Earl Aelfheah

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.

I wasn't there so it's difficult to judge, but clearly you felt uncomfortable and I can certainly understand that. You did the right thing by bringing it to the attention of a PCSO, who seem to have investigated the matter and felt that no further action was needed. My feeling is that putting up descriptions of people on a website and implying that they may be perverts, with no real proof of such, is a little dangerous.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Heh, imagine the ED Vigilante. > > Brandishing a rolled up Gaurdian, ..Hah! Guardian Angels

My 20 month old still won't nap during the day reliably. Goes down well at night now, but only a fairly recent achievement. Wakes 5.30.

....Actually, I'm not sure that putting out descriptions of alleged perverts on this forum is all that wise.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just think it's very sad that we live in a > society, where our first thought is that someone > must be a pervert. I am not a naive person, and > whatever their reason for filming, they certainly > should've asked for consent first. However, it > seems that people are all too quick to jump from > filming a kid playing in the park, to filming a > kid playing in a park, because you're a weird > perv. I agree Otta. If the kid was doing something funny or cute, they may have recorded it quite innocently. We're talking about a picture of a child playing. Certainly thoughless / insensitive to take pictures without the carer's permission though. I think the whole thing about not being able to record your kid at a school play is absolutlely ridiculous.

-- moved topic --

Anyone know if Frank's is happening again this year?

P.S. Welcome to the area SteveUK1978

Is the Rye a Capital Pub Co. pub?

Personally, I think that there cannot be enough secure cycle parking. It would be good to have much more at Peckham Rye, especially in time for the East London Line Phase 2 extension.

The seem to have been roadworks up that end of LL forever. Where is the coordination promised by Boris?

Wow. Sounds like a great idea. Will try it out soon.

Baby finally arrived in the wee hours of this morning. We have decided to call her Bonnie. Thanks for sharing your ideas / opinions.