LondonMix

I read this article in the FT recently by Jana and its literally one of the most insightful things I've read about social mobility in a long time. I'm just curious what the collective wisdom of the forum thinks. "...The trouble with this debate is not just the hysteria. It may also not matter very much who is right. Mrs May can improve schools a bit, through whatever means, and leave only a scratch on entrenched privilege. Unless the total stock of prestigious and well-paid jobs grows as it did in the postwar decades, which seems fanciful, talented poor children will struggle to rise unless mediocre rich children fall. There must be, to name the best film on class from the era, room at the top. That room rarely opens up because those mediocrities are too well-screened by parents who hire private tutors, buy cultural enrichment, teach etiquette, set expectations, stand as personal examples of success, coach interview technique, navigate any bureaucratic maze put before them, set up home in nice areas, arrange internships via friends and, just to rub in their supremacy, make direct gifts of cash and assets. To fail under these conditions is a kind of achievement in itself. No chess grand?master can out-think an upper-middle-class couple trying to rig life for its spawn. This awesome ingenuity is what you are up against, Prime Minister. If you want a ?truly meritocratic Britain?, not just a slightly more meritocratic one, you must bring something mightier to the cause than a tweak to school admissions criteria. The policy is not too controversial, it is not controversial enough. The state would have to curb personal freedom, even human nature, to make downward mobility a serious risk for people born to rich parents. Would voters support confiscatory taxes on inheritance and lifetime gifts, the criminalisation of nepotism, the regulation of work experience, tutors and other kinds of ?soft? cheating? Would the well-off pay taxes for universal public services if schools in poor districts had much smaller class sizes than those in their own coveted catchment areas? The rich compound their privileges by marrying each other: what chance government diktat in matters of the heart? To spell out the reforms is to see their political unthinkability. Almost everybody talks a good game about social mobility and almost nobody means it. They want a world in which their kin cannot move down, or even feel the shiver of insecurity at the prospect. This impulse is entirely natural but it should not be cloaked in a pretence of concern for fairness and merit. After all, no one who dislikes brute notions of victory and defeat feigns enthusiasm for professional sport. Egalitarians do not flatter free-market ideology. But people who insulate their offspring from competition make a show of wishing poor young aspirants the very best. Anyone who has risen to an elevated line of work that was not their own from birth ? Justine Greening, the education secretary, for example ? knows the two faces of luck. In every classroom, there are children who could aspire to her job (or mine, or yours) but will never know it. In every grand office, there are people who got there through the expensive cultivation of unremarkable talent. They do not know it either. Until the second injustice upsets us as much as the first, we do not really care about the first. Mrs May wants a society where individual potential, performance and reward are aligned. Barring a sudden and historic proliferation of attractive jobs such as nobody sees coming, she must therefore want more people of her class to take a tumble in life, and to will the means via government policy. She does not, and neither do many people. Maybe we go to war over marginal differences in school structure because other kinds of advantage are too awkward to confront."

Yes, my vet is the one moving in there so I'm pleased as its now much closer to my house and I can avoid grabbing an uber.

Yes, that's right. I've suggested making any offer contingent on obtaining freeholder consent. The variation to the deed isn't too difficult as it can be done as a simple amendment but I know people who have had their freeholders consent withheld so you can't take it for granted.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since then Peckham has completed its arrival, > Forest Hill is now something first-time buyers can > only dream of and I'm told Deptford is pretty > happening now. Haven't been to see for myself, > obviously. > > I would say that the South Bank is now no longer > worth visiting unless you love crowds and eating > overpriced food standing up. Agree about Deptford. My BIL and his girlfriend who are in their mid twenties go out for nights out in Deptford these days.

Lowlander I know full permission is required. I was asking for examples of where permission had been granted :) Red Devil thanks for the Barry Road example. I'm used to searching the planning portal but wasn't aware you could restrict your search to flats. This is perfect.

Is anyone here aware of planning permission being granted to anyone carrying out a loft conversion for a flat in East Dulwich. I have a friend that is looking to buy a top floor flat in which the loft is part of the demised space. The agent is suggesting it can be converted into additional living accommodation but as its a flat, it must be done under full planning rather than permitted development. I'm just trying to find out if planning permission is typically granted under these circumstances.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How exciting, another Pizza Express within half a > mile of the village. Can hardly contain myself. > > Louisa. Stop trying to wind people up-- there is no mention of Pizza Express

ESPH has both yoga and pilates classes most days throughout the day. If you join the gym they are free but I believe they also do booklets.

OP- I also think you are doing the right thing. I'd be distraught if that were my daughter! And also absolutely out of my mind livid. I hope you can find out who the parents are so they can judge the circumstances for themselves and do whatever they deem is appropriate.

Ah, I see. So its not an agreement as much as a means to avoid confrontation! The plot thickens. KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Just caught up on Sidue posts- I think the > > lorries were using that back and Chesterfield > > residents asked them to stop. I'm not sure > why > > but they seemed to reach an agreement for > street > > deliveries instead. I agree a formal approved > > amendment to the original planning application > > should be made and approved with new conditions > as > > required by TFL etc. > > There is no such agreement in place at all at > present. It would seem, while the issue is still > being sorted with M&S (probably with the "legal" > team as residents are always being fobbed off > with), they (M&S) have chosen to try deliveries - > which are not meant to take place before 7am > Mon-Fri, 8am Sat and 10am Sunday/Bank holidays > (unless a successful amendment has been made to > the conditions placed on the planning > application)- from the front to avoid further > problems arising with effected neighbours.

I know about the Landells Road and Bawdale Road ones. Exciting there'll be a 3rd in our area. There was also one really close by in Herne Hill that was quite impressive and one in Peckham Rye years ago.

