LondonMix

Have the police confirmed that the people involved in this incident were the same you saw in ED?

But that's true for flats as well. I have a house and don't own a car. No one I know who lives in flat owns a car either.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > a 40 minute walk is good for you! Come now, lets > not be soft. Besides, depends on the route taken. > Cycling is quite popular I hear. > > I used to walk every day to and from school from > East Dulwich to West Dulwich no more than a 30 > minute walk, never did me any harm and certainly > taught me to not depend on motorised modes of > transport. > I'm confused over your comment over amenities. > What is your definition of an amenity? BOTH areas > have an abundance of everything one could possibly > need - shops (whether a cluster of tacky > independent shops or several "local" supermarket > chains near by), schools, transport, health > facilities, pubs/bars/eateries. What more could > you want? > When people think of East Dulwich where do they > actually mean? Lordship Lane? Of course it's a > buzzing area (LL) but then what else is there, if > you were to take away the "high street", that > makes ED superior to West Dulwich? My comment about amenities just refers to variety. So for instance, I am not aware that there is a gym in West Dulwich itself (though I think someone mentioned there was one nearby in Norwood). If you live in East Dulwich, you have tennis clubs, squash courts, the Fusion Gym, Push Studios (for classes / yoga / pilates / Zumba etc), and two parks with organized fitness activities such as British Military Fitness a running club etc. For pubs / Gastropubs, it?s the same. West Dulwich has the Rosedale (which I like) and the Allen?s Head as far as I know (maybe there are more decent ones). Whereas in East Dulwich, you have The EDT, The Bishop, The Actress, The Great Exhibition, Franklins, The Palmerston, The Patch, The Castle, the Cherry Tree, the Herne Tavern, The Dulwich Plough, and the Rose. The same is true when you look at shops, restaurants, caf??s, hairdressers etc. East Dulwich just has a lot more choice and variety of things to do / places to shop etc. And as you can see from the above, I don?t just mean Lordship Lane. East Dulwich Road, North Cross Road, Whately, Melbourne, Barry Road etc all have amenities on them spread throughout the area though Lordship Land is obviously the main drag. I don?t mind walking 40 minutes and it is good for you but a 1 hour 20 min round trip on foot to visit the amenities in East Dulwich isn?t exactly easily accessible / casual access. A bike would make it much shorter but if you want to go out to dinner or out drinking you?ll probably be looking at a 7-10 quid taxi back home. Not really a big deal but Peckham, Forest Hill and Dulwich Village are much more easily accessible to East Dulwich than West Dulwich. Lastly, I didn?t say ED was superior to West Dulwich. I said both were very nice areas, but with a different vibe. West Dulwich has better housing stock and is a bit quieter and East Dulwich has more amenities and buzz but with tiny houses and is poorer value for money in that respect.

I'd echo what others have said about Honor oak. The housing stock in General is smaller than West Dulwich and the amenities are much fewer than East Dulwich. However the transport links are better and the schools are very good and it's better value than Dulwich. Personally I would first look at Forest Hill (bit near the Station) as an alternative to Dulwich before Honor oak. Again all nice areas. West and East Dulwich aren't that close though. I had a friend looking for a flat there and she tested the walk from the south end of Rosendale to Lordshiplane near Framklins and it's more than a 40 min and ther is no bus connection.

There is one right by the big Sainsbury's -- its cheap an cheerful. There are also ones the public can use that are associated with the private schools but I've only used the one next to Sainburys on Dog Kennel Hill.

West Dulwich is better value. It has a grander, leafier feel. Bel Air park has got nice tennis courts as well. However, in general I would say is pretty boring? There really isn?t that much choice there. East Dulwich has small housing stock and in general small gardens and East Dulwich station is only good for London Bridge. However, ED has much more energy, has many more amenities (including the new Picture House cinema that should open at the end of this year), squash courts, tennis clubs, yoga and pilates studio, the gym on Crystal Palace Road, loads of restaurants, Dulwich Park and Peckham Rye Park which both have things like British Military fitness, Park Runs, running clubs, nice playgrounds, plus the area has good restaurants and pubs, north cross road market and an increasing number of cafes, retail shops, beuty shops. You can typically get to Denmark Hill or Peckham Rye on the bus in 10-15 minutes which opens up a lot more commuting options for ED. Depending on where you live you can typically easily access the amenities in Dulwich Village, Forest Hill and Peckham Rye (including the shops on Bellenden) by foot from East Dulwich and definitely by bus. The Hormiman museum and Gardens, Dulwich Library, the Picture Gallery, Bellenden Road, and Dulwich Woods are all less than a mile from my front door. However, West Dulwich is much more cut off in my view (though of course its close to some of this stuff). Depends on if you want amenities and buzz or a bigger house and garden. I think the state schools at primary level in both areas are good but not sure where kids go for secondary if they live in West Dulwich. In ED, depending on where you live you can get into the Charter (which is excellent) and a new secondary run by Haberdasher and Aske is likely to open on the Dulwich Hospital site. There are also a girls and boys ED Harris school on the east side of East Dulwich which are both supposed to be good. Both areas are definitely nice but very different in feel

Or perhaps it was always just a question of rent which it sounds the green grocer has agreed to increase as part of a new contract.

