LondonMix

Yes, that's how we say it in the US :)

I have two friends who grew up on estates (one in Clapham Junction, the other in Brixton) and both described them as suffering from what most would classify as greater than usual anti-social behaviour and criminal activity- committed by the minority of course but affecting the majority. I've never had any personal negative experience with estates so can't say but given how notorious some estates are, I don't think its really that unfair for someone to find out if a particular estate is a normal one or a worrisome one. Most people who live in estates are decent, often hard working people. However, there can be a concentration of people that need help for a variety of reasons that have as a corollary family / social breakdown and the issues a community might face as a result. If the OP assumed that all housing estates are terrible and therefore would never live near one I could understand some of the comments but the fact he's simply asking what its like (with the clear assumption it could be fine) means he's fairly open minded.

Yes, you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with the RBS bailout. The EC regulates market competition in banking and every other sector across the EU. The requirement to sell was designed to decrease RBS's dominance within small business lending. If its still unclear read this- particularly the intro and the section on enforcement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry, have I missed the point? > > How much EU money was spent to bail out RBS?

Yes, I agree with you there. They do get better odds as I misunderstood how the bulges worked. In past, Renata has said if you've put down your closest six, it was unlikely you wouldn't be offered at least one of them but I suppose that's no guarantee. However, I don't see the point really of getting rid of faith schools just for that reason. I'd rather lobby for more schools to be built to directly address the real issue.

Hmm, I didn?t really think about it that way. I?m not really sure how it harms non-religious families directly (I?m not religious by the way!). If there is a shortage of local places, there would be a shortage of local places regardless of the existence of faith schools as all the religious families would still be part of the application process. Being sent miles away is more an issue of there not being enough places period rather than an issue created by faith schools. The quality (or lack thereof) of certain non-faith state primaries again isn?t directly caused by there being a faith school. Some might even argue that your local faith school is high achieving because of the discipline etc associated with religious education. It wouldn?t be my preference for my child to go to a faith school but clearly there is demand so I can?t see the justification for getting rid of them. I can understand that living close to a state school might put certain parents within a bit of a black-hole regarding school places but if you put down your six closest which should all be a reasonable distance from your home, I think the council will make sure you get a place in one through the creation of a bulge class, no? Kids get shipped miles away from what I understand most often because their parents didn?t list at least 6 places for whatever reason. I recognize that most people don?t find all 6 of their closest primaries acceptable and that?s really the point. The quality of state school provision needs to continue to improve more uniformly so that everyone one doesn?t keep trying to pile into the same 2 or 3.

I understand your point: if all schools were non-faith, eveyone would have equal chances of getting into every school. The religious criteria of faith schools means that usually a religious family has a better chance of getting into more of the local schools, which might seem unfair. However, in practice, I don't believe this has a huge impact as faith schools are over-subscribed. Pupils who otherwise would be going to non-faith schools, through the provision of faith schools, get concentrated into a school that better serves their families? needs. I can?t really seem the harm. For me, it would only be a problem if the school had empty places causing shortages in the broader system or if lots of non-religious children were being forced to get a faith based education against their parents? wishes because there wasn?t enough genuine demand to fill the schools. The fact that faith schools are often the most over-subscribed means that there is genuine demand for religious education (even if people are faking faith because they simply prefer the discipline / results faith schools tend to provide).

Good luck! Lulastic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Londonmix, yeah, sorry. That last sentence of mine > was uncalled for. I have (apart from perhaps when > I was being a bit over sensitive) valued your > input on this thread. > > Worker, I think you are right. It is tricky. > > I guess we'll just navigate it all as we go. > > Personally, I'm still excited. And the film is > really interesting...

I actually disagree, Simonthebeaver. If there are 6 schools offering 180 places, then 180 students will go to school. If one of the schools is a religious school that doesn?t change the number of school places. Religious schools don?t regularly have unfilled places (quite the opposite).

