Earl Aelfheah

tomk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most of these recent posts about 'exclusivity' are > just empty rhetoric. All school catchments based > on distance exclude. Well yes, but it does represent and strengthen the local community. Segregating children along religious lines is inherently divisive. >It > is important to note that the admissions criteria > for St Ants does not exclude non-catholics. In practice, yes, it does. > In response to some of the other points: > > A. St Ant's catchment for last year was > geographically bigger than most other ED schools. > - strange for such an 'exclusive' school - > furthest was I believe Nunhead. Yes, it draws from a wider catchment area, because it excludes those from the local area, by discriminating on religious grounds. > B. Almost all students live in SE22, one or two > SE15 or Forest Hill. The parking issue is being > stirred up for some of the reasons alluded to > above (anti-faith schools, anti-Catholic - search > the thread titled something like 'St Anthony's > Catholic school for idiots' if you don't believe > me). You points above suggest that there probably is going to be more of an issue with people driving to the Shcool (as they are coming from further afield. As for opposition to faith schools being anti catholic, this is nonsense. I am catholic, but I do not agree with dividing children along faith lines. But hey, if it says it on the EDF then it > must be true, right? Clowns, anyone? > > C. The idea that St Ant's is not > multicultural/representative of the local > community? I personally know parents whose > ethnicity may be described as(though at the school > we don't really care about where you come from): > African (Nigerian, Ghanaian); Caribbean; Spanish; > Filipino; Portuguese;Lithuanian; Polish; Indian; > Malaysian; Irish; English; Welsh; Italian; Puerto > Rican. And this is just me personally. Again, it's > a lazy stereotype about the school which people > don't apply to DVI, St Johns and St Clement, Heber > etc despite their clear parallels. > The point about lack of diversity was not made in relation just to St Anthonys, but faith schools in general - some faith schools, in certain areas do lead to segregation not only along religious lines (although actually this is bad enough), but also to segregation along ethnic and cultural lines). > D. As for the nonsense about 'it's the parents' > religion, not the child's - how ironic!' I would > question exactly which parents in ED allow their > 4yr old children to choose their own school. In my > book that would be negligent parenting, not > irony. No one allows a 4 year old to choose their school. But this is the school selecting the child according to the character and beliefs of their parents. Not sure how this is ironic though. > E. It's the best school in ED, due to its > catholicity, excellent leadership and teachers, > and very committed parents. Yes a good school, which excludes many for who it is their nearest school, because it doesn't like their parent's beliefs.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "..NOTW interfered with a murder enquiry, deleting > phone messages and potentially destroying > evidence..." > > It is alleged the private investigator did this, > not the NoW. Yes, a private investigator paid by the NoW

Here's a good article, explaining why this matters: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml

NOTW interfered with a murder enquiry, deleting phone messages and potentially destroying evidence. There is now a suggestion that they may have been bribing police and they certainly intimidated politicians. News International are hugely powerful, to the point that they have, for a long time, been above the law.

Sounds like the work of the dulwich hunt. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/columnists/2009/6/9/1244576220572/Fox-hunting-001.jpg

there is no place for dogs in a civilised society.

According to TFL, there are two an hour. Don't know if this is right or not?

It's not just about Catholic Schools, it's about all faith schools. But I can tell you from my own experience of going to a Catholic school, that it was far from diverse. It did not reflect the community it was in and this was a result of its admissions policy. Clearly this will vary from area to area, but generally if you segregate according to religion, you are likely to increase the probability of there being an indirect effect on diversity generally. Even if you take the racial and cultural element out of it, the state is still segregating along faith lines, which in itself is pretty indefensible IMO.

@Alexthecamel - I am not expressing an issue with Catholicism. I am expressing an issue with the state funding exclusive schools which divide children along religious lines. As for religious segregation also dividing along racial and cultural lines, the degree to which this happens varies from place to place clearly, but is very real in certain areas.

I have no strong views on Alleyn's specifically but the whole 'charitable status for private schools' thing is ludicrous. I really can't see how it's justified.

