EDLove

Hi Bobbly Can you give a rough idea of your prices? We need blinds for 3 windows. Two are approximately 106cm in width and 166cm in height. The third is W97cm and H215cm. Thanks! :)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDLove Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Otta Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > EDLove Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > But, as long as the bargain-hunters of East > > > Dulwich can > > > > have a nice chat with the friendly workers > of > > > > Iceland whilst fuelling a demand for > > low-priced > > > > produce, who cares about those farming > > > communities > > > > or ethics...? > > > > > > > > > > > > It's easy to have ethics when you're not on a > > > tight budget. > > > > Mmm, this response seems a bit at odds with > > reports that, despite the economic downturn, > the > > purchase of ethical products (like fair trade) > and > > produce that is locally produced, is actually > on > > the rise. Seems that less money doesn't > > necessarily mean that people are less > considerate. > > > I'm not talking about the people having to tighten > their belts a bit, I'm talking about the people > feeding their family on a shoestring. Seriously? You've decided to respond with an example of abject poverty, rather than the average East Dulwich consumer? Brilliant. It's not unreasonable to suggest that people seriously think about why their milk/bananas/coffee/clothing is so cheap and try to make ethical decisions as a result. Yes, this is likely to be more difficult for those on very tight budgets but it certainly is realistic for the rest of the population. Brand New Guy - The ad was endorsed by the National Farmers Union which also points out that only certain supermarkets have schemes in place that pay a sustainable price to farmers.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDLove Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But, as long as the bargain-hunters of East > Dulwich can > > have a nice chat with the friendly workers of > > Iceland whilst fuelling a demand for low-priced > > produce, who cares about those farming > communities > > or ethics...? > > > > It's easy to have ethics when you're not on a > tight budget. Mmm, this response seems a bit at odds with reports that, despite the economic downturn, the purchase of ethical products (like fair trade) and produce that is locally produced, is actually on the rise. Seems that less money doesn't necessarily mean that people are less considerate.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDLove Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Iceland does some OK stuff. Their milk is > > cheap. > > > > Cheap milk shouldn't be viewed as a positive > > thing; it should be concerning. It certainly is > to > > dairy farmers losing their livelihood. But, as > > long as the bargain-hunters of East Dulwich can > > have a nice chat with the friendly workers of > > Iceland whilst fuelling a demand for low-priced > > produce, who cares about those farming > communities > > or ethics...? > > > > > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/ > > > > 25/observer-view-on-supermarket-prices-dairy-farme > > > rs > > Iceland are unlikely to be getting their milk > cheaper than other ? bigger ? retailers. They're > just happier with a smaller margin at retail. > > And milk production has had less and less to do > with 'farming communities' for some while now. > > By all means criticise the industry, but don't > single out Iceland. Did you read the article? 'The ad puts Marks & Spencer at the top of the league, paying 78p for four pints to farmers for milk that costs 68p to produce. Sainsbury?s pays 72p for four pints while, at the bottom of the league, Lidl, Aldi and Iceland pay 56p to 59p. It?s not enough.' I'm more than happy to criticise the other retailers but this thread is about Iceland...

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Iceland does some OK stuff. Their milk is cheap. Cheap milk shouldn't be viewed as a positive thing; it should be concerning. It certainly is to dairy farmers losing their livelihood. But, as long as the bargain-hunters of East Dulwich can have a nice chat with the friendly workers of Iceland whilst fuelling a demand for low-priced produce, who cares about those farming communities or ethics...? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/observer-view-on-supermarket-prices-dairy-farmers

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The relatively tame foxes you feed are not > entirely typical. DulwichFox is right - it's very unlikely that a fox would attack a cat.

I grew up in the Lake District and used to live in Cartmel.:) It's a picturesque little village with a couple of very good pubs as well as a Michelin starred restaurant, and is within a 15 minute drive of Lake Windermere. It's also close to Grange-over-Sands, with it's long promenade and a fantastic hotel - the Grange Hotel - which is a great place to go for lunch/afternoon tea or dinner: http://www.grange-hotel.co.uk/

JimH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy I agree with you 100% > > Seriously Blah Blah this is a post about an > injured fox in Dulwich so you might want to put > your point across in a different forum > > Try: > > http://vegtalk.org/animal-rights/ > http://www.animalconcerns.org/ Yes, threads must always stay exactly on topic, at all times... Blah Blah didn't start this particular discussion; she responded to a statement from MissMadMoo who, like many other members of the human race, feel justified in killing a creature because they don't like it. Cue boring statement about it being an over-sized/flying/fluffy rat. Whatever that means. There is no measurement for importance of life but, if there were, we're not really making the best case for ourselves. http://elitedaily.com/news/world/this-incredible-animation-perfectly-breaks-down-mans-relationship-with-nature-video/

I also need some glass replaced so it would be great to get feedback on this :)

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I regularly walk all over ED. I have never once > encountered canine faeces and therefore I can only > imagine this is both rare and potentially vulpine. Ah, so you're the guy who keeps walking through dog turd and spreading it further up the pavement? :)

jimbo1964 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I always feel very self conscious if I'm walking > being a woman in situations like this. My usual > tactic is to cross the road and hurry past as fast > as possible. Some men might not be aware that they > seem threatening. The OP did the right thing. > Better to be safe than sorry. This is a good point. It would be great if more people were aware of how (presumably, unintentionally) intimidating they can be when walking close behind another person (normally a woman), especially at night. A considerate person would give a wider berth in these situations.

