Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sat works better for me as my husband is away every Sat so we keep Sundays for family stuff. and morning also better as my 2-year-old still sleeps between 1.30-3 so 2pm not good at all. we can meet around 11 and let them play for a while before giving them lunch.


hopefully see you next Sat

x

I'm due 1st November and have just moved to a temp flat while we have building work done and can pretty much see the caf from the flat :-) Would love to meet some fellow expectant mummies. Sat or Sunday mornings are best for me, before lunch ideally. Hope I get to meet you.

Kerry x

I will be closer to 11.30 as my little boy has football until then. I'd thought we were going to do something more in the open air (weather permitting) though rather than in the cafe - perhaps taking a picnic lunch with us, so we can spread out. Thinking about how much space we took at Nero's last time, then doubling (or trebling with other halves) I don't think the cafe will take it!


We could meet in the picnic area (close to the lake/swings which is gated off to avoid dogs and their 'accessories'!)?

I would agree about picnic but the picnic area has no toilets nearby - and I have been stuck there with a toddler needing a poo - not fun!


Also it seems to me not as many of us are coming on saturday and if we sat outside at the cafe we should be ok

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...