dc

My daughter's in her first year there and I have nothing but praise for the school. Tillie Trotter - are you sure you son's not pulling the wool? - my daughter seems to get tons of homework! I also really like the ethos of the school, epitomised for me by their fundraiser with Jenny Eclair last week where a large part of the money raised will go to their link school in Ghana. Seeing what last years' fundraiser - followed up by a visit from some of the Charter staff and a group of sixth formers - had contributed on the ground (solar panels inter alia) at this school in rural Ghana was really quite inspiring.

Jaflong is a Bangladeshi beauty spot 'rolling hills' etc - which would appear to confirm that the style is likely to be simlar to that already available on Lordship Lane.

Huge swathes of East Dulwich - and the Village - are already in 20mph zones so it shouldn't make too much difference. I imagine the suggestion of making Melford Road one way is to do with the P13 bus which gets stuck there rather regularly due to double parked cars and oncoming traffic. Removing the oncoming traffic would prevent that particular problem.

franglaisia Wrote: > > Would it cheer you up at all to drop a reminder > that he didn't win the second term. He stole it, > courtesy of hanging chads, districts that didn't > get enough voting machines delivered, ghost votes, > etc, etc. I think it was the first term that was won in such a manner - and in reality Gore lost it as much as Bush 'stole' it. He failed to carry his own state for goodness sake - which would have been enough to take the country as whole. It would be hard to argue that Bush won his second term anything other than fair and square so, no, it really doesn't cheer me up one little bit.

Flong - never had a problem with the bar snack refusenik chefs myself. You must just have been unlucky. Love the black pudding on toast - often a Spanish version which is great. Scotch woodcock great too (scrambled egg on toast with anchovies) and the welsh rarebit is, I am sure, the same recipe as the one at St John's in Smithfield - sublime. The brunch on Saturdays is also worth a try. My favourite restaurant in the whole of East Dulwich - in fact my favourite restaurant full stop. And I enjoy a good chin-wag at the bar as well when not going for a meal in the restaurant.

Clare said: "ALD stands for adrenoleukodystrophy which is a life threatening genetic disorder, normally affecting males" ....and it is the condition which is the subject of the film 'Lorenzo's Oil'.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > :-| I assume that's not aimed at me. Only the top bit - the rest is aimed at Burbage's 'analysis'. Sorry - away in New York until Christmas Eve! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/music002.gif :))

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dont u need a "special" license to go carolling > these days? No - absolutely not - just one of many myths about the Licensing Act 2003 - see here (near the bottom of the first page) PM me on this if you are really concerned. Burgabe said: "The DCMS helpfully claims: "...a group of carol singers (players) outside a shop could be construed as incidental to the activity of people going about shopping and therefore exempt from the requirement for a licence." That might, on the face of it, fit the bill. Until you consider that any construing will be happening in a court, and will happen long after any Plod with an eye for the overtime will have banged you up for criminal singing. So, it would seem best to get a licence." The above is utterly scatalogical. Frankly, if you believe that either the council (they are responsible for enforcement of the Act) or the local Police Safer Neighbourhood Team will start arresting you on suspicion of singing a carol in a public place you're probably a Daily Mail reader who believes everything that foul organ excretes. Live a little - go and sing!

You should be in bed. I hope you're not up marking homework?! :))

Caron - I wasn't really upset and your further, (perhaps you would agree) more considered, reflections on the pressures that every (particularly) secondary teacher faces in the mainstream are honest and challenging to anyone with a genuine interest in this subject. I have an enormously high regard for those who teach. I am a governor at a local school and my father was a lecturer at the old North London Poly so I do have some understanding of how committed teachers are to their students - and the difference a good teacher and a good school can make. In fact, what utterly pisses me off is when teachers/social workers etc are scapegoated for problems that are much more complex than the media will allow for - especially when the editorials are written by people who have no experience of the state sector. My concern is that whilst, locally and nationally, standards are improving and exam results are providing new opportunities for the majority, there is a real issue around the 20%+ of kids falling below the radar who, often through disrupted and disorganised family situations, not only achieve little at school but may also disrupt the learning opportunities of others - and worse. I think that was what I was trying to reflect in my slightly petulant post above. In many schools, I am sure, the balance betweeen effective and highly constrained learning opportunities for the majority of pupils is a pretty fine line. It's easy for some schools, either by price or selection or both, to exclude 'problem' kids but their hopes, fears, aspirations and emotional development have to be effectively addressed or else they and society as a whole will suffer - certainly any society that I want to be proud to be a part of. Of course it's great that local schools are improving. It's certainly interesting to see the difference in perception of those who have 'heard' this and that about particular schools compared with those of parents whose children actually attend those schools. For my own part, my daughter is at The Charter in year 7 and I simply could not have hoped for a more positive experience than she has enjoyed in her first three months at the school. She has, yes, been tested to check on progress to date but also stretched, cajoled, encouraged, nurtured. Every day she was at primary school she loved. I thought that the transition to secondary was bound to throw up problems and, in truth, I had huge apprehensions, but she is quite simply as happy as she has ever been. I could not ask for more (mind you teenage years beckon....). I am, incidentally, confident that the new East Dulwich school will provide similar opportunities for boys in the East Dulwich area.

