LondonMix

That's quite interesting. Basically as of 2010 the top two quintiles subsidize the bottom two quintiles and the middle quintile is just about break even. The drops surely can't work without a reduction in expenditure (unless personal earnings were increasing much faster than government expenditure)

Of course! Someone from Ofsted reporting to the government actually suggested that teachers ignored poor white students because of a fair of being seen as racist. The EHRC mentioned it could come down to immigrants / minorities seeing education as a source of social mobility where white working class pupils don't see that to the same degree. It's interesting because white working class pupils under perform all other ethnic groups from the working class. They are also the least likely to attend university even when they have better results.

New EHRC report has been released and all the talk on the other thread about outcomes for different races etc reminded me of this. No one seems to know why this is happening. As and expat its really perplexing. Curious what those on the forum think is the explanation. ETA links on university attendance as well as the EHRC went into detail on this point as well in painting the overall picture. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11987142/Ethnic-minorities-more-likely-to-go-to-university-than-white-working-class-British-children.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11965045/White-working-class-boys-are-the-worst-performing-ethnic-group-at-school.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27886925

I agree with that 100%. My point was that before the small store format which started in 2001, M&S could only open in large retail units on historical high streets such as the large store in Brixton or in new large retail parks like in Charlton. SE London (with numerous exceptions, including Rye Lane) primarily has high streets with small retailing units that prevent chains that need to operate at a certain scale from opening. To better penetrate these suburban markets (not just here but across the country) retailers are developing retailing strategies for smaller format stores (the pricing and logistics are very different).

I agree KidKurger-- from reading this thread I have no idea what race the attacker or victim are. I also agree its immaterial. I've clicked the daily mail link and its about another story and the people involved are all white...

I agree with you too Jeremy. So what are people in favor of here as the solution: 1. Increasing taxes (if so on who- all earners, most earner except the poorest, only the highest earners) 2. Decreasing other benefits (i.e. universal benefits currently enjoyed by even high earners) 3. Increasing the deficit / government debt

Not sure-- what I've read about it before was that it was developed operationally for market penetration. In this article, Waitrose said it was part of their strategy to double the size of their business in 10 years. Almost all of the new M&S stores are in the Simply Food format. There was some discussion on the other thread if the one on LL would be simply food or a Food Hall (slightly different offering). However M&S have publicly stated they won't open anymore stores retailing clothing because of online sales.

I was in the M&S in Charlton on Saturday. It opened this year and was very busy. My brother in law lives in Charlton and while its not a bad area its not really upmarket either. M&S are everywhere. It doesn't mark East Dulwich out as especially rich to have one. I think there haven't been many in this part of SE London because our highstreet units are too small. Now that M&S and Waitrose are both rolling out smaller store formats, they'll become much more ubiquitous. To date, they have been opened in large retail units available in places like Brixton or in new retail parks like the one in Charlton where they could operate at scale.

Its had some fire damage and for reasons already stated, its not appropriate to discuss the people who may or may not live there.

Its easy to be fond of something if you aren't next to it. Like Dave R and others have said, derelict buildings pose genuine hazards. Also, we encouraged cllr B to remove some overly person information posted about someone on here, but this shop is not a simple case of the owner not wanting do so anything with it. Its much more complicated than that.

Brixton and Eltham both have M&S's. Its hardly a shop that only appears in the wealthiest of wealthy neighbourhoods.

I haven't confirmed it but another regular poster did directly with M&S regarding the timeline. The planning application itself makes it clear the tenant is M&S as the freeholder sought specific approval for the firms signage.

Thanks DaveR. In the end I suppose it comes down to if you think the better use for the space was to provide a space for artists in the capital or something more mixed reflecting the multiple interest in Peckham. I don't think there is a right or a wrong answers. I think London should provide artists space to keep the city culturally vibrant. I'm not sure Pekcham has a responsibility to provide such an oversized share of that space though with a unique public asset. The Pop proposal seems like a compromise of sorts that perhaps will be of more use to the local community. Does anyone know what the future of the cinema is? Its really a shame if it closes. I think its great that ED and Peckham are getting new shops and amenities but it also makes me sad to see some of the more unique and interesting elements that gave this area a sense of place disappear

DaveR can you link to the other thread? I'm interested and will read it during my upcoming lunch break!

First Mate's post is correct, everyone else is taking the piss. Its going to be and M&S and the last update was its scheduled to open summer 2016.

