Timster

I'm not clear why we wouldn't be entitled to compensation for the four days the trains aren't running? Surely that's not right?

As someone who is yet to become a parent, I am amused at how much debate there can be over what I imagined were the wholly uncontroversial propositions that you shouldn't drive your kids to school unless it's really necessary and that if you do then you should drop them off somewhere safe. Does having a child render you incapable of a disinterested and logical analysis of such complex issues? (exits tongue in cheek pursued by a bugaboo)

The people carriers trying to squeeze down Goodrich Road really, really wind me up. It is completely unnecessary and complete chaos at the junction of Goodrich and Friern on a schoolday morning. The vast majority of parents must live within walking distance of the school and there is no excuse for not walking there in the morning if you are in walking distance (walking distance being, for the avoidance of doubt, anything up to a mile).

Or maybe they could all WALK their kids to school! Controversial I know.

TheAllSeeingEye Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In addition, although the Telegraph article makes > a lot of sense, how can you compare contrasting > areas ?? What is going on nationally is largely > irrelevant. In East Dulwich supply is low and > demand is high, that is only going to move prices > one way, and sealed bids is a frequent result of > that. What the future brings though ?? ... who > knows !! Exactly, ED is still relatively cheap compared to other similar 'desirable' areas of London and it was still in the process of really taking off when the recession hit. We must be one of the few bits of London where there are actually more posh bars, restaurants and shops locally now than there were 18 months ago. The credit crunch stalled the ED property bubble but long term you (subject to a few hiccups) I would expect prices to carry on rising simply because ED has become a much more desirable area to live than it was a few years ago.

vinceayre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Last year my energy bill was ?30,000 plus, i paid > over ?1200.00 in climate change levy, a tax > imposed on me by the government quite a few years > ago. I estimate i have paid over ?5,000 in this > tax since its inception. That may be nothing to > you but to me its a lot of money. > I am a baker and waste is one of our cardinal sins > so I am all for saving energy and time and > materials. > I have some sympathy with you on this point but it doesn't follow that because climate change has been used to justify some arguably arbitraty and unfair taxes then climate change isn't happening. Whether these taxes are fair or will make any difference to energy consumption is a whole different debate - but there are vested interests who use the 'it's just an excuse to make you pay more tax' arguments to sell their own agenda (conspiracy theorists, free marketeers, Jeremy Clarkson etc)

vinceayre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am just saying that the same scientists that > have been telling us the we are all going to die > unless we pay more tax, which is effectively the > outcome of the climate change lobbyists, are now > telling us that it has not got hotter in 15 years > and that the global warming we are experiencing > now may well have happened without our help > before, which is what the sceptics have said all > along. > > You have been conned but you cant accept it > because it would make you look foolish. head. brick wall.

I'm sorry but this is making me really angry. I don't care about the technicalities of temporary traffic lights being approved for pedestrian phasing. If you dig up a road at a busy and dangerous crossing that is regularly used by schoolchildren then you have a responsibility to make it safe whatever that involves and the council (or whatever the relevant public body is) has a responsibility to make sure you make it safe. If that means someone has to pay traffic police to stop the traffic and allow pedestrians to cross the road then so be it. Or if you have to put up barriers to stop people crossing the road (which couldn't have happened because there is nowhere else to cross the road). Councils are quite happy to impose daft health and safety regulations in other areas, particularly schools, but they are happy for kids to take their lives in their hands on their way to school.

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The alternative if you haven't got big bucks for > private tuition, > > is to move close to the Charter school as they > have a very small catchment area. Interesting - but this is supposed to be a debate over the issues not tips for pushy parents - maybe the Family Room for that SteveT?

no trains to London Bridge this morning (or at least there weren't an hour ago) because of a fire at South Bermondsey - but chaos at Peckham Rye as the staff had to phone National Rail Enquiries to find out what was happening! I understand there will be delays and cancellations at time but please, please give us enough information in enough time so we can make other arrangements.