Incidentally, one of the problems cited over any plans to extend the Victoria Line southwards is the chronic overcrowding on the tube platforms at Victoria itself. Access into the tube from the overground station is often closed for minutes at a time in the morning peak. This will be addressed with a huge new upgrade project at Victoria that is already under way - although so far they are only removing asbestos. More here.

According to the SLP last year (Feb 10 2006): In an email seen by the South London Press, Mr Livingstone (Ken) said TfL and London Underground (LU) were now "taking a 20-year look ahead". He said: "LU is starting to examine the potential for extending lines to serve inner South London, including areas like Camberwell. "This could include extending the Bakerloo line from Elephant & Castle, extending the Northern line from Kennington or the Victoria line from Brixton."

And the Victoria line extension to Herne Hill of course. I was (un)reliably informed that the Bakerloo line tracks already stretched virtually all the way to Camberwell and that the station was going to be at 'Dicky Dirts' on the corner of Denmark Hill and Coldharbour Lane. There was also the possibility that the line might be extended further south - beneath Denmark Hill/Champion Hill. The people of Herne Hill and East Dulwich were locked in mortal combat over which destination was most deserving - a bit greedy of the Herne Hillites really, given that they already had the Victoria line extension sewn up.....

Frisco's correct re the earlier East London Line plans: Hansard: 27 March 1990 (Column 222) Secretary of State for Transport (Cecil Parkinson): "LRT (London Regional Transport as was) is appraising the extensions of the Docklands light railway to Lewisham and of the east London line northwards to Dalston and Highbury and southward to east (sic) Dulwich." Raised as an option in 1989 and dropped soon after the extract above - later on in 1990 I believe. I imagine Estate Agents still managed to seal a few sales on the back of the plans though - even in that narrow window of opportunity.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So if the Committee refused permission against > officer advice, Caffe Nero are bound to win their > appeal and possibly get costs as well. Not necessarily. If councillors had to follow officer recommendations in every case there would be no point in having a committee for more controversial decisions. My confusion remains that the officer guidance stated that if permission was granted a situation of less than 50% retail would not occur but when the decision was reached the reasons for refusal stated that a less than 50% retail situation would occur if permission had been granted. Just not sure what happened twixt cup and lip. Anyway, as far as I can tell looking at this, no appeal has been lodged and Nero are way over the period allowed for making one (six months).

SE15 has been Peckham and SE22 East Dulwich since 1917. So somebody must have spotted the difference between the two a long time before the estate agent malarkey took hold.

It all started in 1983 when my future wife moved into ED. Marked acceleration when I joined the local throng in 1986 and finally stratospheric heights were reached when we married in 1997. Oh, and the baby/kiddy thing took off after the birth of our daughter in 1996. Simple really - I'm surprised nobody else has noticed. Incidentally, Blue Mountain started in a shop near the old Co-op building just beyond the southern end of Rye Lane (opposite the end of Nigel Road) although it was called something different. It changed its name to BM and moved to ED - clearly sensing the zeitgeist of the time - or perhaps helping to create it.

For an independent view the National Audit Office report on Academies is here They say (amongst a lot of other things in a detailed report): "It is relatively early days for measuring the performance of academies" But: "GCSE performance is improving faster in academies than in other types of school, including those in similar circumstances" And: "Taking account of both pupils? personal circumstances and prior attainment, academies? GCSE performance is substantially better, on average, than other schools"

"The boys' academy is likely to be similar" Why?

Maurice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why thank you. > > I'm keen to know how much her 300K home, which she > owns outright by the way, would be worth if LL had > a soul? Now that's funny. I had assumed Shu was a man - not least due to the outburst above for some indefinable reason.

Edited - way way off topic

They are, we assume: "a pack of disruptive, illiterate boys coming from anywhere to spoil our learning atmosphere." To be honest I'm not sure I'd want you teaching my son with an attitude like that so I feel fortunate that I only have a daughter. Oh, and that I don't live in Sutton.

And I therefore refer you back to my post above.

DM's right - as usual. For me Dulwich Books is best, Village Books (in the Village on Calton Avenue) is good and they are both streets ahead of Chener.

LibraCarr - I don't think you understand the implications of the decision taken by the council (see my post at 7.27 pm here). If Nero is not allowed to trade then no other cafe will be allowed to open in its place. The "protected shopping frontage" referred to in the council's decision is not defined. It could be that particular parade of shops or the whole of Lordship Lane. It might therefore mean no new A3 shops (restaurants and cafes) anywhere on Lordship Lane unless an A3 unit (or A4: drinking establishment or A5: hot food takeaway) reverts to an A1 (just 'shop') designation. I would consider such a switch unlikely as an empty shop effectively retains A3/4/5 permission in its planning history, giving it more value. This would be accentuated in this case where there is no chance of any new shops being so designated. Such permissions would therefore be at a premium and could be marketed as such. Anyway it would certainly apply to the Nero premises - of that we can be certain.... probably.