showboat

Willis B - they may work for others but I've found them to be a total rip off. If you like them then fine, but I'm never going back. They just didn't listen to what I wanted, and for the money they charge...

We use the Loreal spray too - it does do a good job, but we're starting to get into dreadlock territory now - needs trimming! We'll try Village Way. Tangleteeze? Will have to track those down. Thanks!

Hi, We've got a 20 month old girl with really curly hair - it's getting pretty difficult to get a brush through it or even wash it without a screaming meltdown! It needs cutting. But, she doesn't like to sit still. Does anyone know a good person for cutting a toddlers hair? Thanks, Dan

"the rotten shit machines" So you're obviously coming at this from an open-minded point of view... I agree with the broad point about dogs on leashes though.

"That fact it punishments and rehabilitation does not work either, it very easy to say this until a member of your family has been brutally murdered and life does not mean life so what is the solution?" Just a couple of points... 1. The DNA tests used in Britain are considered to be unreliable by the FBI - and the Americans have their own problems with unsafe convictions, so why anyone thinks the use of DNA would prevent innocent people being executed is beyond me. 2. Albert Pierrepoint himself famously said "I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off." He also said "All the men and woman whom I have faced at that final moment, convince me that in what I have done, I have not prevented a single murder." Although he indeed seemed to flip flop on his opinions about capital punishment throughout the last years of his life, it seems that he felt it was not an effective deterrent. The continuing murder rate in places with the death penalty seems to support this view. 3. If a member of your family has been brutally murdered and you think that execution of the offender is the answer (assuming you have the right one - Birmingham Six/Guildford Four anyone?), then it sounds to me like what you want is actually revenge, not fair justice. This is why families of victims don't have sentencing rights. 4. If you truly support the death penalty, then answer me this - do you have total, 100% faith in our legal system? Do you believe it is watertight and infallible? If not, then do you accept that an innocent person might be executed for a crime they did not commit (which is murder) while the real criminal walked free? You say that it's easy to talk until someone you know is murdered. Well, what if someone you knew and believed to be innocent was condemned? Where would your support for capital punishment be then?

Otta - I don't want to drag this off-topic, but I can assure you there are those who think this way. You'd be amazed what some sections of the community from the Indian sub-continent think about the Afro-Carribean community, and vice versa. I remember reading a Darcus Howe column in which he railed against exactly that type of thinking, writing about how exasperated he felt by the infighting which does so much to hold back concerted and organised anti-racism action. No one can deny that white bigots are the biggest 'threat' where racism is concerned, but those who think it is limited to those idiots are fooling themselves. My wife (of Trinidadian descent) is constantly amazed by the attitudes she hears from Carribean's who feel safe talking in front of her.

But another human skill is the ability to absorb and be absorbed by other cultures. Humans are at their strongest when they co-operate. It's the old adages of teamwork and mutually beneficial actions. Although I agree with the point that 'people like us' are more reassuring, I think it's part of our development as a species that we slowly (often very slowly) move towards a point where we actively encourage different groups to interact, as the exposure to others is often what has pushed us forward. Of course there are terrible examples of the opposite being true - the colonisation of various indeginious (sic) peoples throughtout history show this - but we should've now gone past the point where we instinctly assume others are lesser than us. We need to push against these instincts, which are rooted deep in our brain as part of our desire to survive, and almost 're-learn' how to interact with those we don't understand.

That's so embarrasing. I mean, just so embarrasing... That's what I get for being caught up in the East Dulwich-ness of it all! (Going off now to sit in a dark corner until this feeling of shame and stupidity passes)

Mick Mac - why is that relevant (genuine question)? Neil - Of course you're not. Anyone who sucks their teeth at me is being aggresive and they know it. Skin colour/ethnic background is irrelevant. The same goes for any other aggresive, hostile or offensive behaviour. Are they being racist? Well, who knows? It's no more specific than calling someone a wanker for no reason as you walk by.

