DJKillaQueen

It was also costing the council a mystifyingly large sum of money.......so can understand why it has been cut.

I think the lesson for channel 5 is that Channel 4 were right to put it to bed when they did.....

Nor does he want to Yep that is what is at the heart of Cameron's line. They are not his kids, it's not his neighbourhood and all it will take is the brandishing of a big stick to make the plebs step in line! It's elitist schoolboy twaddle.

The big cause is the group of alienated, disaffected youth who are outside the social mainstream and who live in a culture at odds with any canons of proper behaviour. And here's where I simply don't agree with much of the commentary. In my experience they are an absolutely specific problem that requires a deeply specific solution. I couldn't have put it better. I have my issues with Blair but he is absolutely spot on in this interview I think. The left says they're victims of social deprivation, the right says they need to take personal responsibility for their actions; both just miss the point. A conventional social programme won't help them; neither ? on its own ? will tougher penalties. And this is absolutely my experience of dealing with wayward teens. Their disconnection from the rest of society is rarely because of poverty....and often because of poor literacy, an inability to articulate and a lack of discipline, both from the self and in respect for others.

Thank you for sharing your pics with everyone. I'm sure I can safely say that lots of people love seeing them. My favourites are the sheep and Crummock Water - both stunningly good photos (and both are now on my desktop wallpaper :D - cheeky I know). Well done xxx

I think it's genius! They've completely smashed the theory that Z-list is as low as you can go!

The building that houses greggs is a shell as well...nothing left behind the facade. I suspect it was a random attack, but I am missing lemon drizzle doughnuts!

At last..............maybe now the Tories will calm down a bit!

Wow some of the comments are mystifying indeed - what a sad and cynical bunch they really are. I'm going to post on the site.

21k is hardly a huge wage is it (and most have to work for less). Afters taxes it amounts to ?269 per week. Take out of that, rent, travel to work, basic living expenses etc - any disposable income isn't going to amount to much. forget ever getting a mortgage. I got my University education for free, but that was at a time where only aorund a quarter of people went to university or polytechnics. I think if I had been facing the prospect of a mountain of debt before I'd even got going in life, I would have thought twice about going.

Great OP.....shows just how relative everything is.

Well let's look at the stark reality. We live in an extremely wasteful world, for the sake of cyclical consumerism. Population is growing, resources (that have taken longer than the lifespan of mankind to form) are depleting.....so something major has to give. We can not go on as we have.

There's no easy answer.....and there's no cheap answer either. Southwark council did today annouce annual scholarships that will pay the tuition fees of a certain number of students wanting to go to university, but put off by the fees. I'm happy the support that initiative with my taxes.

Now where did I put them ice skates? And the bow and arrow and the discuss.....:)

Oh that is just too funny......the nation now thinks that EDF is obsessed with Ocado and Waitrose!.....yup they may have got that right ha ha...............:D

Word is that they plan to reduce the 50p tax rate to 45p at the next budget.

But there's a contradicton right their togs....affluence already creates an elitism in public schools. So we have a private school system that is culturally poor because it mainly services children from a similar affluent demographic rather than the brightest from a cross range of demographics. I think both options lead to an elitism tbh but I think the elitism of the latter is morally better than the elitism of the former....and when it comes to occupying the top jobs in Law, politics, Medicine etc at least guarantees a mix of people from different backgrounds. At the moment we don't have that. We have the affluent buying the majority of the privilege.....and in the long term that is devisive, where only the children of the wealthier middle classes and above will occupy those jobs that shape our society. The current government cabinet is a classic example of that process. Where are the ordinary people done good that can identity with the ordinary man on the street. They are just not there....and it matters. I do think your ideas on exchange between the two systems are good ones. And I think your point regarding discipline is also a very valid one. Teachers should not be afraid of pupils or worse still their parents. But nor do we want to see a return to pupils being terrified of teachers either. There's no place for bullies on either side of the classroom. I do think though that a return to a grammar school system is the way to go for those children that are bright and/ or want to learn. We then have to come up with an equally good system of education that works for the others.

Information comes from the Police. There are no plans....it's a demolition for safety reasons. There will be no plans until something is proposed to rebuild there.