Jon Barrenechea Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Usually first film will be around 1030am-11am and > the last film around 9pm....cafe will most likely > be open daily from 10am until around 10pm Thanks Jon, I?m not sure if you have finalized your retail strategy yet but if the restaurant offering included sushi, I think that would be a welcomed addition to the area. Also, will there be anything equivalent to Upstairs at the Ritzy on offer as part of this scheme or is there not enough space?

Thanks DaveR for reminding me to stay on topic. I am very much looking forward to being able to walk to the cinema for a change. I am curious (as previously stated) about what the hours will be if this has been agreed already.

I agree SJ but most companies just pay what their competitors do rather than the legal minimum. Wages are set in the labor market and are largely determined by supply and demand of specific skills. A business can?t pay less than its competitors and still attract equally talented employees. However, if a business were simply to pay their employees more, unless it helped the business, they would simply have to charge more than their competitors, all things being equal. This isn?t always possible if you want to survive in a competitive industry. Of course some companies pay more than their competitors to have better more motivated employees who in turn are more productive and provide a real advantage (and they can attract slightly better talent). My employer does this?they benchmark against the market (specifically benefits and maternity leave) and make a point to beat it slightly. They have entire staff devoted to this and do this in each market we operate which results in people working in different offices having different benefits (ie. in our NY HQ, they get less mat leave than here in London but what American?s would consider very generous). Given the vast majority of people are on far more than the minimum wage, it is clear that salaries are determined by much more than how much the government says is the legal minimum. Its more complicated than that and I have two close friends that are small business owners and know what a struggle it is. Even large corporates can and do fail.

Running a business and taking risk is by no means easy. The proft made is the financial reward (the wage of the owner is the profit in a typical corporate structure). If you think anyone would start a business and risk their own money for no financial reward, I find that hard to understand. My analogy before was that the fact a company has some profit isn't evidence of their being excess profit that can be reduced. If someone sees you get 100 quid, it doesn't follow automatically that you have some money you don't need.

No, an increase in wages for some businesses can actually be the difference between failing and staying afloat. Of course, any of their costs increasing could do this but if the only thing that changed is their employee costs then yes, for some businesses it makes a difference. That doesn?t mean the minimum wage should not exist or not be increased. I have already stated that when increased appropriately it lifts people out of poverty and can be neutral for net job creation. StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > " However, job losses and business closures do > occur every time the minimum wage increases. " > > > you could replace the last 6 words with "all the > time, regardless of anything" > > bad business loves to blame anything for their > troubles - bad pubs blame smoking ban for going > bust when many other pubs have thrived. Saying > something is the cause doesn't make it so

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cineworld had ?31 million of profit last year. I > think they can afford it. > > And on a wider scale, an increase in pay also > leads to wider societal benefits: people have more > money to spend - it stimulates the local economy; > people have to claim less or no additional > benefits resulting in a lower tax burden; staff > are more likely to be loyal to the employer > resulting in fewer costly recruitment processes, > training, etc. Quoting profits in isolation is ridiculous. That would be like taking your wage and saying since you make money you could give more away without any context. Anyone who runs a business has to make a profit in order to do so. No one would risk investing their own money in a business and all that entails for little or no profit. The 31m that company made was over a very large equity investment spread across many investors (some institutional funds holding your pension). Last year Cineworld experienced a 24% FALL in net income. They had a 5.35% return on investment. Would you invest your money to open up a cinema for less of a return than that? Or would you at that point just say I?d rather take it easy and just stick it in a government bond rather than run a risky complicated business? http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=CINE:LSE

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Given the "flexibility" of staff on these wage > levels (plus zero hours contracts), isn't it just > tempting for many businesses to say they can't pay > LWW. Just as Amazon says it pays all the tax it's > legally required to? > > All legal of course, but not exactly ideal Yes, of course. However, job losses and business closures do occur every time the minimum wage increases. However, job creation also takes place when the rate is set correctly . Clearly some firms cannot pay the higher wage and they fail. The trick when increasing the legal minimum wage is to make sure not too many are in that position given based on the size of the increase. The firms least able to pay are those for whom the product they sell has elastic demand (meaning people are very price sensitive and will stop using it if prices go up), where a large portion of their employees are affected (for Goldman Sachs who do pay the LLW, only a small fraction of their workforce is unskilled and they can spread the increased cost of these limited number of employees through very small reductions in other staff costs or other efficiency gains) or when it?s impossible for the employees to become more productive (ie increasing targets etc which can happen after a hike in the min wage). How large the increase is plays a role in how many businesses will find the change unsustainable without layoffs or closing all together.

