DaveR

I think there are some good examples of firms that have made a virtue out of hiring locally when others are outsourcing (first direct spring to mind) and you can encourage that by giving those firms your business. There are also quite a number of firms that already have established relationships with specialist technology colleges, and the government is apparently committed to encourgaing much more of this, but I wouldn't hold your breath for dramatic action from government. At the individual level probably the best thing that anyone can do (at least if you are a parent) is ask your kid's school what they are doing to foster links between the school and potential future employers. When I was a school the 'careers' department was rubbish - an uninterested teacher with a box of cards with lots of different jobs written on them. Work experience was a tick box exercise that the school were not really interested in. I don't know if it's much better now, but IMHO it should be the top priority for any academy head teacher.

"First they came for the illegal immigrants, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an illegal immigrant. Then they came for the dog owners, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a dog owner. Then they came for the cyclists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a cyclist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." I'm going to call Godwin's on this post. All the other posts comparing dogs to (for example) children I'm just going to call stupid.

WoD, your first post suggested that the reason young Britons can't get a job is because they are crowded out by overseas workers - maybe we now agree that that's not really the case. I absolutely agree that we should invest in our young people but boycotting firms who employ foreigners (the implication of your OP) is a very poor way of doing this. A complete re-vamp of secondary education to introduce proper vocational courses for the large proportion of 14-18 year olds who would benefit from something other than a potentially sterile, overly academic curriculum during these years would be a good start. Tax breaks and other incentives for firms who operate modern apprenticeship schemes in collaboration with vocational colleges would be an obvious and beneficial further policy. In fact, a national education and training policy (implemented at arms length from government, local or national) similar to those well established in the majority of European countries.

"I feel so sorry for our young people, who can't get their foot in the door; especially when there are so many people highly qualified from overseas who will do anything." Is this true, though? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of highly qualified migrants taking relatively lowly jobs (cleaning, minicabbing etc.), because that is all that is open to them, but I don't think they are generally competing with young British workers. For better jobs there is now a pretty effective global market and nothing to stop young Britsh people competing both at home and abroad. Those most likely to be hampered in the modern job market are older workers who find themselves lacking relevant skills and younger workers who haven't managed to acquire them. In neither case are they likely to be assisted by you choosing where you place your business based on what nationality they hire. It's not a question of political correctness, but one of rationality.

Just to be clear - I am not advocating prohibition of dogs in parks, nor am I suggesting that the difficulties of enforcing restrictions on dogs are irrelevant. I am observing that dog owners (like any other group with a vested interest) will tend to make exaggerated claims in order to prevent debate on the issues, and that is exactly what is happening on this thread.

"In my view, dogs have an important role in the daily lives of many and such a swingeing change to their lives is simply unjustifiable." The most reliable looking stat I can find suggests that dog ownership in London runs at about 7% of households, signficantly lower than the UK average. I would guess, but it is only a guess, that the percentage for inner boroughs is lower than for outer boroughs, so for Southwark might be 5%? Whichever figure is right, it's clearly not sustainable for dog owners to insist on an absolute 'right to roam' if significant numbers of others want to be able to have some public spaces dog-free. It's also not very persuasive just to argue that restrictions won't work because they won't be enforced or won't deter offenders. This argument can be raised about all sorts of relatively low level anti social behaviour but that is not a reason not to do anything. Compulsory microchipping is likely to make a difference.

"The introduction of designated dog areas in Peckham Rye Park would ruin the enjoyment of a large proportion of the public who currently use it." Really? I haven't personally had problems with dogs in Peckham Rye park but there have been a number of threads where people have had genuine and sometimes serious problems with the behaviour of dogs and their owners. There are many on this thread who appear willing to assume that Southwark have some sort of anti-dog agenda, but are also willing to assume that 'the public' have essemtially the same views as dog-owners. I think there is a valid debate to be had as to whether the default position should be that dogs have unrestricted access to all parts of parks and similar public spaces.

How many beers do they usually have on draft in the Draft House these days? A couple of times I went and there was only one, which seemed to undermine the purpose (and name) of the place.

Strictly on the issue of cycling on the pavement, IMHO if you are more than about 12 years old you shouldn't be there unless you have a specific, proper reason, and you get back on the road as soon as you can. A general belief that roads are dangerous ain't good enough. If you are on the pavement you have to be scrupulous about deferring to pedestrians i.e. if there is no-one about it may be OK to pedal, but slowly because people might come out of buildings etc. If there are people about, you should get off and push. On shared use paths you should still go slower than on the road and defer to pedestrians who are more vulnerable than you. I'm not often bothered by people cycling on the pavement in ED but I agree that for some reason Barry Road is the worst, and teenagers the most common culprits.