It's just a soundbite PR....has no real meaning. The more the days go by the more Cameron becomes a characture of himself, with no original ideas of his own (he's not really that bright tbh). Frankito is right.....all the family you need is right here in forumland (although that might just fill you with horror too)....... If all else fails there are aways cats!

Oooh lot's of points here..... Tog....I think we both would agree no kid should be denied a bright future (and certainly not on the grounds of whether they were lucky enough to be born into affluence or not)? I can't sit easily with an idea that says the brightest kids of the wealthy have more right to a bright future for their kids that the brightest kids of the poor.... I totally agree with you that it will require a shift over generations and that abolishment of the public school sector would not be the answer. The fact remains that public schools on the whole are better schools. So the rationale for me has to be to ask why and then replicate that in the state sector for those kids that respond to that kind of schooling (but didn't we have that once anyway? MM's comments on Grammar schools are spot on)..... Then you run into all kinds of funding problems. The replication the class sizes alone would require doubling the teaching staff of state schools. But if we have to have things the way they are then I would argue that only the brightest kids should go to those public schools and that those unable to afford it be given scholarships, paid for by the state. Because that's what investment in the brightest really means. It goes without saying though that we have to change what is going on in the state school system too. Kids leaving school unable to spell properly, or do basic maths......what idiot decided it was a good idea to abolish spelling tests and reciting times tables in junior schools? The experiment of the past two decades has failed and like MM says, it's totally understandable why parents, if they can afford it, don't want their children in the state system. My dad went to a grammer school and every town had one...they were the poor families public schools. Abolishing them was just idiotic and as MM rightly says, cut off the route to Oxford for so many from those backgrounds.....never to be replaced. We have to go back to understanding that not all children are the same. Yes they all have abilities, but not in the same things. What doesn't help us of course is that we are no longer a nation with manual skilled jobs. There are no apprenticeships that don't require passing exams and in some cases having a degree even. So we try and turn every kid into university material and then wonder why we fail.

I can vouch for the good work of XLP. Have done some mentoring work for them in the past. Maybe the good to come out of recent events will be that more people are now aware of the need to get involved and make a difference to these young peoples lives. They may not be 'our' kids biologically, but they are the kids of 'our' community. You know that saying 'it takes a village to raise a child'? Never was it more apparent. I think your idea LadyD is great and it might also help young people to see how they can in the long tem get into positions where they can change things too. Part of the belief system of these kids is that it really is them against the rest of the world - that nothing will ever change. The right kind of empowerment is as much a part of aspiration as anything.

The building next to Greggs is so badly damaged it is being demolished (demolition starts today) hence the continued closure of that section of the road. I'm sure the demolition won't take more than a few days.....and then the road can be safely reoppened.

In essence it is a good idea. Anything taken up would have to have a realistic chance of passing through the commons and lords which is why not everything is taken up obviously. Also just because something has an epetition doesn't make it either a sensible or valid cause either. I for one think the new rule regarding 100,000 signatures automically ensuring presentation to parliament is a bit low in a country of 70 million. All that aside, anything that allows connection to those who run our country has to be worth something.

Senor Chevalier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > people can be forgiven for not taking the moral stand that you do. Parents cannot be expected to reconcile > wanting to do the best for their children with sending them into a system that is likely to fail > them through no fault of their own. This I can totally understand of course. My gripe is more with inequality per se.....and I think we all share some responsibility for addressing that. Tog, you know as well as I do that the many of the kids in the public school system are not the brightest society has to offer whilst far brighter kids never get access to that quality of education. I also beleive that addressing inequality within our education system is the starting point for addressing inequality in society long term.

I favour equal opportunity over bought opportunity. The majority of cambridge and oxford students are selected from private schools. And whilst there are some good state schools/ independent schools etc, the fact remains that the majority of children attending state schools, irregardless of merit, or ability will be failed by that education system through no fault of their own. Do you want to pay more taxes so that the average class size in a state school can be as low as that in the private sector? And don't even get me started on the problems some parents are having just finding a state school place for their child, let alone on in a decent enough school.