An excellent and coherent post Penguin68. "some believe that people who form part of a racial minority who may have been, or who are, oppressed cannot themselves ever be racist - thus in the UK only white people (the unoppressed majority) can be racist." This, in particular, is an important and relevant point to our scoiety today, though not on topic for here. I'm not sure I agree that intent is central to a definition of racism. Racism is a subtle and pervasive prejudice that can creep into our lives without us realising it. If we feel uncomfortable when we see a group of youths from a specific ethnic background walking towards us then that surely is a racist reaction, albeit one with minimal impact on others so long as we do not respond in line with that feeling. Likewise it is surely racism if we don't like the ethnic background of our friends new partner, or it too makes un uncomfortable, even if we can't say why. But again, so long as we keep it to ourselves and (hopefully) recognise that our attitudes might be wrong, then no harm done. I don't feel the governer at the centre of this did act in an overtly racist manner - having given it a lot of thought - but is guilty only of bad judgement. I echo the comments by *Bob*; this should have been sorted internally.

Actually, no. That's not racist. It's a vicious statement, but not neccesarily incorrect. Truth can hurt. Speaking as a very white, middle class born-and-bred East Dulwich resident (married to a mized race woman), I honestly feel that it's one of the great 'unspoken' issues of areas like this. Racism exists in all stratas of society. But we think that it 'couldn't possibly happen here' because we all read the Gaurdian/Independant and so on. But some of the most racist things I'v heard have been from white folk with money. I'll happily post a list of the ones I know of the top of my head if you want, but for now suffice to say that I have been shocked by them. We think that to be a racist you need to live in Eltham, get tattoos, vote BNP, shave your head and fly the St George flag the roof of your white van. It isnt true of course, and although I don't think any parents at Goodrich will actively hold racist views, they may have subconcious beliefs about who they 'think' should be running the school. THIS DOESN'T MAKE THEM BAD PEOPLE, but it's something to think about.

But you didn't address the valid point she made which is that your wife has issued plainly contradictory statements, and then gone back and deleted some of them. You can surely see how that looks a bit dodgy?

I still wish we could hear Mrs Paterson's side of the story. I'd be interested to know what these changes are and what her vision for the school is (as I say, my kid may well be there in a few years). At the risk of being a stuck record, she really should've talked to Mr Moyles first. However, the choice of the Daily Mail to leak the story to speaks volumes about the intention of those behind it. Emily, you can defend them all you want, but you can't deny that the Daily Mail peddles a very specific line and they would've known how the story would be spun.

I've spoken today to a couple of parents who have/recently had kids at Goodrich, and I get the immpression that when Mrs Patterson arrived some parents weren't happy with how she did things. Results declined after she took over - there's no doubt about it, but these things happen sometimes when a new head arrives. A couple of years later and things are back up again. I've got a nasty feeling that there are some parents who would be happy to see her go, and I reckon whoever called the Daily Mail is one of them. I'm not sure how I feel about the whole thing now. I'm still amazed that she didn't talk to Mr Moyles first - that seems to be a terrible mistake, as possibly the whole thing could've been avoided. But there definately seems to be more going on here than the Mail has reported.

Your information seems to be second hand hearsay. But it doesn't mean you're wrong, and I take you at your word. Let me say the following... The poster was more than ill-judged. It was a bad idea, badly done. He should've known better. If indeed the headteacher did not speak to him first, then that is frankly a terrible mistake on her part. As I said, something went very wrong with this school's systems.

It's not in any other newspaper, or anyway else that I can find. Unless my Google-fu has failed me, the Daily Mail is the only one following it at all. And they do tend to be a fairly 'divisive' paper!

I am not losing my rag at you, ust at the Daily Mail - we are in agreement. Well Emily. You seem to know some inside information. You say the article is spot on - but apparently she has a son an d not a daughter, so there's one inaccuracy. Why mention house values unless you want to paint a picture of someone - he lives in a more expensive house, so therefore must be a more valuable member of society? Standard Daily Mail tactics. I'd be interested to know if Mr Moyles was approached by the headmistress before she went to the authorities. That to me is the salient point. If they spoke about it and she felt it needed to be taken further then fair enough. If she did not approach him first, but went straight into high gear, then that's a different matter. That's the point I'm interested in. And the reason is that Goodrich is a school which we might send our daughter to in a few years. I'm obviously interested in how things are done there. That's why I've taken such an interest in this thread.

