showboat

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.

"A bit rough". East Dulwich? No. Certain parts of Peckham, Brixton, Tottenham and Harlesden, for example, are 'a bit rough'.

East Dulwich is generally pretty tame. As many have pointed out this is London, and repulsive people who think it's ok to rob others exist here as well as the rest of the city. Sometimes no amount of sensible precaution protects you from determined criminals. I regularly come home late through Peckham and even now watch myself because I've had some close calls with guys who's intentions were to get money off me.

"that told you showboat!"

Did it really? Ok then. If you say so...

But if you're going to throw comments like that around maybe it's best to mention straight out that the info comes from the police, as otherwise you sound like one of those fools who thinks a broken wondow in ED means the end of all we know and love. Sean makes a good point.

Personally I've lived round here all my life (except for a 5 year hiatus in Catford!) and haven't noticed any major problems, but the cops know better than I.

Whilst I sympathise with you, what evidence can you offer that "it's happening increasingly in the area"?

No, no, no, no, please never no!

We really don't need Waitrose or M+S round here. As many have stated - there's enough choice already and it could only serve to homogenise (did I spell that right? - it's late and I'm tired!) Lordship Lane. Rents go up, property prices go up even further, and people will start to judge the area based solely on the fact that it has those kind of shops.

No good could come of it.

Oh, and the fact that SMBS, East Dulwich Deli, Mr Sparkes, William Rose, the fishmonger and all the various bakeries already sell vastly superior product. Do you really want a whole new shop just for those occasions when you can't be bothered to cook?

The 'scores on the doors' system is on the way out, as even EHO's agree it isn't representative of the actual behaviour of staff inside the establishment.

One EHO privately admitted to me that the whole thing can be skewed if the inspector is 'having a bad day' or takes a personal dislike to your way of doing things. Also, it's based on just one visit on one day, and they know that anyone can be clean and spotless on monday, but let it all go as soon as they've been inspected and given 4 or 5 stars. A place with a high rating won't be checked again for up to 2 years anyway, so it makes you wonder if they've kept up the standards.

No one in the industry has any respect for the system.

What exactly do you expect them to do about it? While I sympathise with you, the mistake had obviously already occured, and under those circumstances it's surely better to approach the restaurant with an idea of how you would like them to make amends.

Simply calling them up and saying what happened isn't likely to get you anywhere. They aren't about to offer recompense if they aren't forced. Compare it with the idea of what would've happened if you'd been eating in there and found it in your food. Most likely there'd have been things removed from the bill - a smart owner knows that the best way to recover a situation like that (and they happen to the best) is to offer free stuff. It brings people right round!

If you aren't going to name and shame to us or to the council, then I'm not really sure what the point of your post is. Not trying to be belligerent or anything, but I don't get it. I too am glad no lasting damage occured though. For the record, I would report them to the council. Places that think they'll get away with this will start cutting corners.

According to VMR, the works are now due to finish on Dec 7th. Time will tell...

>

>

> Anyway take at trip to Kirkdale in Sydenham &

> visit J.D Wetherspoons "The Windmill"

>

> Oh, then you'll really want one in Grove Vale

>

> It's a cross between a kindergarten, a branch of

> social services & a waiting room for the

> bookies/launderette

>

>

>

>

> W**F

That cracks me up! I'd love to disagree with W**F, but it's so true. But doesn't it just go to show how (as someone mentioned earlier) pubs are often a reflection of the local folk? Would a JDW in ED maybe be different? Probably not actually...

sillysue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Resorting to name calling and at hinting at being

> racist when someone disagrees with you, seems a

> bit much for just offering my own opinion?

>

> I think you'll find that the 'city workers' around

> Tower Bridge et al. are only there because JDW

> typically offers a large amount of space, a

> quality that is sadly lacking from most drinking

> establishments in the 'city' portion of London.

>

> With the number of muggings etc in these parts of

> late, at least a JDW will give the police a good

> place to initiate their inquiries from.

Interesting point that you haven't considered - rents/prices in the City are so astronomically high that only the big chains can afford the big spaces. Small indie joints can't afford to even open there, let alone compete. Anyway, a lot of City drinkers aren't looking for a place with character - they want to get drunk, eat nachos and try it on with Frank/Fiona from the Purchase Ledger dept before staggering off to the tube/bus. Those that actually want a good pub in the City with real ale and a real chef know where they are and tend to avoid the caverns except at times like Christmas parties.

The assumption that JDW contains a high proportion of criminals and ne'er do wells is just... well, prejudiced at best. I'm not sure where you get this idea from. The average ED pub is out of the price range of many people. Perhaps you think that those on a low income automatically commit crime if they can or something... Or maybe you're just a bigot. I'm not sure.

