LondonMix

Haha! I'll call out next time I see you

I'm not sure where he calls home (seen him in West Norwood and Brixton) but one regular character South London character is the old bloke that dresses in very skimpy women's lingerie even in the dead of winter.

You might get my vote if you can answer my questions. If there is a compelling point that I'm missing I'm open to changing my view.

It wouldn't hurt to get him using a pencil though. My sister in law is a reception teacher and boys tend to struggle a bit more with writing as they don't get as much practice colouring in to fine tune motor skills. She's told me it can be a bit of a stumbling block so if you gently introduce it into his ordinary play, it might be helpful all the same.

Fairlawn's decision to close doesn't reduce funding of early years education. All those children will still be funded just in other institutions. Fairlawn themselves have suggested there are places at Haseltine which is also a state nursery. Lewisham funds all nursery places per pupil. Why should Fairlawn get more funding than other places able to provide the service without losing money particularly when alternatives exist that are a better use of tax payer money? What would you cut or would you pay more taxes and is this part of the petition? Also, Fairlawn themselves stated falling enrollment is one of the principal reasons the board of governors of the school is closing so while you may try to insist otherwise, I think most people will believe what the school officially reports over any other assertions to the contrary.

Yep agree 100%. Transport is better than elsewhere not on the tube as well given Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye are walking distance from me. I can get in the City, West End, Docklands, Shoreditch within about 30-40 minutes max which honestly is pretty good. South West London, which we looked at and quickly realised wasn't for us was just not as well connected. Everything goes in via Waterloo. You can change at Clapham junction but you can do that with the Ell plus you have direct trains into Blackfriars, Victoria, London Bridge, etc. I think the lack of tube puts loads of people off but its actually not that bad so feels like relatively good value (despite being over valued like the rest of London). I got an Uber pool home from work the other day for 10 quid. That's the joy of not actually being that far out. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the key (for me) is that despite the price > rises (which have been London-wide), this area > still offers the best combination of proximity to > the centre, "nice-ness", and price.

I can only go by what the school says regarding enrollment and why they've chosen to close. When you have fixed overheads, reducing hours by cutting a day isn't usually a cost cutting measure unless you are already under subscribed. In that case, by forcing pupils to use the same amount of nursery hour provisions over few days can reduce staff costs. I get that you love the school and I am sure it was an outstanding provision-- the lack of enrollment appears to be due to inconvenient hours for working parents. However, your statement saying Lewisham is closing it is very misleading and your solution-- essentially subsidizing a program for which there is falling demand-- isn't compelling to me. What services would you have Lewisham cut so that Fairlawn nursery can get more money than its entitled to and more than other state and private nurseries receive to stay open? Really, you can't just demand money and expect there to be no trade off. What would you sacrifice, or does your petition demand an equal increase in tax to fund your demands? I'm assuming you are willing to pay these taxes yourself to ensure the provision remains in place given how passionately you believe in this?

I have tons of respect for any one who is brave enough to have a go at starting something whether it succeeds or not. Its incredibly hard and incredibly risky.

I'm not disagreeing with you Jeremy. I think it's perceived as nicer than other areas with no tube that aren't part of central London but still in zone 2 for the reasons already stated. Otta-- by nice I just mean desirable to live in because of what's there not posh per se or village-like.

Most of the areas of zone 2 that are more expensive or equal in price to ED overlap with central London. Given this isn't central London and has no tube, the area is fairly expensive. Its also nicer than other zone 2 areas that fall into that category (IMO) for the reasons already stated. DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Its about average for zone two but relatively > expensive for South / South East London and more > expensive than East London" > > Correct > > http://maps.cdrc.ac.uk/#/metrics/houseprices/defau > lt/BTTTFTT/12/-0.1119/51.5055/

I don't dispute that but pubs and high streets in general are suffering throughout the country. In this little micro area both the high street and pubs are doing relatively well though running any business is far riskier and much harder work the DF and Louisa (I am sure firmly tongue in cheek) are suggesting. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair, plenty of pubs are closing down > (Hoopers and Oglander to name a couple more). > Changing tastes, changing habits.. very difficult > to make a trad boozer work these days. > > Families tend to do things together more than they > did in the previous generations. Hence the rise in > family friendly restaurants, cafes and pubs.

