Otta

No chance. He believes he can win, because his muppet supporters tell him so, and he doesn't speak to anyone else. And I tend to agree with Louisa, I am not convinced he'll fuck off after being destroyed. He'll be gotten rid of somehow, but doubt he'll hold his hands up and step down. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > But the Lib Dems entered an alliance with the > > Tories last time they got any votes, and look > how > > > that turned out. > > > > Not sure you understand the meaning of the word > > 'Centrist'. It doesn't mean 'nicer, cuddlier > form > > of Labour'. > > Yes. I thought the Lib Dems did a good job in the > Coalition in hideous circumstances and got an > unfair kicking at the GE - I hope they do well > this time and I'll be voting for them. I'd vote > anything but UKIP to keep Corbyn away from Downing > Street. Agree. Back in 2010 I was horrified they got in to bed with the Tories, and to this day I still think Clegg is about Clegg first and foremost. BUT they stopped Dave and George from doing a lot more cutting in that time, and they were harshly punished.

Carbonara Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Temporary renting, whilst having a permanent home > in the same area IS against the rules. > > In primary schools, very close to east Dulwich, a > few years ago, parents who pulled this stunt have > had children REMOVED from the school - actually > removed from the playground - and their places > revoked. Bloody hell, that's pretty harsh on the kids. I agree they shouldnhave lostvthe places, but literally just calling them out must jave veen horrible for them. Hopefully they'll grow up full of reaentment to their parents ;-)

Good evening y'all.

Come on, if you were her you'd do this. I certainly would. She has people quite rightly saying that a PM that wasn't elected by the people shouldn't be taking the country in to Brexit. So now she'll be very much elected by the people, probably with a massive majority. It is a very very good move from her. None of that is to say that I am remotely happy about this. We will now have a Tory government with a big majority, possibly for the next 10 years. I just hope Corbyn will fnck the fnck off on 9th June (have a nasty feeling he won't), and that Labour put a woman at the helm (Heidi Alexander maybe...).

I've never seen Broadchurch, but saw bits of both on Gogglebox recently, and as a result have zoomed through season 1 of Line of Duty, and now started season 2. From the clips I saw, Broadchurch didn't appeal to me at all. Ooo, and Big Little Lies is great!

Agreed (on pretending about religion). And apologies for asking if you'd played the system, my bad. And of course there is no point in feeling bitter towards those that can afford to LIVE closer, everyone has to live somewhere. This is about those that have a home, yet rent somewhere purely for a school place, and with NO intention of staying and being part of that community. You're probably right that it will always happen and "it's life". But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still call it what it is. And that is people treading over other people (children!).

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that's quite offensive. > > The school applications are fair. The criteria are > very clear and published well in advance and > rarely change year to year. > > What isn't 'fair' is that lives are not the same > and that people's circumstances are different. > However, that is life. It's a fact, whether you > personally think it's cynical or not. Have you by any chance played the system to seal a school place? I'm sure the kids that lose out on the places they should have had, and their families will take solace from the fact "that is life".

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Renting is expensive and it's not a lighthearted > decision. It's not against the rules. > I would have thought that parents would choose > where to live based on the school they want their > children to go to. > Bit you're talkimg as though everyone has the same options. A lot of us just live where we can afford.

As I've said elsewhere, The Sun suspending someone for being offensive is like Hitler suspending Himmler for being a bit of a wrongun.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so what can be done? Have a read of the 35percent site. http://35percent.org/ But unfortunately probably not a lot. Southwark's attitude seems to be very much "fuck you".

I'm aware of families where it has happened. But to be fair, it's more likely if one of the kids has an SEN and is placed somewhere by the LA to meet needs.

I've posted this article from 2013 before, but it's very good. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/look-heygate-estate-whats-wrong-londons-housing

The sibling thing is difficult though. Even if you're not having to physically take them, having 3 kids in 3 different schools is a proper pain. Free schools was a horrible idea, that just serves entitled aspirational parents and religious groups.

There was a Heygate thread a while back. Absolutely no surprises here. But shameful beyond belief. http://35percent.org/

Isn't Sydenham already covered by Sydenham Town Forum? Seems like a nonstarter.

Absolutely right. Every child that gets in to a school because their parents have secured an address close to the school, get in at the cost of another child slightly further away. But you only have to watch SOME parents pushing their kids to the front (at the expense of other kids) at Hornimans to know there are plenty that couldn't give a shit about other people's kids.

The total disregard for tgeir OWN safety shows that they will have given less than zero consideration to anyone elses'.

Fair few in Penge. I was almost hot turning the corner only to meet a bike coming around the corner on the pavement. They're absokute morons. Have seen them doing wheelies down Whateley Road with no helmets on.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Then other people start realising that their only > hope is to try and somehow play the system, so the > system breaks because of pure greed. Believe it or not, I genuinely feel for you. You've not created this problem, and now you're forced to find a way around it because you're not minted. It's all so wrong. What especially annoys me is that parents don't know how lucky they are to have London schools. They all push everyone out of the way to get "the best" ones, without realising that they're all pretty bloody good. Look at Newham, horrid place (I worked there the last 7 years), but genuinely great primary schools throughout.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All our top young players have been signing new contracts. And we all know how meaningful a football contract is.

It has gone on for years. I think it's completely immoral. You have fee paying schools for the wealthier types. Then you get the best state schools taken by these people that have the money to pay inflated rents for short periods. You also have accademies skimming those kids they want. And your average kid gets the leftovers. People that do this will justify it as doing the best for their kids (and fuck everyone elses'). I have no time for these people. Much like those that used to (probably still do) go to church for a while to get a school place. Then other people start realising that their only hope is to try and somehow play the system, so the system breaks because of pure greed. God I really don't like people very much. I should take my guitar and move to a field somewhere. Long day.

Not so much now that LAs have less and less say in this stuff. Schools set their own term dates, whoch complicates things.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But to play along, we could have not gone, we > could have gone without the kids, or we could > have made it a very short trip to attend the > Saturday service. All doable options. Or you could have just gone, and paid the fine if they bothered taking it that far (which most probably wouldn't).

Haha, I don't doubt what you say at all, but the fact that bunting of all things can be intimidating, has tickled me.

TT, had they said I couldn't take the kids out for a day for their great gran's 100th, I'd have taken the kids anyway, and paid any fine. Or actually I might have contested the fine, because a 100th birthday is a genuine one off event, not a holiday that could be taken any time. But if they'd upheld the fine I'd have paid it and moved on. I wouldn't have gone to court and claimed the state had taken away my rights as a parent, because the state will have had nothing to do with it.