I still don't buy the idea that something unique is going on, or that it spells doom for the economy/London/anything. It may be worth pointing out that the real boom in home ownership in the UK has only taken place in the last 50 years or so, and got a big shot in the arm through right to buy in the 80s. Mass gentrification in Inner London is an even more recent phenomenon. So saying "this hasn't happened before" is not particularly telling. It is undoubtedly the case that more UK wealth is concentrated in the SE than before, and even more is concentrated in inner London. It's not surprising that inner London is becoming progressively more expensive (tho as noted before in fact large parts of SE and E London and many outer suburbs have not seen dramatic price rises, or started from a much lower base). One other factor which is often overlooked is that Inner London boroughs have the highest proportion of social housing tenants anywhere in the UK (most over 40% of residents) as well as high levels of private rentals so there is a comparative shortage of houses available for sale. So, calling ED 'very ordinary' doesn't make it so. The fact that people pay a lot to move here (and then complain so bitterly when they can't afford to stay) is an indicator of the real value people place on it. Prices reveal truth and all that. However, there are still lots of areas in London that are much more affordable, as well as lots of commutable places outside London.

Lots of good practical advice here; I would add two further things from my experience of annual long haul flights with both the kids since they were babies: Firstly, get on the right side of the cabin crew from the off - it can make all the difference. It might seem obvious, but smiling and saying than you a lot is definitely going to make them more inclined to help you out in any number of small ways later on. Secondly, and kind of picking up on what Convex said above, be prepared for it to be difficult, maybe even terrible, while you are on the plane, but remember that it will be over soon. This may sound like somewhat negative advice but if you have a toddler you already know that not every day is all fun and laughter, so plan as best you can but don't get stressed if it doesn't all go smoothly.

This is an interesting map: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/06b9f73c-48f9-11e1-974a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ZrZ1Ue5G Hover over each postcode to see the actual figures for that area. Almost no difference in ?/sq. ft between SE21 and SE22. Big differences between SE22 and every other bordering area. Admittedly, this is now 18 months old, but it remains the case that ED has got expensive compared to the rest of SE London rather than SE London generally becoming wholly unaffordable. The map also shows quite starkly the divide between inner and outer suburbs - Brixton and Hackney more expensive than Finchley. Getting back to the specific point of the thread, I'm afraid it's just whingeing, isn't it? When gentrification happens property prices go up and people who are priced out look for the next area to come up. When family life happens you suddenly discover that all the dough you used to blow on beer and fags and cabs is now required for nappies and scooters and swimming lessons, plus you have to get a big car and a bigger house. When the two things coincide, you may have to make a tough choice (Catford or Kent), but evidence of a demographic tragedy it ain't.

Broad Haven has a lovely beach - at low tide you can walk around the headland to Little Haven, and there are caves and rockpools to explore. Pembroke Castle is worth a visit if you like climbing up lots of walls and towers, and you can also go down a pretty hairy spiral staircase to a massive natural cave that was incorporated into the structure of the castle.

"The questionnaire was designed by a number of us in DYC. It had to be done rapidly (in under two weeks), since we wanted to distribute it before the private schools broke up for summer. We road-tested it with a dozen or so parents and made adjustments based on their feedback. No one raised your point, which is a good one. I know that kids riding on the pavements have problems avoiding pedestrians, for example. However the focus of the questions was purposefully on the non-cyclists: to discover what are the existing barriers to cycling to school, and whether parents would switch their kids to cycling if some of these could be removed - in particular infrastructure improvements, which is what this bid for Mayoral funds is all about. We have an open-ended question at the end of the questionnaire which is giving us a lot of useful anecdotal information about kids who are cycling." Sorry if I'm still being thick, but the point that I and others have made is that the questionnaire is explicitly addressed to parents with children at particular schools, and those schools do not include most of the primary schools in East Dulwich. I don't know why that is the case - it's not my survey - but it might mean, for example, that any bid for Mayoral funds is not going to envisage any infrstructure improvements in East Dulwich. Which would be a shame.

