Mick Mac

and for clarification - any idea what type of pub, I presumed different owners and a new dawn?

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > what's it going to be next - anyone know? thx > > A pub. Hopefully, a successful one that doesn't > scare off too many of the locals. buggar - I was hoping for another cinema.

what's it going to be next - anyone know? thx

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great! Thanks Jah He didnt invite you ..

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you're about right here *Bob*. Times have > changed and that Festivals are generally now for > middle-class @#$%& and their kids isn't > neccessarily a bad thing.... and by coincidence, the timing was perfect for "Family ????s"

Have to say - The Who look fooking brilliant.

Rolo Tomasi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm here right now. Last night we saw Hot Chip and > It was probably the best live set I've ever seen. Dancing in the Dark was a surprise. !

Why does Pete Townsend remind me of Mick Channon.

2-0 England. Surely they can't mess this up... Whatever you do England, don't substitute Bobby Charlton.

GG tipped us off about her a fair few years ago and I got a ticket for Bloomsbury Ballroom. I think she is special.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You sound like a Punk Mic Just teasing our local guitar hero. What do the music officiados think of Florence?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Liked the Mot?rhead drum solo in a " it's like > > punk never happened" moment > > > I hate drum solos! I hate guitar solos.

I wouldn't even use Dulwich Design Kitchens and Ikea in the same sentence. Opposite ends of the scale price wise etc I'm afraid. We used DDK and they were fantastic but they are higher end of the market supplying Hacker German kitchens.

LM - that's fine we will agree to differ on what's fair.

Hoonaloona what is happening on this thread is as Trine Adams asked - that people debate the nodal point to improve their understanding of what is the fairest solution and having done that, respond to the consultation. What TA also asked for was that schools refrain from canvassing and organising opinion - this is not happening on this thread.

redjam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mack - there is a shortage of non-faith, > co-ed school places in Camberwell. Do you think > it's fair if a child in Camberwell loses out on a > place to an East Dulwich child who lives further > away? > no - but I think its wrong that those already catered for by an outstanding school, now have another school to choose from, whilst others living in parts of Camberwell or ED have no additional choice.

LM - no, I was asking if you were involved, perhaps on the other side of the consultation, as you appear very interested in the process and its outcomes, but you are neither self interested nor not necessarily supporting the arguments from a wider ED perspective and therefore your views seem aligned with the current intentions of the school. I wondered why that was. There doesn't seem to be a reason other than perhaps you think the current approach is fairest and would like to argue for it to be maintained.

You are going back a few years there Otta. But I like your ability to recollect your misunderstanding of the point even to this day ;)

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi MickMac-- > > I hoped the discussion would focus on areas where > legally the Charter has flexibility to make > modifications that would influence the composition > and ethos of the intake-- SEN, siblings, banding, > and lottery. > and are you therefore involved in the process in some way, or just interested in the debate?

LondonMix - I'm wondering what your reason is for debating this issue, in the way that you are doing it, on a local ED forum? Is it purely a technical argument on fair education provision for Southwark? You perhaps don't care who benefits from this school, so long as someone in Southwark does. We all know that extra places are extra places, someone/some area will be better off. My arguments are for a favourable solution that most benefits the people of East Dulwich. The overlap in catchment is bad for East Dulwich. I highlight my personal position - although I'm hoping/expecting to be within the catchment I use my own position to help highlight the issue where my family or other people living close to us could well lose out. Long before this process I argued on this forum for a secondary school for East Dulwich. This remains what I want and the catchment can achieve this. That's what I'm trying to achieve. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve other than restating the obvious benefits of additional Southward places.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Mrs Maz. What I find hard to understand then is > why the overlap is a problem. Really? Still?

MsMaz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think your points 1 and 2 to stop overlapping > catchment (which is massive) and thus maintaining > the existing Charter 1 catchment, is an excellent > proposal. And is much better than fighting about > nodal points - as that way, everyone who is on the > borders or beyond of potential catchments and > fighting on this forum would actually be much more > likely to get in (wherever the nodal point) as it > would stretch the catchment further north, east > and south. > Well let's hope the Charter team can see the merits of this. thx.

Gubodge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lily, the same letter has been given to me at > Goodrich (twice now) including at a meeting about > secondary school transfers, so directly targeting > the yr 5 parent whose children could form the > first cohort at the new school. I was also > buttonholed outside the school today about it, and > did not receive a particularly friendly response > when I said I supported the nodal point being on > the school site. The letter has also been emailed > to all parents by the PTA. While it is not the > school itself that has been lobbying, the claims > that there has been no organised campaign for an > eastern nodal point are, to be honest, bullshit. And is there anything wrong with highlighting the issue so that these issues are raised within the consultation deadline. I'd imagine a lot of people in the Goodrich school catchment area feel rather strongly about losing out on this opportunity.

MsMaz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My last post was referring to MickMac's post about > ensuring there is no overlap of Charter 1 and 2's > catchment - a few posts sneaked inbetween quickly! > > > I think it's the fact that Charter have refused to > tackle the problems that this large overlap > causes, that have caused all the fighting about > nodal points, because people are worried the > catchment won't go very far, especially after a > few years. > > RedJam, yes the overlap does matter for those with > younger kids as eventually the areas around the > hospital site will become Charter 2 catchment. > Charter 1 may expand a bit because of this but in > ALL directions, so borderline areas may still not > get into either Charter 1 or 2 and you may end up > with a better chance of getting into Charter 1 > from Tulse Hill and Brixton... At last - someone who can rationalise. thx.

:)