Nicholas Spears

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please don't ramp this up and make people worry - > it is utter utter rubbish found in the mail or > express Or Guardian... https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/03/burglars-code-chalk-marks-wall

Actually I'm reflecting on the motives of the seemingly many people who think the apparent suicide of a vicar police caught with child porn should be kept quiet... Why have so many people been anxious to keep this a secret? colville09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I only had a brief contact with the Rev but he > obviously was loved by his parishioners. He also > seemed to add much to our ED community. Maybe > people should reflect more on the motives, > exploitation of distress and morality of The Daily > Mail before they start getting hysterical. There > is something very sick about that rag and its sad > readers.

Join Dulwich Squash Club - it's one of the best in the country. Four courts and loads of keen players

Ann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seriously, whatever organisation is responsible > for these 'sellers' should be a bit more diligent > with their employees. We really don't deserve > this level of aggression on our doorstep. I have to disagree with you Ann as I'd been thinking about this before this thread started...I believe the organisation behind these 'sellers' is extremely diligent, and achieves more consistency in its recruitment programme than Goldman Sachs - they're looking for nasty aggressive people. Either that or they take fairly normal people then train them to be intimidating. I say that because they are so consistently vile - I've had run ins with them on about four occasions 'What are you looking at?' when I've glanced at them in the street, 'I'm not a burglar' out of nowhere from them on my doorstep, 'Are you a burglar?' from another one on the doorstep. Any normal door to door seller would simply hurry on when refused. They are aggressive for the sake of it because they seek to intimidate. I'd love to know who's behind it.

Louisa: Ah - Farmers. yes, have used it many times. But I still don't understand your criticisms of the Guardian. A little piece in the paper a reporter had spent half a day on is not going to be an all encompassing source of all things to all people. And since independent butchers have been closing in droves for decades, rather than opening, it's a good example. And a couple of examples is better than just listing loads. It's just a mystery why the William Rose bloke pretended East Dulwich was rough eight years ago.

Louisa: I think criticising the Guardian for being patronising and lazy over this piece is ludicrous. The butcher is responsible for falsely claiming East Dulwich was rough eight years ago - God knows why - and the Guardian could not seriously be expected to launch a full-scale investigation to determine exactly how rough the locale was. And maybe the Guardian didn't mention 'the farmers' (who I've never actually come across myself in hundreds of walks down Lordship Lane) because no-one mentioned them to their reporter. The truth is though that East Dulwich is a classic case of gentrification - no-one needs to twist anything to produce a piece saying that.

How do you know it's a halfway house, and what are they halfway between? What sort of residents does it have? I've always assumed halfway houses are for ex-prisoners on their way to full freedom. But I may be mistaken

Can you give me some guidance on how I could 'put some time and effort in to making the local school better for every kid' because, as one parent, I'm not confident I could do that in the few years my child was there. And I don't quite see why my child should suffer in the meantime, when they could be going to a school that's already better, like plenty of other children. And out of interest Otta, do you a) Have any children and b) what schools are you near? Because if you don't have kids, or you're in the catchment areas of say Dulwich Hamlet and Charter, it's considerably easier to adopt a more-right-on than thou attitude.

Did I say it was the best guide? Really? I'm saying it is an indication all is not well. Or is it ideal that NO kids in Southwark state schools surveyed, that's zero per cent, had a chance of getting in to Cambridge in the year concerned? What is the best guide, and where are the statistics to show how well Southwark is doing?

'Everyone must go to local schools'? What about if there's clear evidence that Southwark schools are failing children? A few years ago Cambridge university did research into how local authority schools prepared kids for Cambridge entry, and found many simply failed to offer children the chance to do the right sort of A-levels. 'The highest performing local authority, judged by the number of students achieving AAA in subject combinations that make them viable Cambridge applicants, is Reading with 27%. The lowest is Southwark, where NONE of the 111 state-sector A-Level students got AAA in an appropriate combination in 2006.' Your kids might not want to go to Cambridge - but it gives you pause for thought when you're worrying that Otta thinks you 'pathetic' for shopping around a bit. ps Yes I know, things might have changed a little since then, but the principle that some schools might be poor,and best avoided even though they're on your doorstep, remains. here's a link to a report on the research http://www.cam.ac.uk/news/poverty-is-the-main-barrier-to-a-level-achievement-report-shows

Because you don't want to be run over by a car you couldn't hear?

Strafer said: 'Threads that try to warn people only serve to give the impression that things are worse than they are'. Surely they only tell people how things actually are, unless they're exaggerated? And if you don't warn people about crimes that have happened to you, aren't you giviing the impression that things are better than they are? Either way, I'll be watching out for the pair in the CCTV picture when I'm next in the pub.

This allegation is only libellous if it's not true. And it's not in breach of sub judice rules either: no court case is imminent, no individual culprit is named (a company would not be charged with theft, only invidivuals), and the chance of any jurors in some future case having read this thread is nigh on zero.

I had ADT round to my house a few months ago - and had quite a pleasant chat until I saw in the salesman's printed brochure the claim that 'One in 20 homes is burgled every day'. When I said that was impossible, because if it was true then the streets would be full of sprinting yobs carrying flat-screen TVs and i-pads, he persisted, saying it was 'Home Office figures'. Only a complaint to ADT head office, pointing out that the figures would mean there were around 365 million burglaries a year in Britain, secured the truth. The true figure, a boss said, was that 'One in 20 homes is burgled every year'. He claimed it was a clerical error, and not a cynical attempt at scaremongering. The brochure would be changed, he said. I then suggested they replace the original figure with one saying 'One in 7,300 homes is burgled every day' they did not reply. Or do they still use the 'one in 20 is burgled every day' figure? Do tell.

I always thought prurience referred to any unhealthy interest in sexual matters - not concern about potential burglars. And I don't know when the public started thinking that only the police had the right to any information about potential dangers.