LondonMix

Our Victorian house had a lead pipe leading for the stop valve outside just like AM. We were doing a major refurbishment to the house and as part of installing a megaflow style heating system also replaced the pipe for water flow reasons. We were digging up our front bath anyhow but I don't know how messy a job it is if you aren't doing major work. Good luck but I think its very common. I imagine unless someone has done recent plumbing work like us, most Victorian houses still have some amount of lead pipework.

I hope you told him you were fine and just speaking to your son! I would find that really annoying as well. Lula Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only just discovered this thread and loved reading > back all the intelligent well thought through > comments. I agree that parents and siblings are > the strongest role models but gender stereotyping > and pink and blue toys/clothes do make me despair. > Love that video, WM. > I find some of the strongest stereotyping comes > from adults. > I once saw a mother forcibly remove a sparkly > necklace from her 4 year old son's grasp because > it was not for him to play with. Little things > like this happen to both sexes throughout > childhood and into adulthood. I guess it depends > on your mood on the day. However, just the other > day I was really peeved because I was parallel > parking and paused mid-manoeuvre because me son > asked me something so I turned around to talk to > him and a dad walked past and looked at me, waving > me into the space. Now he could have done this by > asking if I wanted help getting into the space but > instead he smirked and gestured in a way that > essentially said, 'go on, you can do it...' Made > me so cross!

Yeah, exactly. Also, even if most people don't befriend you, you'd have to be shunned by absolutely everyone not to statistically be integrated. With that said, I don't really have any sense of the rest of the UK. How open people are etc compared to London in the rest of the UK.

ETA: My friend is Chinese (born in Hong Kong) for context about language issue. One of my friends mum's has lived in England for about 30 years and still speaks very little English. Her husband and her kids all speak perfect English (and her son is married to a white English girl) but she was never able to pick it up. I'm not sure how that happens but I don't think it was just because she didn't care. I agree though that its not remotely unreasonable to expect people to be able to communicate in the country's official language if it has one. The US doesn't actually have an official language, which of course makes the issue even more complicated over there. I've been thinking about it and I also agree with what Otta said before, when he turned the proportional question on its head. I don't know anywhere outside of London well enough to have an opinion on how integrated the rest of the UK is or why the proportional integration would be higher outside the capital than in. However, it makes sense that if only 5% of the population outside of London is ethnic minorities, even if the majority of people don't socialize with people outside their own race, as long as those very few minorities weren't shunned by absolutely everyone, the statistical averages would be much easier to achieve. In a city as diverse as London, anyone without any friends outside their own race would drag down the statistical averages dramatically.

I agree with a lot of that Louisa. I think there is a gulf between perceived difference and actual difference.

I think that cultural differences are harder for people to accept for sure. I know people who have friends of different races but none who are new immigrants, for instance, not because of overt prejudice but because they find much less common ground to establish friendships. This is like you say a different kind of integration problem. When I lived in Paris I found there was a lot of open hostility towards Muslims, much more so than I've encountered in any other city I've lived in. And this came from people who otherwise socialised with a variety of people from different social and ethnic backgrounds. Integration is complex and certain variables like race overlap with other variables complicating the analysis. Personally, I agree with you that 100% assimilation for me would make diverse cities less interesting though of course some basic level of shared values between everyone in a society seems to help things go more smoothly.

I'm not trolling you Miga! I think when you said diversity doesn't necessarily lead to integration it suggested that diverse areas like London aren't integrated. Perhaps that's not what you meant. If you were just making that statement in general, of course no one could disagree with it (conflict around the world is often caused by different ethnic groups being unable to tolerate living side by side much less becoming friends etc). Like I said before, I think London is rather racially integrated even if not perfectly proportionally so. In the report they say the proportional issue needs to be studied further. My guess, which somewhat ties into Otta's point, is that its not race per se but rather cultural difference (which can but don't always overlap with skin colour) that is the majority of the underlying issue there given the relative amount of racial integration already in the city. I'm repeating myself because I said that several days ago one of my very first posts on the matter so with that I won't respond to you further as you seem to find it upsetting.

