Anyone familiar with Balham SW12?

[Jeezimacasalinga]

Hoping that someone knowledgeable on here can help us out - we are looking at family houses (4/5 beds) in SW12, preferable Nightingale Triangle or Wandsworth Common side. Hoping to be near enough to Holy Ghost RC school for kids, entry in 2 years. If anyone knows this area and could tell me their likes/dislikes/alternatives I would really appreciate it!

I used to live there before we had kids.
Nightingale triangle or wandsworth commno is nice with lots of young families but i dont think it is so good for secondary schools.
Alternatives:east dulwich, barnes, beckenham.

Very expensive houses for what you get around Holy Ghost, typical cramped Victorian terraces with tiny gardens (unless you can afford Nightingale Square itself) and you have to live very close to stand a chance of getting in even if you conform to church attendance requirements etc. Be warned that HG church is extremely right wing traditional and the school is similarly orthodox - this is great if you have those beliefs but I know a couple of people who got their children in and now feel a bit isolated.

Thanks both of you! I hadn't heard that about the school - I know you have to have weekly mass attendance but figured that was fair enough considering the demand for places. Isn't it just a typical RC school? Also guess I'm used to cramped terraces where we are already (flat in Vauxhall) so not expecting much more. Does anyone else have any views on atmosphere/vibe in Balham? Have visited a bit and think we like it but would be great to hear from anyone living there already.

I live in Nightingale Triangle on Balham/Clapham borders - it's nice enough. It's getting a bit up itself to be honest though. I'd prefer to live in one of the squares around Vauxhall, Kennington or Oval.

Go into the foyer at HG church - the last time I looked (admittedly I haven't been in a while), there was a leaflet advertising a regular group held by Opus Dei. Re: typical Catholic school - a friend sent her child there and was told one day in the lead up to Easter to send her to school dressed all in black (and I mean all in black - shoes, tights, skirt, top, no logos, no sparkles). This was for "Reflections on Christ's Passion" day where the all the children - hers was in reception - sat around reading passages from the bible on Christ's passion and stopping every few minutes and then chanting "Crucify! Crucify! For our love Jesus must die!" It was extremely unsettling - I saw the video my friend took. It ain't just drawing pictures of the miracle of the loaves and five fishes.

Getting into HG School is very difficult at reception level even if you have good church attendance: I think last year there were 24/26 siblings for the reception class (max number 30). Also look at the school prospectus on the website and go to the open day (14 Nov I think, but please check) before you commit.

A good alternative would be to look between the Commons to try and qualify for Honeywell or Belleville.

Surely the whole point of MN is that people give their opinions? The OP asked for likes/ dislikes/ alternatives, and that is exactly what she got. I also think that anyone taking the trouble to post on MN would also visit the school and talk to as many RL people as possible rather than being put off by one negative comment.
I also think that if you choose a RC school you have to expect some religious input; that's why most people would choose the school. My DCs went to a different RC school and enjoyed the ritual. They have not been unsettled by it.

Good point, greyvix. I don't mean to patronise Mumsnetters, nor do I seek to challenge people's right to express valid opinions. But, I hope you understand why I am frustrated by comments from posters which are inaccurate and/or are motivated by personal disappointment, factors which will perhaps not be clear to those who are either new to MN or to the area. Would lalalonglegs be making the same comments had her daughter got into the school in 2008?? I just wanted to give some context, that's all. I hate singling out one person's comments, which is why I turned my post into something more general. I didn't mean, in the process, to insult the intelligence of mumsnetters in general!

Rarfs

Are you suggesting that when lala described the video she had watched, it was not true?

Personally I am not in favour of the religious indoctrination of children, but I know some are.

I recall speaking to a pro-Catholic schools person about the child abuse being swept under the carpet and criminals. being moved to new parishes so they could start again with a fresh crop of victims.

Nonono.
He said.
That hardly ever happened, and its all in the past, nothing like that ever happens now.

However he was speaking before the scandal broke, and we now know he was wrong on both counts. His loyalty was misplaced. Refusing to accept any criticism or doubt was not the right response.