I tend to agree that the grammar -v- comprehensive issue is a bit anachronistic. The few grammar schools that are left in London are grammar schools only in name. The competition for places from all over London means that their selection criteria are based on much more than whether you pass the 11 plus. These schools will select children from the right sort of background (often interviewing the parents as part of the selection process) to ensure they only have kids with the right amount of parental support and who are less likely to be disruptive - because their continued popularity depends on maintaining their place in exam league tables etc. But their success depends much more on their picking the brightest kids from the best homes rather than anything the schools actually add in terms of the quality of the education (this isn't just speculation - I have a friend who runs a consultancy that analyses the value added by schools all over the country). I went to a grammar school in a London borough in the 80s (and I think in many respects it did give me a head start in life that I wouldn't have otherwise had). But the primary school I attended had what was predominantly a, well 'council estate', catchment area. My mum carried on working there (as a secretary) long after I left and there were numerous bright kids who passed the 11 plus but still ended up at the local comp or even secondary modern. My point being, the grammar schools tended to discriminate against children from less middle class areas. Of course, this was all a consequence of the grant maintained status my old grammar school gained under the Tories which gave it the freedom to pick and choose who attended - whereas before it had to accept whoever had applied and had passed the 11 plus. My view is that a comprehensive system can work but only if it is truly comprehensive. If everyone attends the local comp (as happens in more rural and/or provincial parts of the country) then there is a genuine mix of class and ability which gives everyone an opportunity to get on. In London, the comprehensives pick up what's left over after the grammar schools, private schools and (I'm surprised they haven't been mentioned yet) church schools have creamed off all the talent. Church schools are in my view just a syphon for middle class kids whose parents can't afford private school. Similarly, the grammar school system that some might be nostalgic for (and I think genuinely did improve social mobility) only works if it applies to everyone across the country and everyone gets an equal chance of a grammar school education - not just the lucky few growing up in the right area or with the right sort of pushy parents. So, if you ban private schools, selective schools and church schools, you might have a comprehensive education system that actually works. Cloud cuckoo land of course.

And between Barry Road and Friern Road this morning. There is one individual who is usually held up as being responsible but refuses to co-operate. He's been the subject of posts on here before.

JBARBER Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi the-e-dealer, > I've spoken to council officers. > The Standard Operating Procedure you've described > is still followed and was followed on the day. The > temporary works were orignally planend to be left > in place to allow Thames Water work and > resurfacing. Each planned for consequtive single > days. > After the Police had investigated and recorded the > crime scene they allowed the temporary lights and > barriers, etc to be removed. > It was felt that under the circumstances > continuing with the temporary lights would have > been inappropriate. > So at some point Thames Water will need to > undertake works at this location and resurfacing > will also be required after Thames Water. This is really weak. For 'inappropriate' should we read 'dangerous'? As was pointed out by numerous people before and after this tragic accident, the temporary traffic light system meant that schoolchildren had little choice but to take their chances on a dangerous junction. The idea that it would have remained in place longer than was necessary because this was somehow convenient for Thames Water or whatever contractor was involved is shocking. We all understand roadworks have to take place and inevitably cause inconvenience and can make roads more dangerous but the council must have a responsibility to ensure their impact is minimised, particularly where issues of safety have been brought to their attention. I hope Mr Barber can raise this with the appropriate people to ensure it does not happen again.

To go back to the point of the OP, do we feel free to discuss this issue? Well, self-evidently yes! Anyway, it seems to me the discussion so far has ignored the fact that the background to the proposed law is the separation between church and state in France and the significance the French attach to preserving that principle (which is a matter of law). What has been proposed will, in fact, only apply to schools, hospitals etc - not private buildings or on the street - and is consistent with France being a secular country. The UK is not secular and there is no separation between church and state. We couldn't enact a similar law in the UK without arguably discriminating against one religion. We would have to be equally intolerant of all religious outfits - perhaps asking nuns to take off their habits when they went to hospital. Personally, I think the French have the right idea but a lot of the people in this country who support the French law would be up in arms if, like France, public schools were banned from having Christan assemblies.

Eversfield Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you have been following the drafting of a law > in France on non-secular headgear, do you feel > that people would feel free to have or express an > opinion in this country on such an issue? I'm confused. What is your point? Has someone done away with free speech without telling me?

