monniemae

Yes, I guess with education many people take what fits the choices they've already made.

from the Intitute of Education study (2006): "single-sex education brought almost no advantage in terms of exam results. Girls from girls? schools did only slightly better in exams than their co-educational peers. Boys did no better at all (allowing for differences in ability and family background). While girls at girls? schools were slightly more likely than girls in mixed schools to gain five or more O-levels at grades A ? C, this advantage did not carry through to further and higher education. There was no impact of single-sex schooling on maths test scores at age 16, nor did single-sex schooling make it more likely for pupils to gain any A-levels at all, to get a university degree by age 33, or to enter high-status occupations. Dr Sullivan says: ?Our research emphatically does not support the suggestion that achievement is higher in single-sex schools.? http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/news.asp?section=000100010003&item=335 see also... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/why-singlesex-schools-are-bad-for-your-health-if-youre-a-boy-1831636.html http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-coed.html

Magpie, while it's true that girls do better academically, research shows boys do NOT do better. If you are simply talking about single-sex education (as opposed to private education) then in fact academically girls would be better off in single-sex and boys in mixed schools where they do better in maths and science.

Girls do better academically overall in single sex schools. But, most single sex schools are a) selective and b) self-selecting, ie, the girls were always going to do better. I think the fact her father would rather send her to a single-sex school gives the game away... Mixed schools aren't suddenly going to turn your child into a dumbed down strumpet. If anything they'll always know how to get along in a mixed, sometimes macho environment. I went to both. Bright and medium-bright girls did well at both. But the price of single-sex education and the attending pressure is a disproportionate number of eating disorders, drug and alcohol misuse, self-harming and ferocious bitching. The flip side was an ingrained sense of "gender blindness" when it came to choosing our life options. But most of my friends have that anyway, regardless of where they went to school, and it's as much about your home environment as anything. I actually treasure the friendships and experiences I had at single-sex school, but you can tell which side of the debate I come down on! Best of luck working out what's best for you guys though.

It's fine. Unless you have a history of premature labour. A google search will throw up numerous reliable sources. x

Look! Must be some old trees around East Dulwich - Peckham Rye certainly... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/19/woodland-trust-ancient-trees-london

I thought employers pay a national insurance contribution for their employees, as do the employees themselves, but the TAX is paid from the employee's pay packet? In which case, you're not paying your nanny's tax as such, you're just administering it. Am I wrong? If so I agree that seems even more impossibly steep for most people. But normally when you negotiate a rate, you would negotiate PRE tax ie gross, so why would you do any differently for nannies? Are you saying you offer your nanny ?6/7 ph AFTER tax? Admittedly I may have completely confused myself, apologies if so...I haven't had to employ a nanny yet. But when I do, myself and MrMae shall be sharing the cost, it won't be a punitive hit just on my pay packet as a middle class working mum.

It's just not useful (as somebody already pointed out) to throw junior doctors into the mix. And they are NOT paid ?21k, it's more like ?33k for their first qualified year - a brilliant starting salary in any profession, rising to ?41k in the second year. A nanny is never going to jump pay scales like that. I just wanted to point out that nannies are not being unreasonable asking for ?6-12ph. And I also know that many employers who worry about "being laughed out of interview" for being of childbearing age are themselves adamant they wouldn't hire a nanny of childbearing age in case they had to worry about treating her fairly. I think the OP will find a nanny for significantly less than ?32k. ?6ph in a nanny share is ?14560 from each family. ?8 ph is less than ?17k. I don't think there are a tribe of nannies living it up in East Dulwich while their employers scrape by in rags.

Saila, would you work 8-6, five days a week, having to take (typically) half your holidays when your employers dictated, knowing that your salary will never jump a payscale, knowing you aren't entitled to benefits like pensions and private healthcare while you look after the children of the privileged, for less than ?32k? Given that nannies have often done their training in appallingly paid jobs nurseries (?10k a year?)I don't think ?32k is unreasonable. Obviously the cost of a nanny is horrific - you're basically working to earn a salary to pay someone else's salary, and hoping to pocket some difference. I don't think nannies are being any more unrealistic than would-be employers in this regard. There's also a difference between what different people mean by "nanny share". I've noticed some people see it as 3 days with one family, two days with another, while others mean all at the same time - which is essentially taking on two workloads at the same time. So the scale could be expected to vary widely...If the OP wants the former then she should be able to find a ?6ph nanny.

are you kidding? It's put me off shopping there for life. Offensive reductive twaddle.

