DuncanW

I think everyone agrees with that. But maybe the budget could be spent on facilities and enforcement.

The Standard is running a story/campaign to ?name and shame? restaurants that use the tronc system as a way of keeping hold of their staff?s tips. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/seven-more-chains-named-in-tipping-row-including-masala-zone-polpo-and-mango-tree-a2949421.html Essentially the restaurant keeps hold of the service charge, or less commonly voluntary tip, and claims that it all goes to the staff. This is nominally true but that includes dividing it up between all staff including head-office and management, and also using it to make up the minimum wage of the serving staff; some even hold money back to meet minimum wage for staff during quieter times when tips are less forthcomimg. This is very different from my intent when I pay this amount in addition the actual bill. I would like and expect the money to go directly to the person or team that served me as thank-you for good service. If there was a genuine tip-sharing scheme so the one doing the washing up gets a share even though I don?t see them, I?d be absolutely fine with that. But what these restaurants are doing is entirely different from that. I wonder which restaurants/pubs in ED and Peckham give 100% tips to the serving staff on the night. If any wish to state publicly that they do, I would certainly be more inclined to use those establishments, and I?m sure I wouldn?t be the only one.

Probably not much has changed since you asked the same question back in April. The potential for change between now and when a currently pre-school child hits the secondary schools on the other hand is huge. Thankfully most of the schools round here, both primary and secondary are pretty good, but that wasn't the case ten years ago.

Great news! Honest burger is great!!

Le Beat Route but not The Wag - how does that work??

I think the ever-wonderful Ms Garret sums it up nicely at the end of the article: "For every big venue that is closing, I suspect that somewhere a new underground night is beginning. Just don?t ask me where, because I?m too old and out of touch to know. Which is exactly how it should be."

Had a successful visit to Fabulous Ice Fires on Saturday morning, and their ice-cream and sorbet is pretty amazing, it has to be said.

My understanding is the exact parcel of land has yet to be allocated, so they wouldn't be ready to make those decisions as yet. That said, the vehicular entrance (staff car park?) and the pupil entrance need not be at the same point.

On that point, would people not need to live in the near vicinity to object to the planning approval? And those that do live near the school aren't likely to object on those grounds. I don't have much planning experience/knowledge, but is that not how it works?

I would inform the police immediately, that's a serious criminal matter

Tried to go to Fabulous Ice Fires today with my kids. It was shut which was a bit disappointing as I had promised them ice-creams. I took them to the pub next door instead.

erm, and The Foresters and The Uplands?? None of these pubs were war-zones or anything but they had their moments... Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Lord Palmerston was never rough in my opinion. > I didn't particularly like it, but it wasn't what > I'd call rough. > > Only pubs I remember having a bit of a bad rep > back in the 90s were The Castle and The Mag.

I don't think anyone is saying Kids Co is the only answer but I think you are right about Founder Syndrome. I don't have any inside knowledge but it looks like an organisation that would be bankrupt and therefore would cease to exist were it not for this money. And the Govt obviously want there to be someone in charge of governance who they can have more confidence in.

erm yeah, but isn't that what this article is getting at?

I found that quite funny...

As I understand it, that is exactly who they will be using from now on...

Re: the Dolls House in Peckham. Apparently they have switched security firms due to the feedback

Sorry ZT - I, and possibly others having read your post, hadn't understood that you had to leap out of the way to avoid this collision. From what I had read, a six year old child had come a bit to close to you on his/her scooter which prompted you to swear at the mother. She then offended you further by addressing you in RP. Wasn't there myself obvs, just going on what you wrote...

I'd always understood that smokers were a net burden on the state. This is the first thing I found on the net so don't consider it definitive proof, nonetheless illustrating the point. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7463690/Every-cigarette-smoked-costs-taxpayer-6.5p-think-tank-warns.html *Research conducted by Policy Exchange found found that while tax on tobacco raised ?10 billion a year for the Treasury, the annual cost of healthcare and other consequences of smoking totalled ?13.74 billion* Back on the subject of pubs, they are businesses that cater for what's wanted by the market. If there were that many people who'd actually spend much money in the that sort of place (no kids, plenty of smoking and swearing), some entrepreneurial soul(s) would open one up. But clearly the reverse is true. Pubs like that struggle to stay in business whereas the more modern version with a decent quality food offer, seems like a licence to print money when delivered properly.

"When SPACE Southwark were set up, the nodal point's location was never decided because the chosen provider would need to consult and listen to the community, as Charter are now doing. SPACE (who remember initiated the secondary school campaign) has always been about representing the community, and it was felt that a nodal point to the East, along with a second nodal point on the school might have been the fairest way of doing it, but the decision around admissions would always have been made by the provider after consultation." I had understood from the above in your OP that SPACE was in favour of moving the nodal point eastwards. And that SPACE is an organised group. What am I missing?

Trine - you began this thread with a call for unity. Then you set out your own stall and lay into those individuals or groups that don't agree with you. That doesn't make sense to me. You don't seem to have a problem with organised groups who have shown favour towards the eastern nodal point, but schools and councilors who are trying to promote the cause of their own local community make you feel sick. How perplexing?

I am against the nodal point proposal and agree strongly with NiceToMeetYou and London Mix?s posts. For the record, like LondonMix I live in a location whereby I think my children would gain admission either way so am not speaking from vested interest. I really do understand the concern and frustration that parents like Cola Bottle experience and it?s a big worry to think that your kids may not get into a school of one?s choice or one that is near to your home. But places at CSED will be finite, so surely if the nodal point system gives a child at that end of Friern Road a place, would that not be at the expense of a child who lives nearer to the school, but in the wrong direction? How would that be fair to that child? To be fair, I don?t believe the pro nodal point argument is driven by class. People just want the best for their own kids and there?s nothing wrong with that. But there is a strong link to class and to argue otherwise by suggesting ED and Camberwell & Peckham have a similar mix of demographics seems way off the mark to me. The problem is that middle-class parents are typically more engaged and active in campaigns such as this and make their arguments more skilfully. That?s fair enough, but should not mean their children get priority access to popular schools over children whose parents are not as articulate and engaged, don?t have a background in statistical analysis or policy research, don?t speak English that well, or who didn?t sign up for the campaign ? which I hadn?t realised conferred some sort of privileged stakeholder status/entitlement to a place, did I get that wrong?

James, my point was that there has been a move towards gentrification and corresponding shift in demographic. YOu're not arguing that's not the case surely?

Sorry Jeremy - I agree with you and was making the same argument in response to something Uncle Glen had said further up he thread. Not very clearly perhaps...

If the main factor in London returning more Labour MPs is self-interest then please could you explain this to me: Our corner of se London has seen significant gentrification over the last 5-10 years, so one would assume a demographic shift in the electorate towards the better off. Yet Camberwell & Peckham, and Dulwich & West Norwood returned Labour MPs with an increased share of the vote and Bermondsey and Old Southwark voted in a new Labour MP. How does that work?