Meg1001

I wonder if you could get a basement car park in there... If that was the case, and the site is a good 22000 sq ft, basement car park, supermarket on the ground floor and 2, possibly 3 levels of flats. Easily recoup the land cost (?5 million) and building cost, ?15-18 million. Completely ill-sited and ill-suited for a school.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some of the non-sensical drivel written by Meg > 1001 on this thread makes me think that > (apparently) there might be more brains contained > in one of the pork pies on sale in his/her yearned > for Waitrose supermarket !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! A well thought out, educated, fact heavy and reasoned response as ever. Nice to know having a pop isn't your only motivation in life!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh the communist satellite states of the Soviet Union! If only I'd come up with such a hyperbolic response!

Loz Wrote: > > Well, yes, but the theory is that private > enterprise efficiencies can do the job at less > cost to the taxpayer and still turn a profit for > the companies involved. > > As an extreme example, the government could set up > a factory and make its own photocopiers. Or it > can buy them cheaper from Xerox, save the > taxpayers money and the company still make a > healthy profit. Will let Electricity/Gas/Water/Rail/Private Landlords know...

And all profits complete their virtuous circle back to their source? Put your thinking cap on and maybe we can have a debate...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > horrid old profit eh, ...pays for teachers, > nurses, doctors, roads, hospitals and stuff....we > should do away with it There are some things money can't buy. Some problems, which can't be solved by throwing money at them. With a username that's '????' I don't expect you to realise this. I will leave it to others on this forum to make up their own minds on this. Merry Christmas! You do realise that a private company EXTRACTS profits from the taxpayer though right?

> > God forbid we teach kids to be enterprisng and to > understand business, what good is that in the > modern world...let's fill them with chippy, vague > socialism maybe Because everyone wants a business minded cardiologist or an enterprising teacher, quick to turn a profit, don't they?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Meg101, > The Harris Federation is a charity. It's assets > can't be sold to private bodies UNLESS they can > prove they are meeting their charitable aims of > providing education. > - Which is the privatization of the education system by another means. BUPA for example is a company limited by guarantee, it doesn't mean it doesn't behave in exactly the same way as other companies. If you're against free school providers for some > reason then say so but please don't state > something that legally can not happen about one of > them. I've stated my opposition clearly already, nor have I said anything that isn't a possibility in the future. > > The 2011 act actually makes it easier than the > previous Tony Blair education act for local > councils to open state schools. It should be even > easier but it isn't. Both left and right > politicians have been against local councils doing > this. - Yes, I have said this and I oppose it. I talked specifically about 'Free' schools. - what is your point? So the most realistic route to provide state > school places is via the free school/ academy > route. It is the route we are coerced into accepting. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/25/education-harris-academies-curriculum http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/09/harris-academy-education-news-in-http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/10/primary-school-parents-row-takeover-academy Southwark Council now recognises this and > is supporting Dulwich Hamlet opening a free school > on the old Bellenden School site. > > All the funding for these free schools comes from > central government. Then it's a great deal for Harris isn't it? James I would like an apology from you for comments that you made that clearly and deliberately misrepresented my views and in doing so, impugned my integrity. You should retract them immediately.

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah Meg, why do you hate children? > > And don't forget this: "The Harris Federation have > agreed a vision of creating primary schools in > East Dulwich that will be in the top 10% for > England and Wales for attainment and > progression." > > That's a nailed-on clincher. > > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > And without new primary schools many children > will > > have no school places in the area. I'm > incredulous > > that you think this acceptable or that children > > should would be able to go shopping but not have > a > > school place. Ha! Ted Max... James, I am not 'worng'. It's disreputable for James Barber to assign to me view that I think it acceptable for school children not to have a place when my objection was explicitly towards the whole concept of Harris backed 'Free' schools. A school, that in all likelihood, in the future will be turned over to a private for-profit making company. What is wrong with state school? Where is the evidence from Sweden and other countries that 'Free' schools actually raise attainment? When people are offered the choice between a Harris backed free school (which govt is heavily pushing) and a community school which do they prefer? Why does Education Act 2011 state that 'Local Authorities that need to create a new school must in most circumstances seek proposals for an Academy or Free School. They can only propose a traditional community school if no suitable free school or academy proposal is proposed.' Why the coercion if they are so great? And yes, I do find the whole concept of them more insidious then a supermarket. Also, if the Dulwich Hamlet aren't a big corporation, I wouldn't think they'd have the money to buy the site would you? Unless of course the Harris Federation...

These so called 'Free' schools, which are basically corporate (lets learn Business and Enterprise kids!) and are essentially backed by the boss of Carpetright give me the creeps. We would have been better off with a Waitrose, less insidious all round.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Flats. End of. You're probably right. Although they might go for a mixed-development, new homes and retail (jobs) would seem like a winner. Not sure how residents of LL would feel though. A bit like this this one in Guildford? http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2012/11/08/waitrose-store-and-flats-plan-in-guildford-approved/

Has anyone checked out the brochure and planning guidance document on the sale of ED Police Station? http://search.knightfrank.co.uk/krd131892 Brochure: http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/public/fetch/5490 http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/view/east Password: dulwich http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/public/private_view/318 Planning Guidance: http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/public/fetch/5699 Apparently the deadline for bids was 25th Oct and bids are now being considered by the MPS. Looks like housing is the preferred option but I hope Waitrose made a bid!

With the imminent closure of ED police station, just sounding out how much support they'd be for a Waitrose. Personally I think a Waitrose on the ground level with apartments on the top two levels would be a positive development for Lordship Lane.