LondonMix

Huguenot is entirely right. Your comments make you look bitter and small minded. I don't buy into class or the legitimacy of monarchy from a social-hierarchy perspective but the news that two people are starting a family doesn't fill me with hatred and disgust either. That she is sick and being treated inspires such venom is bizarre. Given that these two (and remember that Kate was not born an aristocrat) got together and the way they conduct themselves to me shows they largely see their role as being cultural ambassadors for the country and promoting British industry (film, fashion, tourism etc).

Why? PaulK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd have more respect for them if they announced > that they chose not to have children.

MP, I would agree with you if this were a temporary issue but it doesn't appear to be. It appears to be part of a growing trend across the city for couples to remain in London when starting families rather than moving further out. If this is the case, it is sensible to adjust services and facilities accordingly.

Evil but such elegant lines... :)

Amazon has a lower cost structure even without taking tax into account. Now, their sheer size gives them the ability to negotiate better pricing due to volume than their competitors (in the same way the chain bookstores are able to against local indie bookshops). This combined with their huge book catalog that can be searched for by topic, the ability to read reviews and their fast shipping service has helped them dominate the market. Now that they are in this dominant position, many in publishing accuse them of engaging in illegal anti-trust behavior regarding pricing to push competitors into bankruptcy. However, a group of publishers and Apple have recently been sued by the US government for an anti-trust price fixing scandal regarding e-books so let?s not pretend we have a perfect dichotomy of good and evil here. Amazon can be praised and condemned for a lot but the tax issue is not really why they are cheaper. The UK government could end its tax treaty with tax havens but it does not want to for a host of reasons. Buy more expensive books if you want to but what you are largely funding is a less efficient business model rather than filling the government?s coffers.

Yes, you can do that and run at a loss. What is your point? What harm is done by creating spaces for children in other years?

Like I said, its a set up issue. It makes no sesne for anyone (including the gov't) to run a school with only a reception class. With your thinking, no new school could ever be set up without running at a massive loss. No, bulge students won't get priority. But to the extent that there are too many children in the existing schools, moving some out creates room for movement more generally. Ideally, this would help the existing schools but ultimately it might not. Either way, its not an argument against opening the school.

Why crazy? Would you like it to start running with only a reception class? The school will be fully constructed and there are minimum economies of scale for operating the premises. Once up and running for a few years it would be fine, this is just a start up issue. Anyhow, in an ideal world, kids transferring from existing schools to the new school would reduce pressure on schools currently accommodating bulge classes (often in facilities not designed for that purpose).

Actually, Amazon are cheaper because of their economies of scale and low-overhead structure being only an online retailer. Waterstone don't pay taxes either as they have been operating at a loss. That's not to say I support Amazon's business practices (some of which under anti-competition laws are illegal) but let's not conflate things. If you think the extra money you will spend buying books at Waterstone is going to help fill HMRC's coffers, that won't necessarily be the case.

Didn't we do this two weeks ago? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,30460,page=3

Should have added I wish the couple well and am pleased for them (as I would be for anyone in similar circumstances). They seem like nice people which is why people like them. Its really not that complicated.

There are not enough school places. Schools are having to take turns creating bulge classes often housed in temporary facilities which are straining school resources and resulting in suboptimal learning environments. That there are not enough school places is a mathematical fact. Also, the idea that building schools encourages people to have children is odd. School building right now is only trying to catch up with the demographic reality.

I think they thought given she had to be hospitalized that it would get out anyway and wanted to maintain some control over the news by announcing it themselves. That seemed to be the explanation on the BBC. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bit stupid to announce it before she's even 12 > weeks, but then I guess horrible shitty luck > doesn't happen to them.

I hope so but that's an open discussion unless there has been a significacnt new development.

Sorry but saying we need another pharmacy because the nearest one (who in your own words provides good service) is a chain is rediculous. It makes absolutely no sense.

What a tease! James, don't dangle the hope of a new school in front of us like that- is there anything you can share now?

I very strongly support all our local shops but I think the real question is what type of retail use will be allowed (A1- A5). The expansion of some of the establishments in the area doesn?t suggest that the local business community believe the area has reached saturation point. The team behind the Palmerston and the Herne Tavern has opened a (very good) Vietnamese street food restaurant on Bellenden Road. The guys behind the Bishop and the Actress are the ones who are now running the Rye. If it is another supermarket, I dare say that is more a threat to Sainsbury and Tesco than to the local independent retailers. You either shop at the butchers and the green grocers or you don?t. The opening of yet another supermarket is unlikely to influence that decision much. I would be concerned if the intended use was for a business line in the area I thought was already struggling but what business person in their right mind would want to do that anyway. Hopefully, it will be something filling a gap in the market (while we have a lot, it?s not difficult to imagine a shop offering something new). It is premature to assume the change of use is a bad idea. The more the area has to offer, the higher footfall it receives which is a boon for all the businesses.

Its not hot-housing! Its very natural and effective when done properly and many of my Spanish collegues went to French or English bilingual schools as did my best friend. They are all basically native speakers in the both languages. Anyway, the idea is if there are enough people interested who attend, it will reduce pressure on the other schools freeing up spaces throughout the system. Everyone doesn't need to want a bilingual school for it to be a benefit overall for the community- just enough people to fill it up! I have a lot of issues with the new academies etc but the idea of making education less one size fits all is in my view a good thing. Perhaps there is enough demand for a school offering Mandarin as well :)

Yes, agree with DaveR. Regarding the school, I can't speak to how much demand there is for bi-lingual education locally but I would strongly be in favor. More then 50% of the people I work with attended bi-lingual schools (learning a language different from the one spoken at home) and learning a language at that age and in that way is infinitely better than the hard slog I had to undertake to become fluent in Spanish.

Barry Road is nice but like most of the wide majestic streets around London, it has become too busy with traffic. I wouldn't live on it with kids.

Exactly! Who knows, things are always changing. Maybe within a generation all of south Peckham will be seen as part of ED and people will wonder why the station is called Peckham Rye when its in ED ect. It could happen but the point is it hasn't happened yet and certainly wasn't the case even 10 years ago. The efforts of some to suggest it should be this way therefore seem suspect.

I like South Central Dulwich (ie resi roads south of Iceland). From Rodwell / Landcorft Rd area you are within a 10 min walk of everything: Dulwich Park, the station, everything on the high street, the gym, Peckham Rye park, and a few of the good schools.

Oddly, Bessemer Grange is SE5 even thought is fully surrounded by other postcodes. Anyway, who cares... The history is interesting of course but its not the most important thing in life!

This really is not that complicated. We do not need to consult Victorian maps with old parishes. Many parts of London were once part of Kent, Surrey etc and its totally irrelevant. Ask someone who grew up in that part of SE London and they will tell you its Peckham. Ask someone who grew up in ED in the 60s and they will tell you the area we are talking about is Peckham. Why all of a sudden people want to change that is odd. That part of Peckham is nicer than many parts of East Dulwich like I've said on another thread but that's no reason for its residents to decide to disown Peckham.

Agree but then I tend to agree with Otta / common sense Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have never in my life heard anyone say that > Bellenden was not Peckham (until the favourite > streets thread that is). > > I always thought of ED as finishing at the Goose > Green roundabout, but I am willing to go as far as > EAST DULWICH Station (good of me I know). I would > then say that the boundary runs along Goose Green > up to the Peckham Rye Cross Roads. > > At the top, I'd say ED ends at The bottom of > Sydenham Hill. I would call Hornimans Forest Hill.