Just Like Honey - Jesus and Mary Chain

I don't know why you're being defensive about the police either. Criticism of the police and open discussion of how they exercise their powers is fundamental to a free society. And your assertion that really you're just annoyed that Domitianus lied to make a point is somewhat undermined by your deliberately editing his comment to take out his "if memory serves me right" qualification. And if he did get the facts wrong on that, it doesn't undermine the validity of the rest of his post.

vinceayre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Once you cant question something > without being labled a fool I feel obliged to > believe the opposite. So, you believe the earth is flat and smoking doesn't cause cancer?

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > maybe its me but I feel that police presence only > creates 'tension' for those who have something to > hide...no? they never bother me, i'm very glad we > have the police, they do a difficult job as anyone > dealing with the public will tell you. if this > prevents crime then good that we have paid our > taxes on something useful for once. > maybe we have got so used to not seeing many > policy around 'on the beat' that this is scaring > us a wee bit too much than it should? > > the people who go running off about infringement > of their 'rights' and so on would be the first to > complain if they were a victim. I don't like the suggestion that if you think that the police turning up mob-handed with dogs at your local railway station for no apparent reason is unnecessarily provocative then you must be guilty of something yourself! No one is objecting to the police doing their job and if this is preventing crime then it would be a good thing - but quite a few people on here are rightly doubtful that this is a good use of police time and would like to know why they're there. What crimes exactly are they preventing? In my view, their time would be better used being on the beat around East Dulwich and Peckham. The explanation above from the British Transport Police is very vague (and doesn't entirely make sense since the police I saw did not appear to be British Transport Police but standard issue Met). And if some people do feel comfortable with police in these numbers hanging around with sniffer dogs at a suburban railway station, then maybe that says something quite sad about the sort of society we've become. It wasn't necessary when I was growing up in South London - and I don't see why it is now.

KidKruger, I'm not saying I feel personally threatened as such by these policeman, and perhaps it is a poor choice of words, but my point is that it generates a level of tension (they are certainly not very approachable) that doesn't seem justified by what I perceive to be the level of crime at ED station. My immediate thought when I see a lot of policemen together like this is that something has happened or is going to happen which puts me on my guard. If I knew what they were doing there I might feel happier about it (for example, I was quite happy with the knife searches the Met were doing at Peckham Rye about a year ago - that did make me feel safer).

Surely the question is whether this is a good use of police time? And whether half a dozen police standing threateningly outside a railway station at rush hour actually makes anyone feel safer? I don't recall ever feeling like we needed a police presence there at rush hour - and I am assuming they all p*** off when it gets late and people get mugged and stuff. If they are there to pick up commuters who carry small amounts of drugs on them (but really, how many commuters do that on the way back from the office?) or to help Southern crack down on fare-dodging, then in my view that is a complete waste of police time. And if it is the former, why don't they move to Peckham Rye where I feel confident they'd have a much higher hit rate. If there has been a spate of drug-dealing going on outside the station, as another poster suggested, then I think this is something to crack down and their presence is justified. But again, I'm not at all convinced that there is a drug-dealing problem at ED station - I am sure it would have been picked up on by someone on the forum by now apart from anything else. So, we have a bunch of threatening looking coppers creating an atmosphere of tension to no obvious purpose - I for one would want my councillor to look into it.

Er none Bob. A lot of police standing around looking very unfriendly does not make for a happy atmosphere. Of course, if there is a good reason for them to be there, I'll learn to live with my excessive sensitivity to a heavy-handed police presence at my local railway station.

I don't usually come into East Dulwich and yes there were 6 officers there tonight - and not British Transport Police ones but proper Met Police. No obvious reason for them to be there. It's not as if South London is short of crime for them to be chasing so they've got nothing better to do. I actually found their presence quite threatening. I was going to ask why they were there but they weren't exactly your friendly neighbourhood style of crimefighters. Is anybody in a position of knowledge or authority able to explain exactly what is going on? It can't be about fare evasion because there was no one there tonight checking tickets. (And I completely agree that it is a waste of police time to be getting involved in enforcing penalty fares etc)

this is interesting. Vince - what's the source for the government asking the met office not to re-check historical data?

When I looked this morning the size of the hole on the corner was such that you could only have traffic going in one direction north and south and east and west.