Earl Aelfheah

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism "Providing for affordable homes affects the market, but does not regulate it."

I don't get the difference. "The housing market needs to be regulated in ways that ensure the outcomes we want and need as a society" for example, through section 106 orders, rules around the number of affordable properties within a development, impact on the local character of the area, considerations of parking, minimum building standard to ensure health and saftey. These are all part of the planning system - rules which are there to ensure that we see developments achieve the things that we as a society consider important.

As soon as people start banding around insults such as 'smug lefties' I stop taking them seriously.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the focus should be on trying to ensure that the planning system manages > the process effectively i.e. development in the > right place, good quality buildings, and > minimising disruption for residents - all pretty > basic things. > > Arguing about regulation of the property market is > a red herring. Eh? Isnt' the planning system managing the process also known as 'regulation'.?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ...also, it assumes that there is capacity to > > increase the number of apples such that you may > > satiate demand and that that demand does not > > itself increase with the introduction of more > > apples. > > > > It's no good getting another 5,000 apples, if > > they're all grabbed by someone who is already > > sitting on a sackful of the original ones. > > And if that was the case, I would thoroughly agree > with you. Because that is when regulation would > absolutely work and be a problem solver. But at > the moment that is not the main issue. There > primary issue at the moment is that there are just > not enough apples. With properties being bought and left empty and relatively low price elasticity due to latent demand from a huge overseas market, I would say it broadly is. Out of interest, do you support deregulation of the housing market?

I strongly believe in the power of markets and incentives. However, I am not a market fundamentalist and neither is any serious economist. The housing market needs to be regulated in ways that ensure the outcomes we want and need as a society.

...also, it assumes that there is capacity to increase the number of apples such that you may satiate demand and that that demand does not itself increase with the introduction of more apples. It's no good getting another 5,000 apples, if they're all grabbed by someone who is already sitting on a sackful of the original ones.