LondonMix

It really not that much better on the tube unless you are in central London. For SW London (Putney / Richmond) the district line only runs every 8-10 min typically. For parts of London where the train is really frequent (like Clapham) during the morning rush hour you can?t get on the first train that comes (missing 1-2 is typical). All in all I really don?t think SE London is that bad for transport unless you are comparing it to central London.

I personally wouldn't do botox (yet...) but unless you don't use any wrinkle creams, colour your hair, etc your are already fighting ageing! My philosophy is "do no harm" (like the hypocratic oath). Face-lifts / botox etc seem too risky and the results too false / scary to make me want them. I can't pretend I'm not vain though!

I don't think anyone was suggesting that nannies should be paid less than cleaners. The way nannies are paid is confusing for many who don't actually use them- as this thread has illustrated. Most parents were simply pointing out that cleaners do not make more than even inexperienced nannies for a multitude of reasons (limited working hours / gross vs. net pay quoting, sick-pay and holiday pay etc). Also, I think that all the parents who have posted on here about their experiences have been very polite and never suggested that nannies shouldn't be treated like employees and while it may be unpleasant for nannies to read about certain experiences some parents have had, there is nothing wrong with sharing them. Honestly,, people have jumped on this thread and made all sorts of inaccurate accusations about us parents (that the wages being discussed were less than minimum living standard, we want to pay them less than cleaners, that certain posters were not willing to pay statutory SPP) and I think the parents have remained polite as they have made the many necessary corrections. To be frank, I can?t take anyone seriously who asserts that parents suggesting that it may be possible to pay a nanny less than 38k a year gross salary (10 net per hour) is treating nannies like Victorian servants or that certain add-ons may be negotiable as with all jobs. Sharing the full wage range for nannies of between 26k up to 38k will result in more nannies getting employed as without this information, anyone earning less than 50k a year (the salary a parent needs to make to pay a nanny 38k a year out of their take home pay just to break-even) might think that this childcare option is not viable when they very well may be able to afford it. Nannies on the forum often respond to discussions regarding nanny pay with the refrain ?you can?t put a price on childcare?, and that is so incredibly unfair. Nannies themselves very much put a price on childcare and parents should not be made to feel guilty about wanting to discuss pay issues honestly and openly. Every element of choosing childcare is very daunting and emotional for parents and we should be allowed to guide and support one another without being attacked.

In general, travel from this part of SE London is much better than SW London. The overland train in SW London only goes to Waterloo whereas here from the various local stations you have London Bridge, Blackfriars, Victoria and soon all the stations on the ELL. From ED, the journey to waterloo / charing cross is about the same with a change as a direct train from places like Barnes and Puteny. The district line is terrible, particularly of a rush hour. But I suppose that's why I live here and not there!

Ah, I see. Thx! Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn't worry about it too much LM, tarot has > form on this. > > S/he isn't all there and has a very short memory > compounded by a severely limited attention span. > > Every now and then some trigger sets off tarot on > this bizarre immigration tirade not unlike a > demented dog barking like a broken record out in > the back yard. > > The's no way to persuade tarot rationally, and > even if you do make some headway tarot will kick > off again a few weeks later repeating all the same > stupid claims previously put to rest. > > In the empty ping pong ball that is tarot's > consciousness, everything that creates anxiety is > caused by foreigners.

I see what you are saying but to afford a nanny (even a nanny share) you need to be earning at least the average salary in London and usually a lot more. While that doesn?t make anyone rich, SAHM include people with little or no job experience / education / work prospects or earning potential in addition to the affluent and average earners you are probably familiar with. However, everyone from a more disadvantaged background will be forced to stay at home when they have children as child care for those on near minimum wage is beyond prohibitive. Hopefully, allowing all SAHMs will prevent the stigma / social-ghetto from forming entirely, while still ensuring the resources are primarily going to those most in need / the target group of the programme. Regarding, the fact that we are all paying for the service but not all of our children are allowed to use it, if you believe in a progressive tax system that's the reality of it: a portion of your taxes will be used to fund services for those less advantaged than you in an attempt to make society more equal. The more you earn, the less of your taxes will actually go to services / programmes that benefit you directly. While Sure Start isn't designed / funded for nannies, there is certainly an argument for what you are asking for though perhaps the nannies who post on the forum could take the lead in organizing get -togethers informally on days when Bessemer isn't available to them?

I think we all agree that every child matters but that does not mean that programmes can?t be designed to prioritise children most in need of the services on offer, particularly services designed to give disadvantaged children a leg-up. minder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's great that Bessemer has all its classes > full. > > My point is that Every Child Matters.

Why is it clear that there are too many people? What happened after the summer jubilations that I missed? Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > After the recent jubilations this summer its clear > their are too many people in the U,K > There must be a complete stop to migration and > illegal immigrants now the strain on the system > has compremised the standard of living. > When did migration turn into invasion? > Lets have the troll hunters, and bigot witch > hunters first to answer LoL

Thanks for the tips everyone!

Pugwash, are the teacher strikes about class size and funding for education in addition to their pay / pension? I've been trying to find a detailed statement of aims but on the union's website the only thing I can find is: "The two biggest teachers' unions in England and Wales are today announcing the first stage of their jointly co-ordinated industrial action in furtherance of their national trade disputes with the Secretary of State for Education over pay, pensions, workload and conditions of service and job loss." Without knowing what exactly the teachers are asking for so that I can judge for myself if their demands are reasonable, its difficult for me to take a view. Agree that an alternative for parents would certainly be appreciated!