This was the conclusion of the NS piece: "But it's surely wrong that the law accords treatment to members of some statutorily-defined minorities and ignores others whose problems may well be experienced in precisely the same way. It's the very definition of privilege. It sends out a message that some forms of irrational prejudice are more acceptable than others, that an unprovoked attack one someone is somehow worse if it's motivated by the colour of their skin, or by their perceived sexuality, than by the colour of their hair or their weight. In truth, there is an infinite number of possible hate crimes. If the concept of has any meaning, it should apply irrespective of the personal characteristic, innate or adopted, cultural or sartorial, that inspires the hate." So it's wrong that hate crimes are defined in a limited way, and the concept should apply across the board, but there are an infinaite number of possible...... I'm essentially sympathetic to the argument, but no practical good will come of adding gingers, fat people, glasses wearers, Goths oir anybody else to the Equality Act or any other bit of legislation. There are sensible historical reasons for offering specific protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and sexuality, and there are other laws to protect everybody else from assault, harassment etc. Re the original topic of the thread, I'm afraid my overwhelming reaction was that I can't believe anybody actually watches this kind of cr@p. I also had to google Katie whoever because I have no idea who she is. Tbh, I had no idea who Holly Willoughby was either. Re kids names, its not exactly news that prejudice based around social class exists, nor that kid's names are widely seen as an indicator of class. It's also unfortunately not news that there is a never-ending supply of stupid people who are willing (nay desperate) to go on TV and try and make some kind of name for themselves by spouting witless rubbish.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the first page of the survey says: "Dulwich schools included in survey: - Alleyn's School (including Junior) - Bessemer Grange Primary School - The Charter School - Dog Kennel Hill School - Dulwich College (including Junior and DUCKS) - Dulwich Hamlet Junior School - Dulwich Infants School - Dulwich Prep London - Dulwich Wood Nursery - Herne Hill School - JAGS (including JAPS) - Kingsdale Foundation School - Langbourne Primary School - Oakfield School" and the first question is: "*1. How many children do you have attending any of the schools listed above?" I'm not trying to be difficult here - I do have kids at a school in (East) Dulwich, and i am interested in cycle safety, but on the face of it my views are not being asked for in this survey. If that's a deliberate decision, so be it - I'm not so interested I'm going to get into an argument about it. But I suspect the vast majority of people on this forum who are in the same position would also be excluded.

Unfortunately the survey does not extend to parents of kids at Goodrich, Heber, Goose Green, St Anthony's or St Johns and St Clements so "Dulwich Young Cyclists" apparently do not include "East Dulwich Young Cyclists".

Planning ideas about retail/commercial mix are going to have to catch up with reality i.e. online shopping is making lots of traditional high street shops inherently uneconomic. No point in holding out for businesses that probably won't come when there is another broadly suitable business ready to go. The issues re privacy and specific use in this case seem to me to be classic, fact specific 'hard' planning issues that are beter dealt with by specialists i.e. planning officers, rather than politicians.

If you do need to call someone I would recommend Don the Drain. Don't have his no. to hand but google will find him

I looked at the link re fines in Swindon. At ?50 for an unauthorised term time holiday, it's a fee rather than a fine, and good value when you consider the difference in holiday costs. If this practice is extended and made more uniform there's an obvious risk that more, not fewer parents will take their kids out. That's why it's essential for schools to have a proper discretion to distinguish between cases of truancy (where I would usually understand the absence to be without the knowledge, or at least express consent, of the parent), parents who genuinely don't support their kids education, and parents who do but have a good reason for taking a term time holiday.

An English language recipe book, published by Macmillan [1996], written by a vegetarian born and raised in San Francisco, is of course the definitive reference work on traditional Italian cooking.

As a vegetarian you can undoubtedly eat very well in Italy But (getting back to the point of this thread) in an average restaurant in Italy you won't find any 'vegetarian options' i.e. dishes that are specifically guaranteed to be free of meat derived products to satisfy vegetarian customers (although that is changing). There will be plenty of dishes that are in fact meat-free, just because that's how they are made, but it would be wrong to assume that mushroom risotto (which was the example given) will have been made with veg stock. Anyway, it doesn't make any sense to me to criticise the menu at Franklins, say, by saying 'look at Italian food". If you want to eat Italian, go to an Italian restaurant.

There is no tradition of vegetarian food as a concept in Italy AFAIK, but there are lots of dishes based around vegetables due either to the historic poverty of the populace or the desire to eat very good produce simply. However, even those recipes often include animal produce of some sort, because if it was available it would always be used. An Italian friend told me that his grandparents used to tell a story about how every family had a smoked fish hanging from an oil lamp. If they has nothing else to eat they would rub bread or polenta against the fish (which the heat of the lamp kept oily) so that it would have a bit of extra flavour. They may not have eaten much (or any) meat, but it wasn't because they were 'true' vegetarians.

"The introduction of something 'that once had a pulse' will never improve a wild mushroom risotto" If you order this in Italy I'd reckon there is a better than 50% chance it has been made with chicken or veal stock. I know there are more vegetarians now in Italy than before, but (I'm told) it's still a very difficult place to eat out if you are a proper veggie. Much more so than the UK.

Thing is, if you regard the NHS as essentially inviolable in its present form you are taking an ideological stance by defintion. The basic principle of the NHS is that all public health provision is provided through a single, public, tax funded organisation, directly answerable to central government, and that the provision is free at the point of delivery. It is a model that automatically precludes any other model being deployed (note the NHS ban on co-funding). Supporting the maintenance of the status quo necessarily implies a belief that this model is better than any other and, crucially, that no other model should be tried "the NHS is being privatised/betrayed/undermined!!!). I don't think that is a sensible, or rationally defensible position. I apologise if you find that irksome.