LondonMix

Pugwash-- that story reminded me of my youngest brother in law. He was only 9 or so when my husband when to uni and confessed that at that age he thought my husband was being selfish for breaking up the family! He was clearly very upset even though there was a huge age gap.

I added in pants... Saying only pyjamas was a lie! I won't confess to anything more than that though :)

I also do like to dance around in my pyjamas / pants in the kitchen which might have something to do with that though :)

Personal taste-- I think 100% glass extensions look great but I'm not a huge fan of the goldfish feeling. Of course there needs to be roof glazing and I have a fully glazed back wall onto the garden but full glass would leave me feeling a bit exposed.

My husband is 10 and 12 years older than his little brothers. He played with them (though not as a peer) when they were kids and now that they are all adults in their 20s and 30s, all 3 of them are extremely close. One of my best friends is the youngest of 3 girls with a similar gap as you'd have. She was also treated as the baby growing up (all the way through uni which irritated her) but now that they are all in the 30s, they are again very close (speak everyday, see each other frequently) In the end its fine but in the early days you'll notice it. To be fair though, being close in age doesn't guarantee your kids will play together or even like each other. I know plenty of examples of kids and adults that have siblings close in age that don't get on / aren't close. Have a kid if you want one and know the rest is just pot luck!

SB- unless you aren't overlooked, I'd avoid all glass. Personally, I think extensions that try to blend with the existing architecture (reclaimed London stock or whatever) will age better as trends come and go than anything trying to be specifically 'modern'. I like the look of Crittal a lot and there is every reason to think bifolds are becoming a bit passe but honestly, given how small our garden is, bifolds work lots better when we are having loads of people over for party / BBQ as our kitchen / living area and garden genuinely become one big space. Just decide based on what your house and lifestyle dictates.

Actually no-- the last place and the current place they are doing are just refurbs and lofts actually. I think that's more down to limited funds to invest though than 100% max profit optimization. There is less money to be made though in doing the side return from what they've told me. reds Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Weirdly I think a side return adds more value to > a > > house with a loft than one without. I think > > having the entire house 'done' somehow adds an > > additional premium, in part because then the > > living and bedroom space end up more balanced. > > > > > Either way, we've done ours to stay put in as > > well. My friends in Nunhead though do up > houses > > every two years and sell them. Their goal is > to > > eventually be mortgage free. There in the > middle > > of their next project right now. > > Do your friends always carry out loft and aide > return extentions to maximise profit??

Weirdly I think a side return adds more value to a house with a loft than one without. I think having the entire house 'done' somehow adds an additional premium, in part because then the living and bedroom space end up more balanced. Either way, we've done ours to stay put in as well. My friends in Nunhead though do up houses every two years and sell them. Their goal is to eventually be mortgage free. There in the middle of their next project right now.

I think both a side return and a loft add quite a lot of value. Just look at how much an unextended 3 bed sells for on Rightmove compared to a fully extended house with loft and side return. The total combined spend on both bits of work only needs to be around 100-150k (though obviously can be more). Converting the loft does seem to add more value though.

Got it (eventually)

The price absolutely changes depending on the size. 25k including VAT for a 3m side fill is right assuming there isn't complicated drainage to be relocated and your footings and ground conditions are fine and there is no major leveling work. I have friends who have done ones that small with no additional rear extension and it worked out to around that using reclaimed brick rather than rendered blocks. I'm also assuming this doesn't include relandscaping the garden. My own extension was much larger but was part of a gut renovation including extending the first floor and converting the loft. On top of the base build price you can add 20k to 50k depending on specifics-- are you relocating the boiler, including underfloor heating, what specification of doors and roof windows (velux, bifolds etc), what quality of flooring, lighting and kitchen do you want, are you adding in a ground floor bathroom etc. Of course that 20-50k of extras can easily balloon to 100k if you go totally mad. For a larger project it will be somewhat higher due to more flooring and windows but even for a 6m extension, 70k all in is feasible if you don't go for a name brand kitchen, or ultra high spec doors or windows. You can still get a solid wood kitchen made by a carpenter in the home counties for a good sized kitchen for 10k, painted beautifully and including installation. Also British Standard (sister brand of Plain English) do reasonably affordable solidly crafted wood kitchens that work on roughly the same. If you are on a budget, get ex-display doors from one of the big companies like Sunfold. They come in a pre-set size so you'll build your opening around the door rather than the other way around but you can save half the retail price-- I again have friends who did that on a renovation project and I think its a brilliant compromise. I wish I'd been able to do that myself as it can save you thousands. Good luck OP

Given he mentions it the forward of the brochure, saying he doesn't like to talk about it seems a bit off the mark... Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I *think* his dad was a bus driver...... > > Yes, I think I vaguely recall a rumour along those > lines. I guess he doesn't like to talk about his > background much.

Agree with DaveR and MickMack on this as well. Religious beliefs can and have been used for all sort of indefensible prejudices, including interracial marriage not that long ago.

My thoughts exactly, particularly the example of hate speech which no one, black, white or otherwise would legally be compelled to replicate. miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A bakery owner by black people forced to create > a cake with a white supremacist message? > > A Jewish bakery forced to bake a cake bearing a > 'vote Corbyn' message? > > Do you really think these two are examples of the > same type of thing?

Congrats marmite. Unfortunately we aren't the same size (especially in the bust!) otherwise I certainly would have. I believe there are services available that allow you to rent wedding dresses for a pretty reasonable fee. Good luck with you winter nuptials!