Mia I don't think that's what the report actually says about London for what its worth. The quotes Saffron used were about the UK as a whole. Regarding London, the report states the city is not integrated proportionally to its diversity but that is not the same thing is it not being integrate at all.

That's great. It looks like with some additional work on transferring writing skills to other subject, the school will get an Outstanding at its next inspection. Its great to hear the achievement gap between pupils has been addressed so adequately.

I wish you weren't winding us up as I would love a Nando's TJ

That's interesting. So while Londoners have significantly more meaningful interactions with people of other races according the report, its proportionally less than would be expected if race wasn't a factor at all. I.e. the average white person in London doesn't have 40% of their friends as ethnic minorities but on average something more in the order of 20% if I've understood the report correctly? If so, I'd agree that even though the report is a bit old, that intuitively seems correct. It also corresponds with about 20% of romantic relationships (out of a maximum total possible of 40%) being mixed race as well in London. quote: Our research shows that those living in London have a greater total number of interactions with people who are ethnically different from them. Yet those interactions are proportionally less representative of the diversity of the area Londoners live in compared to the interactions of those outside London. So, for whatever reason, potential interactions with those from different ethnic backgrounds are not being fully taken up.

I totally acknowledge that the figures were likely skewed by private school. However, the catchment around Heber has been very small consistently for a long time. I was simply making a point to show that Miga's train analysis was nonsense at least as it concerns ED. Even the official 2011 census has the minority population of ED at 30% (vs 40% for London as a whole). That figure can't be dismissed so easily. Similarly, the figures for interracial children can't be dismissed. Whether there are pockets of people who don't mix with people outside their own race and others who do, the statistics show that increasingly the most intimate of relationships now cross racial grounds and this is a trend year on year that is accelerating. This was an aside and not part of the broader conversation on offence for me (I don't find anything offensive either way about it). ETA- I only suggested we should agree to disagree as there haven't been any specific studies done about interracial friendships, which was the original point of contention. We can talk around why Miga thinks its less common that I do but neither of us can definitively determine who is statistically right so I didn't think there was anything more to say about it. I agree with Miga that some groups (blacks in particular) mix more than others etc. At the end of the day, I simply find London less segregated than Miga does.

Miga-- given the intake of Heber is only 500m around the school 52% white 48% non-white is indicative who lives near the school. I'm not sure how you can assert otherwise. Like I said its probably skewed somewhat but as of 2011, the non-white population of East Dulwich ward was circa 30% and has probably shifted upwards as it has for the country as a whole between now and then. No, 30% of my office population is not an ethnic minority- closer the 15%. However, the interracial marriages are largely between the white men in the office and their partners who don't work there. There are of course minorities married to whites and two white women I can think of married / dating black and Indian men. Its really all over the place. Overall though, about 1/3rd of people in my office are in interracial relationships. I mention that its mostly men, because my office is mostly men as is typical for investment funds in general. While 20% is my experience of London's mixed race kids, it correlates with the wider statistics presented. London has 3 times the minority population of the UK as a whole. It has 3 times the mixed race population (percentage wise) as the UK as a whole as well. Given that 6% of children under 4 nationwide are mixed race, its not unreasonable to assume that the concentrations in London would be 18% (similar to how the London vs UK stats play out for race in general). I think we are probably just better off agreeing to disagree about how common mixed race friendships and relationships are in London. We clearly live wildly different experiences and have very different types of friends and friend groups and see very different racial profiles even in SE22.

My neighbours are with London and Quadrant who refuse the fix anything ever. Our neighbours are great at keeping up their home despite this lack of care from the housing association.

