Blah Blah

'I've had friends that have gone into it 50/50 and are great fathers.' You miss the point Loz. Most men do not go 50/50 with the mother on all aspects of childcare. And until that changes, men can't expect to be seen as equal in effort to women. Add to that, that 92% of single parent families are women too. That's a lot of women doing most of the work when it comes to children. And you don't have to be 50/50 on all that stuff to be a great father either. What do you guys want? All men to share childcare equally so that we as a gender can be recognised on equal footing? 'From a feminist perspective, what I've seem in my own adult life is that whenever women take on jobs formerly done exclusively by men, the job itself appears to be devalued by association. When men take on jobs traditionally done by women, it takes a lot longer for the perception of the role to change in the other direction. Either that or it's assumed more readily that it's a step to something better or only temporary.' This is true RPC, hence the quote from Charlotte Witton 'Whatever women do, they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good.' There is still a helluva lot of sexism out there, especially in corporate environments and private mens clubs, the city etc. Public schools are a great example of that, where boys schools like Eton and Harrow are hailed, but most people couldn't even name one public school for girls. And that world of privilege (which btw pervades our legal system, the tory party, the establishment etc) is a deeply sexist culture - which explains a lot, when lack of advancement of women in certain circles is concerned. Labour have been active in trying to redress the balance in their own party at least, for a while (remember Blair's babes?) and Harriet Harman has been at the forefront of that. So it's no suprise to me that she stills speaks out to the female vote for the Labour party.

Quite Otta. And I have known guys who do nothing. In some ways it's about getting your hands dirty. Changing nappies is not a pleasant thing to do, but mums have to do it. Gone are the days where someone could stay at home all day whilst the other worked. It takes two salaries to pay for a household, and that's hard work, esp for mothers.

I think Loz, that article is more a reflection of how employers treat employees these days (especially ones not protected by a union) than his reason for absence. I think he may have a good case for tribunal who I am sure would decide his absence was more than reasonable.

Do you/ have you guys changed nappies? Got the kids up, dressed them, dropped them off to school, washed all their clothes, cleaned the house, cooked their dinner, bathed them before bed AND gone to work, every day for five years? Because that's what my wife did. I helped some days, but I wasn't doing it every day. So no way would I even claim that I'm underappreciated as a father. I'd argue the opposite to be honest.

I don't think it's about definition RPC but an eveolved recognition of the role women play in raising children. When men start changing nappies, cleaning the house, AND keep a full time job going, then we'll see different stats. Men are as guilty for the traditional roles they play, as women are for theirs. Perhaps try looking for stats on how many children of single parents live with their fathers? Men still on the whole play a complimentary role, not the foremost role in raising children. There ya go....92% of all single parents are female. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2011/sum-lone-parents.html

You say that Louisa but I think apathy towards both parties and politics is general is more at play, as we reach the end of 30 year process of free market economy. People in general are poorer, not richer. People in general work harder and have less to show for it. And people in general see both the Tories AND Labour as responsible for getting us there. If people really are influenced by the colour of a bus or the face Miliband pulls when he eats a bacon sandwich then it says more about how we relate to politicians than what we think about policy. And the media are culprits in it all. Take for example one policy in Labours election manifesto. They are going to raise the minimum wage to ?8 per hour. That will save the country billions from the working tax credits and housing benefit that other tax payers have to provide to subsidise low wages. The opposers would be able to make equally valid points on the impact on small business of that. There's an interesting debate to be had there from both sides of the fence. But we are not seeing the media deliver that debate to us. Instead all we get is cheap mockery, unless you are Nigel Farage that is, and soundbites. Where's the detail?

Are you seriously saying people will change who they vote for because of the colour of a bus? That's like saying I don't vote Tory because I hate the colour blue! Sex may sell but it's hardly the same as a pink hairdyer, or pink pen is it? There does seem to be a tendancy for the media to jump on any little inconsequntial thing it can (usually to do with image) when what it should really be focussing on is policy. So I prefer to hear the message from the bus, than be influeced by it's colour and what kind of tables it has inside.

I'm guessing it's mostly men posting above? Lot's of manufacturers make things in pink aimed at women, and you know what? It sells! I don't think women are bothered by this at all. My wife certainly isn't. A pink bus does stand out though, and if you are trying to grab attention, that's the way to do it. No such thing as bad publicity and all that. In reply to your point RPC about women and childcare etc, whether we like it or not it is still predominently women who cook, clean, and bring up children. London may be full of metrosexual modern men but that isn't anywhere being the norm nationally. By your own comments, 80% of women still do have children and 35% of them are not married (so single mums in there too). Childcare is a major issue for women wanting to return to work, so why wouldn't politicians go after something that affects so many women? Children do not impose on us men, or our careers in anything like the same way. Politicians are simply recognising that.

Sadly JohnL we have no answer for those with mental health issues, and the dispossessed, except 'not on my doorstep'.

What do you expect? We have a government in power voted for by a minority and they've been bulldozing just about every ideology they possess through. Never has been anything democratic about our electoral system.

Yep, saw a car overtake three cars observing the 20mpr speed limit on Nunhead Lane today. An accident waiting to happen.

Tax is though an important issue for Greece. But how do you impose a system that has never really exisited when people are prepared to riot in the streets?

How can they target cyclists anyway. Cyclists have no way of knowing if they are breaking a speed limit, because DUH they are not required to have on board speedometres. I would have thought that to be blatently obvious.

And did your world stop turning?

So why waste money on consultation then? If it was never going to affect any decision.

lol thanks for that help-ma-boab. I see there's a pattern here :D

Don't think it matters who controls the council to be honest. The process, or rather lack of process is the same. We were promised free gym and swimming as an election promise for ALL southwark residents by the current labour council. But it was a lie. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1890/the_scoop_on_southwark_s_free_swim_and_gym_pilot

If there's a genine problem yes, but again I come back to this being the park we are talking about, where most people exercise common sense, BECAUSE it's a shared space.

So the council consulted with hardly anyone, ignored seven objections, to two for, including an objection by the Police! I never saw a more blatent example of a council cabinet committee pushing through personal agenda over consultation. Disgraceful.

But that's why bicycles have brakes Lee. I just don't think it's going to be the problem you think it is and that's my view. Cycles hitting pedestrians are rare and that is fact too. Here's a case in point. The path that runs accross the park in front of the cafe often has cyclists going along it and on the downhill section you can pick up quite a speed. But cycles DO slow down if they are approaching children, dogs, people. There's a lot of common sense out there and there's no reason to think the same common sense won't be used on the new path.

Did the 20mpr thing really get passed on the back of just 9 replies to a consultation? How many people live in Southwark and use the roads? I'm speechless!

And there were none in 2009. In the last ten years there have been just 19 pedestrian fatalities at the wheels of cyclists. So that averages at 1.9 per year. Sorry Jeremy, but the stats just don't back up any fears about cyclists and danger.

Mako does make an interesting point though. A road that previously had no accidents can't be improved by a reduced limit data wise. It could then also be argued that if an accident were to then happen that the road had been made less safe. The only part of data that is irrefutable is the damage and injury done at 30mpr cpmared to 20mpr. Everything else is based on data that doesn't apply to most stretches of road.

Dang!

Well I am fairly new but I love the fox and hate fox hunting. Does that get me into the in group?