Earl Aelfheah

When in doubt it's usually safe to assume that there are no trains on any given Sunday.

I suspect that overall M&S will prove more popular than Iceland, though clearly not everyone will be happy to lose the latter. There is always going to be pressure on parking and the more popular the shop the greater the traffic. Not sure it's a good reason to stop popular shops coming to LL.

Interesting article on the (lack of) evidence re. amber necklaces form teething.

Great policy, well done Harris Boys. My advice would be not to get one. They are unnecessary and it's only an issue because so many parents do buy their kids mobiles. Don't be part of it. h1981 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My son is year 7 at Harris Boys East Dulwich. They > are not allowed mobile phones as long as they are > in school uniform, ie not just when at the school, > but also travelling to and from the school. As a > result, apparently, it is "known" that Harris Boys > do not carry mobile phones and are subsequently > not a target. Although I was a little edgy at > first, my son being uncontactable on his school > commute hasn't been an issue.

Prices going through the roof?

You would still have seperate threads. I'm asking for a new section, so they don't all get posted in the 'general' area. ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have to disagree, I find the individual threads > much better to see at a glance. One quick look > tells me that Henslowe and Choumert got blagged > and that there was a personal attack near the > station. Handy.

But it's worse having post after post about various 'incidents' in the general discussion section. At least with a dedicated section you can choose whether or not to read a constant stream of crime reports.

Please can a new section be created for those who want to report, or read about crime in the area?

The important point to keep hold of is that you are not alone. Some parents are lucky enough to have children who sleep easilly and often, but just as many do not. Things will get better however. Hang in there.

I agree that in general employers need to be more flexible. It's unfortunate that so few employers see the mutual benefit in being so. I have to say however, that in my experience, most local authorities are pretty good when it comes to accomodating flexible working requests. Certainly relative to many private sector firms they could almost be considered exemplars of good practice. I do not beleive that it is helpful to force businesses to accomodate any and all requests regardless of how it may impact on operations. This is unlikely to help anyone's cause in the long run. To ensure that businesses are genuinely considering requests and exploring options which can work with the needs of the business, seems reasonable. The weakness in the current legal position of course, is that the actual decision itself isn't really examined, simply the process. But if tribunals were to second guess actual decisions, they would effectively be taking on the role of proxy manager. In such a senario, you could just as well cut out the middle man and have decisions go straight to a judge. I can see therefore, why the law only goes as far as it does. My unease with the situaiton described above however, is that it isn't a case of someone going after a really bad employer who simply refuses to even contenance flexible working, but a local authority who has considered the case and tried to offer some options. The real issue when it comes to getting back to work after having a child are the cost of living (in particular housing) and the expense of childcare. If you want to make a real difference then lobby your MP to change policy in these areas. Don't sue local tax payers.

Firstly, I haven't defended anyone.? I have pointed out that the law only requires employers to consider flexible working requests.? You haven't actually said what you believe your employers motivation to be in refusing your request, but certainly haven't suggested that they've refused to consider any options. From what you have said , the issue seems to be that you: "...haven't been able to agree a flexible working solution that would satisfy you both". It may be that such a solution doesn't exist. But it doesn't follow that if you are not satisfied, then the employer is invariably acting unreasonably. I am all to aware of the issues surrounding childcare and the difficulty of making work pay when you're a mother on a middle income. I would strongly support the introduction of universal free childcare, which the institute for public policy research believes would actually bring money in to the exchequer. So there are economic as well as social and moral arguments for such a policy.? Solidarity for working mothers doesn't mean providing unquestioning support to anyone who is dissatisfied and wishes to sue local taxpayers, regardless of circumstance. The public sector ethos is also about solidarity, and I believe in that also. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/11/free-childcare-millions-tax-mums

Out of interest, what do you believe to be your employers motives for refusing your flexible working request?

It sounds as though your employer has considered your request and offered you some options. There is no right to flexible working in law (only a requirement on employers to reasonably consider requests). Clearly I don't know the full circumstances, but it sounds as though they may have fulfilled their legal obligations. Tribunals rarely second guess an employers conclusions, merely that they have acted in good faith and followed a procedure. I have to say that suing a local authority (AKA local tax payers), would in myopinion, only be justifiable in a case were there was a blatant and quite extreme abuse of your rights.

Admin- Please create a new section for crimes. Then those who want to read it can.

Maybe you should take a stool and easel when you go out. That way you may create a watercolour of any suspicious characters.

Big up the dub

All up for replacing Foxtons with something useful.

iceicebaby Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was merely remarking how pointless the theft of > the daffs was given their low monetary value. Am > surprised some read it the other way. No matter > who steals the daffs, ruining a perfectly good > community display is remarkably selfish. It shows > what value some have placed on others' hard work. Apologies iceicebaby... I read your post in haste and took the wrong message from it.

hellosailor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, no worries you had me at 'a study by two > science professors...' I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that a scientifc paper must be published under more than two names in order to be valid?

Here's a brief outline of the existing evidence (with links to specific papers): http://www.brighton.ac.uk/ncor/summaries/Osteopathy%20in%20the%20Cranial%20Field.pdf

iceicebaby Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The price of daffs this time of year is > practically free! It's like stealing penny sweets. So as their resale value is nominal, it's OK to ransack a flowerbed and ruin a public display. As for the other parallel you draw - would anyone think it was Ok for a parent to encourage their child to steal a handful of sweets either?

Perhaps it's more than one person? A pee crime syndicate.

Full fat, or semi-skimmed?

Let's hope that the thoughtless don't catch on too quickly to the fact that they can make as much noise as they like post midnight, without any hassle.

Although the noise team knock off at 1.30, in reality, they stop dealing with complaints much earlier (becuase of the time it takes them to get to the location and actually deal with the issue). Effectively, they don't deal with noise issues during the night (which is surely the only time most people need them).