Otta

He may have some pride and not want to admit publically that it was to with cashflow/rent. I don't know any details, but I suspect it wasn't something he'd planned.

sniffer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do you libtards have to say about that? Libtards is quite funny.

Songs like "Fix you" are genuinely good songs, but then you hear him say things like "it would be realy sad if the whole world doesn't hear this song (because it's that good)", you just want to slap him.

Yeah I thought that was a bit much too. Although I do largely agree that it's a pathetic thing to do.

I have thought about this with Coldplay, I basically dislike them and their music because I dislike Chris Martin. Which is silly and irrational, but you know, he annoys me. But if I was from mars and knew nothing of this man and just heard the music would I find myself hating it? Probably not, even if it didn't exactly blow me away.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I still call it Seegars even though > Roche took it over more than 20 years ago. Same here, my dad used to take me to Seegars when I was little.

Roche had been there for years, according to my mum he just said something about cash flow. I wonder whether the lease was up and the landlords hiked the rent.

When ???

Ooo'er missus!

Bit ironic having Stairway to Heaven at a humanist funeral.

The things that become so important as our youth fades in to the distance ;-)

It is absurd, but it's a quid so I'd just put it down to a grrr.

That is quite possibly the most surreal bot post ever!

Yeah I'm a PG Pyramid man.

I'm defo in the squeezing camp, I want every last bit of strength out of the bag. Just a dadh of milk, and absolutely no sugar undet any circumstances!

Cross posted.

It's a public forum, it doesn't work that way I'M AFRAID.

Completely out of order to blame sweetgirl (who didn't go to the press, they came to her - had it been the other way round my opinion would be different). The nursery absolutely failed her and she has every right to be very upset. But "nothing has changed in terms of security since their report rating the nursery as 'good' so doesn't really make any sense" This is so typical of OFSTED. Christ I hate that organisation with a passion!

On account of drinking with two good men this evening, I'm kind of Arsenal tomorrow.

Haha, way to drop a brother in it.

"It's an odd state of affairs when people seem more concerned about a reporter knocking on the door than the child going missing and from all accounts the nursery not seeming to care or even have noticed." Whoa, I don't think that is remotely fair! Not a single person has done anything other than condemn the nursery for that incident, and rightly so. But it is sad that it might lead to them being closed rather than leading to them sorting out the things that need sorting out, and continueing to provide a valuable service. The reporting irked because it is so typical of the lazt one sided tabloidesque reporting that is all over the TV these days. Pointing out that other people had come on this forum with negative reports about the place, yet completely failing to mention that actually quite a few people had said positive things too.

Wheelie bags, full stop. I just want to kick them, especially on to the tube track. I don't of course, because that would be a bit much, but I want to.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you know that they did? And if they did but > didn't get the answer they wanted, should they > then have tried storming in? It looked aggresive > and cheap, much like most of the reporting on ITV. For the record, I don't mean, nor do I think that they actually tried to push their way in to the building, but it still looked OTT and I felt sorry for the woman that was at the door. And she's there to be watching kids, so surely they shouldn't be distracting her when they have concerns over the nursery's ability to watch the kids.

I'm up for it if it's on.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > In my experience they just tell the nursery to > shut, > > They seem to have more degrees of freedom than > that, and a duty of circumspection and fairness > that I think would make it unlikely. It would seem > to me to imply an extraordinary finding, that the > nursery was incapable of improving its ways, and > that the children remained at risk. The following > is from their pamphlet of information for parents > about Ofsted's role in regulating childcare, > downloadable from > http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/information-for > -parents-about-ofsteds-role-regulating-childcare. > > Enforcement > > "We have powers to make sure that providers keep > to the requirements and conditions of their > registration. If we find the provider is not > meeting the requirements, we can take the > following action. > > - We can write to the provider telling them what > they must do to meet the requirements. We call > this a ?notice to improve?. Normally this is > sufficient to make sure providers meet the > requirements. > - We can send a provider on the Early Years > Register a legal notice, called a welfare > requirements notice. This sets out what the > provider must do, and by when, to meet the welfare > requirements. If the provider does not comply with > this notice they commit an offence. > - We can change or add new conditions to a > provider?s registration. > - We can prosecute a provider if they have > committed an offence. > - We can cancel a provider?s registration, in > exceptional cases, if we believe nothing else will > protect children or to make sure the provider > keeps to the law. > > We may suspend the provider?s registration if we > believe that children are at risk of harm, so we > can investigate or take steps to reduce or remove > the risk of harm. We have a separate leaflet > available if you would like more information on > suspension. > > When deciding whether we need to take action, or > what action we need to take, we must be fair to > the registered provider. We cannot stop a provider > from earning their living without good reason. > This means that we do not take action unless we > have evidence of a failure to meet requirements or > conditions of registration or unless we have > reasonable cause to believe children are at risk > of harm." A year ago my older daughter was at a preschool in Sydenham. Allegations of bullying (staff not children) were made against the manager. OFSTED came in had a look around and went away again. Shortly after, someone from within blew the whistle, and OFSTED got on the phone to the chair of the board (a volunteer mum) and made her go there and close it instantly. They were really heavy handed, threatening her and the other members (of which my wife was one) with all sorts of legal action. They just volunteered to bake the odd cake and raise a bit of money, they didn't sign up for all this! Basically OFSTED had messed up, so they were covering their own asses by being ridiculously harsh. I myself was having to phone parents that evening telling them not to bring their child to preschool the following morning. OFSTED do not get involved in that, or finding alternatives. The volunteer parents then had to do a whole disciplinary process and the preschool never reopened, meaning the community lost a very rare good value child care option. Yes things were going wrong between the staff, but it could have been dealt with so much better, but all the volunteer parents kept getting from OFSTED was "you're liable for this and that and we will prosecute you". Be careful what you volunteer for, it can come back to bite you! Very different story I know, but I don't trust OFSTED one bit (I also work in education, so that is not solely based on that incident).