Actually the cameras were all fixed - ie, there was no crew or cameras pushed in anyone's faces - that's the idea anyway, that using 40 or so 'fixed cameras' controlled remotely mean you get a better or more 'honest' appraisal of what goes on, without crews interfering or reminding people to be self conscious... not sure how true that is though. But you'd expect people to be so caught up in the birth of their child they forget about a camera stuck high up on the wall!

Isn't your landlord obliged to rehouse you?!

'The Irish terrorists' were not so different, Vince, in that the villification and 'crackdowns' wrought against them by the media and security forces did nothing to dissuade them from their cause; worrying about 'upsetting people' wasn't an issue when it came to UK attitudes to the Irish in the 80s and yet, we still had terrorism. While indeed there wasn't a progression to suicide tactics, there was a celebration of 'martyrdom' for anyone who did die in the name of the cause. Oh and the same discredited assertions of an inherent 'problem' within the catholic faith is echoed in your crass suggestion that terrorism / 'problems' are unique to Muslims. With regards to your comments on those claiming benefits, it's a lot less money than your horror would suggest - "Asylum seekers cannot claim mainstream welfare benefits including Income Support, Job Seekers Allowance and Housing Benefit. Those who meet a destitution test are eligible for Asylum Support (formerly known as NASS support)." the latter is around ?38 per week. And as for the suggestion that 'if you don't like it here, leave' - take your pals with you, Vince. Thanks.

ah thanks - the departure boards currently make everything seem fine. I guess it will be like yesterday ie when you get to ldn bridge it's soon clear that nothing is as timetabled / displayed on the boards

really? i just checked (to pkm rye) and looks fine, am I looking in the wrong place? http://realtime.nationalrail.co.uk/ldb/sumdep.aspx?T=LBG&S=PMR

my friend on barforth rd / nunhead lane has none either

Ooo I didn't know there was such a thing the OKR, I always go a back route - whereabouts?

Isn't T Mobile merging with Orange next year? So should be able to get I-Phones then

Article about this here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/dec/07/albany-midwives-kings-college-hospital Sounds like the campaign could do with some help from the likes of Ben Goldacre to unravel the report's methodology

Clearly someone - whoever - chucking fireworks is dangerous, setting fire to a bin outside someone's house is intimidating and stupid, trying to burn down a cafe is horrible and pointless, and I've yet to read anyone disputing this is so. But it's perfectly reasonable for some posters, tired of the kneejerk 'hooded youths' comments (as justified as they turned out to be at least on CurlyKaren's part) and of the melodramatic speculation that so many on this forum are prone to, to remark as such. It's not belittling the stupidity of playing with fire to point out that for many kids, yes, it IS a rite of passage.

I think thebestnameshavegone was just flagging up the unlikelihood of a bin fire turning into the great fire of london. Bin fires are annoying, waste fire brigade resources etc, but rarely do they lead to catastrophic house fires. At the same time it must be frightening that anybody would be so willfully stupid so close to your home; I sympathise. I spent years living in fear of being struck by a firework for several weeks of the year - bemused to discover that the kids of london have only caught on to this 'fun' decades after the youth of Manchester, Nottingham, Liverpool etc...

I don't think it was an overreaction at all. People post about all kinds of trivia on internet forums, and given your subsequent attempts to trivialise the OP's experience, her posting here was entirely appropriate. Plus as there is clearly at least one woman in East Dulwich who'd rather make crass comments about being 'not too much of a munter' than acknowledge that many if not most women would rather not deal with this hassle, it's been a more useful post than most in creating a forum for people to articulate their frustrations with catcalling and such.

& more importantly, that the aggressive intrusions of groups of men into your mental space, whether dressed up as flattery come-ons appreciations or assessments, are no cause for gratitude. and I agree that people who think it's alright to heckle women and girls walking past them ARE intellectually subnormal, whoever they are.

I echo Steve T - it's in the pub's interest to make sure their customers aren't causing a nuisance to or intimidating local residents. I also agree ignoring them is the best way in the meantime - they're obviously making you feel uncomfortable so I can't see how engaging with/humouring them would be the right option for you. I hate stuff like this, however harmless / jovial / flattering people suggest it might be, I personally hate it. x

cycling is a great option, though not after a drink or three...