It's all relative. If you are living in (certain parts of) London, ?40k is not going to make you feel 'wealthy'. More like the squeezed middle. Apparently research carried out using official figures from the Office for National Statistics found that the highest 10% of earners in London receive ?82,000 a year on average, followed by those in the South East who are on ?57,000 and the East of England where they earn about ?52,000. This article is quite interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDLove, > We should not turn a blind eye to the Dulwich > Estate gagging a new local junior school from > talking about the disservice the Dulwich estate > has done to them. > The Dulwich Estate has ensured this new state > funded school has no playground so that the > Dulwich Estate can maximise funding for better > facilities and subsidies to local private fee > paying schools. > > You are right in that the terms of their > references are being strictly followed but those > terms don't mean they have to be so brutal in the > execution of property management. > It is hard to accept that they are being > charitable or working charitably for the greater > good. > > So with respect to this threads title - for the > Judith Kerr state funded school on Half Mood Lane > the Dulwich Estate is indeed a latter day Robin > Hood in reverse. James Barber Wrote: James I have made no comment about a gagging order, other than to note that it doesn't appear to be enforced based on the fact we all now know what it's allegedly attempting to conceal. My point is in relation to the Estate's freedom to choose how it allocates its resources in accordance with its own charitable purposes. Just because you feel that a playground is more deserving, does not mean that the Estate is not acting appropriately or within the legal definition of 'charity'. The school didn't have to choose this site and presumably knew about the available space before signing on the dotted line.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi P68, nxjen, EDLove, > So you think it morally acceptable to ensure state > school kids don't have a playground so that bigger > subsidies can be given to private schools? Hi James Morality is not the issue. I just don't think it's our place to cast aspersions on a charity when it opts to allocate its funds or resources to furthering its own charitable functions and not to a cause that you felt to be more deserving.

.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so that they could build houses that will be used > to subsidise local private school more. > > Interesting to see a local councillor not wanting > more housing locally - the Estates job as far as > administering the charitable donation is to fund > their (not other people's) education delivery - > including offering bursaries to allow a wider > range of chidren to benefit (so not quite the > spirit implied by 'local private school') - you > don't like private education - that's your > (political) right of course, but to suggest that > the Trust isn't acting properly because they > aren't following your political prejudices is > unhelpful - it's like being a Wee Free and > complaining (and suggesting they are acting > unethically) because the local Catholic Church > isn't giving land for your church to be built on. Completely agree Penguin. There seems to be a weird presumption that certain charities should curtail their own activities for the benefit of separate groups. Would this be expected of other charities or is it just that private schools are considered to be a fair target? If there's a gagging order, why do we know about it? ... Uh oh, who breached the gagging order? :p

bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I understand it bright children, statistically, > do better at state schools. I can only assume that > the motivation in sending children to private > school is either social or an assumption by > parents that their kids are perhaps not bright > enough. Parents send their children to private school for many reasons - because of the proven high grades, because of the extra-curricular activities, the smaller classes and more personal tuition, some because it's the nearest good school, some because they need boarding facilities etc. > I went to Oxbridge from a state comp (one of, I > think, 45 in my intake year eligible for free > school meals) and my impression is (and remains) > that a private school education gives children a > sense of expectation and feeling of desert. which > means, I think, that it is easier to succeed. Oxford or Cambridge? I guess both these universities offer good grades, can breed expectation and enable students to mix with a certain social crowd.... like a lot of private schools? If you feel that private education means that it is easier to succeed then is it a bad thing that parents would want this for their children? > In my day my sense is that there were other, > intellectual opportunities and challenges afforded > to people at independent schools but I really > don't see that now. my daughter, at a local state > school has, in her first few weeks at secondary > school been challenged to think and experiment > intellectually, has spent a full day at Imperial > College doing maths with academics andhas been > offered, in my opinion a world of expectation I > never had. But someone of your daughter's age at a private school didn't have a productive/interesting first few weeks too? Glad to see that expectation is now a positive thing though :p > She's also mixing with an extraordinarily wide > range of people - some clever, some not so much, > some evidently wealthy some not so and they're on > an equal footing and engaging in the world and I'm > thrilled for her and, honestly, I don't think she > could get that at an independent. > (Edited for terrible typos) Which would be the same in a lot of private schools. Being wealthy does not make your child clever and sending your child to private school does not mean that you are wealthy - some parents choose to prioritise school fees, and of course there are thousands of bursaries every year. Also, just because it is a state school doesnt mean that you are going to find a wide range of people attending. A lot of state schools will be filled with the children of parents who have managed to buy their way in to a desirable location.