.

Or, if she really doesn't want to comment, then her union should be issuing a statement. That's what they're for - to advise, assit and protect. I reckon this falls under their mandate.

Oh for (@#8" sake... I am not expecting her to comment on this thread, either by coming on here on by talking about it elsewhere. That's ludicrous. What I mean is that if we say nothing when confronted by people like Paul Dacre and the c+?/s that work for him (my patience is slipping) then all that is out there is their point of view. I'll be honest - and this is an assumption - I reckon that Moyles guy is a twat. I mean really! In what world is that poster a good idea? Anywhere? Nowhere! But how much has gone wrong somehow that it got to this level? That's what I want to know. I think Ms. Patterson needs to speak up, because a dignified silence is not, in this case, the right move. It seems we both come from a family of teachers. As I said, over twenty years in New Cross - my mum saw her fair share of nutty parents. I never got the back blast of it luckily, and I need no educating on the bilious and hypocritical ways of the white middle class (even though that's what I am!). I've experienced how vile they can be in my own life, cloaking themselves in respectibility and prefixing everything with "I'm not prejudiced, but...". That's why I want her version of events.

Actually, I'll go further. She should've responded. If she has a case to make then she must make it. No comment leaves the way open for fools and bigots to decry multiculturalism. I took a look at the commentry boards under that article. The responses from the public make me believe that through her silence she harms efforts to stamp down on those bigots. I want to hear her side of the story, but can't find it anywhere. How does that help?

Hmmm, how to respond? Deep cleansing breath... 1. As my attempt at self-depracation failed (see comment about pink sea salt), let me be clear. I am no fan of the Daily Mail and view anything they write with deep scepticism. My views on Melanie Phillips cannot be repeated out loud. 2. If you have, as you cryptically allude to, some better information on the other side of the story, please share it, rather than making it look like you know better but don't wish to enlighten us. I'm sure that's not what you're trying to do. So please share. 3. If a headteacher in a school has gotten to the point where they're calling the union, council and police, then SOMETHING has gone very wrong SOMEWHERE in the school. I showed this thread to my mother, who spent over twenty years teaching in a New Cross primary that got superb Ofsted reports (and thus would presumebly know how to handle delicate situations) and that was what she felt. If it gets to this point then systems have failed. And in truth I'm not sure who's responsibility that is. I would suggest that if Moyles has been being awkward then he needs to be dealt with, and prosecuted if there are grounds for it. If one were cynical they could suggest that a white city executive could certainly find himself unhappy that his children now had a black headmistress - but that really would be making an assumption!;-) I guess I feel that headteachers need to have thick skins, especially ones that take a job in East Dulwich, where parents will expect high standards. It very possible that she was advised not to comment by her union, but I think it's a shame she didn't especially when the Daily Mail are one of those papers who really need to be confronted.

I'm just going to say this. I really am not trying to troll - and I'm certainly no fan of the Daily Mail and I take anything they say with a great pile of salt (being an ED resident I take it with a great pile of organic pink South Sea salt!). I will totally respect anyone who disagrees with me, and I'm not, not, not trying to get into a flame war. However, I do think any inner London headteacher should be smart enough to approach the parent concerned first, before escalating the whole thing. The guy who made the poster...well, who knows what he was smoking when he came up with that idea. I also don't understand why the posters weren't cleared by the headteacher in the first place before being put up, but that's a different conversation. Overall though, a headteacher needs to be diplomatic and cautious with things like this. Doesn't look to me like she was.

Wow. Just...wow! I'm not sure who to be more astounded at. The Daily Mail for running such an over-sensationalised piece - (though that is no real surprise!),I mean, what have peoples house prices got to do with anything - or the teacher for being so over-reacting.

It's been blocked off for a few days now - traffic calming measures being built. Supposed to be completed by monday 18th. The P13 is diverted along LL until then - not serving Underhill road at all. Hopefully it'll cut the number of accidents there.