Well said. Also, as a previous poster mentioned its not a question of wealth but if your little one is receiving quality child care already and if the children live in a home with someone who has the skills to know how to navigate the system. This is almost certainly true for everyone with a nanny even if you aren't wealthy as such. The programme really is meant to give extra support to the most vulnerable and while SAHM's may be mixed group (wealthy, dis-advantaged and everything in between), children with nannies are very unlikely to come from the target group of the programme. It's a very rough way to prioritise but given the additional costs associated with administering means testing and the already diminished budget, I understand, though its clearly unfortunate.

A sincere (non-attacking) question. What improvements on the gov't offerare the teachers asking for specifically?

Yes, that sounds about right for converting circa 300sqft. But when you think about the stamp duty and estate agent fees involved with moving, it can easily be 50k-60k alone. I will be lucky to be break even on it though if I do ever sell as the house values psm in ED only barely recover the cost of the added space... Still, I want to stay in my house and my neighborhood and that's worth a lot to me... I just want to make sure that its not a total nightmare to have done and that in general people think it was worth doing at the end of the day.

The strikes in Chicago are about teacher evaluations and jobs for laid-off teachers. They are the only two points in the education reform proposal that are being negotiated. The person leading the charge used to work for the White House for president Obama and the views do reflect the president's agenda. The issues in Chicago are complex as the teachers are effectively saying that those teachers who work in socio-economically deprived areas should be assessed with a lower bar because under-performance is the result of things outside of the classroom. While you can't just assume the poor can't be taught I do think the system should recognise the additional challenges faced by teachers in those schools. Also, you don't have to be right-wing to be opposed to the strikes over here. I don't like the current government and consider myself to be socially progressive and centre-left but regarding spending and deficits I try to be pragmatic...

I'm glad someone mid-process still thinks it worth it! Is your place detached? We are thinking of doing it to a terraced property with all the additional agro that's likely to entail. If its not too impolite, can I ask how much its costing you and what you are having put in (utility room / kitchen / toilet) if anything and how long they think its going to take? I am trying to go into the debate with my other half prepared to make a full sales pitch, otherwise I won't make it past the first hurdle...

I was just wondering if anyone here had ever had a basement converted. We are considering doing this but just wanted to hear others thoughts and experiences on this. The thought of all the disruption is already making my partner break into hives but I think the extra living space has got to be worth it in the long run.

I'm no expert on decorating with people so I am bound to make this sort of faux pas. There must be course or something someone can take! the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely you would need a Frenchman for je ne sais > quoi.

Exactly. The tone made people of other cultures and races seem like a kind of exotic decorative element of the store. The place could do with some quirky chairs and few black people to liven it up! An Italian behind the bar would add just the right touch of je ne sais quoi!! Just odd... Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not afraid to touch upon the subject of race > and integration, I just didn't agree with your > suggestion of tokenism.

That's true katgod but your cleaner is earning 10 gross (which is only 7 net). Even a busy cleaner would struggle to get paid for a full days work as they don't earn anything during travel time between jobs, which takes up a significant portion of the day and hence why their rates need to compensate for this. The two fields aren't really comparable so as parents I don't think we should feel guilty about such things even though on the face of it, it might appear odd. Tired- I tend to agree with you. Clearly everyone has their personal dislikes but I find cleaning boring and would choose being a nanny over a cleaner hands down... katgod Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bear in mind taht an awful lot of cleaners on this > Forum are charging ?10 an hour. Not all possibly > but it does seem to me that ?10 an hour is > becoming the going rate for cleaners. Of course > they are not an employee in the same way, But I > think it would be weird to pay my cleaner more > than my nanny.

7 NET for a 50 work week works out to 500 per week gross (10 per hour gross) which is 26k a year. The number you are quoting does not gross up for tax and national insurance. The London living wage is a gross rate as are statistics related to the average London salary so you are not comparing apples with apples. emza78 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?7 per hour for a 50 hour week = gross income of > ?18,200 per year

I found that comment from the OP curious as well. And why Europeans? Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I won't be going in there unless this man is > serving my coffee. > >

I don't think anyone was being anti-nanny, just letting people know that things are negotiable. Also, the lowest wage anyone here suggested for a nanny just starting out was 7 per hour which would still be a gross income of 26k per year. The average London salary is only 28k so we really aren't talking slave wages. Please remember that the London living wage proposed by the mayor is Gross while the nanny rates being discussed here are Net.

I agree with Sol. However, what are the pros for school nursery that you are weighing up against your current situation? Perharps there are things unique to your situation we are over looking.

I know we can't afford it because we already are spending more than we are taking in. If you are a teacher I hope you at least are familiar with the facts of the budget deficit. This why it is necessary to cut costs and make sacrifices. Within my household, we've lost child benefit, my partner has had a wage freeze, my tax bill has gone up but no, I am not in the streets protesting yet. I am involved in my community though!

Under the proposed new arrangements, a teacher starting the profession in his / her early twenties today and working to 65 would get 72% of his / her avg salary adjusted for inflation as a pension. This pension would of course continue to be adjusted for inflation post retirement as well and on top of this, teachers are entitled to basic state pension. I'd really like to understand in what way this is not a good pension? Anyone else would need to contribute 17.5% of their PRE-TAX income to have any chance at achieving such a pension and would be subject to variations in the stock market as well as variations in annuity rates. Given that the average classroom teacher's salary in England was circa 32,000 in 2008 we can see how expensive these pensions are for the state. Its not question of deserving it but affording it and what would need to be sacrificed to do better.