Loz

If you wanted a defining article on how stupid the Guardian opinion pieces can be, you could do worse than this little gem. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/28/kebabs-train-tickets-teach-you-about-britain Apart from the rest of the awful attempt at satire, has anyone ever seen PMQs on a TV in a barbers shop? And who knew that "boisterous behaviour, coarse language and even violence" only started in the working class thirty years ago?

The best thing you can do it hit the 'Report this Message' link under every post. This alerts the admin and they remove it.

The Gruniad has a spelling guide?

OK, a special version of the OP for FtG... There was this entity, that may or may not have been a person, a dog, or a cat or a cow, that was driving a vehicle, that may or may not have been a car/van/bus/cycle/747, in a way that some people would describe as dangerous, though some may not. You may or may not wish to be aware of this. If you see this entity, you may or may not wish to tell the police. Or your mum. Because that is really informative, isn't it?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I managed to make a right nuisance of myself. " > > plus ca change.... *evil giggle*

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the idea of streaming "early primary school" (as per the BBC article in DaveR's link) children > makes me feel like we've gone very wrong somewhere. Well yes - can't disagree with that.

19 Unintentionally Disturbing Moments From Kids? Books http://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/touch-the-cow-do-it-now#1ga8e0c http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-09/22/7/enhanced/webdr01/enhanced-buzz-25254-1411385269-14.jpg

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FREE Wi-Fi. and is dog friendly. A dog friendly eating establishment? Is that even allowed?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david_carnell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > In my mind, anything that boosts that group > > upwards (even if at the expense of those at the > > "top") can only be a good thing in the long-run. > > > Couldn't agree more with this. I don't. Primary is fine - chuck 'em all in together, but secondary is where you need to match the education to the kid as much as possible. Having been at a small secondary school where I was, frankly, bored s***less with the level being taught at maths & sciences, I managed to make a right nuisance of myself. Teachers tried to set me a separate syllabus, but you can;t do that for one person in a class of 30. I was then moved (on the advice of the headmaster) to a much bigger school which streamed. Suddenly I was challenged, struggled for a while, but got the hang of actually doing some work and learning. Sacrificing the smarter kids education can be destructive. Better to stream and apply resources where they are needed.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suppose the real question is, does the modern > world with universal state education available > need educational charities like Dulwich anymore to > advance education? Does it need it? No. Is it a bad thing? No.

Juicing - fruit especially - is a bit frowned upon by nutritionist. Really high in sugars and all of the good fibre taken out. Frankly, you are probably better off with a nice glass of red. Especially for breakfast.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "However Radio 4 is to air Bennett?s first drama > to premiere on radio. Denmark Hill, a modern day > take on Hamlet set in South London, was adapted > from an unproduced screenplay written 20 years ago > and discovered in Bennett?s archives." So, it's a Dulwich Hamlet, then?

Educating children would be my first guess.

Apparently they are a popular beat combo.

Where is the coercion? DE own facilities and assets and raise rents on them as a form of income. It's hardly shaking children down for their lunch money on street corners, is it?

DadOf4 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The charity commission say "To be a charity in England or Wales, your organisation must be set up > with purposes which are exclusively charitable for the public benefit." I have the same misgivings about animal charities - especially donkey sanctuaries. But, if people can be bothered setting one up and collecting money then who am I to say they shouldn't?

Do they look like this?? http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/b5/c9/b5c913b89561b3dc9fad42a7e381c0cd.JPG If so, they're called Pattypan Squash and there a lots of recipes online (Edited to fix name)

DadOf4 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they DO as a "charity" Why? Because they don't help the people you see as 'fit and proper' targets for your largesse? What are you asking for here? That Dulwich Estate be forced to stop funding things you disapprove of? That charitable status be removed from a school charity organisation?

I think its a road sign warning that you are approaching Elvis.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And for future reference, only a troll would call themselve's torytarquin. That's just what I thought. First post, bit of a weird tale that no one else corroborates, trollish name...

ultraburner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The lake house with Keeno Reeves being a ghost, > about 2006. > > First date with my (now) wife. > > It was shit. Yeah, but what was the movie like?

The dispute is over and the staff settled on a pay rise, but not at the LLW level.

I always had a car - never considered not having it. But I took a career break that ended six months ago and had sold my car before that to help fund it. Since returning, I've not bought another car, but used Zipcar and Zipvan. I thought it would be a temporary thing, but between Zipcars and internet supermarket shopping I've realised I don't actually need a car. With insurance, maintenance, road tax and depreciation it would cost you minimum ?1000 a year to have a car. Even if you factor in the zero excess insurance, if you only generally do short hops around London, then Zipcar is the way to go. Plus you get Zipvans available to you. And they are *very* handy.

That was getting a bit squeaky bum time for a while. Seems to be swinging back to 'no'.

I don't think CNN has got it right. Or a few people have snuck over the border to vote.