Irrelevant to if they can afford to pay them LLW. Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying Beddug.

Beddug, I simply mean that if the cost of employing someone is unprofitable, a business cannot afford to do it. Not everyone contributes more than the LLW to the earnings of the company they are employed for. The fact that a business may not be able to run without them is irrelevant and staff costs can cause a business to close or fail. Similarly, when certain low-skilled work becomes too expensive, the cost- benefit of using technology tips in favor of technology, which results in low-skilled jobs being lost. Collecting your ticket only from a machine and installing ticket scanners with security gates for example could reduce the need for certain low-skilled jobs in a cinema. buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM wrote: "My point / position is that it is > difficult to pay an individual more than the value > they contribute to your business." > > More than the value they contribute? The Ritzy > workers contribute enormous value. How would > Picturehouse get their tickets checked or drinks > served at the bar or the premises cleaned ready > for the next batch of cinema-goers without these > workers who are not even being paid a living wage? > > > Do you really think businesses in this economic > climate, especially small businesses, would employ > anyone who wasn't vital to their business? > Everyone has a part to play to enable a business > to exist never mind prosper. It's just that when > profits are made, the owners or shareholders > forget this.

Okay, fair enough SJ, I am not always very clear. My point / position is that it is difficult to pay an individual more than the value they contribute to your business. Therefore any strategy to increase low-skilled workers wages should involve increasing their skills over time. The economy still has shortages of various types of skilled labor and this needs rebalancing. This has to be part of the broader discussion on the LLW. My other point, is that unskilled jobs that pay a lower wage have a genuine roll to play in the economy, particularly for younger employees. Of the circa 16% of employees earning below the LLW, it would be interesting to see how many of them are students. Given how young London?s population is, 16%-20% doesn?t strike me as terribly high. This becomes a more significant issue of course, if young unskilled workers remain in unskilled work for life. My last point concerns increasing wages as a matter of law. The research on this is mixed but there is growing evidence that in certain circumstances minimum wage increases can be positive for the wider economy including job creation and lifting people out of poverty. However, when done without analyzing the impact it will have on business, it can result in spiraling inflation, job losses (particularly amongst the unskilled) and business closures. There are independent bodies both in the US and the UK that exist solely to assess this and advise government. Any increase in the minimum wage will result in some job cuts and closures in certain businesses but if enough businesses can absorb the increase via either cutting higher wage earners salaries, increasing prices moderately, increasing the productivity of low skilled workers etc, the net impact can be neutral on total employment as the increased spending power of low wage workers tends to stimulate growth faster than other segments of the population resulting in jobs growth. To simplify this point?forcing a minimum salary on the economy / London has to be done very carefully for it to be a net positive for low wage workers and the economy as a whole.

Sorry, not attacking in the sense of being abusive or anything. However, your immediate reaction was to assume I was trying to undermine the LLW and therefore, instead of reading my posts carefully, you immediately went into the mode of defending your position and trying to undermine mine rather than engaging with the substance of what I was saying. Perphas saying that some on this thread have a strong defensive attitude towards the issue would be a better choice of words. Eitherway, I think this issue is so much larger than the Picture House, continuing to discuss it here is really hijacking a thread meant to spread information about a new facility in the area.

I did not say that. I said that Buddug's earlier call for all businessses that do not pay the LLW to ALL their employees to close would result in virtually all businesses shutting as it currently stands. I said this to show how rediculous it was to single out Picture House. Most people in most organisations earn well above the LLW. The question concerns making this obligatory for all employees regardless of skill level in every organisation. Virtually no organisations pay all their employees above the LLW which is the standard to which people are holding the Picture House. If either you SJ or Buddug spent time actually reading what people who are trying to engage with you were saying instead of attacking you would realise that I am not against an increase in the minimum wage but recognise that its a complicated issue with various points that need to be weighed up. Mandating a significant payrise for low skilled workers in one shot might have significant unintended consequences that those advocating for such a policy initiative don't appreciate and could harm those they intend to help... StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM - you said earlier today that if business had > to pay a living wage that virtually ALL London > business would close > > Minutes later you said - "Most people in London > earn more than the LLW" > > contradictory > > But anyway - number of people living in London > below living wage = about 16-20 % of population > > http://www.livingwage.org.uk/blog/1-5-paid-less-li > ving-wage-says-kpmg > > That is not a small number - and I doubt most of > them are the casual workers looking for > supplemental income. > > No poicy ever is going to magic those peolpe into > better skilled/paid jobs, much less replace them > should they actually find those jobs