You should only buy puppies from a reputable breeder of that type. If you go the official breed organization website they often list certified breeders. An alternative would be to adopt one from Battersea. There are many puppies that need a good home.

rahrah--- that you can't accept that the admissions system in the state sector is a source if inequity and a barrier to social mobility despite it being well evidenced and researched says a lot. I thought you were in favor of evidenced based policy based on your posting regarding grammar schools? Just because universal state education is a good thing doesn't mean it can't also have harmful impacts that need to addressed to produce a more equitable society. The two facts can and do co-exist. Like I have repeatedly said, the only equivalence (your words not mine) between the two systems is that within both parents make decisions using their wealth to obtain the best educational result for their children. I'm not even sure what about that is controversial. For some reason, unless people say private school is 100% bad and the state system is 100% good you see it as some sort of 'trick'. Reality is more nuanced than that...

I was thinking the same thing. 20 somethings who grew up here are unlikely to be on the family room forum. They probably don't even live around here anymore. Given their parents don't have young children either, the main section or lounge might be a better bet to find someone with direct experience. eleni70 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm guessing at 25/26 there might not be many of > the first cohort checking the family discussion > threads on the East Dulwich forum? >

Its a large limited addition print. Limited editions always sell for those sorts of prices. Dog duck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Seems like a ridiculous price for a poster to > me. > > But what do I know... > > Totally agree... ridiculous price

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's like saying that air pollution causes early > deaths (true), so cigarettes and breathing air are > both bad for health. On some level this is true > and you could signpost lots of reasearch about air > quality and health impacts, but that wouldn't make > the implied equivalence any less inappropriate. I get that you think private schools are worse because they (in your view) intentionally prevent social mobility while for you the state school system it's just a bi-product. However, the impact of each is what they are and both need to be addressed. The equivalence only comes on the parent-side and stems from the fact that the inequality in the state school system is directly the result of individuals on mass using their wealth to buy their way into good state schools / avoiding bad schools. Parents who opt into the private school system are doing the same. Those choices are very similar and not at all like the choice to breathe air vs smoke cigarettes.

And to be clear rahrah-- that's not double speak. I'm not in some ideological corner trying to win something. Both private and state education harm social mobility and both need to be reformed in different ways. Its really not that complicated.

I think decisions parents make around sending their kids to school, whether a good state school or a good private school are essentially from the same impulse and neither action is more or less moral or correct than the other. When others (not anyone here) suggests otherwise, it sounds both naive and ridiculously self-righteous. However, I am not personally advocating for the existence of private education. I am advocating for a better admission system in the state sector though, which I've advocated for before on the forum. I think lotteries with large catchment areas (preferably inner and outer) are the best system if all schools aren't equally good. I think that will do a lot for social equity and mobility based on the research I've read. I think independent schools both hinder (mostly) and help (partially) social mobility. If independent schools are to exist, I think there should be universal needs blind admission and significantly more bursaries so their overall socio-economic mix is more in line with the country as a whole. What the Sutton Trust has outlined makes sense: http://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/john-claughton-sees-independent-schools-as-part-of-the-solution-on-social-mobility/ When I discuss things, it needn't be pro or against, just facts about each. I think both the state and private sector need to be better at addressing the ways in which they both hinder social mobility. The UK has one of the worst records on social mobility in the developed world and addressing it requires looking at the entire education system not just private schools. With all that said, while that is what I want to happen, I'll make my decisions as a parent based on what's best given my options in whatever system then exists. I'm not going to send my child to bad state school to prove a political point regarding my views on social mobility.

What do you mean? I don't know anyone who says they've chosen private school because its more inclusive. Some private schools are more diverse and inclusive than some state schools and while that might appeal, I've never heard anyone claim that was their primary motive. Its always about the education. Anyhow, I think you can be in favour of a level playing field while still acknowledging that one doesn't exist and therefore doing what's best for your family. Just like picking the best state school you can within a system that has unequal quality of education. Personally, I'm not rationalising anything as we don't pay for school fees (at least not yet). My only point was that generalisation about the social experience at independent schools should be judged school by school and relative to the the state alternative as the picture can be fairly mixed. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think people who send their kids to private > school should stop trying to justify it in terms > of diversity, inclusivity, social mobility etc. It > comes across as post-rationalising, as though > you're trying to justify a decision you feel guilt > over (I'm not suggesting you should feel guilt, > just that it comes across like that). Have the > courage of your convictions. If you want to pay in > order to give your kids an advantage, a > competitive edge, just say it and move on. But you > can't have it both ways. You can't send your child > to an exclusive schools and then try to claim that > actually it's no different than a state school and > that you're somehow in favour of a level playing > field.

Yes, I'm sure oligarch money plays its role both from the middle east and Africa.

On the diversity point, looking for the name of that school for rendell I came across this. https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/jun/16/diversity-private-schools-headteachers-leadership I remembered that ethnic minorities are over represented in the independent school sector relative to the general population but didn't remember it was quite this high (29% of pupils vs 14% of the population). Oakfield Prep gets a mention in the article discussing some of their pupils. There appear to be a number of factors including a greater willingness amongst minority parents who were state educated to pay for private education, even if its a struggle (immigrant ambition?). Anyhow, it adds an additional dimension to the conversation about the social experience in the state vs. private sector, though probably not if you live in diverse SE London!