Sorry but that doesn't make sense. Parents are actively choosing other options in the community otherwise the school wouldn't have enrollment issues that were causing it to lose money. Tax payer money is precious. Using it to fund a under subscribed service is incredibly wasteful. Based on the SE23 thread it seems like the short operational hours are why parents are choosing nurseries that provide full wrap around care. Redirecting pupils to those providers in the community is the best use of tax payer money. yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also agree with Fairlawn's decision. I have a > son there and another daughter who is due to start > next year. I still maintain that Lewisham Council > has a commitment to early year's education. If > they recognise that this is a community nursery > and have different needs to other nurseries such > as factoring in the cost of maintaining a > different site and they can also see why it needs > to be funded differently to other nurseries! It > would be a terrible shame if nothing can be done > about this nursery as it is serving so many > different schools. Not just Fairlawn and it is > managed really really well by the excellent > Fairlawn School staff! > > This is why we need your help! So please sign our > petition :)

Yeah but people aren't using it because the hours aren't convenient. There is no point keeping something open that is under utilized. That's a waste of money and schools have limited resources. I agree Fairlawn's governing board totally appear to have made the right decision after trying to salvage the situation for years based on their statements. The council don't have anything to do with it. Nursery places (private and state) are funded at the same rate by government and Fairlawn has been getting its normal per pupil funding as its guaranteed. The point is, this nursery costs more to operate that the revenue it generated in part because its under-subscribed. Not closing would have meant, the main primary school to reducing its own funding to subsidize it heavily. That would be madness. yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, it is taking money from the school. The > school has done anything in their power to make it > viable. However, Lewisham Council has a duty to > show its commitment to early years education. > > In that area, Horniman School does not have a > nursery, Holy Trinity School doesn't have a > nursery, neither does St Barts. Fairlawn Nursery > fed to all these three schools last year alone. > Not to mention, Adamsrill, Kilmore and many more. > So once again I will stress that Lewisham Council > has a duty to show its commitment to early years > education!

Yes, landlords are actually getting hammered with reduction on interest tax shield and increased stamp duty. Good though as the speculative air needs to be let out of the market. Haven't read the budget yet but I'm in general supportive of a sugar tax. Last time he squashed it as I guess it was too close to the election. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > two new tax allowances for landlords. > > > > Not found any info on this - all I could find > was > > related to increased stamp duty. Could you > > elabroate? > > ... Actually, this is my mistake. it's in fact a > tax break for those renting out there house (as in > airbnb). > http://linkis.com/www.standard.co.uk/n/mXKdz

The Grove Tavern burnt down in a fire didn't it? And the Dog will reopen after the work to upstairs. Not sure how pub like it will feel with the hotel at the top but its not closing permanently. Anyway-- have fun opening up your risk free restaurant that's safer than a pub investment.

Yes, by that logic, restaurants aren't a safe bet either Lou. Many of those have closed down and changed hands in the last 10 years.

The former Mag is still a pub! The Draft House took over from Cherry Jam which was a bar so hardly a long standing pub in the area. The Heber Arms was much longer ago. If you can go on, please do because I don't think any of the examples you sited actually count. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Which local pub has closed down around here in > the > > last 10 years? > > > > DulwichFox Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > especially when you ban anyone with > children, > > > > anyone who has been in the area for less > than > > > 30 > > > > years, anyone who seems to have disposable > > > income > > > > and anyone who reads the Guardian. > > > > > > High chairs will be provided... Play area for > > the > > > toddlers... newcomers to the area welcome... > > > Copies of the Guardian will be made > available. > > > > > > Just bring your credit cards.... > > > > > > Foxy. > > > > > > P.S. With a new Pop-up cafe opening vertually > > > every other day it seems a better option to a > > > pub.. which are closing down. > > The Draft House, the third or forth incarnation of > 'the Mag', the grove tavern, the 'dog', the heber > arms? (Was that longer?). I could go on. Just > because something closed and opened as something > new doesn't mean pubs aren't closing! > > Louisa.

It is under-subscribed and is losing money, undermining the finances of the main school. Who exactly is supposed to save it given people aren't enrolling in sufficient numbers? yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, Fairlawn School unfortunately has no choice > but to close down the nursery. This nursery has > served community very well over the years and > deserves to be saved!

