LondonMix

You bought a 90ft by 60ft section of someone elses garden!? The section you bought is signficantly larger than any whole garden (particularly the width) I've ever seen in ED. Was this a house in ED?

I think the idea is that a school being created in the Docklands will free up spaces closer to ED as the allocation of school places is wider.

Looks good. I might have the value tale off more above 75ft. Anything more than 75ft I think is just a burden but that might just be me!

Dr De Soto's equation sounds about right to me. However, I'm not sure you'll get less for you house for losing the 4ft. The pricing difference really quicks in one you go from medium size to small or from small to tiny. Have they told you what they want to do with it?

Yes, for an experienced nanny working 55 hours a week, then yes. 38K per annum is about 10 net an hour which is on the high end for one child but not unheard of. You can get a nanny for less than that though. It really depends on how much experience you require. A nanny share might work better for you.

I don't live on that street but my husband and I love walking along both Underhill and Overhill. The houses there are mansions and the whole place feels quite grand and green. Its most expensive just because the houses are so big but on a per square foot basis its definitely cheaper than other parts of ED. We decided to live in a small house closer to the station as our commuting time is a big quality of life consideration. However, one day, when we are wealthy and don't have dreary jobs to commute to, I'm buying a mansion in South Dulwich :)

Why can they afford private education? If you are saying people are renting a place while still owning a home elsewhere that's fraud (and school authorities do check via council records etc). If its someone who can't afford to buy in catchment and moves to the catchment, while they are clearly gaming the system, I wouldn't assume they could afford private school fees.

Hi honeybee. What are you expecting regards revenue from food, drink and rent? I understand your costs will be lower because of the lack of tie but what are you anticipating on the revenue side?

In those locations you definitely won't get into Heber. Goose Green would be your best bet and its a good and improving school by all accounts. You would have a shot at Dulwich Hamlet Junior school (though perhaps not the Village Infants school which is a separate intake and has 50% religious places). However,you'd be near the outer edge of Hamlet's usual furthest distance offer. Bessemer is a good school as well that currently has quite a wide catchment because its been bulging (90 vs standard 60 students). There are talks of permanently expanding its intake to 90. Renata (one of the local councillors active on the forum) can give you more details. Also, there is talk of a Harris Academy opening up a primary school on the Dulwich Hospital site which you would very close to if that happens (the school hasn't secured the location yet though that's their target site). Good luck. A lot will depend on where on those specific roads you are but the furthest distance offers contained here should help. Also, you can email the admissions office of the closest schools as well for historical information on distance offers (for the Academy's you have to speak to them directly). http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2483/primary_school_admissions

Look in the What's on Section. There is a group exactly like this that meets up regularly but its not restricted to singles. Good luck! cabsav13 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hey there, > > I am just wondering if there are many other single > 20s/30s/40s something people, male and female, who > would be interested in meeting up for pub drinks, > park walks, group exercise, cinema..etc!? I am a > single 30s something and although I have many > friends, I dont have many in this area, and would > love to meet others in the same boat, who would > like a bit more of a local social life!? Im just a > normal nice girl and looking for other normal nice > people to hang out with and to make new friends > with. Open to suggestions on ideas of what we can > do to meet up etc! > > Hopefully chat soon!

I had no idea Brockley was the bourgeois neighbor of Peckham?K Live and learn ??

Only marginally but yes I think it would be better. Being entirely topless suggests a greater degree of your actual body being publically available for men?s consumption. However, I agree with SJ. The best solution would be if it didn't exist at all. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But would it make it any better if they were > wearing bikini tops?

Its hard for me to articulate why I think page 3 is wrong. I am not against nudity and I am not even against porn. I think both are a healthy part of life. However, the gratuitous nature of the page 3 nudity in a main stream publication does make me uncomfortable. It's a different kind of sexual objectification. By its very inclusion in an otherwise non pornographic publication it kind of says that women can and should be viewed as sexual objects whenever. Never in London but in Southern European countries this kind of attitude towards women has left me feeling quite unsafe after having be grabbed and groped by strangers in the street. Sex and nudity have their place but the gratuitous sexual objectification of women allows men to think they have a right to all women's bodies in weird way. I may be wrong but its just my rather emotional reaction based on personal experience.

I don't know enough about the case to get into it. My point concerns blaming the victim of a crime in general and how our perceptions of risky parenting have shifted. I, like everyone else, hope that Madeline is okay and will be returned to her parents and I really don't have anything more to say about this specific family.

Oh, is that what Sue is alleging happened? I've never quite understood what she was trying to say. Either way, playing the blame game in these circumstances seems besides the point. Though, even if it was the pool, I had a pool growing up in the US and I certainly knew how to open the patio door at that age. Some times tragedies happen which is unsettling but when I think of the freedoms I had as a child, I realise most of you lot would have called social services. From 10, I had my own key to the house and walked home from school and was home alone until Mom got home from work. From age 6 when visiting my grandparents in the country, they would let me walk miles from farm to farm with the other kids (some times sending my for errands for eggs etc to the neighbouring farm). Maybe we were just a different breed but given that overall society is supposed to have become safer regarding crime statically, why is everyone so much more afraid?