Its quite obvious why white people are the least likely to mix. It is because they have the least people to mix with. Even if everyone wanted marry outside of their race,statistically, it would be impossible for white people to mix more than 13% (the size of the minority population in the UK). Take a look at these statistics as I think you might find them interesting: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21595908-rapid-rise-mixed-race-britain-changing-neighbourhoodsand-perplexing. Also, this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15164970 Anyhow, 40% of London is non-white. The statistics for the UK as a whole don't really represent London which is significantly more diverse than the country as a whole. The mixed race population of London is much higher than the country as a whole as well. Being of different ages we probably just have very different experiences of London- mixed race people are found at the significantly higher concentrations amongst children than the population as a whole which suggests the younger generations are much more racially mixed than the general population. Like I said, of the 30 or so people I know in London well enough to know who their social circle generally includes, I can't think of a single person that doesn't have multiple friends that they socialise with outside of their race (I'm in my early 30s). Equally in my (relatively young and international office), the incidence of interracial relationships is very high. This again could be skewed because I work in finance which is very expat heavy and perhaps expats tend to be more internationally minded and racially open- who knows. However, just walking around London, at a minimum I think about 20% of young children are mixed race, which proportionally would make sense given that most of the UK's minority population is concentrated in London rather than spread evenly across Britain. None of that suggests to me a city where most young people isolate themselves racially, though perhaps for those 40 plus, the reality is very different. ETA: I'm really not sure about your train example about race. Heber Primary school in the centre of ED which for years now has only accepted students from a max of 500 meters away is only 52% white (only slightly less white than London as a whole). Look at the 2013 Ofted where its reported. Some of that might be skewed by private school attendance by the most affluent families who statically are more likely to be white but East Dulwich is still very racially mixed area as are most areas of London.

That is really surprising you think so. That is not my experience of London at all. My statement about work was interracial couples (i.e. marriages) not work friendships. Given that something like 10% of children under 4 years old in the UK are mixed race, the idea that people tend to cluster just in the homogenous racial groups doesn't ring at all true to me. This feels particularly untrue in London, where anecdotally that mixed race / interracial couple population seems very, very high (like I said over 30% in my own office). I can honestly say I don't know anyone who doesn't have multiple friends outside their own race but maybe that's because I'm younger than other posters. miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People select who they interact with based on > class, but I think they also do based on color. > Who you interact with at work is one thing, but my > impression is that once people are home, the > friendship circle tends to be fairly homogenous > both racially and with regards to class.

Do you think Peckham Rye has the cheapest land values in all of Southwark? edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why > > develop a few flats on a plot of land worth 1 > > million quid when you can sell the land and use > > that 1 million quid to develop much more > housing > > on cheaper land elsewhere in the borough. > > Where is this cheaper land?

Maybe-- I don't know the history of the BNP well enough to say. However, if they were being excluded because it was believed they were as an institution fomenting racial discord, then I say that's a good enough reason. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The point with the police is that if you hold > > beliefs that present a heightened risk to the > > public that you won't be able to impartially > > enforce the law (which is the legal > requirement), > > then you can't be put in that position of power. > > > Those that don't believe all people are equal > > cannot be entrusted to enforce the law > equitably. > > Its common sense, not political exclusion. > > But there are many parts to that rule that deal > with people who have been convicted of race > crimes. But 10-15 years ago, people joined the BNP > for many reasons, not all of them racist (worries > about immigration levels being one of them). And > while there are/were, no question, people with > racist attitudes in the BNP, reflecting that > against each and every member of the BNP political > party is guilt by association. > > Tarring them all with the same brush has got to be > classed as political exclusion.

I agree with all of that. I think that partly has to do with the fact that social prestige is more linked to what you do than traditional British class. For instance, without knowing anything about someone in this country, from the moment they open their mouth their class is usually pretty clear. Once you know a few things about them (where they went to school, what sports the follow, etc my guess is you can nail in with more than 90% accuracy). In the US, that is less the case and real social prestige comes from what you are vs what your parents or ancestors were. And upper class British people (I work with a lot of them) immediately ask people where they went to school. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM - It's kind of an aside but the thing that > always strikes me about the US (other than the > race thing which is massive) is job status. I've > done a fair bit of work with US companies and > colleagues and what you do for work and your job > title is massively more important to the average > american than brit. Just some quick examples: > > - seniority matters immensley in US corporate > culture, so management is more autocratic; your > stated opinion has to align with the boss around > ideas etc or keep it to yourself; NEVER be later > to a meeting than a senior person; The work status > thing is why there's such job title inflation in > the US ( everyone in US company is a Vice > President of something, whatever they do) > - Casual talk with US people reverts to 'what do > you do' really quickly; i've known people in the > UK for years and still don't have a scoobey what > they do and vise versa > - Mnay US people will ask you what you earn pretty > quickly, almost unheard of here

