Earl Aelfheah

PM the people whose posts you're referring to. They may be able to elaborate.

Give them a break, they're working for a charity, charging huge fees to help advantaged children.

Monkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Worldwiser, the current arrangements in Southwark > are designed to cream off the top pupils and > exclude the children of chaotic families. Nothing > else. It?s a disgrace. ^this

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hpsaucey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pk Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > But as rahrahrah says, the simpler the > > better. > > > I don?t agree You think the more complex the system the better?

That's how it used to work for most. The introduciton of fake 'choice' has done nothing to make the system fairer, it's just wasted a lot of energy and increase anxiety for all involved.

It's possible Johnson's government may win a large majority, but Johnson himself lose his seat.

No system is perfect. But the simpler it is the better. The more complex you make it, the more you create opportunities for (primarily those with resources) to game the system.

Don't much like Corbyn, but Johnson is even worse.

I like it.

The whole system is too complicated and frankly, then more complicated it is the more it tends to advantage those with the resources to navigate that complexity. Why not just have a simple system of kids going to their closest / neighbourhood school and then put all that wasted time and energy into making each school the best it can possibly be?

Encouraging electric cars over petrol or diesel ones is good. But discouraging car use generally is better.

I wholehartedly support the installation of more charging points. I just think they should be distributed more widely / across different streets where possible, where the demand is (rather than in banks away from people's houses). If it's a private enterprise however, then I guess it's up to them. I can't imagine many people are going to park too far from their house though, so seems like a weird approach.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > When are the council going to properly > > pedestrianise North Cross Road? Would be great > > with some street furniture and planting etc. > > > Well, the people who live there may not be too > happy about that .... > > Nor may the shops and restaurants which need > deliveries ..... That is a manifesto for never reducing car use anywhere and is why we need bold leadership. Look at what they have done in Barcelona with the introduction of 'mega blocks'. It was vociferously opposed by residents and businesses before it was brought in. It's now almost universally approved of.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the point being missed is that if you have > views on this subject ,as well as debating them on > the EDF,if you want them considered by S'wark you > need to post them on here > https://ohs-dulwich.co.uk/road-safety-hotspot/53?m > ap=true I don't think North Cross road is in the highlighted area.

When are the council going to properly pedestrianise North Cross Road? Would be great with some street furniture and planting etc.

I walk that way regularly and am yet to see any of them in use. Glad that they're part of a private scheme and not tax payer funded (i would hope council ones would be more sensibly distributed).

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The story about the potty in the shop has been > told a few times before (and I actually think the > perpetrator might be a friend of a friend sort of > thing). > > But let's not start pretending that this sort of > behavior is the norm when it obviously isn't - > I've never personally witnessed a child peeing in > the middle of a shop, or having a nappy changed on > a restaurant table, etc. Most parents are > admittedly pretty clueless, especially with their > first kid, but they're usually trying their best > and I don't see the point in dwelling on the worst > examples of ineptitude and guilelessness in order > to push some sort of anti child/parent agenda. ^this

I would really like to see a thoughtful, joined up, area wide (and radical approach) to permeable street closures. That would make a genuine difference to peoples quality of life and is in the councils gift.

Segregated cycle routes linking with the tube at Brixton and Oval / kennington would be good (but will never happen as it would mean the loss of on street car storage). Southwark could work with some of the e-bike schemes (such as Lime) to bring them to the south of the borough (having failed to work with TFL on 'Boris' bikes). Other than that, the biggest opportunity for half a century to improve local transport (the Bakerloo extension) has been missed, with the decision not to extend to Peckham.

I don?t really agree with publishing photos. We don?t have public stocks anymore for good reason. That said, I would be surprised if the story is just made up and Lucy is not exactly denying it happened. So not that much sympathy.

Lucy hasn?t exactly refuted the substance of the claim.

.

Live from Tuscany on BBC2!

Maybe PM the original poster and have a chat 'offline'?

What you have to understand about Boris Johnson is that he doesn't really care about the detail of the deal. It's not that he is incapable, it's that he is indifferent. He's just interested in getting elected. None of it will effect his life in any discernible way.