DJKillaQueen

I would favour that. Or maybe have reduced benefit with each child, so that by the time you get to number 4 it's not worth it. Child benefit was designed to help mothers feed their children at a time when there were reals problems for many mothers who were dependent on their husbands. And better education on things like cooking and food management would help some families cut costs. There are a lot of families on low incomes or benefits that over spend on fast food, junk food, luxery items like expensive fizzy drinks and sweets....because they quite frankly don't know how to cook. 'Living within means' is something some people do better than others. Cost of living (outside of the essentials of rent etc) is relative to that.

A fox poo'd in someone's garden.

James has answered that question though that the school does not and will not be using PR anytime soon. PR is also managed so that only allocated sports areas can be used, which is the common norh of the cafe and a smaller field behind the childrens playground at present. This year there are two junior pitches on the east side common probably because most of the smaller sports field is out of use because it needed reseeding and repair, and it takes time for the seed to grow. I know this because my Sunday football group play there and were asked to change from our usual location. There is more demand for pitches than can be accomodated and maintainenece of those pitches costs more than the revenue raised from hiring them. A full sized pitch cost ?47 an hour I think. So all in all PR would be unable to accomodate the level of use needed from the boys school even if they did pay for the maintenance in turn.

The prpoblem with any measures designed to disincentivise those from having children who can't afford it, is that we also as a society have a moral obligation on children and poverty, because we know from statistics that children who grow up in poor and overcrowded conditions do not do as well as children of opposite circumstances. And where do we draw the line? Most people or couples on minimum wage in the capital technically can't afford to have children...because they need top up benefits to pay their rent and so on. At what point does a child become affordable? And what right do we have to tell anyone they can't have a child? That is the point of life isnt it? Surely we don't exist to work only with children being some kind of reward if we can manage to earn enough? In China where legislations does exist it has led to thousands of abandon babies, usually girls that the state is left to look after (and often not very well). There is a discussion to be had abouut those families that have 4 or more kids whilst having never worked and so on, but again it is a discussion that comes up against the issues of child poverty when looking at measures.

I should read the thread first lol....

Yep Catholic burning will definitely not look good on Christmas Cards !

The big green space accross the road is a public space not a school playing field. The park does have allocated sports areas though with pitches and I know that Harris did sponsor some of the work in the park so it might be likely the school may use those facilities. But setting up for PE lesson after PE lesson on the common ground immediately opposite is not an option. It costs a lot of money to maintain grass and pitches.

Turkey, chocoloate and fireworks....hmmm....not sure it'll catch on.......!

'm sorry DJKQ but I think your conviction that there is a conspiracy of rich people keeping all the money for themselves is hopelessly class war. Where have I said anything of the sort.....I am talking about the gap...has nothing to do with class but lack of opportunity and upward social mobility.....(although historically our class system has played a part). EVERY piece of data shows this to be the case. The gap has grown and upward social mobility has decreased. You seem to have no concept of any of this...or worse still just how deregulation gave bankers a licence to print money.......regulations that had been formed after the 1930's Wall Street crash to prevent future global crisis and funnily worked for the fifty years they were in place before Thatcher, Regan et all and those after them (including Brown), stripped them away...end result..three crashes in thirty years, the third being the worst ever, so I think that proves my point.

Yes this why so many middle income families are so called 'whining'.....the reality is that the coust of living and housing in some parts of the country is so high that a 44K salary is barely covering the costs of living. For me the housing market (today again described as over inflated by the EMF) is part of the problem with out economy. But at the same time, the cruelty of this government in imposing welfare cuts to the poorest right away and delaying cuts to the better off for a few years smashes any idea that 'we are all in this together'. Same old tories, same old prejudices.

Just to add...the reason why the middle-classes are complaining is not because they are selfish or greedy, it's because the cost of living and housing are so high in this country that a 40K salary is no longer a good living salary. That is the really awful thing about life in the UK...and a consequence of the stupid unregulated housing market we have. The deregulated free market has done nothing but widen the gap and make many left feeling they are working for nothing. The other issues that others have raised...about the employed to unemployed (incuding pensioners) is a serious one...currently 60% of all welfare spending is on the over 65's....not the 'scroungers' at all. Housing Benefit also costs more than the meagre ?65 per week given to the 'scroungers'............something will have to change.