I actually agree with you Saffron. I don't think anyone was being racist at all and one of the things that bothered me most about starting a family here with my English partner was that any children we have won?t sound like me (bizarre I know!) I was just clarifying what I thought the disagreement was about?that the speech patterns of the poor / immigrants seemed to be the target of some posters' disdain. For me, the ?Braying Henry? speech pattern is equally annoying though I have quite a few friends who speak that way! I suppose its really a question of examining "why" something bothers you more than other things.

I agree with Saffron and DaveR. However, I think what some people were reacting to was more the tone of some of the comments than the idea that at any given time there are standard grammatical rules. There are loads of differences between spoken and written English and regional / colloquial speech. Some posters (though not all) seemed to be bothered more by those associated with immigrants / the poor.

What are you on about? I am a firm believer that ordinary people can and do make a huge difference by participating in a variety of ways across a wide range of issues. I think meeting every 6 weeks to discuss any issue that generically relates to social justice, watching movies and every 12 weeks inviting someone who is specialized and informed in that week?s topic is not a focused enough strategy to accomplish very much. If that offends you then so be it. I also don?t think that protesting is always the most effective way of engaging on an issue. Again, if that offends you, so be it.

In your other posts I didn't really get the impression that this was the main thrust of how you were organising yourselves but if so, I wish you luck. Your comparison with the abolitionist movement is off base-the big difference is that they were organised around a specific issue rather than a generic world view that plans to jump between different issues every 6 weeks. I honestly think you are well intentioned but I think you really do underestimate what?s involved in formulating an informed position on a complex issue and the focus required to then work on that issue to make a difference. Everything about the way you?ve presented this caf? raises doubts for me: the generic notions of social injustice, the knee jerk idea of protest, that it will meet every six weeks and that your first response to my suggestion that the discussions need to be informed to be helpful was to accuse me of being patronizing, etc. It all just seems very romantic and na?ve. Lulastic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix - I'm confused, I am not sure you read > my last post, in which I agreed that having expert > input is vital- we will aim for this. > > I added that there is another empowering model, > which we also aim to support, which is pooling > knowledge. > > In a previous post I agreed with another poster, > and once again agree with you, that tapping into > existing organisational goals can be vital too - > already Oxfam is involved and we will be looking > for other campaigns to support. > > Whenever I have tried to describe what the cafe is > I have used the words "discuss" and "act" - two > pillars that are critical for "making the world a > better place" - as opposed to just a social > gathering for like minded people. > > Sometimes when like-minded people with good > intentions get together with social justice on the > brain, big things happen. I suspect the > abolitionists who first met in a room down the > road in Clapham spent quite a lot of time to-ing > and fro-ing and working out what they could do > with their limited resources and knowledge, but > there they began a campaign that ended the > transatlantic slave trade. > > Sometimes you just need to try things, in order to > play a part in changing things.

Exactly MM. I wanted to keep things simple but its truly a mindfield of complexity once you expand the point beyond just carbon-footprint issues. Lulastic- If that?s what you want there is nothing wrong with that per se. It?s a bit like watching a film with your very interesting and intelligent friends when you were at uni and then debating the points?the tension that exist between food independence for the country vs. ensuring affordability (via cheap imports) for the poor in the UK, how this interacts with world poverty etc. etc. However, the idea that having this sort of discussion every 6 weeks will contribute to ?making the world a better place? as your original post suggested is na?ve. If you really want to make a difference you need to get properly informed and also provide people with links to well organised groups. What you are describing is just a social gathering for like-minded people who like to discuss social justice issues. Like I said, that?s fine if you have the time and inclination but hardly what your original post purports to do.

