and I think its a great solution if you find someone you click with. If you use a nanny payroll company that helps reduce the admin of employing a nanny but but costs a couple hundred quid. The main things you gain (in my opinion) when working with a nanny are more flexibility (particularly when care is out of your home vs. a nanny share in the other family's home), you can tailor things a bit more, and more individual attention, particularly when its not a nanny-share. Remember though that child minders (like nurseries) charge by the child so a nanny-share is only a bit more expensive than two with a good child minder unless you find one that will charge for only a portion of the day while your toddler is using the free nursery hours. Good luck!

I would hope most kids are given the choice. Everyone is well acquainted with the stereotype of the school obsessed middle class parent who piles so much pressure on their kids they become depressed and develop eating disorders etc. However, most people I know just want their kids to be happy and make decisions based on what they think will best suit the individual child (often reaching different conclusions for different children in the family). To the OP, you know your child. Discuss it with him/ her. If they are really academic, they will thrive in a school that is able to challenge them and the pros are likely to outweigh the cons if your child is excited by the prospect and you think they can cope. There is no single right answer. I didn't really start to enjoy school until I went to my selective high school so for me there are clearly no regrets even though my days were longer than would otherwise have been the case. I did some of my homework on the commute if memory serves.

Its not always about parents. My parents gave me the choice at 13 in the US and I wanted to go to the selective school that was further away (I had the choice between 3- my local school, the equivalent of a free school and the selective school). There was no sitting exams though, it was just based on your scores on the standardised exams everyone took and the selective school specifically found me and came to recruit me vs the other way around. The program sounded really exciting and to be honest, I was bored even in the advanced placement courses I was taking at my state junior school. The curriculum sounded more interesting and I was excited about being surrounded by other students that were at the same academic level as me. Everyone in our tiny program had more or less the same perspective. In the US the system is totally different though so perhaps here it is much more about the parents than the kids but I think its unreasonable to make such sweeping assumptions about what's best for other people's children. My own experience not going to school close to home was fine. Made very good life-long friends and kept some friends from junior school, participated in several after school activities etc. Its different in the US though as everyone has to drive anyway so its just an extra 15 -20 min in the car and by 16 a lot of people were driving themselves (in old beat up junkers).

Wow, that's harsh. Why do you feel so strongly about it?