I'm with MP on this. H - be thankful you earned enough to buy a house in the first place ...or maybe you are of an age where you were lucky enough to buy at a time that houses were still cheap. If the latter is true then you have benefitted from the artificial housing market created and facilitated by the deregulation that MP is referring to. It's not hard work that got you there but a system that rewarded those who got in at the right time with ridiculous levels of growth compared to other capital purchases or investments to follow. Many people work 14 plus hours a day...have always worked and have nothing to show for it. So can we please get away from this idea that hard work and education equate to wealth...they damn well don't as anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows. You need money to make money.....and most never get wealthy working for someone else.

Nurses and teachers are paid by you. You set their salary when you go to the ballot box. No we don't...public sector pay was not part of any manifesto this time round and I do believe no party won the election with a majority. And you know as well as I do that the parties on offer are limited and it would be near impossible for any new party to form and effectively win a general election. We are locked into a fixed system that protects itself. It is an issue for us when taxpayers money bailed out the banks. We have every right to be angry at those corporations and how they do business, especially when most of them are multi-nationals who destroy competition by fixing or offering products only marginally different from each other whilst protecting their profitability and control over the market.

I don't think this is even remotely reasonable, and alienating some of our most successful wealth generators doesn't strike me as a wise move for UK Plc. Err you mean like the banks who yesterday were reported to be paying out bonuses at almost the level before the global crisis they caused..... Give us a break....something has to be done to curb the wreckless greed that has put us in this mess...a mess that the poorest will pay for most.

What was the original idea behind child benefit? It was first introduced in 1946 as part of the Beveridge Report which sought to tackle squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease. Part of the idea of the then nmaed 'family allowance' was to make sure the mother could feed her children as it was commonplace for fathers (working or otherwise) to spend all their money elsewhere (which is why it is paid to the mother). This was a time when most women didn't work (many having given up war time jobs for the returning men) and relied on their hisbands or charities for support. So Child beneifit was designed to pay for food at a time when most families were in need of it. It is completely irrelevant for today where most of the families in receipt of it are not living in squalor nor poverty. And I totally agree with the comments above regarding the hypocracy of the press in bashing the poorest who live on just ?65 a week whilst for most affected families, the loss of child beneifit will mean no more than the loss of a holiday or the second car.

Oooh that sounds right up my street lol.....

Ah you have to solve the code Mr T.........and all will appear before your eyes!!! ;-)

At the meeting Gavin did mention the issue of rubbish from traders and the pavements etc...it is an item that he is taking on board as an issue for Rye Lane it seems. I agree that the cycle lane needs to be petitioned as an issue at the next sub committee meeting. I think it's clear that what the designers created is something entirely different to what cyclists and pedestrians understand they have been given.....and that needs to be considered and resolved. I think the best way to do that is to formally present it at that next meeting. I will also refer the sub committee to this thread where they can see for themselves all of the points being made here by cyclists/ pedestrians....so by all means the more of you that put your views here, the more I and others have to take to that meeting. Obviously as pavement, it is a shared space. Of course the moment a lane is there, you create the issue of right of way anyway. So for me, either it's a lane that pedstrians should be able to safely cross but are discouraged from walking along......or you don't have it at all but have cyclists sharing the pavement pretty much as they did before illegally. I did also point out to him the folly of making the North bound road only wide enough for a bus too. What kind of designer thought cyclists would sit behind a stationary bus rather than jumping up onto the pavement to overtake it, I don't know. Part of it I think is that Walworth Road has worked, but it is a wider less predestrian dense Road than that short strip at the top of Peckham Rye.......which leads me ask just what form did the consultation take and what views were expressed and by who. Might dig into that a little.

For me it's simple. Can't get any sense out of a person that is drunk or stoned...but most people who drink may get drunk once a week or less. Most people who smoke cannabis do it far more than that, every day in many cases and remain in a permanent state of fog. Each to their own but I personally have no time for them or their delusions that 'there's no harm to themselves or others in it'.

His lunch break must be over ;-)

He also does not understand the definition of race or racism as well.

You WERE bigotted and offensive, and THAT is why admin has warned you and removed your post..and that is the end of it. Move on.

*do you like the famous five though HAL?

Like I said... "Blankety blank" W**F *I see everything*

At the community council meeting last night I spoke with Simon Philips who is a key part of the Roads and Transport team at Southwark. He confirmed that Rye Lane is going to be resurfaced as part of the current work to the North and South end road works. I raised concerns regarding the colour of the contraflow cycle lane. He explained that the lane is designed to be a 'privilege' for cyclists rather than a right of way but took on board the issue of pedestrian awareness of the lane and would look into the options. For anyone interested there is a Transport sub-committee (headed by Councillor Gavin Edwards) which meets regularly where residents can raise issues and concerns regarding roads/ traffic management and schemes. When I have confirmed details of the next one I'll post them for anyone that might be interested in attending.