Way off topic-- does anyone know what's happening to Pretty's grocery shop and the old Pet Shop on North Cross Road? Also, any news on the old Irish shop? I might have missed threads discussing this so if anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd be curious to know what's happening with them. TA

ALEC-- I?m not perfect at all but I do try to purchase the majority of my clothes from a few NY and LA based contemporary brands that make a specific point about doing most if not all of their manufacturing in the US (not all of course). I don?t buy a lot of clothes so when I do buy, I don?t mind paying the premium these brands cost and I can afford to. Amongst the high street retailers I only shop at Zara as the majority of their manufacturing is in Spain and Portugal, but I haven?t bought anything from them in years. I generally look to buy stuff made in Britain, Europe and the US, including stuff for my home. I know it?s a privilege to be able to afford to do so, so I don?t expect that?s the right approach for everyone but it works for me. My stuff lasts forever (I keep clothes for years and years) and I know that most of it has been made with labor laws and working conditions I can feel comfortable with.

Personally I do think it matters who makes your clothes. Not all brands (high or low) engage in poor labor practices.

Okay-- yeah, much of it is very expensive

Okay Miga since you addressed me I'll respond. The only thing I think I have ever disagreed with you on is your statement that most social interactions outside of work were racially homogenous in London. That's not my experience of London and to that extent I do see London as racially well integrated. Why it's not perfectly socially integrated by race as I've said comes down to factors beyond race per se in my view (economics, culture, religion) etc. Once people have 20 percent on average friends outside their own race as is the statistical avg for London extrapollating from the report, not having proportionally more is unlikely due to race alone. You may disagree, which is fine. We can agree to disagree (as I've said before). Compared to other cities I've lived in I've seen more racially heterogenous friendship groups and romantic relationships in London which is why I made my original statement. Again, that's my experience, I understand yours is different. I never once said that people didn't still cluster at all (in fact I explained that I thought it was due to reasons other than race very early on). I don't know the rest of the UK and my point has always been about my experience of London. Your point about the City is too complicated to respond to as I'm on my phone but only 10 percent of my office is from the UK. The combination of socially immobility and heavy expat recruiting are the first things that come to mind as part of the picture. I'm not saying there isn't racial bias in hiring decisions in London but I don't think that's the case in my office. ETA: If you don't want me to respond to you, then don't mention me or quote me in your posts. I only say this as you seem to still think I'm picking on you or am intentionally trying to make you feel bad or something. So whether I agree with anything else you say, I won't specifically respond to you unless you quote me or address me.

I think people buy design and if you are into design its worth more to you than someone that doesn?t value it?that?s true for industrial design, clothes, art, architecture, etc. Some people buy clothes, cars etc purely as a status symbol I?m sure but a lot of people buy things because they genuinely prefer how they feel and what they look like. No one can objectively state that the value others assign to that subjective quality assessment is inherently wrong. Also, no one can say how much is too much to spend on anything as it?s relative to what you can afford and how important it is to you. Many of the things even a poor British person spends their money on could seem obscenely lavish to someone living below the global poverty line, including housing (separate bedrooms for family members, more than one toilet!) We aren?t in a race to the bottom to prove our moral integrity.

x-post with DaveR.

No, I think we can all think about what and how we consume and also how the goods we purchase are made. But I don't think any single purchase can be singled out as morally extravagant. It might worth paying a huge amount for a music instrument or music memorabilia to one person and to another that purchase would be an indulgent extravagance. There is no objective way to really determine how much is too much to spend on something because we all assign value differently based on what things mean to us and the importance they have for us psychologically etc. Also, the more money you have the less extravagant purchases seem which is natural and shouldn't be condemned. Spending 3 quid on a coffee when huge swathes of the global population live on less than a dollar a day could be called extravagant for instance but it hardly seems right to suggest there is anything morally wrong in that transaction.

Yeah, Jeremy heard that too. I hope its true as I like a few of the brands Question Air carries.

I get where you are going with this but its just far too subjective. Human beings can live with almost nothing besides food and shelter. What is the level of material wealth people are allowed to enjoy before being morally wrong for not donating all the excess to those more in need? One item that someone buys really doesn't say anything about the rest of their spending habits either-- like others said, things have different meaning and importance to individuals, which is fine. Also, luxury doesn't equal exploitation. Cheaper fast fashion brands are the most guilty of using factories with terrible conditions concerning both pay and safety. Many luxury brands make a point of advertising their goods are made by skilled crafts people in Europe, the US or Britain etc. Anyway, I do think its a global problem that nowadays we seem to own more things that we value less and that are not designed to last because they are made cheaply in terrible conditions for the workers. Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's the difficult part isn't it. > > As consumers, we could change many things in the > world with a collective shift in thinking. Take > something like an expensive brand trainer, > particularly fashion trainers. They are over > priced to the consumer and the people that make > them are underpaid. The label makes a killing. > Well, if the public refused to buy the trainer > unless the labour used to make it was better paid, > we would be doing something to reduce poverty. > That's a simplistic scenario I know, but you get > the drift. > > I guess what I'm arguing for is an ethical > approach to consumerism. And the choices to be > made on that will vary for every person according > to what they need/ don't need. > > I see it with my kids. They see an advert for > something and then say I want that. And I always > reply, but do you 'need' that? And that makes them > think a little, for about 2 minutes, and then they > want something else :D