I'm not sure race is one of the more obvious lines people separate themselves into unless race and culture overlap significantly. In London, I actually find that friendship groups are very mixed (certainly compared to the US). If you think your race makes you very culturally different, then you will gravitate towards people of your skin color but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The number of mixed race marriages in my office (not just black white, but white-Asian, etc) is close to a 33%. Interestingly enough, I think class defines people's identity even more so than race in this country. There was survey a while back in which parents would be most concerned about their children marrying someone of a different class (much more so than race, country, them being gay etc). red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree Ots, but it doesn't just stop at race. In > a mixed school you will find boys and girls in > separate groups, boys who like football, boys who > don't etc. It's all about identity and forming > connections. And it's not exclusive to children, > it's a human trait, fundamentally we're a very > 'tribal' species...

The point with the police is that if you hold beliefs that present a heightened risk to the public that you won't be able to impartially enforce the law (which is the legal requirement), then you can't be put in that position of power. Those that don't believe all people are equal cannot be entrusted to enforce the law equitably. Its common sense, not political exclusion. adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah, this is definitely not any form of > trolling. I have not attacked any poster on this > thread for their contribution. > > As I stated in my opening, I spent two years in > diversification and equality service delivery > training and remain very interested in people's > viewpoints on this whole subject. > > As a slight aside and (maybe) to broaden the > debate, when it comes to being an equal > opportunities employer then it could be arqued > that there is no such thing. People holding > homophobic/xenophobic/misogynist/etc views are > generally excluded from public service > institutions (and other employers), therefore do > these sections of society become discriminated > against? The Police service particularly excludes > any person that is/was a member of a right-wing > fascist neo nazi organisation, thereby > contradicting their own stated "regardless > of........political persuasion".

The problem with McCarthyism isn't that it was anti-communist. At the time communism was a genuine political threat. If you actually look up the definition of McCarthyism it is: McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism." McCarthy used his ability to ruin people with little or no evidence as a powerful weapon. He was ruining people not because he genuinely had reason to believe they were communists but for other reasons and as such became a tyrant. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But McCarthyism, at its core, was American > society's (at the time) belief that communism was > morally wrong. You have a list of things that are > currently deemed morally wrong. Why is it > different? Why do we believe that McCarthyism was > wrong, but this modern day version of McCarthyism > is OK? > > Especially as all the things you list are rather > haphazardly enforced. And this rather goes to the > nub of this entire thread, because these days they > are generally 'enforced' by the professionally > offended twitter mob. Thus Tim Hunt is hounded > out of his job, but Diane Abbott (who has said > things, IMHO, worse than Hunt did) is left alone. > There is no constancy. In fact, there is serious > inconsistency. For instance, Julie Burchill, who > would fail your list of bad beliefs with her > remarks on transexuals, would be free to join the > police force (age requirements notwithstanding). > > The other curiosity about the police's list is > that one of the proscribed organizations is the > BNP - a completely legal political party. So if > you legally run for parliament for the BNP, you > are immediately banned from being a policeman. > How, in any sane system, is that valid? > Especially as I am pretty sure some joined the BNP > about 10-15 years ago (when they were regularly > winning council seats) for reasons other than > racism. > > (Just to note that I have absolutely no love for > the BNP, et al. This purely down to freedom of > political thought - even for those I fundamentally > disagree with.)

From what I've read the plan is to sell off high value sites and develop in lower value areas. Why develop a few flats on a plot of land worth 1 million quid when you can sell the land and use that 1 million quid to develop much more housing on cheaper land elsewhere in the borough. If they actually do it, its of course the most effective way of developing the greatest amount of social housing. The main drawback is it reduces socio-economic diversity in affluent / gentrifying areas.

My experiences with this surgery have been shockingly bad. They don't follow NICE guidelines, don't call when they say they will, don't follow up appropriately, fail to update records or send out test results... If I went into full detail, you'd know how appalling they are but for my own confidentiality I don't want to get into my own medical issues.

It's from the movie Friday. Feliciano was an annoying crackhead