I’ve got TLC-UK coming next week over to film me for an episode of “My 16/18 Life”…
Mumsnet #7 Tinkly little laugh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Mumsnet Threads
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
BIB - OMG - this is very OUTING
Yeah it's about as likely as them all earning six figures, living abroad and having tall, sporty, skinny, 'stunning' offspring.
Whatever you do, don't mention his hobby!! Sorry, I mean 'activity'.BIB - OMG - this is very OUTING
Also what always makes me chuckle is there’s always some glamorous housewife type who really disagrees with capitalism and thinks it’s abhorrent to have to “slave away in a corporation for a living”. ForestFae is one who springs to mind - always banging on about home schooling the kids and being out in nature. Yet when asked how she funds this lifestyle, it’s through a husband that has to slave away for a corporation 
How does he feel about it? “Oh he hates working too and wishes he could be at home with the kids, but one of us has to and it’s not going to be me”.
How does he feel about it? “Oh he hates working too and wishes he could be at home with the kids, but one of us has to and it’s not going to be me”.
None of them seem to have short, fat, plain, weedy, average or even - god forbid - DIM children 
I've just read a horrible thread where OP has been messaged by a mum about her child coming over to play. The responses are unreal, so bleeping rude and nasty. OP is clearly loving it as it's mumsnet so everyone us falling over themselves to post about how RUDE the other mum is without stopping to realise it's them who are the rude, nasty bullies.
The kids are 9. People posting saying to text back "I think you've sent this to me by mistake" and other utterly cunty things.
Honestly, it's made me feel quite depressed.
The kids are 9. People posting saying to text back "I think you've sent this to me by mistake" and other utterly cunty things.
Honestly, it's made me feel quite depressed.
In fairness, how many years ago was this?
I live in a grammar school area (although my little ones are pre schoolers so not relevant to me at the moment) & I would say 99% of the people who want to do the 11+ are tutored from year 4. In fact I know of only 1 person who didnt.
And then its a vicious circle, they take the top 100 scores so if everyone else is tutoring then you better had too!
I vehemently disagree with tutoring as it effectively prices out bright but low income kids & like someone said above it then basically becomes like ‘free’ private education
The comps round here are a disgrace so competition for a grammar place is fierce (I went to a comp that went into special measures, became an academy & then shut due to lack of improvement so speaking from experience)
On the other hand Im a massive hypocrite because when my kids come to that age, will I tutor them to
pass the 11+? Yeah I definitely will
(But would only put them in for it if they are sufficiently academic to cope at a grammar school)The coy 'DH does his hobby' thing really, as Mumsnetters like to say, boils my piss. It also makes me picture a man riding a hobby horse. In fact, if that were the hobby in question, it could indeed be very OUTING!
Another annoyance, well one of many, is when someone single wants advice and you get the smug, unhelpful 'Well if anything happened to my lovely, kind, caring, snuggle buggle boo-boo hubby bear, I couldn't ever date anyone again.'. Yeah, sure. You'd be straight on all the sites with your 'Must earn at least six-figure salary'.
Another annoyance, well one of many, is when someone single wants advice and you get the smug, unhelpful 'Well if anything happened to my lovely, kind, caring, snuggle buggle boo-boo hubby bear, I couldn't ever date anyone again.'. Yeah, sure. You'd be straight on all the sites with your 'Must earn at least six-figure salary'.
Last edited:
I think my mum would have been banned from Mumsnet - I was short, tubby and didn’t do any sport at allNone of them seem to have short, fat, plain, weedy, average or even - god forbid - DIM children
and ate about 5000 calories a dayI went in 2004 and 2007 (so got into one grammar school for year 7, moved house so then had to sit another test for Year 10 entry to another one), my brother got in in 2014. Both of ours were quite competitive but especially his I reckon (Kent Test). We’re both academic but he was less lazy than me at school, he got all 9s at GCSE and 4A*s at A-level. I get that it’s competitive but if you’re genuinely “extremely bright” (like top 1-5% IQ) then even if 100 kids in the top 50% are getting tutored for 2 years, you’d still beat most of them.In fairness, how many years ago was this?
I live in a grammar school area (although my little ones are pre schoolers so not relevant to me at the moment) & I would say 99% of the people who want to do the 11+ are tutored from year 4. In fact I know of only 1 person who didnt.