It's like saying that if you left your house unlocked and you were burgled you are partially to blame. You aren't. You might have been foolish (though in lots of parts of the world people don't lock their doors mind you) but never to blame. 100% of the blame always lies with the criminal. No one has the right to take your possessions, much less your children, no matter what you do. Moreover, kidnapping by a stranger is thank goodness very rare. Its hardly a likely outcome of leaving your kids asleep in a hotel room.

Yes, I read they literally hacked some poor man to death in the middle of the street in the middle of the day.

Am I the only person that hopes they make electric cars noiser as a safety measure. I am a morning runner and with all the cars parked on the road, I have to use both visual and audio cues a lot to navigate crossings. Electic cars can feel like they are coming out of nowhere around a blind curb. Nothing to do with the drivers but the lack of sound as a cue throws me.

I cycle locally a lot (pretty much every weekend) in good weather. I also cycle to work a few days a week from Spring to early autumn (which is in the City). I'm not a very confident cyclist and prefer back roads or roads with cycle super highways on them. I actually took cycle lessons to increase my confidence a while back and have become more assertive since then but would say I'm pretty defensive (I love my brain and spine as they are and am totally unwilling to take any risks even if I am in the right). When I cycle I am mostly afraid of being hit by a truck or bus. In general I find cars are pretty decent with me (maybe because I am a bit slow and non-aggressive). I might be afraid of buses though because my husband was clipped by one (he?s fine). As a pedestrian, I?ve almost been hit by bikes illegally speeding through pedestrian crossing many times. I have many friends who cycle listening to music which I think is utter madness! LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix, so would it be fair to say your > experience of the roads is mainly as a pedestrian > and user of public transport? > > So I would suggest that your time mixing with > non-pedestrian road users is a small proportion of > your time and you are more likely to be in danger > of being hit by bicycles as you would usually walk > on the pavement and cyclists are most often closer > to the pavement side of the road. Their silent > approach, would I imagine, more often take you by > surprise than the engine of any other vehicle. > > > When you do cycle, are you more afraid of being > hit by a car or a cyclist? Do you cycle to work > or short local journeys? Are you a confident > cyclist? Do you feel able to assert yourself when > cycling amongst aggressive drivers? Do you think > cyclists who are assertive in this way are somehow > arseholes and if not, what would you define as > arseholey behaviour from a cyclist?

DJK- I agree with that. I avoid the round about in my journey in by taking a long loop around it. I'm no where near confident enough as a cyclist to use it as is.

Not sure how that contradicts anything I said. Unless you don't think cyclists can ever behave in a dangerous way, I'm not sure what your point is besides being obnoxious. binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What I think most people mean when they say > > cyclists are dangerous is that they can > > > cause an accident either endangering their own > lives or > > cause an accident between two vehicles (one car > swerving to avoid a reckless cyclists and > > accidentally hitting another car/ bus/ etc). > > > Aha ok now this makes sense! > But still no evidence to support that. Quite the > opposite: > http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casua > lty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases > > Next?

1. I cycle (in fair weather) 2. I walk / use public transport most of the time 3. Hardly ever as I don't own a car LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quick straw poll. > > How many drivers: > > 1. Also cycle > 2. Walk or use public transport for a large > proportion of their journeys > 3. Make most urban journeys by car from their > house to car parks, street parking where they > rarely walk further than 500 meters from where > they park. > > Just to get an idea if how much interaction with > other toad users that motorists on here get > outside of the protective bubble of their vehicle.

I don't do it either and wasn't suggesting you thought it was reckless so sorry if it came across that way. I was saying the media discussion of it didn't contextualise the risk very well. Thanks for letting me know about the case you dealt with. Very, very sad.

What I think most people mean when they say cyclists are dangerous is that they can cause an accident either endangering their own lives or cause an accident between two vehicles (one car swerving to avoid a reckless cyclists and accidentally hitting another car/ bus/ etc). It happens. How often I can't say but my husband who cycles to work every day says he sees a cyclist doing something very reckless multiple times a day. He sees more cars doing things that are dangerous but there are more cars on the road so that makes sense. There are bad road users of every ilk!

Buggie was that a smothering death or SIDS (which are different)? I find the debate on SIDS problematic just like breast feeding. The popular press have a difficult time contextualising the risk. Of nearly 700,000 births, only 300 babies now die of SIDS in this country since the guidelines changed regarding sleeping position. This includes babies that are at greater risk because of smoking parents etc. The risk of SIDS (smothering again is a different matter) is very, very low. If you don't have any of the risk factors its much lower (though more if you co-sleep). UNICEF already take the position that the safest place for a baby is in a cot in the room of the parents (and have had that position for quite some time as its well established). However, they don't believe the risks are great enough to tell parents without other risk factors not to co-sleep and they don't believe this study makes the case strongly enough which may or may not be an accurate assessment. Every baby's death is tragic and parents should be given all the information as we all want to take informed risks. However, co-sleeping isn't a reckless choice.