DaveR

I'm not sure whether race played much of a part in the Stanford case. The main point is (as Blah said) that US universities have a very poor record when it comes to dealing with sexual assaults, particularly where the alleged assailant/s are college athletes. http://www.athleticbusiness.com/rules-regulations/college-athletic-departments-role-in-investigating-sexual-assaults.html

"Do feel free to come as we want a full exploration of all views." But do you, really? "Parents Defending Education" - from whom? Or is that something still to be decided? "Out of the meeting we hope to be able to agree what a campaign directed to government might look like" - but there's definitely going to be campaign directed at government, right? "We are very pleased to have received the backing of the NUT for our meeting" - have you checked with them whether they are interested in a 'full exploration of all views'? My view is that the NUT represent a significant threat to further improvement in schools - can we explore that? "Let's remember that our schools don't belong to the government. Our schools belong to our children, to the community, to the parents, to the teachers and support staff and to future generations." My view is that this is meaningless, pointless nonsense - the real question is who should run schools, and in particular how to manage the tricky balance of power between govt (central and local), the management and governors of individual schools (and increasingly those of academy chains), and others, in particular whoever is carrying out the supervisory/quality control function, be it Ofsted or whoever. My sense is that this (serious and difficult) issue is one you're not interested in grappling with. 'Parents Defending Education' = simplistic nonsense.

The Maltese Falcon. The Philadelphia Story. Life is Beautiful. Where Eagles Dare.

"Either way, it shows how bean counters and lawyers should be held to account on the outcome of their limited imaginations It's a nice village, why not put something very nice there too" I'm with you, 100%. Unfortunately, in my experience big firm lawyers and accountants are perfectly happy with their limited imaginations, hence the huge number of identical shiny black Audi estates in the Village (or a Porsche Cayenne if you consider yourself a bit more 'thrusting'), and the continued existence of Boden.

There's an obvious and interesting parallel with Moneyball (the book rather than the film). Heavily simplified, the approach of the As in baseball was to analyse how the market for players was inefficient, and then recruit new players against quite specific data driven criteria. It didn't offer any guarantee of success but it made the As competitive despite the fact they had a lot less money than almost all the other clubs. Again, I remember reading an interview with a Spanish coach (Villareal maybe?) who said that he assumed that he would lose his two or three most prominent 'stars' at the end of each season so the focus was always on bringing in new talent from the academy and bargain buys, keeping a core group of less showy but effective players, and maintaining consistency in coaching and playing style so new players adapted to the team, and not the other way round.

Again, I think its a reflection of the fact that Soton have confidence in their overall set up, and in particular their coaching. The reality is that, at a certain level, every club (except Real, Barca, Bayern and maybe Juventus) are selling clubs.

"I'd hate to be a Saints fan though, they are the ultimate selling club, just think of the players they've let go in the last few years, as well as 2 managers." It's an interesting question - as I understand it, Saints strategy is to accept that successful players will move on (and managers) but believe that their academy, scouting and coaching is strong enough to keep them successful. If you look at how the players they let go have done at their new clubs, and how their replacements have performed at Southampton, they may have a point. On the scouting question I'm sure I read somewhere that Saints had done some analysis of which European Leagues were closest to the Premiership in style of play, and also of the performance of imports from all different foreign clubs/leagues, and had come to the conclusion that (i) it doesn't matter so much where the player is originally from, it's about where they have played as a pro and (ii) the best value is in players from the Dutch and French leagues.

I'm trying to imagine what the board/committee of Dulwich estates look like, and trying to imagine where they live. Here you go: http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/about/the-trustees Three accountants, two banker types, two surveyors, a lawyer. I'm sure a bit of judicious googling and you could work out who the others are. If you look at the websites of the various schools there are pictures of the governors, who make up about half of the Estate Trustees. As a very sweeping generalisation the typical profile is much more smooth finance guy with big house in Dulwich Village than crusty old fart from Tunbridge Wells.

