Earl Aelfheah

Thanks James. It's not exactly easy working any of that out from the planning portal. Are there any documents n line showing design and layout?

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrah--- that you can't accept that the > admissions system in the state sector is a source > if inequity and a barrier to social mobility > despite it being well evidenced and researched > says a lot. I thought you were in favor of > evidenced based policy based on your posting > regarding grammar schools? > > Just because universal state education is a good > thing doesn't mean it can't also have harmful > impacts that need to addressed to produce a more > equitable society. The two facts can and do > co-exist. > > Like I have repeatedly said, the only equivalence > (your words not mine) between the two systems is > that within both parents make decisions using > their wealth to obtain the best educational result > for their children. I'm not even sure what about > that is controversial. > > For some reason, unless people say private school > is 100% bad and the state system is 100% good you > see it as some sort of 'trick'. Reality is more > nuanced than that... I absolutely haven't said one system is 'good' and the other 'bad'. Nor that the state system is perfect. You can read back what I've said if you wish.

@Lordship516 - I agree

You can't expect a 'tax allowance' for not using a public service. There are plenty of public services which not everyone uses, but there is a principle whereby we all contribute to the maintenance of some basic, universal provision, for the public good. You're perfectly entitled to use your money to buy a better 'education product' and I don't criticize anyone for doing so. But please don't point to some inequalities in the state system and then conclude that therefore state education is a barrier to social mobility and drawing equivalence with an exclusive and exclusionary private system. That's the slight of hand. State education is universal and free at the point of use, the private sector is not. That's fine, but there is a difference in terms of how the two might act to reproduce privilege or restrict social mobility.

The Grand Puba?

These bloody Beckenhamites and their crazy entrance exams.

Blimey, tough gig delivering pizzas. Out of interest did he leave you some pizza?

We had polished concrete put in. Love it.... Looks great and really easy to keep clean. This is who did ours: https://www.facebook.com/contemporaryconcretefloors/

I'm not sure the guy doing 49 mph would have been slowed down by a happy/sad face sign. How about a police officer, with a hand held speed gun, nicking him for dangerous driving?

You could use 'The Mac Daddy' and 'The Daddy Mac'

Please no speedbumps. Cameras, fine. Actual enforcement officers - better. Just please, no more speed bumps.

Have you seen the queues at William Rose around Christmas

I had a quick look. Seems to be going well. Interesting how many people seem to have moved there from ED.

It's clearly a bus lane. If you wizz up it, undertaking those who are waiting to turn left, it's actually pretty dangerous.

My main issue with Lenny Henry was that he wasn't funny. Davidson is a nasty piece of work imo.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think perhaps the best modern day example of > marmite comedy is Mrs Brown's Boys. > > My parents think it is hilarious. Some people I > know who are my age think it's hilarious. It's > ratings show that many many people watch it, so > presumably think it's hilarious. > > > I am missing the joke. God yes. What the hell is that about. See also, 'two pints of larger and a packet of crisps', which was one of the most popular TV comedies of the last decade and completely unfunny (imo).

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > LadyNorwood Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > >... the Dutch know how to cycle, the British > do > > > not... > > > > No generalising there then. It's interesting > that > > a few posts ago you said you acknowledged there > > are bad drivers and bad cyclists but all your > > complaints are solely about cyclists...the > plural > > of anecdote is not evidence. > > > > By the way, how did you know the person who > > allegedly spat at you was a member of Dulwich > > College staff, and why, if you knew them, did > you > > not report them both to the College and the > > police? Spitting at someone deliberately is an > > assault. > > He did not ALLEGEDLY spit at me - he spat in my > face, he was wearing Dulwich College tracksuit and > had a staff badge round his neck..... I was so > shocked and upset I didn't report it, also he > lived about five doors down from me and was very > aggressive every time I encountered him... > > Here is the exact chain of events - I stepped onto > the pavement, he shot past me, narrowly missing > me, and I stumbled; I called out "hey you > shouldn't be on the pavement", he then rode back, > slowly, squared up to me, snorted, then unleashed > phlegm into my face and yelled at me "you @#$%& > c*nt" and rode off.... > > I encounter bad drivers, bad cyclists and bad > pedestrians every day, but I've been injured by > cyclists on several occasions - I was thrown into > three lanes of traffic by a courier cyclist who > was going the wrong way down a one way street; > I've been hit by cyclists as they race down the > pavement and, as I mentioned, I was spat at and > called a fu*king cu*t because I dared to walk out > of my house legitimately onto the pavement.... > Happy now??? You should report him. Hope you're not too shaken.

I've not heard of Vauxhall Village. What the hell is that? Is it on the bus announcements or something?

Deputy Grand Overlord?

I think people have very different impulses around education and to assume that people make choices using the same frame of reference or give the same weight to different factors is mistaken.

It's like saying that air pollution causes early deaths (true), so cigarettes and breathing air are both bad for health. On some level this is true and you could signpost lots of reasearch about air quality and health impacts, but that wouldn't make the implied equivalence any less inappropriate.

I want to be clear that I'm not criticising those who send their kids to a private school. I think it can be quite honorable. I just don't like the doublespeak around social mobility.

Continually drawing parallels between the state and the private sector by saying "there are examples of inequality and injustice in both, so effectively they're the same", is misleading. The idea that until the state sector ensures 100% parity, is without flaws in terms of social accessibility, then you may as well support a considerably less inclusive system and it's all the same, is self deception. If your concern is social justice and a level playing field, then you shouldn't promote the private system. This may not be your primary concern (it may providing your child with a competitive advantage), which is more than fair enough, but you can't have it both ways. I just wish the phoney rhetoric around inclusivity would be dropped. If you send your kid to private school it is not because you want to see a level playing field. I just do not buy it.

I think people who send their kids to private school should stop trying to justify it in terms of diversity, inclusivity, social mobility etc. It comes across as post-rationalising, as though you're trying to justify a decision you feel guilt over (I'm not suggesting you should feel guilt, just that it comes across like that). Have the courage of your convictions. If you want to pay in order to give your kids an advantage, a competitive edge, just say it and move on. But you can't have it both ways. You can't send your child to an exclusive schools and then try to claim that actually it's no different than a state school and that you're somehow in favour of a level playing field.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think its equally wrong to assume all kids > in independent schools are elitist toffs who don't > know how to interact with 'ordinary' people. Sure, I totally agree. I didn't mean to suggest that.