Rarfs, not sure what your motivation is here. You have directed vitriol against a long standing poster who always comes across measured and reasonable. You have been digging out posts of hers going back 5 years to prove some point. I have no idea how much you think you know about Lala and her situation, and what has led her to change her mind about things across a 5 year period +!

But have you considered that you come across as a vitriolic and stalkerish nutter with your posts.

Interesting first post rarfs.....

Are you a coward hiding behind a name change?

It is not. I do not want to be mean. I am sorry to offend anyone, but sometimes it is important to stick your head above the parapet to defend things you care about and to point out things that are misleading. That's all. I am not going to post anymore on this thread. I don't know what I have done to upset you, pigletjohn, but as I said - I am not above criticism, so feel free to savage away.

You are not sticking your head up for what you believe in, you have hidden behind a name change, digging into posts dating back several years. You come across as an unhinged nutter.

With respect you are only assuming that lalas opinion is based on not gaining a place in a school 4 years earlier.

I've not name changed (recently) and I think rarfs I get your point. When lala wanted to get in to the school she did all she could and was disappointed she didn't get her DD in.

Lala had one thing to say and rarfs is saying something else - surely what MN is about?

And pure, regardless of a name change or not, unhinged nutter? bit harsh... Are we only not allowed to direct vitriol against a long standing poster's...?

Rarfs has chosen to name change and to direct his/her vitriol towards a poster on an old thread where lala is no longer posting, so lala has no way of defending her viewpoint.

Dont you find rarfs behavior strange? Would YOU go and dig like this and throw accusations about a poster who is not currently here to defend themselves? Really?

Personally, we applied for a highly sought after RC primary, did not get in, but got in to a different rc primary. We now attend mass in a different parish, where our dc actually go to school, rather than in our own parish. Do you really think you have to continue to support and worship in a parish that has no school place for you? It is only natural to move on and worship in the parish which is connected to the school your dc attend. Much better, when you consider FHC, etc.

My point was rarfs allowed a point of view, and sometimes that means saying you disagree with another poster, and if she sees lala as be hypocritical, that's her opinion. It's fine to defend lala but I don't see how calling rarfs a coward for name changing is relevent?

I name change ALL the time, I'll get bored of being WhataSook. Am I not allowed to have an opinion until I've got some history behind a new name??

And no I don't normally sling accusations around about other posters, but if I had a point, or read something I strongly disagreed with I'd wade in.

" And no I don't normally sling accusations around about other posters, but if I had a point, or read something I strongly disagreed with I'd wade in."

Even on a year old thread?
And no doubt you would name change first, then you would trawl back 5 years or so and see if you could link to old posts and hypothesize about the reason a poster said what they said.

Fair enough. You are free to do that, but that makes me free to call you an unhinged stalkerish nutter.

I name change when I get bored, not to sling shit. Let's get that straight!

Sorry to have caused all this bother - particularly to the original poster! I said I would stay quiet but like all the best laid plans....

1. I have not changed names. I don't normally post on mumsnet as I find the playground tit for tat nastiness very intimidating. QED.

1. That said, and perhaps this is my fault for posting so late in the evening - emotion overrules sense - when I saw lalalonglegs' comments for the first time and recognised her name from other things, I had to make some things clear (even though the post is several months old).

1. I have no personal axe to grind against lala who, it seems, is very popular on MN. WhataSook has stated my position more lucidly than I could.

1. I do, however, have an issue with lala's position re HG and the possible (I accept it is speculation, albeit based on previous MN posts) causes of it. Again, that is all.

It is admirable that so many people defend a friend. But that should not stifle comments on a site that is designed to help and inform. You are quite right to say that I don't know what had caused lalalonglegs' complete change of opinion, but am I wrong to point it out (and, in the wee hours, even to get a bit annoyed by it?)

saying that lala "lalalonglegs claims to have seen" a video, seems "hypocritical and a bit dishonest", makes comments which are "inaccurate and/or are motivated by personal disappointment," is "making sometimes nasty and inaccurate comments," which are "evidently borne from your disappointment." posts "mean, misleading comments"

doesn't fit my idea of "making things clear"