Just caught up on Sidue posts- I think the lorries were using that back and Chesterfield residents asked them to stop. I'm not sure why but they seemed to reach an agreement for street deliveries instead. I agree a formal approved amendment to the original planning application should be made and approved with new conditions as required by TFL etc.

Small businesses both on LL and on Rye Lane do do this! Anyhow, I think this might be a compromise solution that has been agreed with residents of Chesterfield Grove based on some posts on one of the (many) other M&S threads. I'm aware that the freeholder has violated certain elements of the planning application though some of that seems a bit cloudy based on recent rulings. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ".. it's not zoned as a lorry loading bay" > > > > Not yet. Watch and see. > > Exactly KK. Give it a few months, this will be the > next planning application. It amazes me how people > 'overlook' things when they get what they want. If > this were a small independent business having big > deliveries outside their shop people would be up > in arms. But bow people are getting their posh > ready meals it miraculously becomes the acceptable > face of capitalism. Like it or lump it mentality. > > Louisa.

Thanks Abdas, that's very helpful Can anyone outline what the various other planning infractions might be?

Thanks Charlie-- do you know what the planning violations are that James mentioned above? I'm surprised that court of appeal can set new planning policy as the 10 unit guideline exists in law.

Totally depends on the private school, the state alternative and the child. Some state schools are full almost exclusively with privileged children whose parents can pay a millions for their home. Some private schools have the majority of the children on bursaries. The feel, attitude and ethos of every school is different regardless of its funding status. Also, if my child was really into theatre and the private school had an amazing program / facilities that catered to her particular interests, then that would of course factor into it. Same if there was a state school with an amazing music program. The truth of the matter is, sending your child to state school does not equalize educational opportunities in and of itself. There are vast differences between the quality of different state schools and most parents who can, use their economic power to buy into areas with the best state school system they can afford. Its really no different to paying for private school from a moral standpoint.

I did miss out a 'NOT'. Thanks, edited to reflect what I meant to say all along :)

Charities sales of clothing not are designed to help poor people afford clothes. They exist to raise money for the specific charitable causes they support. They set the price of the goods at market price (i.e. the most they can sell them for) so they can do the most good for the causes they support. NewWave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sorry but I do find this shop horribly > overpriced for mediocre clothing. > I prefer to donate to Mind and St Christophers > where at least the clothes are sold at prices that > the poorer folk amongst us can afford.

Thanks first mate-- it would be good to see a list of the infractions from James. I've only heard of two: the positioning of certain plant equipment (which is causing noise) and the height of the residential units, both of which apply to the freeholder. What were the service and delivery conditions set out in the planning application? On one of the (many) other M&S threads, someone who lives on a neighboring street mentioned that residents were working on something around that with the store and thought they were close to a workable arrangement but I have no idea regarding the specifics.

I don't think all older people moan! I think after a certain age though you've earned the right to moan about the state of the world without criticism (which is exactly what I said in my post). Peckhampam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > London Mix....shame on you for "Louisa and Fox and > just looking for something to moan about which is > their right at their age I suppose.." I don't > know their age but from things they have said > suspect it is near to mine....and I don't moan. > Moaning is nothing to do with age, if you moaned > when you were young you will moan when you are old > and vice versa.

James as M&S is not the developer / freeholder, suggesting they have broken planning law seems extremely unfair. Unless you have proof that they rather than the freeholder are responsible for any violations, you may be exposing yourself to legal challenge. Anyhow, M&S don't even benefit from the violations regarding the flats. That is entirely for the benefit of the freeholder. It would be interesting to know what the other enforceable actions relate to. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've had to make 5 referrals to Southwark Council > Planning Enforcement team so far. I've had my > first confirmation a legal letter has been sent > regarding the first. > > Terribly sad use of tax payers money subsidising > such a private company intent on breaking planning > law. I've been truly surprised such a reputable > company can be run so badly locally.

Fox, I was responding to a comment someone else made about you both... On this entire 10 page thread this is first time I've even mentioned you I think. Stop with the paranoid disillusions of persecution directed at me. Anyhow, one persons valid observation sounds like a moan to someone else. I said you have every right to make your comments even if they are moaning in my original post so how about you respect my right to my opinion and move on!

FOX here are your and Louisa's most recent moans about the store. Telling me to sfu and get a life because I've said you've both been negative is ridiculous and just makes you seem like the mean spirited person you insist you aren't. Take your own advice... FOX The delivery vehichle for M&S was smaller than the usual Co-op delivery vehicles.. .. but still on main road and close to bus stop. The rear access to the new store is simply impractical. [PLAN AHEA] D No.. I have not ventured inside yet. I suppose I will at some time venture in but not in the slightest bit curious. For what I've heard and read here, it sounds like an horendous experiance. One I could do without.. Louisa Been in again, found a really love cote du rhone which I will probably stick with my roast lamb today. Still disappointed at the scale of the place, it just lacks something other M&S branches seem to have. Can't put my finger on it. It isn't as good as the Beckenham store on reflection. Staff not quite as clued up (yet) and stock levels low. Also, the range isn't anywhere near as good. Disappointing freezer section too and no deli counter. But then, Beckenham is naturally posh, and ED is, well.. I don't have to spell it out. It's ok. Nothing spectacular though. Some good wines.

I think a week worth of the store being rammed and the shop hardly able to keep up with demand for stock suggests so. Even once things calm down a bit. Louisa and Fox and just looking for something to moan about which is their right at their age I suppose... Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bic Basher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't think M&S will be a flop in ED > > You don't say...

Can't you even wait for it to open (and have a price menu) before being negative? titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Horrendously overpriced then. > > > > > _Spinach Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > . As *Bob* rightly deduced, Ottelenghi > > style is definitely the best way to describe it.