For the sake of balance below is what Fairlawn actually says about the matter. Fairlawn (not Lewisham) are closing down the nursery as falling enrollment combined with high running costs means they don't want to continue to subsidize it from the main school budget as its not financially sustainable... http://www.fairlawn.lewisham.sch.uk/nursery/ "It is with great sadness that the Governing Body (of Fairlawn) has to share with you their intent to close Fairlawn?s nursery at the end of this academic year (August 2016). At Fairlawn we are absolutely committed to early education; the decision was made because it is no longer financially viable to keep the nursery open. We have made many changes over the last few years in order to try to keep costs down whilst ensuring the children still have access to the same exceptional learning experiences. However, due to falling numbers and the high running costs of the separate building and site, the nursery is currently being heavily subsidised from the main school budget. With a reducing school budget due to borough-wide cuts, the financial position is no longer sustainable."

Which local pub has closed down around here in the last 10 years? DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > especially when you ban anyone with children, > > anyone who has been in the area for less than > 30 > > years, anyone who seems to have disposable > income > > and anyone who reads the Guardian. > > High chairs will be provided... Play area for the > toddlers... newcomers to the area welcome... > Copies of the Guardian will be made available. > > Just bring your credit cards.... > > Foxy. > > P.S. With a new Pop-up cafe opening vertually > every other day it seems a better option to a > pub.. which are closing down.

Agree 100%. Less than a quarter of working age adults in England have math skills equivalent to a C at GCSE level. According the the National Numeracy website I linked to, 1 in 4 adults don't believe school maths prepared them well for maths in everyday life. http://www.nationalnumeracy.org.uk/what-issue Those are harrowing figures... uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The lack of maths skills in the country is down to > the obsession with literacy- where the 'literati' > are feted . It is interesting to note , as a > teacher, that people are very quick to admit that > they are 'no good at maths', and parents say their > child is 'no good at maths' because they > themselves are 'no good at maths', but will do > everything in their power to hide the fact that > they cannot read well. This means that people who > are 'numeracy illiterate', i.e. those who cannot > perform percentages and decimals, are at the mercy > of those who can. > When teaching standard form I always used the > example of the paediatrician who made a mistake > with standard form and overdosed and killed a > baby..... > Being able to quote Shakespeare was never a matter > of life and death.

Exactly this. I'd say Brixton, Peckham and ED are all as nice as each other but just appeal to different demographics. They are close enough to each other that they all cost more or less the same. It takes what, 15 minutes to walk to Peckham from most of ED if you want the night life there. Peckham and ED in particular basically share amenities. What's good about ED is that you are equally as close the Dulwich Village amenities (sports clubs, museum etc) and Forest Hill (Horniman, etc) and it is only 15 min from Brixton on the 37. I feel like here you get access a lot of the amenities of South London most easily. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Look I'm not dissing ED, it is what it is, and > > it's nice enough. But in my opinion (and that's > > all it is), it has become more dull in the last > 10 years. > > ED was a better place to be young and free 10 > years ago. It's a better place to be old and with > kids now.

Its about average for zone two but relatively expensive for South / South East London and more expensive than East London. The averages in the north and west are much higher as you'd assume but they have much better transport links. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think there's any myth. If people really > did think it was an incredible omg totes amazing > place to live, it would be more expensive. As it > is... probably about average for zone 2/3.

What's your point? No one has suggested that curry is overpriced. The point is comparing how much it costs to make something at home to how much a restaurant charges to prepare it for you is daft. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The cost charged includes paying staff and > hiring > > premises. You can't possibly analyse it based > on > > the ingredients. The ingredients are the least > > expensive part of most restaurant costs. > > > > > LM I am well aware of overheads. I was using the > food as an example of how poor *Bob* initial point > was, but if we want to compare other overheads > then sure. A restaurant charging 12 quid for a > curry is hiring a number of kitchen and waiting > staff to cook specialised food, both for eat in > and eat out customers. Their overheads will be > considerably higher than a cafe serving up basic > breakfast items with (I am assuming) considerably > fewer staff. > > Louisa.

Dull compared to what though- central London? Is there anywhere cheaper that you find wildly more interesting with better amenities and things to do? This area doesn't appeal to the very young. They are in Peckham which is equally expensive. I don't think the relative value of ED to other places is a myth at all. I don't know Penge so I can't really say. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I think rahrahrah is bang on. ED has created > it's own myth, and Penge is doing exactly the > same. They are both decent places. But there is > nothing particularly special about either, and it > could be argued that both are pretty dull. > > That doesn't really bother me these days as I have > a limited social life. But if I was 10 years > younger I'd be desperate to be elsewhere.