LondonMix

That's right. I said you could get delivery if you can't physically go to the Peckham branch should the ED branch close down.

Iceland deliver if you sincerely can't get to the one in Peckham fuzzyboots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Moreover, given all the recent media stories of > escalating food prices to come this autumn/winter, > Iceland will be the only place I can remotely > afford (and even that at a push). Grumble, > grumble, etc. And, for someone who is, frankly, > pretty rubbish at mental arithmetic these days, it > really helps me a lot that many of their prices > are in ?s and .50s.... ;)

Ah I see. Most of the people I know that believe in God without religion do feel it affects the way they live their lives and their perspective on the world. Some believe inherit spirituality is the basis of human altruism and empathy. Any other world view would just be too nihilistic for them. I hate marmite but that?s just my belief

Are you saying that a belief without the confines and rules of religion has no impact one?s life and is therefore meaningless? Or are you saying religion and a looser set of beliefs are equally meaningless? El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "dunno but you could make a case that the former > is based solely on s > personal/belief/experience/dogma and the latter is > a man made construct" > > well obviously they're both man made constructs, i > think the difference in your examples is one is a > personal viewpoint and the other is esentially > someone else's. > > And yes I get your point, but you seem to be > missing mine. > > A number of times people have said that belief in > a creator, intelligence whatever, doesn't > necessarily have to pertain to a 'set of > beliefs/'rules'/rituals'. > > That's fine if that's what you want to proclaim, > but it's really no different to saying 'I believe > in ghosts' or 'i believe in Martians' is it? The > point is, whilst trying to sound profound, > actually basically meaningless.

Agree with rahrahrah entirely.

i see

Your right. It plays down the fact that the stations are actually comepeting with one another to maintain their services!

I know this is low value theft but it really is the definition of anti-social behaviour to me. Some people just are not affected by opprobrium which is frightening.

Wow, that's terrible. Have you tried to get help from one of your local cllrs?

That's terrible. If you don't mind me asking, what was unsuitable about the school you were offered and did they reject you appeal because you turned down that school?

The lounge isn't for serious discussion. It's sort of a dumping ground for topics that don't go anywhere else. Try your luck in the drawing room! Eileen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oh dear > > All those posts and not one about the issue I > raised. Which is the thread then to attract local > people who are willing to have a serious exchange > of thoughts about these planning policy matters? > They are relevant to this EDF because they affect > many ED residents as the town centre is on their > doorstep and what happens there has a big effect > on their own ED neighbourhood and shopping area.

I am in the pro camp as well. I agree medical staff need to be involved.

Well said. Human action caused the issue and so it is not unreasonable for humans to intervene to correct the problem. Why this bothers some people so much is beyond me. civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >It did cost something - resource. Money is not > everyting - time was taken to "save" the lives of > 2 or 3 >inconsequential birds - thousands of which > die every year as a natural consequence of the > natural world. > > Some logical fallacies here! It sounds like you > are blaming the pigeons for the thoughtless > pollarding that caused the wasted resource. A bit > like the 'they were asking for it' argument. What > about the jobsworths who actually did the work? > > As for 'inconsequential', well... > > Humans are animals that distinguish themselves > from the rest of the natural world by taking > responsibility for their actions and by being > humane, to animals as well as to other people. > Some of the people on this thread seem to > undertsand this better than others.

Yes, agree that London is really the epicentre of all of this. You need to know the temperament of your child to know how well they will cope but yes, everything has a price. People do pick schools in the state sector as well based on the stats though and some of the most obsessed parents I know are those determined to get their kids into grammar schools. A friend of mine in Kent appealed his son's rejection and prepared hundreds of pages of supporting documentation. He won his appeal by the way on the grounds that the school could in fact accommodate one more student!

The thing about these league tables is there are a thousand ways to rank the schools-- % of A/A*, average point score per pupil for A levels (for which Alleyn's as recently as 2008 was tied with JAGs by the way), % of good GCSE / point score at GCSE (for which Alleyn's beat JAG's in 2011). What struck a note with me about WoD's post is how the introduction of league tables has really changed the way people assess both state and private education, and in my view, this change is for the worst. More information for parents regarding how schools are objectively performing is welcome but we as a nation have become obsessed with what are really minute differences in academic performance (rather than education) at the expense of the more qualitative and subjective aspects of a school that are uniquely fitted to each child. For instance, Dulwich College offers a fantastic education and its lower test scores are more indicative of the fact that its less academically competitive to get into(intake is comprised of the top 15% of academic performers according to the Head compared to the other top boy's schools). If your child is a top performer they will still excel there. If you want single-sex education for you child and you agree with the school's ethos, it is just as good a choice as any of the top boy / mixed schools in London. I personally prefer co-ed though.

Thanks bossboss. Bonie, yes, you can eat green pumpkins. There are lots of recipes if you're interested :) Stealing decorative plants is really outrageous!