Jimmy

The mini micro for really small kids is unbeatable, but there are other options for 6+. Just don't buy a cartoon character themed one from Toys R Us or somewhere like that - they're pretty terrible. JD Bug scooters are decent quality - probably not quite as good as Micro but they are solid and have proper wheel bearings etc. Decathlon are also good. https://www.skatehut.co.uk/scooters/complete_scooters/+jd_bug?gclid=CNLJkc3pmM0CFfgW0wodQ1YGaw http://www.decathlon.co.uk/C-313385-scooters/N-192972-scooters-type~kids-scooters

This all sounds very reasonable - concerned local parents, get informed etc. Isn't it actually just the Anti-Academies Alliance, by another name? Which in turn is a movement dominated by teaching and other public sector unions, with no interest in anything other than knee-jerk opposition to anything that disturbs their vested interests? If you're appealing for people to join your (political) cause, just say so - don't dress it up as something else (however ineptly)

Also on leasing: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/car-finance/car-leasing

There's not really a better option, but what suits you better - your finances, your intended use of the car etc. I can't see the advantage of PCP over just choosing either to buy or lease. If you lease you pay a fixed amount every month and someone else takes all the risks of ownership. You could get a brand new Kia Sportage for about ?200/month for three years, and at the end of the period decide what you want to do next - lease another one, or something different, or buy something. During the three years the only restriction is a mileage limit - the cheapest deals limit you to 8,000 miles a year, but more miles will only cost you an extra ?10 a month. If you buy you take on the risks of ownership, but over the long term its cheaper. Let's say you buy a two year old Kia Sportage for ?15,000, which you pay off over 4 years. You end up paying ?16,000 with the cost of credit, but if you keep the car for say 6 years, at the end of which it's worth ?5,000, the overall cost to you is ?11,000 over 6 years - ?150/month. It doesn't seem like much of a difference, but ?50/month over 6 years is ?3600 saved, and the longer you keep it the cheaper the overall cost. Kia cars come with a 7 year warranty and have a reputation for lasting a long time - buy a two year old car now and there's no reason why you can't drive it for another ten years.

http://www.elvergel.co.uk/ Unfortunately only open for lunch.

Botany Bay, between Margate and Broadstairs. Beautiful sandy beach backed by chalk cliffs. There's only a small cafe/shop but it's right on the beach, and after a few hours there you can always nip to Broadstairs or Margate for fish & chips and minigolf.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm a bit lost now - is the argument that Sweaty > Betty moving in will kill ED (or Peckham, or > London) or that it will kill Lowestoft (presumably > by moving into ED rather than there)? DaveR, Sweaty Beaty in and of itself will make no difference. It's just another shop. But the process of high end chain wntrenchment will kill ED and yes even Lowestoft, indirectly, in time. Mark my words! Poor London neighborhoods gentrified get the high end chains and disappearing social diversity further enhancing the notion London is a country all by itself, which indirectly continues to damage outlying towns and cities (Lowestoft and Bognor etc) which are already poor and will just get poorer!! Louisa. I'm still confused. If Sweaty Betty is successful, how will that kill ED? And if it's unsuccessful, presumably it will be replaced by something that might be, so how will that kill ED? I think the confusion might be semantic - does 'kill ED' actually mean 'make me and my friends cross'?

"It would appear that if you have a 'professional' qualification i.e. OT, Social Worker, Nurse, Physio ,you have more chance of employment than if you had for instance a Business Studies English or Sociology etc degree." Maybe. The essential nature of professions is that there's some sort of effective monopoly over certain types of work, but those monopolies can be shaky, and there's a lot of competition to get in and then get established. There are lots of other professional qualifications - law, accountancy, architecture, surveying, engineering - and the picture varies a lot between them. Plus, I'd say again, a good academic degree from a good university is still the most likely to open doors to a variety of careers. I can't help but notice that almost every job that appears to have been contemplated is broadly in the healthcare/therapeutic sector. It's obvious, but worth saying, that there are loads of interesting jobs in all kinds of sectors - manufacturing, retail, professional services, financial services, IT - and relatively few of those jobs require specific qualifications.