Ialso think it's a intersting point made by ???? - people here want a Waitrose or M+S - but see a JDW as lowering the tone. Personally I think it's the price you pay for an area being as succesful as this. A little bit nimby-ish, me'thinks.

I don't think i made clear points at one o'clock this morning...I should know better!

">

> I may not have made my points very well - it's

> late and I need to sleep! I don't tend to drink in

> Wetherspoons myself, because I feel they lack

> atmosphere. But many others do go there. Are they

> ALL wrong?

They are not wrong at all.

But they are helping to prop up a system which is severely dysfunctional."

I agree - the system is messed up. But this is what you get when some people make it real big in an industry. Look at the supermarkets. People do indeed go to Tesco because it's cheapest - can't argue with that. And it doesn't help the small retailer. I totally agree. It's a bad system. But how do we change it? I honestly can't see a way, and would love to hear from anyone who has a constructive suggestion.

Until that time, this is the biggest problem in my opinion...

"The pubs situation is not helped by the 'everyone thinks they can run a pub' factor, so lots of eedjuts sign away their lives to pubco's on loopy contracts, and then find themselves facing ludicrous charges under an enforced monopoly (or even lose the pub when the pubco finds they are buying in beer from non-pubco firm at two-thirds of the price)."

Why oh why do people get a bit of cash together and think they can run a pub (or bar or restaurant)! They think it's easy, and simply add to the statistic of pubs closing each week. It drives me mad, and as I said, they often go under not because (or not just because) of the beer prices, but because they were totally unsuited to this business in the first place.

I'd be intrigued to know why The Vale has sold up (has anyone in this thread mentioned it?). What happened there?

The best pubs are indeed the idiosyncratic ones with bags of charm and great service. But they're few and far between. Until there are more like that the JDW's of this world will carry on.

Why is it that people really object to a large compsny like Wetherspoons coming to the area?

I've been in the hospitality industry for 11 years now - and currently work for Fullers - so I have a lot of sympathy with those small independants who get squeezed hard by the big boys. This is a fickle and capricious business where, as someone once said, you can do everything right and stiil fail. Wetherspoons have been around since 1984, and on the stock market since 1992. Has it occured to it's enemies that it might actually be providing a service that quite a lot of folk seem to want?

I don't defend Wetherspoons on the ground of cost. I defend it because it's still in business. People have this rose-tinted view of what a local pub should be - but actually it's a massive amount of work. Just ask Scott from the Bishop, I'm sure he'll tell you. Wetherspoons - let me say again - is STILL IN BUSINESS, when many others aren't. And small tenants can blame the pubcos all they want, but they knew what they were getting into. The price of the beer from the brewery is rarely the sole reason that a place fails. Too often vanity on the owners part, or a misjudgement of the local market is a more central flaw.

I may not have made my points very well - it's late and I need to sleep! I don't tend to drink in Wetherspoons myself, because I feel they lack atmosphere. But many others do go there. Are they ALL wrong?

I was just wondering what crime statistics for East Dulwich and Manchester look like when compared side by side.

Eater81 comes from Manchester. Maybe he knows.

Just think it would be interesting!

You're 'concerned' with me? Hey, quote away. I'm not ashamed of it. I just figured some things are better said privately. I stand by every word of it. And yes, I do think that you're a racist. Saying it's your duty because you're a Manc is no better than me saying stuff about you because I'm a Londoner. Where someone come from has nothing to do with anything in this regard. It's like those people who think everyone in Brixton is a crackhead, a thief, a hooker or all three. Are you one of those people?

All I can say is that you paint a picture of this area that I just don't recognise, and neither does anyone else I know who lives round this way. And to describe Peckham, Brixton and anywhere with a council estate as "urban decay and deprivation' is misinformed at best and Daily Mail-style hyperbole at worst. Brixton was dragged up out of REAL decay and deprivation in the early 90's through investement that allowed folks with money to move there and bring cash to the area. Now it's thriving. No one would confuse it with Windsor, but those who live there love it.

Finally, 'utterly useless public transport system'? Wow, you really are bitter about something aren't you? I'm no fan of either Ken or Boris, but you simply cannot argue with the fact that TFL has increased the service levels of public transport by leaps and bounds. You think it's bad? Go back ten or fifteen years - then ED really was cut off. It's a lot better now.

Look, it is not extreme to suggest that if you don't like it round here you should leave. You say you're having to live with the consequences. I'm not sure what that means (I don't know your circumstances) but unless you're in real difficulty I can't imagine it would be too hard for you to at least start making plans to move out of the area. If you don't like it round here (and you obviously really don't!) then go. Why are you staying? Is it just so you can complain on the internet about how bad it is?