Out of curiosity, is it only food plants that are being stolen or decorative plants as well? This is really terrible but if its food that keeps on disappearing it may be someone in need.

Couldn't agree more woman of dulwich!!!

Yeah, its the EDF! Read the actual off gov't doc that Eenata speaks of as it spells it out. The thread went a bit off topic on the SLL and ELLX...

Sorry, I didn't get that and wasn't trying to lecture you. That is interesting. Btw- my most recnt post wasn't to you.

Here is the relevant thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,921668 The Wimbledon (Herne hill) loop is likely to be axed for logistics but they are campaigining against this. If they are sucessful, the Peckham service would have to go instead. 1865 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There have been multiple threads with links to > the > > consultation documents here on the forum. Do > a > > search of Renata's posts as she has as > Peckham's > > councillor has been very involved. > > Thanks, I just did. Couldn't see anything on the > alternative being a reduction of the Peckham > Rye/Denmark Hill services, apart from this > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5 > ,933821,946508#msg-946508 which refutes it and no > other mention of the Facebook campaign.

There have been multiple threads with links to the consultation documents here on the forum. Do a search of Renata's posts as she has as Peckham's councillor has been very involved.

Reneet, I am glad your employer helps to partially cover your child care costs through a benefit in kind. The reason why I am even responding to this point about double taxation is because this often repeated yet erroneous argument might mislead honest people into making a serious mistake. Perhaps this will help clarify things. Your employer agrees to pay you a gross salary of 36k a year and so you earn 3k a month but when you receive your pay check each month you get 2k. Do you agree that it is you rather than your employer that is paying 1k in taxes each month even though its is your employer that hands the tax payment over the HMRC? The same is true with a nanny. The taxes owed on nanny's wages are her / his tax bill not yours. It is the nanny who is separately being taxed, not the person who employs them. This situation is the same for nursery fees as well once you analyse it. The nursery you contract with earns money from you for the service they provide and the nursery has to pay taxes on the revenue they earn. The only difference with a nanny is that HMRC expects the family to manage the PAYE / paperwork vs. the nursery who has to do it themselves. You freelancers out there should understand this very clearly. If nannies could be self-employed (legally) and file their own taxes, it would look just like nursery or a child minder to the families involved. More importantly, nannies would still charge families the same gross wage as they do now so they could maintain their take home pay. I hope the example above makes it clear that everyone who provides you a service (whether or not you employ them directly or not) pays taxes on what they earn from you. A nanny is no different. There is no double taxation. It is the nanny who is paying taxes not the family. Regarding the necessity argument: you never get to deduct something for tax purposes because it is a necessity to have it (whether you hire someone directly or not). Everyone acquires essential goods and services out of their take home pay and the people and shops they get these services from (like a clothing store or a seamstress) has to pay taxes on the income they earn. A nanny has to pay taxes too like everyone. All of life's essentials are acquired out of our take home pay and there is nothing inconsistent with the tax system in that regard as concerns nannies. You've said that the importance of a nanny makes it different from other people one might hire (like a gardener). In that we agree but the point is that child care should get special treatment because of its importance rather than that there is some inherent double taxation mistake in the current tax system. Again, I would like to reiterate that I very strongly believe the government should make child care more affordable because the current cost of it forces people to leave the work force who don't want to, that this disproportionately affects women and women's career prospects (making it a gender equality issue) and suppresses the birth rate (which with an ageing population raises serious demographic concerns for society as a whole).

DG--That her employers are covering her travel costs does not make the travel costs tax deductible. Covering the costs is a form of compensation from her employer that gets taxed like income. Its just like your company giving you private health insurance or a subsidised gym membership so I am not sure I understand what you are trying to get at here (genuinely). Ruth Baldock-- that's awful. There are rules about terminating pregnant women. Did you speak to a lawyer? dulwichgirl2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Londonmix, capito and agreed re clothing. I was > citing travel costs in the same way. > > My point re my friend is that she has come to this > agreement with the revenue, hence why it is of > interest to post. (by the way, she wldnt be my > friend if she were non declaring benefits in kind > - that is fraud, put plainly.) the have allowed > her to claim these emergency ch costs because of > the whole nature of her work being very last > minute and therefore some costs are deductible > which would not be so for other people. > > Wretched phone!

I'm not sure I understand all your points but any benefits in kind your friend receives (such as a travel card) are taxable even if she is not declaring these benefits in kind to HMRC. I get that child care is a necessity for most working people and that the high cost of it disproportionately affects women and women's career prospects. For these reasons in addition to the general benefit for society (more workers / higher birth rates) I think it's morally imperative that child care costs should get SPECIAL treatment by the gov't . My only very limited point is that its not inherently double taxation to pay someone to provide a service out of your take home pay (whether its nursery fees or employing a nanny directly or employing a gardener or buying work clothes or buying food etc) as is so often asserted. The cost being essential has nothing to do with why it deserves special treatment-- work clothes are essential as is food and shelter-- but rather the broader societal impact child care costs have.