Very few jobs outside of serious science require particular subjects at A level/degree, and if she's not doing maths A level and struggling (comparatively) with physics then serious science might not be her future. If that's the case, going to university is still the most reliable way of maximising your career options, and she should choose the subject that most interests her and is likely to continue to interest and stimulate her as she gets deeper in. She can think about specific career paths later - that's what most people do in practice. I'm one of the very few people I know actually doing the job I thought I'd be doing when I was 17. It's not always popular advice but it is a good idea to choose as rigorous a course at as good a university as she can. Not only because in the real world a biology degree from Manchester is in another universe compared to say a forensic science degree from Luton, but also because the quality of teaching and the academic facilities at the former are going to be vastly superior.

I'm a bit lost now - is the argument that Sweaty Betty moving in will kill ED (or Peckham, or London) or that it will kill Lowestoft (presumably by moving into ED rather than there)?

More horseshit, I'm afraid. Like the way everybody who does not support J Corbyn is described as 'right wing'. The only allegation of any substance is this: "There is a large crossover between right-wing, anti-Corbyn Labour and the pro-Israel lobby within the party" but there's no real evidence to support it. Because it's horseshit.

I thought the statement Jah posted was utter horseshit "Not all Zionists are Jews" - really? Show me some criticism of Zionists/Zionism that doesn't necessarily imply that they are Jews "Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism" I don't see much ambiguity or unknowingness in defending a suggested forced Jewish de-population of Israel by reference to Hitler "Those making the charges now, did not see fit to bring them up at the time, under previous Labour leaders..." Because those making them were so remote from power within the Labour party that they could be ignored; now no longer the case "The attack is coming from four main sources, who share agendas: to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader of Labour; to defend Israeli government policy from attack, however unjust, racist and harmful towards the Palestinian people; and to discredit those who make legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy or Zionism as a political ideology ? The Conservative Party ? Conservative-supporting media in Britain and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources ? Right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community ? Opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour party" Far and away the most vocal attacks are coming from the Parliamentary Labour Party who recognise that (a) this is electoral poison and (b) to their credit, that sometimes things really are black and white and you have to pick a side.

This seems to be a fair summary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36143599 As always, a bit more nuanced than tabloid headlines would have you believe

As I said above, BHS was profitable every year up to 2008 (and I think the last dividend paid was in 2005), so suggesting Green bought it, asset stripped it and moved on is just wrong. Some have been saying that if profits had been reinvested rather than going out in dividends it would have survived, but that doesn't really stand up - it's not like it's a pharma or tech company that lives and dies by its R&D spend. Where there are serious questions to be asked is around the pension fund deficit during the period he owned it and at the time of the disposal, and those questions apply to Green and to the fund trustees, and their advisors.

As I understand it, BHS was profit making on an operational basis until 2008 (Green bought it in 2000) but has made increasing losses ever since, and Green was looking for an exit since at least 2012. So it wasn't an asset stripping exercise, though he definitely milked it for revenue. On the pension issue, lots of companies have struggled to keep occupational funds in surplus (or more likely keep deficits reasonable) for the simple reason that there's a huge mismatch between liabilities and returns on fund assets, but the terms of the disposal and the current offer from Green are obviously inadequate and I would expect the Pensions Regulator to stick him with a massive bill - ?300 million is the figure being bandied about.

Southwark were paid commission by Thames Water for collecting from tenants on their behalf - the amount seems to have varied between 15 and 18%. In return for this Southwark took on the cost of collection and the risk of non-payment, but it's clear that they made a significant profit overall. The arrangement started post water privatisation so from about 1990, although the case only relates to the period between 2006 and 2013, and Thames Water had or have similar arrangements with 69 local authorities and housing associations. So it's a bit misleading to say Southwark negotiated a discount and didn't pass it on, and also a bit unfair to single out Southwark amongst all the other LAs.