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe a grocers that sells real spanish onions. as opposed to fake spanish onions, which i can't stand.

If you walk up Villiers street from Embankment tube you'll find a chain of them. As you get past one you're confronted by the next. By the time You reach the strand you'll probably be dragging two of them along with you as they cling to you legs.

Despite everything I keep reading about the flagging state of the housing market, can anyone confirm whether prices in ED have actually dropped at all? Just looking in Estate Agent windows it would appear not, but I know that there is a big difference between asking prices and selling prices.

Bootiful bernard's

I believe the segregation of young children along religious (which often also means racial and cultural) lines, to be deeply divisive. I certainly think there is a problem where the state is part of such a system.

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > St Anthonys is a catholic school. You can't just > pretend to be a believer to get your child in!! It depends how far one is willing to go to get their child into a decent London state school. I know several people who are willing to get their child christened and go to mass on a Sunday in order to qualify for a London state school (though not specifically in ED). The fact that many London churches now take 'registers' at masses in order to report back to schools says a lot.

MrLoxley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rahrahrah > > Very 'sensible' post. Well done I love the way you think your ?devil may care? attitude to mundane traffic offences makes you really fun and interesting, when essentially you're just whining about being caught and at the same time suggesting that no one's done anything wrong. You're sure not sensible, you crazy cat you.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a bit of a silly argument... it goes round in > circles, and doubtless will continue to do so > again and again. > > carnell, straferjack, rahrah, etc are all right in > that road enforcement is necessary to help traffic > flow, and maintain road safety. We all know that. > But at the same time, the individuals who do the > job often use sneaky, predatory tactics, in order > to meet the targets set for them - even going as > far as handing out blatantly incorrect penalties > on the off-chance that the recipient won't contest > it. Again and again, their behaviour has been > shown to be nothing short of disgraceful. And yet > people wonder why they receive so much hostility? > > The solution is to remove artificial targets and > financial incentives, and stop outsourcing the > work to these cowboys. What a sensible post. Add in a quick and simple appeals process and a lot of the hostility to traffic enforcement would disappear.

Anyone can give examples of over zealous officials, or petty / poorly applied rules. The overwhelming majority of fines aren't handed out for 'hanging a wheel just one inch out of a parking bay' however. The mobile units are often searching for untaxed, registered, and / or insured cars. It?s true that when you put a camera in place of a human being, there is often a loss of discretion. However, you cannot have traffic officers as easily / widely deployed. Cameras are an efficient way discouraging / catching law breaking. I do agree that there should be much better appeals procedures, which are quick and simple and help address the few (highly publicised and quickly latched on) silly cases. I don?t buy the whole ?poor, persecuted drivers? guff though (and I speak as a driver myself, who remarkably manages to avoid the army of anti-car crusaders, randomly fining people for no good reason).

kford - it's a fair point - I was talking generally about the use of cameras for traffic enforcement and was thinking mainly about speed cameras. The fact remains however, that the rules of the road need to be enforced and this is a relatively cheap and easy way to do it.

Not outraged. I'm not a massive fan of cameras (rather than police officers) enforcing traffic law (cameras have no discretion and are often ineffective at catching the really dangerous / antisocial drivers IMO). Having said that, cameras are cheaper and can be deployed more widely and easily than police officers. There is no doubt that they reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. They're a compromise, but a necessary evil.

Totally agree with edcase. Schools should be secular if publicly funded. The only reason they persist in this day and age is because so many middle class voters are happy to play the 'go-to-mass-as-loop-hole-for-selective-schools' game.

They may one day extend to Camberwell green, but I can't see then making it as far as ED.

This is a great piece of work. Will be really interesting to see after Southwark release 2011 info.

I don?t think that anyone is questioning the fact that you had a right to be upset by someone taking photos of your child without permission, or that you have the best of motives in wanting to warn other of what you percieve to be a real threat. I really do sympathise with how you felt and you did the right thing reporting it to a PCSO. One does have to be cautious about posting descriptions of people on the internet however, insinuating that they may be perverts. This isn?t meant as a personal attack, or contrariness. This is an open forum and does invite comment and debate.