And then its a vicious circle, they take the top 100 scores so if everyone else is tutoring then you better had too!
I vehemently disagree with tutoring as it effectively prices out bright but low income kids & like someone said above it then basically becomes like ‘free’ private education
The comps round here are a disgrace so competition for a grammar place is fierce (I went to a comp that went into special measures, became an academy & then shut due to lack of improvement so speaking from experience)
On the other hand Im a massive hypocrite because when my kids come to that age, will I tutor them to
pass the 11+? Yeah I definitely will
Oh gawd yes!
And that brings me onto something that has always been a bugbear of mine on there.
Someone posts eg 'lazy husband does nothing around the house, we both work fulltime and so forth.'
'Well my DH takes over from me, the minute he gets home from his eighteen hour work day and six hour commute.
He totally spoils me bla bla bla'
And I'm here like this
wondering how THAT is supposed to help! Well of course it isn't, but anyway.
The thing that gets out to justify the horror of being a size 14 is sanctimonious witter about vanity sizing. "If this was the '80s (or whenever) you'd be a size 22 and have to shop at a special fatty shop or get your mum to make your clothes out of old tents."
That’s the first sign of an affair get your ducks in row op…Well my DH takes over from me, the minute he gets home from his eighteen hour work day and six hour commute.
He totally spoils me bla bla bla'
They are all kicking off in the MN IAC thread because someone has called Sue Cleaver ‘a miserable, lazy old bag’.
Yeah you've also missed my point in the insistence you are right.
Weve gone through the system for grammar 3 years ago and I've got friends children going through it now. If you want to be I'm the top 60, you need to be getting higher than the required pass Mark. Just passing isn't enough.
When I checked in, the OP had put "Get Boy George out" in the thread title, and was being accused of 'bullying'.They are all kicking off in the MN IAC thread because someone has called Sue Cleaver ‘a miserable, lazy old bag’.
For a site where people get called cnuts on a regular basis, there sure are some sensitive souls posting on there.
I know that “just passing” isn’t enough, it only is in areas with many grammar schools like Slough. My point was that if you are truly extremely bright like everyone on MN claims, you’d be scoring in the top 5th percentile of all the entrants without the need for 2 years tutoring. A high number of applicants doesn’t make it competitive if you’re genuinely very intelligent, just like a high number of people competing in a race (even if they’ve been coached for 2 years) wouldn’t give a high-level sprinter a run for their money. A slightly above-average child being tutored for 2 years (which seems so excessive for a 9 year old?) wouldn’t beat an extremely smart one who did past papers at home for a couple of months.
Tutoring’s not a new thing, it was around years ago, but the only people I know who did it were the slightly above-average ones that ended up in the bottoms sets of the grammar school. No-one in the top set had to be tutored for years to get in because they were all genuinely exceptionally smart.
Didn't realise this was the grammar school thread.
Not a warning but let's ALL move on from the school discussions - Please read our rules and why they're important
I only put my child in for tutoring for one term before she sat the 11+ because I just don’t agree with aggressive tutoring. Either your child is bright enough or they’re not. Imagine my surprise when I find out some kids have nigh on two years of tuition prior to sitting the examIn fairness, how many years ago was this?
I live in a grammar school area (although my little ones are pre schoolers so not relevant to me at the moment) & I would say 99% of the people who want to do the 11+ are tutored from year 4. In fact I know of only 1 person who didnt.
And then its a vicious circle, they take the top 100 scores so if everyone else is tutoring then you better had too!
I vehemently disagree with tutoring as it effectively prices out bright but low income kids & like someone said above it then basically becomes like ‘free’ private education
The comps round here are a disgrace so competition for a grammar place is fierce (I went to a comp that went into special measures, became an academy & then shut due to lack of improvement so speaking from experience)
On the other hand Im a massive hypocrite because when my kids come to that age, will I tutor them to
pass the 11+? Yeah I definitely will
Then of course I worried about leaving it too late!
I was reading that one last night. Bloody hell!Anyone seen the post from the poster who is worried her husband is getting fat and that she (OP) ‘only eats in the evenings if it’s a special occasion’?
Then it should almost certainly feature me as I am that size. I did join an NCT class when DS was a bump and was briefly co-chair of the Borough's branch until I returned to work and couldn't make the meetings any more.
- Status