DuncanW

It depends how you interpret those data, of course. The BMJ article, or at least what I saw on the front page says that state educated students do better at medical school. I think it's widely understood that state educated kids as a cohort need to be more talented and work harder to achieve the same results as peers at private schools. So state educated students will often accelerate beyond the private ones in higher education assuming identical levels of attainment on leaving school. That supports the view that private schools do offer an advantage. I would say it also supports the view that many top HE institutions have: that they should skew their admittance processes in favour of state to compensate for that. The Cambridge Uni bit says that 70% of entrants this year will be from state, leaving 30% coming from private. 7% of UK kids go to private schools, so that could be read as students are over four times as likely to go to Cambridge if they went to a private school. That stat on its own is only informative to an extent. It would be really interesting to know how many of the state educated entrants went to grammar or super-selective type schools, which we don't have locally and in my view are at least as problematic as the private system. And therefore, what percentage will be coming from state, comprehensive education? I'm not saying this in support of Private as a system, but I'm not sure those sources dispel the view that private schools offer some level of academic advantage.

You're right in as much as the driver of the Golf was within their legal rights to move the bin and park their car there. But we are in a sorry state if that really is the only yardstick by which we measure our behaviour. Sue, I hope that matter was resolved and the work was undertaken.

Hi Sue, That's annoying. As you know on Fridays people park in Ulverscroft for the Mosque on NCR - have you tried contacting them yet?

I don't have a major issue with there being more homes/flats there than the current situation, but the original block is looking a bit tired already - how does it work just 'dumping' another two stories on top of that building?? I'm sure it's possible, but it doesn't seem like the blueprint for a great development. BTW - what's happening about the Barry Parade development? IT looks like planning permission was granted a while back?

There is no case for it. It's a travesty, and the available sanctions should be used against clubs and players who participate. The Premier League would be diminished greatly without those clubs, so hopefully they will see sense, but the game is bigger than any one club (or even six).

So is the question: does the Mayor have power to do stuff? Or is it: why does the Mayor use the power he has to do stuff I don?t like? If it?s the latter, London has the opportunity to vote him out in a few weeks. Although we all know that?s extremely unlikely to happen.

tedfudge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But they are still a danger to themselves and > others regardless of how many people they kill .. Sure, to some extent you can find danger wherever you look for it. But to what extent with cyclists? The annual number of fatalaties caused by drivers of motor vehicles is around 1750 with around 400 of those being pedestrians. (I refer back to fatalaties as that is the stat least open to manipulation) Yet I don't read endless, monotonous diatribes on here (or elsewhere) about irresponsible motor vehicle drivers. Why is that? I would genuinely be interested to know...

? it's not just motorists who are a danger to cyclists as cyclists can be just as dangerous to themselves? I don?t think the data bear that out. Around 100 cyclists are killed every year in the UK. Statistically, a cyclist kills 1 pedestrian every couple of years. That doesn?t excuse the behaviour of some cyclists, but a cyclist disobeying the Highway Code is unlikely to result in the death of another road user. Thankfully.

Ted, Some reasonable points in there, but as Malumbu pointed out, they would go back to Nigeria, where they originate from, not the modern day nation of Benin. Also, it's an objective fact that the bronzes were stolen/looted buy us in the colonial era - generally speaking you can't steal someone else's property and then just say "I can look after it better than you, anyway..." I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of that kind of logic. It also falls down with the knowledge that Nigeria have c50 of the bronzes in domestic museum collections. They haven't been stolen.

:)

Where would you send the Benin Bronzes back to? malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just a sign that conservative middle England > couldn't give a toss about the above, and save > their rage for those daring to question the > appropriateness of statues to slave traders, or > returning stolen treasures. > > Send them all back - Benin bronzes, Parthenon > Marbles etc etc.

Ted, Like you (I think) I am of White British heritage. I don't think anyone is trying to blame me for the actions of those who came all those years before me for the slave trade. But I recognise it is a huge is part of the historical context and legacy which creates the disparities we live with today; disparities that I benefit from. The transatlantic slave trade was horrific and resulted in c17,000,000 deaths according to the UN. The disparities that separate our communities today are really significant and start at the beginning of life's journey and continue through education, healthcare, employment opportunities and obviously, the criminal justice system. With that in mind, we are asked not to use a few specific words, most notably the N word. Not only when used as an insult or a term of abuse, but also when quoting someone who has done so to critisise them, not singing along to your favourite 90's rap record and not quoting dialogue from films, not ever. And whilst you may not fully agree with rationale behind that, just ask yourself is it really that big a thing to ask? I would ask the same question about the removal of staues of slave-traders. Thank you for reading,

