Earl Aelfheah

Foxy and Otta's comments are right of course.

" The Board of Trustees seeks to manage the endowment in the long-term interests of all the Charity?s Beneficiaries. Success in achieving this objective is measured in terms of increasing, in real terms after allowing for inflation, the annual income distribution to the Beneficiaries and maintaining the value of the Charity?s assets." This is their only stated objective (at least according to their website).

The Dulwih Estate's stated objectives are simply to increase the amount of money the can make for their beneficiaries (a small number of elite public schools). http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/about/objectives I'm not sure they're in anyway interested in conservation (or much else of benefit to anyone but a privileged minority).

I wish Louisa no ill will. She's never (as far as I've seen), been aggressive or abusive. But still, you can't have one person repeatedly taking thread after thread off topic - driving any discussion down the same 'gentrification' cul-de-sac. It was putting a lot of people off using the forum.

I don't know the details of this development, but flood risk, inconvenience and congestion all sound like potentially valid concerns. I just don't think it helps to couch your objections in emotive terms of child safety.

of course, it's possible that *Bob*, Louisa and Foxy are all the same person.

I'm not sure that the 'will nobody think of the children' angle is necessarilly the best approach on this

I have to agree with Loz regarding the 'they don't have a mandate' argument. Clearly the Conservative's won the election (with a majority) and that gives them the only mandate they need. That said, it's also perfectly legitimate for people to protest as a way of expressing their views / trying to change opinion.... And, celebrities are just as entitled to express a view as anyone else.

The whole 'champagne socialist' label is lazy. If you're poor, you're accused of the 'politics of envy' and if you have money, you're called a champagne socialist -it's just a way of those who don't agree with other's political views, to shut down debate. It's playing the man instead of the ball. It's perfectly legitimate to be on the left (or right) of politics, whatever your income.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not the left who are at fault. It's the > Guardian reading champagne socialist brigade who I > blame. Sat in a cosy organic cafe in Islington Either that's a very big cafe, or a very small group of people.

Things were cheaper 30 or 40 years ago. Who'd have funk it?

Rahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrahrah. Rah.

Thanks LondonMix. It seems to me logical that the admissions would be based on distance from the school and the desire to limit the amount of 'overlap' between the two Charter Schools makes sense. It's a shame that there isn't more easily accessible info on secondary catchments and more co-ordination / standardisation of admission policies. As I understand it Harris girls are looking to move to a lottery, which could have an impact in the south of ED. LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Based on the furthest distance offered last year, > there is no secondary school blackhole anywhere > under discussion. > > People in Nunhead, the Eastside of East Dulwich > and the South of East Dulwich have multiple > schools (a few of which are closer to them than > the actual hospital site) that they can get into > both in Southwark and across the border in > Lewisham. I posted the catchments in an earlier > post. > > There is a shortage of Charter School places of > course, but that's not the same thing! > > This situation absolutely does not meet the > threshold for creating nodal points based on > government guidance to Free Schools on fair > admissions policies. There needs to be limited to > no access to any school and with Harris ED Girls > and Boys that can't be argued even without all the > other schools that children can attend nearby (of > which there are both co-ed and non-co-ed > options). > > > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is there a simple map anywhere which shows > > (roughly) the catchment areas for secondaries > in > > Duwlich and environs? It's very difficult to > have > > a sensible, informed debate about where the > right > > place for a 'nodal point' is, without a clear > > understanding of where the often discussed > 'black > > holes' in provision really are.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is already a thread on this in the Main > section. Let's not recreate it here. Please?

Is there a simple map anywhere which shows (roughly) the catchment areas for secondaries in Duwlich and environs? It's very difficult to have a sensible, informed debate about where the right place for a 'nodal point' is, without a clear understanding of where the often discussed 'black holes' in provision really are.

There is already a thread on this in the Main section. Let's not recreate it here.

Thanks for sharing that link Foxy, really interesting sound.

I like the exhibition. Foods good and its child friendly.

redjam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was at the meeting too. Feelings running very > high, and frankly I was embarrassed about some of > the behaviour of the parents in the room - people > shouting over each other, not listening to the > answers, noisily insisting on having their > questions heard even though they'd run out of > time. Like the OP I am saddened by the > divisiveness in all this and wish everyone could > just take a step back from their own personal > positions and see the bigger picture. One of the > saddest comments I heard was one woman asking > angrily, 'Why should I support this school if I > don't even know if my child will get in?'* To me > that's absolutely the wrong way to look at this. > My feeling is: it's 240 new school places for the > area, surely that's good for everyone even if my > child personally doesn't get in? Why WOULDN'T you > support that? And anyway, it will free up 240 > places in other local schools so of course it will > still benefit your child indirectly, even if they > don't get in themselves. > > I have to say I thought the Charter panel were > excellent, all of them, and handled what was > clearly a difficult meeting very well. Whatever > the outcome of the consultation, I really hope > that everyone will start pulling together more and > get behind what is going to be a great new > school. > > * This was in reference to the Charter panel > encouraging us to tick the box in the consultation > to say that you approve of the school being funded > by the DFE, which is crucial to the new school > opening. This exactly. Some of the views / behaviour was pretty depressing

Just came back from the Heber consultation. Wow there are some angry people. Crazy.

Is it possible to install windows on a chrome book? I've no idea about these things?

Saturday 25th July EDT - 8 O'clock?

Just incomprehensible. Thoughts go out to the girl and her family.

Forgive me, I really don't want to get into a long winded debate about this, but I thought the whole thread was about planning regulations / objections and the fact that some posters suggested (perhaps implicitly) that they rules should be relaxed to allow significantly more houses to be built. In other words a relaxation of planing regulations. My contention was that a less regulated market is not desirable and will do little to address the affordable housing crisis. Regulation, including planning controls are more likely to increase the supply of (specifically) affordable housing.

I don't mean to be obtuse. I genuinely don't see how the planning system and affordable housing quotas are not considered regulation.