Earl Aelfheah

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If any Indian Restaurant were to allow dogs, I > feel certain they would not have many > customers... > ..and may even be closed down. ?? > > DulwichFox But they allow Foxes?

venture with my vervet?

... or recline with a raccoon?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, does anyone know a restaurant where I can > park my pig, haul my horse, or sit my sheep? Where can I lay my llama?

SidW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The word 'Awesome'........I flipping hate it!!! I think it's pretty awesome

Yes, does anyone know a restaurant where I can park my pig, haul my horse, or sit my sheep?

Kind of situated opposite the Dog Father too.

So is this selling products for dogs, or just anything tangentially doggy.

A reference to the air conditioning vents in the Peckham Multiples perhaps? Who knows?

Good post Mattsoper

Different strokes for different folks innit - no point anyone getting defensive. It's not a competition.

This from David Mitchell http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/david-mitchell-private-school-charitable-status-great-for-foreign-plutocrats

I drove past on Sunday on my way back from Greenwich. Couldn't stop, but it looked great. Loads of people there.

Catford is a bit grim imo. Forest gate not a bad call. Certainly likely to improve with crossrail

This looks good... New Peckham Market. Could it sound the death knell for North x road? http://www.peckhammarket.com/

My apologies Foxbridge I didn't notice the date. Still, it's true.

Flytipping is infuriating. Foxy - The mattress is not related to commissioned murals.

.

Polmoche Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought we were talking about Alleyns, hence why > I said it was unfair to lump it in with the > middling privates. I liked Alleyns when I toured > it, but I was also very impressed with > Haberdashers and I thought the Deptford Green > deputy head was warm, articulate and dynamic. > > As for only the wealthy being the only ones who > can contemplate privates, actually, this is where > bursaries come in. I know 3 children on > substantial bursaries at Jags (90%), St. Dunstans > (70%) and King's College School (not sure > percentage). As bursaries are means tested I > assure you none of these families would even be > considered even middle class. It also all depends > on what your priorities are - I would venture you > are not factoring in cultures where the extended > family sometimes help pay. People often ask where > do people on benefits get the money to buy X, Y & > Z (usually fags and booze), well I know a mother > on benefits and living in council accommodation, > who spent every spare penny on tuition at ?36 an > hour! > > Finally, the link to IFS.org.uk is really > unnecessary and very patronising. I meant those paying full fees. Clearly there are small number of children with bursaries, but they are in the minority.

come on quids, no one is suggesting that there are no children from less privileged backgrounds at private schools, but clearly they are heavily weighted towards those with more affluent parents. To suggest that somehow it's the private schools which are working class and state schools which are populated by the children of the middle classes is a total inversion of reality.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The evidence I have seen suggests that private > schools are at a minimum better at preparing > students to do well on their A-level exams (that > of course is a very narrow definition of > education). > > The evidence comes from the fact that on average, > once at university, a state school student with > the exact same A-level results as a privately > educated student, will outperform the privately > educated student. > This suggests, that the inherent intelligence a > state student needs to have to achieve a certain > set of results is higher than someone in private > education. Once the quality of teaching both > students receive is the same at university, the > advantage of private tuition disappears and the > more intelligent student does better. That is one possibility. The other is that something about being at a state school better prepares you for the experience of going to university. I'm not sure it's possible to be sure of what is going on. A much better measure of school performance is to look at progress over the course of schooling (so taking account of the difference in terms of intake). Unfortunately, whilst state schools have to record Value Added measures, private schools do not. The little research that there has been, suggests that *perhaps* state schools do better. It's pretty inconclusive either way however.

....or to put it another way - would we otherwise use public funds to extend the northern line to a virtually derelict area? If the answer is no, then how has a private developer 'subsidised' an otherwise unwanted extension? It's a public subsidy to a private development.

Medley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's because it is. Memory says it's only about > a quarter of the costs of the Northern line > extension that aren't coming from public funds. I imagine significantly more than a quarter of the value of the private housing development comes from the public investment in new infrastructure to serve it. So it really depends how you want to look at it. I would argue that as taxpayers contribute to not just the cost of infrastructure construction, but it's ongoing running costs, to have that money put towards an extension which serves no existing community, but rather an area of proposed investment properties - it looks very much like a subsidy for the developers.

Polmoche Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course, as with state schools, not all private > schools are the same. Unfair to lump all private > schools in with each other, as its unfair to lump > all state schools together, some are outstanding, > some are in special measures etc. Clearly this is true, but as part of an inevitably imperfect discussion about the relative merits of one sector over another, it is necessary and appropriate to talk generally. > Who in their right mind would pay 15K and up to send their > child to a less than good private? Plenty do. Which is interesting in itself, as it implies that academic performance is not always the primary factor in choosing private education. > Having toured every local school under the sun- privates, > grammars and locals, all have their pros and cons. Of course, but for the sake of a debate you have to talk in generalities, whilst being aware that this is what you are doing and there is always unspoken nuance. > Plus, with state schools, can we please do away > with this crazy notion that there is actually a > choice in the matter? Completely agree with this. I don't understand why we persist with the charade of choice. Everyone should be offered a place at their nearest school in my opinion. > There is only choice if you want to buy your way in via housing. We are in the > crazy position that our closest schools are two > very outstanding state schools which we would be > more than happy to send our child to. BUT, though > they are OUR closest, their last place offered by > distance is extraordinarily tight. In once > instance its 300 M. 300 M! And if you want to buy > your way in via housing, a family house is 1 > million PLUS. I think the 'moving to be in a catchment' scenario is probably over stated, although I don't doubt it happens. Either way it's certainly contained to a minority who are both willing and able to do so. But if you think private education is a good idea, then moving to be near a good state school must be also, no? It's much the same thing. > I am with Bawdy Nan, less judgement please! And > it's not just wealthy parents sending children to > private school, I know quite a few families who > are considering whether to prioritise private > education- they are by no means wealthy, but think > this is the right thing to do for their children. I agree that we shouldn't judge parents for doing the best for their children. I've said it several times. I would say however, that those who think that because affording the fees of a top private school is uncomfortable, they are not wealthy - probably underestimate their position, relative to the majority. Try this, it's usually an eye opener: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bawdy-nan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As I understand it bright children, > statistically, > > do better at state schools. > > This sounds a bit far fetched to me. Can you find > any source for this? > > If there are good state secondary schools where > you live (and you can get into one) then great, > but that isn't always the case. I don't think we > should be judgemental towards those who send > children to private school, they're just trying to > get the best education for their kids - even if > you believe they are misguided. I'm not sure that Independent schools do offer a better education than State schools. The evidence is at best mixed. Here is a good article on some of the evidence: http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/02/the-myth-of-private-school-performance/ ...and of course you generally get a much narrower experience in terms of the breath of backgrounds, perspectives and values you encounter in your peers (although for some this may be seen as a good thing). It would be good if private schools were made to measure and publish the same value added stats as state schools, so as to allow for a proper comparison, taking account of intake. Who knows it may help 'drive up standards' in private schools ;-)