Soylent Green Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DuncanW Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Soylent, I'm not certain that's right. > > > > If you have two kids or more and at the time > your > > eldest is applying for secondary schools, they > > can't get a local school because other families > > have moved into the area to get their eldest > in, > > and then moved out and the younger ones are > > getting sibling priority, would that not be a > > disadvantage? > > > I think you are over-imagining the number of > people who move out of an area once they have one > child in secondary. In my experience of having had > two children go through secondary school, > relatively few people move away at this stage. > Who wants their 11 or 12 year old, who is just > getting to grips with commuting and having the > independence to meet up with friends at weekends > or after school travelling long and complicated > journeys between home and school and friends and > home? > > The reason for number of applications exceeding > number of places is simply because there are a > very large number of junior school age in this > area. Most local primaries have either expanded > or had bulge years and people are less likely > nowadays to move out of London for the Kent > grammars. If you add up the number of local year > 6 classes you will see how the supply exceeds > demand. Starting closest to CED; GG 2, DKH 2, St > Johns 2, Bessemer 3, Heber 2, Goodrich 3, > Bellenden 2, Lyndhurst 2, St Anthony's 2. That's > without bulge classes or including Herne Hill, > Nunhead or Dulwich schools. Already you are over > 500 pupils chasing how few places? Sadly, we know > this bulge is already in decline - primary schools > are not filling their reception classes any more - > which means there is no argument for building any > more secondary schools. Sorry that this is such a > depressing state of affairs, but you are just > wasting sweat if you think the sibling policy is > to blame here. It's not. That's a bit of a mischaracterisation of what I was saying. I didn't make any comment about the scale of the issue other than saying that I had no idea about that. My point was not about the scale of the problem, but simply that when it does happen by design (gaming) it's unfair, and when it happens by circumstance, allowing sibling priority is probably still not the most equitable way to distribute places at over-subscribed schools. I share your view that long schoool journeys and all that comes with it are not ideal, but plenty of people do it. Just look at the local independent schools, and you may have seen another thread in this section created by someone who wants to send their child to school in Dulwich whilst living in Greenwich. If people will pay ?XXX for the privilege of sending their kids to schools far from where they live, you will likely find some that would do it without paying fees for the school of their liking. You're right about the current demand outstripping supply being temporary etc, but for me that has little bearing on whether or not to try to make the system more equitable. It's certainly done in some other London boroughs.

Even counting acting...

Are you sugesting that 'schools' is merely code for immigrants?

Are you sugesting that 'schools' is merely code for immigrants?

Current polling puts Khan on 53% and Sean Bailey on 28%, so that's a fairly safe bet - if you could find someone to take it!! Bailey is a spectacularly weak candidate. It's hard to conceive that the Conservatives couldn't have found someone more credible. I don't buy that he's a patsy though, in that he's been deliberately set up to fail. Labour don't have much to cling on to right now, but a centre-left mayor of London winning a landslide second term is something to celebrate and a beacon for what Labour needs to be to regain it's standing nationally. I am sure the Tories would rather win London if they could. So why Bailey? Difficult to answer, but maybe: No-one else really fancied it CHQ liked the idea of a black candidate Fundamental lack of due dilligence

Current polling puts Khan on 53% and Sean Bailey on 28%, so that's a fairly safe bet - if you could find someone to take it!! Bailey is a spectacularly weak candidate. It's hard to conceive that the Conservatives couldn't have found someone more credible. I don't buy that he's a patsy though, in that he's been deliberately set up to fail. Labour don't have much to cling on to right now, but a centre-left mayor of London winning a landslide second term is something to celebrate and a beacon for what Labour needs to be to regain it's standing nationally. I am sure the Tories would rather win London if they could. So why Bailey? Difficult to answer, but maybe: No-one else really fancied it CHQ liked the idea of a black candidate Fundamental lack of due dilligence

Is it possible we could have a few more threads on this subject? I think there are only about eight separate ones currently. Could we at least aim for double figures??

Cat, I don't think the lies that Boris Johnson has told and those that Nicoloa Sturgeon has been accused of are on anything like the same scale. Boris's lies have been fundamental whoppers. He has been dismissed from two journalism jobs for lying, and once as a shadow mininister. He has told inmumerable bare-faced lies whilst campaigning and in office, the most famous being the ?350M for the NHS. It is clear that he is deceitful in his personal life too - and indeed this has crossed over into his political life as when he was sacked by Michael Howard. The accusations against Nicola Sturgeon seem to be of a more technical nature. Did she know about the allegations (now legally disproven) against Alec Salmond on Mar 29th or April 2nd - was a phone call between the two recorded as government or party business, etc. FYI - I would fall into the Labour/Remain camp - but on that basis, have no particular candle for SNP politicians - I would also like the UK to remain intact, but at this stage - who can blame them for wanting to go their own way?

Bermondsey to Dulwich is walkable in an hour and a half

Hey there, that's a great age to get involved in football. I can recommend Athenlay - I help coach one of the older teams there. Based near to Harris Girls behind Peckham Rye, it's a relaxed and friendly club that has walk-in availability for players his age - you would need to register with the club but not commit. They start with teams/matches at Y4 - Under 9s - at that point, the teams start playing every Sunday during the season which is normally September to April. There are other local clubs such as Dulwich Village and Hillyfielders (Honor Oak) but I am not sre that any will offer *occasional* matches once the teams are up and running. Grass roots football is allowed again from Mon 29th March - the following weekend is Easter so it will be the next weekend (Sat 10/4) when it reopens.

Priti Patel was a longstanding advocate on reinstating the death penalty. She changed her public position, and would have been under pressure to do so as her political career progressed but who knows what she really thinks about this.

I think that's pretty much it. It wasnt a Death on the Rock style execution. In the heat of the moment, they thought he was a threat. Cressida Dick was in operational command and I believe gave the green light to use fatal force, but she made that decision on the basis of poor intel that was given to her. - I think.

I don't think JCdM was murder. It was a mistake caused by incompetence and the fact that one of the surveillance officers went off to take a leak and got confused about who he was watching. After they realised what a cock-up it was, they tried to cover it up by lying and saying he jumped the barriers and was acting suspiciously, when the CCTV recordings clearly demonstrated that to be false.