> stephent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They do save the state from having to pay for > the > > 8% of pupils that attend, plus bring in > overseas > > investment for foreign pupils, etc. There are > > certainly some negatives too, but it's not as > > black and white as you make out. Agree with stephent. Independent schools do give a lot back to the UK. One report from this year states that this includes: - An annual contribution to GDP of ?9.5 billion ? larger than the City of Liverpool, or the BBC - More than 227,000 FTE jobs in Britain supported by ISC (Independent Schools Council) schools ? one for every two ISC pupils - More than ?3.6 billion in tax revenues flowing into the Exchequer each year - Annual savings for the taxpayer of ?3.0 billion ? equivalent to building more than 460 new free schools every year - (because approximately 470,000 children who are entitled to state education do not take it up). - The ISC's annual census for 2013 also states that the value of means-tested bursaries for almost 40,000 children exceeds ?300 million annually.

Miacis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We could afford to go private. We have chosen not > to. > > I abhor private schools. They perpetuate privilege > and inequality of opportunity which is bad for > everyone in our community rich and poor. Every > child has the right to a great education. Many of > our state schools provide this, all should. Is this view of private schools based on your own experience, having gone to one? The private schools I know of are actually very community-minded and actively encourage students to become involved in charity/volunteer work (whether in the UK or abroad). It would be incredibly difficult to go through private school without having been part of some philanthropic activity. And, of course, there are thousands upon thousands of privately educated individuals who continue to be the largest contributors to charity. 'Inequality of opportunity' seems an odd reason not to send your children to private school. You could agrue that simply by living in Dulwich, London, the UK, Europe you are also perpetuating inequality of opportunity. You are fortunate that you are able to afford to live in an area which offers good state schools - many don't have this opportunity.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do find it illogical that those who are anti-EU > (such as Tory backbenchers) are also > anti-independence. It doesn't show coherant > thinking. Surely self-determination is their > backbone. > > The same arguments hold true. > > Being governed by a remote, relatively-unelected > group of bureaucrats that are culturally elite and > out-of-touch. > > That argument, right or wrong, is the same for > both those wanting to leave Brussels as it is for > the Scots wanting to leave Westminster. You could also ask why the SNP is so intent on rejoining the EU...

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's a good idea (and in no way comparable > with Isis banning music and dance...??). > > That's your opinion - as it is the Taliban's and > ISIS's about music and dance. You want to ban > different things than them, but you want to ban > stuff that you don't like. So do they. And they > have their god on their side, you just have your > own prejudices. Does personal belief trump god? > Many would think not. Wow, this is massively excessive. I'd rather not get in to unnecessary arguments about God and belief save to note that you presume that my 'personal belief' isn't also supported by a God. Rather, in your opinion, it's a prejudice. I'm not sure why you feel able to determine that a belief that you don't think is religiously supported should be described as such, but can only presume that it is your own prejudices. In any event, even if there is no mass-recognised God supporting my personal beliefs, why do you feel that this makes them any less valid ('they have god on their side, you just have your own prejudices')? I'm not even sure if you can reasonably argue that the beliefs on music and dance held by Isis are religiously supported - or can you? No, I wouldn't presume that a belief (whether backed by religion or not) would 'trump' another belief unless reason dictates that it should. Just because the Bible condones killing of children doesn't mean that it trumps my personal belief, even if, as you say, many people think it should. You can quite clearly see that I am not supporting a ban because 'I don't like it' but because of the proven damage the things cause. Would you take the same view (and compare people to the Taliban) if they were requesting that smoking, for example, be banned from certain places? In any event, this is not a ban on all bags, just the ones that bugger up the planet.

Many French supermarkets already don't offer plastic bags - it does become habit to bring a bag if you can't rely on the option of purchasing one. The result for France: between 2002 and 2011, the number of plastic bags passed out in supermarkets dropped to 700 million from 10.5 billion. As a result, they are moving to ban all plastic bags from supermarkets as of 2016. I think it's a good idea (and in no way comparable with Isis banning music and dance...??). If it's damaging the environment, our health, etc then it's right that steps are taken to reduce and eventually ban. http://www.dw.de/french-government-bans-plastic-bags-from-supermarkets/a-17738789 I think America is cottoning on too... http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2014/update122 The America article also briefly discusses the many ways in which plastic bags are sh*t. Ban them.