LondonMix

I agree with that too.

The concept that the advancement of education is charitable in and of itself is an old concept. Just like the concept of advancing the arts, even if it doesn't benefit the disadvantaged in anyway, most societies see it as an inherent good. Endowments set up to advance either on a non-profit basis around the world receive the benefits of charity. I suppose the real question is, does the modern world with universal state education available need educational charities like Dulwich anymore to advance education?

I agree the impact is perverse

I went to the American equivalent to a grammar school except they didn?t appear to be as biased towards to middle class as UK grammars are. I imagine that?s largely because parents here invest in tutoring and test prep if they can afford to. That?s why I suggest the schools need to encourage low-income families to apply specifically through an outreach program at primary school level that provides test prep etc.

I actually don?t disagree with your reservations about independent schools and would support them becoming 100% needs blind with special outreach programs to encourage lower income students to apply via mentorship and tutoring. That would require more funding than their endowments provide though so the state would have to step in. I also agree that sending your kids to Alleyn's isn't charitable but its not charitable to recieve the benefits of any charity. Its by definition almost always self-serving.

Clearly providing education at no profit isn't what anyone would think of as a business enterprise. The foundation uses the original endowment to subsidize the costs of everyone who attends (as even full fees don?t cover running costs if the schools are to be believed) and they also provide free entry to some based on need. I think admission ideally would be needs-blind but at the same time, I can?t argue that the work the foundation does is a business in any normal sense either. It?s a non-profit with the aim of providing subsidized high quality education (at times for free). That's very different from Coke who might occasionally donate.

The motivation of the institution rather than the people who benefit from it deterimine if its a charity or not. I don't disagree with the wider point you are making though

It seems people have the biggest concern regarding schools? being charities. Private schools are clearly non-profit organisations (just like universities). What additional benefits (tax or otherwise) is there being a charity vs a non-profit? Are they considered charities because that was how they were originally set up but with no specific advantage? If there is anyone who works in the 3rd sector that can explain, that would be great.

Here is how Alleyns explain it http://www.alleyns.org.uk/section.aspx?id=830 http://www.alleyns.org.uk/page.aspx?id=847 The gist is the fee income collected does not cover the running if the school. They need Estate money just to keep the doors open I remember reading a third of pupils are on bursaries though not full bursaries. They say they are fundraising to create more 100 percent bursaries via a permanent endowment

Okay, take offence at me disagreeing with you then. I was genuinely shocked people find this a problem on the scale being reported by some as I?ve lived in the area for 10 years and use Peckham Rye regularly and always got / get help and always see people getting help. May it depends on what time of day you are using the station?

Agree Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All sounds about right. > > At the end of the day its the fact that they are > not profit making that is the relevant driver for > the charitable status and perhaps the historical > point that many were formed from charitable gifts > before state schools existed.

I guess but my experience is much more in line with JohnL and HPSaucy. I always help though so it might be that those who help don't feel like people are left struggling. People always helped me on the rare occasions I was alone as well so I am just surprised its a prob Em for some

I always see people helping. Didn't hpsaucy just say she gets help 90 percent of the time? What are you complaining about? I find Peckham very friendly esp compared to Central London.

I thought it would rise to LLW over time but perhaps not. Good article though!

Only comment- the dispute itch the Ritzy is over and they will get the London Living Wage.

I emailed be a while back and they said October but progress seems slow...

I thought the same. James mentioned they still had plans for the area and that an obvious location, though it might be too small

Everything about this stinks. * the low compulsary purchase price for the flats * the poor deal for tax-payers selling off assets * the apparent desire to get rid of poor people from central London The list goes on... The hints at possible corruption / job in exchange for a sweet deal with Lend lease though is the cherry on top. Just pathetic...

ClaireClaire, when you get an answer it would be great if you could share it with the forum.

Of course, but as more powers are devolved the issue becomes more pertinent. How much devolution will the public accept while still allowing Scottish MPs to vote on issues not impacting their constituents? I?d be interested to hear what everyone thinks this is going to look like going forward following this most recent round of concessions. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I was reading an article that made an > interesting > > point that has been glossed over in all of this. > > > Will MPs representing Scotland in Westminster > > still have a right to vote on legislation that > has > > no impact on their constituencies going forward? > > > The devolution process being promised by the > major > > parties means that decisions made by > Westminster > > will have very little impact on Scotland. Why > > should Scotland have a say in how England, > Wales > > and Northern Ireland are run going forward? > > > That's been the case since the Scottish Parliament > was established

Maybe once Iceland here closes they will

They aren't stupid questions. The presentation and discrepancy in results is confusing and an explanation from someone in the know or from the school would be great.

Brixton is cheaper than ED nowadays! This part of town is actually a lot younger and less family oriented than it seems. Almost 20% of people who live here are between 18 and 29. Also, almost half of households are childless! There are 5,300 households (with 12,000 individual people). There are 1,600 single person households the vast majority of which are young We've got another 455 married but no children couples Then another 615 co-habitating couples with no kids. That's basically half of ED that don't live with or don't have children. Perhaps I should open a business to cater for all these free and easy youngsters! http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6501600&c=SE22+9DJ&d=14&e=13&g=6336684&i=1001x1003x1004&o=362&m=0&r=0&s=1410887846455&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2474 http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=6501600&c=SE22+9DJ&d=14&e=14&g=6336684&i=1001x1003x1004&o=362&m=0&r=0&s=1410888187830&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2549

I was reading an article that made an interesting point that has been glossed over in all of this. Will MPs representing Scotland in Westminster still have a right to vote on legislation that has no impact on their constituencies going forward? The devolution process being promised by the major parties means that decisions made by Westminster will have very little impact on Scotland. Why should Scotland have a say in how England, Wales and Northern Ireland are run going forward?

Yes-- the same site you have sourced your data from breaks down the deprviation stats in more detail. The stats I linked to come under economic deprivation statistics sub-category on the website. http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadPage.do?pageId=1003&tc=1410865942308&a=7&b=6501600&c=SE22+9DJ&d=14&e=13&f=30636&g=6336684&i=1001x1003x1004x1005&l=2474&o=362&m=0&r=0&s=1410865942308&enc=1 Also, if you click on the explanatory notes from your link, you'll see what the non-economic factors are that are being considered, many of which have no direct relationship with how much money people have.