Back on topic! Someone asked what the proposed opening hours would be? I am curious about the same actually. I imagine it will be a real boost to the evening trade for the local restaurants in the area. Also, will any of the screens be able to show films in 3-D?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I'm an individual trying to put a roof over my > head, what job in London should I get, for less > than ?8.80 that constitutes "fair"? Most people in London earn more than the LLW. Those on less tend to be unskilled workers (or workers with skills that unfortunately are no longer needed). Starting out in unskilled work as a young person can allow someone to develop the skills to move into a higher wage position over time and therefore unskilled positions in and of themselves are not a problem as many businesses need an element of unskilled workers to run their businesses. The problem arises when people spend a lifetime as unskilled workers. However, that is a social and political issue that needs to be addressed through policy initiatives. Suggesting that businesses should pay unskilled workers more value than they create through their efforts is akin to suggesting coal miners should have continued mining regardless of the underlying economic reality. The real issue is skill training (including retraining), the education system, and social mobility. The implications of unilaterally increasing the minimum wage (to the LLW or otherwise) are complex and have different outcomes depending on the full universe of factors that apply. Sometimes, unemployment increases as businesses close or staff numbers are cut. Sometimes prices increase (inflation) if demand for the good or service is not price sensitive because its essential. Alternatively wages of higher skilled employees are cut if the business cannot operate without the low income employees and if they believe they can retain the higher skilled staff (this can boost GDP growth overall in certain circumstances). One other possibility is that the low income employees will be forced to become more productive (working harder / increased duties etc) if possible within the role. How each business responds will depend on the details of their circumstances and has been heavily researched and studied. There is actually an Independent Low Wage Commission that tries to balance out the implications for the hiring and the economy when setting minimum wages. For those of you who claim to be really passionate about this issue, why not start an intelligent discussion of the complexities in the Lounge or the Discussion Room and then try to advocate for whatever policy changes you think make sense? Making this about the Picture House is hopelessly myopic.

buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I believe > that if a business can't afford to pay a living > wage to its staff then it does not deserve to be > in business in the first place. That is totally unreasonable. You are essentially saying that virtually every business in London should close. How does that exactly help low-wage workers and employment exactly? Singling out the Picture House for boycott and criticism is totally unfair on this issue. Unless you are prepared to boycott virtually all goods and services in London, attacking a specific business over this issue is very hypocritical. The London Living Wage is a complex issue, deserving of its own thread in the lounge.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or... Address the dog and his anxiety, which is > what's actually the problem. The dog's anxiety has to addressed but understanding who wrote the note is also important. Knowing you live next to so done who would behave like this is disturbing as it's a bit sociopathic

Really, there is a dominos pizza place in ED already near the station.

Hi ITATM- I agree one test to reduce stress should be the aim. However, without more information I don't automatically presume anything about Lewisham's arrangements. There may be very good reasons for the current arrangements that the LA, the Admission Forum and Hatcham have agreed and are all happy is the best possible situation. I know Hatcham only uses one banding test for all it's schools in its Federation and that might play its part. I do find it odd that Hatcham use fair banding which is why I query it. But again, without background, I won't presume or suggest there is any problem. I think it's unfair to do so and pre-mature to suggest the coordination efforts there are failing in anyway. I actually think Lewisham has exercised significant coordination of admissions in its area and have not been shy about threatening schools that they would be brought to the OSA for non-compliance. Regarding the historical Charter admission case, I find your position hard to understand and I think the detail matters a lot from a policy perspective (which seems to be what you are trying to discuss more than the specific schools). The Charter school was no more powerful post conversion in 2010 than it was as an LA school between 2000 and 2010 (specifically regarding its ability to not administer it's stated policy). The parents had to mount their own campaign only because both the LA and the Admission Forum failed to use their power to take the issue to the adjudicator. When the school was an LA school and appeals against the admission policy were first mounted, the Southwark Admission Forum should have taken the LA run Charter school to the Adjudicator way back then. This was a 12 year failing on the part of Southwark as an institution. Therefore, Southwark, rather than the current rules and laws need to be taken to task in this particular instance. Why the LA administered the clearly unjust admission policy for 10 years when they were in total control is a serious concern in itself. Some LAs and Admission forums will be better than others. I actually think current govt policy is wrong in assuming free schools in all instances are a solution and some free schools are not great. But equally, some LAs are poor for reasons entirely to do with themselves. Therefore, this discussion for me isn't really about defending one or the other system but really learning about what both potential ED schools have to offer and raising questions in a fair and balanced way.