It's not patronising to assume people who don't have time to get properly involved / deeply involved (as you suggested) in any specific issue will not be informed enough to discuss it intelligently. As anyone who has ever gotten deeply involved in anything knows, issues are often difficult and complex with lots of grey areas and require more than general interest to be properly understood. For example, people are often rightly concerned about the carbon footprint of the food they eat and therefore decide to buy "local" as a means to reduce this. However, the issue is vastly more complex. In certain parts of the world certain livestock and produce require less energy to cultivate due to the properties of the area (sunshine, soil quality etc). Also, in certain poorer countries, where labour costs are lower, human beings vs. carbon-fueled machines are responsible for more of the cultivation process, again lowering the carbon footprint. Both of these things can influence the final price of imported foodstuffs and might in part be why certain imported produce is cheaper than locally produced products. The transportation of food is only one element that determines its true carbon footprint and your lamb from a British farmer might actually entail the use of more carbon-energy than lamb cultivated and then shipped from New Zealand when the entire production process is taken into account. Edited for typos!

I genuinely don?t understand how this is supposed to achieve anything. What could be interesting is if you organize a talk or something every session about a specific ?social justice issue? and invite someone who is dedicated a specific cause to come and speak and provide information and let people know how they can get involved. As a forum for experts to educate people about their causes (with ideally someone with a counter balancing perspective invited to speak as well) it could be interesting and allow people who are busy to stay relatively well informed about a variety of issues and learn about how to get involved if they choose to. If only people who are too busy to get properly involve in any particular issue attend the caf? (as you suggested) it will just be a bunch of uninformed people sitting around having a moan about something they don?t fully understand with no organizational network behind them. That just sounds like a tremendous waste of time and why some people might have suggested it was all a bit 6th form.

If you read the full post H says that young men and young women are equally stupid as the starting point... Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear God RosieH, your peculiar conviction that you > can't discuss menses without being dirty and > criminal makes you sound like someone who needs > therapy. > > Do you seriously think it's okay to call me a > paedophile? You've lost the plot.

Santander is a global bank (the minority of its business is in Spain even though that's where its head quartered). The European Commission required the sale to ensure market competition in small business banking which is entirely within its remit. The EC regulate market competition throughout the EU. The question is whether RBS will now get a big fine by the EC for not complying with the sale mandate.

Depends on size of the room and if certain bills are included in the price of rent. Your best bet for current rates is to look on gumtree or on the property section of the EDF so you can see what others are offering for a single room in the area right now. Good luck!

Homework clubs are great. I volunteered at one when I lived in NY and they keep kids out of trouble, offer extra support / tutoring and allows them to surround themselves with other like minded kids. We may disagree on the impact of room sharing but we can definitely agree on that.

I agree with Loz, particularly as no crime has even been committed. Posting a description of someone on such an inflammatory issue is dangerous and ill-advised.

Yes, agree guidelines regarding space should be updated introduced! Do you know how long families will be given to start the process of finding alternative housing when their family size changes?

Yes, making it a bit more detailed such as children can only share a double bedroom for example makes sense. Still, all the people I mentioned who grew up sharing rooms went to uni, are now professionals etc. There are a lot of people in private housing (even affluent parents), that force their children to do the same so I don't really see it as a tremendous hardship. I totally agree that children need stability but I feel a bit of a hypocrite telling affluent parents to move home if they can't afford to live with the new cuts while suggesting it will do lasting harm to other families / children. Either way, if the housing isn't available, then clearly no one should be penalized. You should have a period in which you need to move subject to the authorities being able to find you suitable accommodation.

Edited to say" Cross-post with DJ. I see its the logistics that pose the biggest concern Do you think that the occupation suggestions are unreasonable, that it will be difficult for people to move into smaller accomodation, or both? I think under-occupation should be addressed. Hopefully, they will include a time frame in which you can move before benefits are withdrawn (particularly in the case of a change in circumstances like a death or children leaving home). I imagine downsizing might be bit of a logistical nightmare though... As for kids sharing below the age of 16 is concerned, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable. My partner's siblings grew up sharing, as did my sisters and my cousins. Its less than ideal but its hardly cruel or unusual.

What is the bedroom tax?!

I'm not really sure what your point is. Even during Victorian times there existed entrepreneurs / a merchant class. There have long been rich entertainers from poor backgrounds. You act like these things are somehow unique to this period of time.