Penguin68

I suspect the family income spread for those at private schools is, in fact, far wider (greater percentage between richest and poorest households) than for state schools. All you need is a couple of 100% bursaries and an oligarch and you have a hugely diverse socio-economic spread!

This is clearly all about making parking on local streets increasingly impossible, by blanking out large areas of kerb every time a new dropped kerb is installed - how quickly before the clamour for (charged for) residents parking arises, as peope are squeezed out of parking options in 'their' streets - no wonder we have had such silence from at least one of our elected councillors, although fair do's to Renata for trying to bottom this out - but then she doesn't have history, does she?

I would add, as regards the downsides of speed humps, that large vehicles (i.e. skip lorries) that go over them at anything less than fractionally over 0mph cause consequental damage (by the force they hit the road) on adjacent properties; my garden wall has been badly damaged by vibrations of passing heavy traffic. In smaller roads with humps the vibration damage must be effecting not just garden walls but the houses themselves. BUT - since humps have been put in my road, the numbers of accidents (and injury to pedestrians) has fallen - so clearly they are of benefit - I just wonder whether phantom humps (perhaps still with some real humps would be as effective safety wise?

I recall that Alleyn's terminated its Sports Club (which allowed people to use the pool and gym/ fitness facilities when the school wasn't operating, inter alia, for a fee) to dedicate the time freed up to local use of local clubs (the membership of Alleyn's Club had been parents and associates of the school - i.e local middle class private users). I do not know whether and how much they charge for this facility, nor how much it is in fact used by local clubs, but clearly they gave up a revenue stream in order to facilitate this. This was a consequence, I think, of the act.

I know the Brixton non-humps, but even then I am aware of modifying my driving when I see them. I don't think familiarity loses it for me, but is a useful reminder, like the 'rapel' speed limit reminders in France.

There is nothing charitable about that The charitable act is to give funds to support education - which is seen as being a 'good' thing. The application of those funds to meet educational needs is a necessary part of the charity's activity, but isn't (and needn't) itself be considered 'charitable'. Many artistic establishments are also charities - such as the Royal Operal House, but putting on operas isn't (very obviously) an act of charity. The tickets for the opera (and the fees for the schools) are not considered to be charitable donations, and attract no tax relief, donations (including the original donation, and others from 'friends' of the opera house, or school alumni), are treated as 'charitable gifts' for tax purposes. Don't confuse the work of a charity as being in and of itself 'charitable' - so long as it meets the criteria set out by the Charities Commission. Maintaining stately homes and parks for (paying) visitors is what the National Trust does, it is a charity - what it does isn't (really) charitable.

Pure speculation, but maybe the empty train was sped through to remove outgoing passengers from platforms relieving congestion to make room for incoming passengers.

Driving through Brixton today I was reminded that around Brixton Market ?phantom? road humps have been painted on the road ? looking as if a white line had been painted round an area like our own mini humps (three in-line). I found myself moderating my driving as if the humps had been real, and wondered whether these phantom humps did generally moderate speeds etc. If this does moderate driving behaviour it has the merit of doing so at minimal cost both in road-works and in consequential wear-and-tear on vehicles. Whilst not suggesting that all our ED humps be replaced by phantom humps, I wonder whether some mixed economy of real and phantom humps might be introduced (assuming the Lambeth experience is positive about their moderating effects) ? thus reducing expenditure on roads whilst benefiting drivers through reduction of additional wear on tyres, reducing needs for re-tracking steering etc. As ?real? humps actually cause additional wear on roads (as well as having an implicit cost of their own) , such a plan would benefit both the public and private purse. Of course, their effectiveness in moderating road speeds still needs to be demonstrated (if it hasn?t already been in Lambeth) ? but if the numbers of real humps on our roads can be reduced, whilst the road safety benefit of having humps is broadly maintained, this should be a win-win situation for ED.

I believe charities are also exempt from VAT, although they would be obliged to pay NI contributions. Capital gains (from property disposal) are I think tax exempt, and I'm not sure they'd have to pay stamp duty on property acquisitions. And I think that they can make trading profits, as long as these are earmarked for future investment. Happy to stand corrected on any of this. Where they raise funds (through donations rather than fees) these gain additional funds to take into account tax paid, where donations have been made from taxed income. There is a fiscal argument that private education is of (some, not necessarily matched) benefit in that otherwise the public purse would have to pay additionally the costs of those being educated privately - and of course those paying for private education in addition also continue to pay rates and taxes to cover the costs of state education, without themselves benefitting from this (but then so do those without children at all).

Otta I don't think there is any hyperbole, and I expect you're right. 'Over the moon' - 'gutted' - both slightly over-egged phrases/ verbs - but I did mean it kindly. - I'd have gone with 'quite pleased' and 'quite upset' if I hadn't a rhetorical point to make.

to put it bluntly, a family spending a million plus on a house are likely to have a load more disposable income than any number of long time local families on low incomes. Actually, that very much depends on how much in debt they have had to go to 'afford' a 7 figure price for a house. Even assuming that they are trading up from a smaller property/ less desirable area, their disposable income in the short term is likely to be heavily constrained by mortgage repayments, particularly if they are also (as so many seem to be) picking up the costs of parenthood. I remember (luckily I did this at a time of high inflation, when my 'real' debt came down quite quickly), that the early years of property ownership, with small children, were not a time of unlimited disposable income, even though I would have been in a more privileged position than some - the equivalent of those being portrayed here. Their aspirations (and their desire to be 'read' in particular way) may take them into the M&S camp, but they will (probably) be making other economies to do this. Those with real disposable income in ED are those who bought some time ago, have paid down or off their mortgage and whose children are now (more) self supporting, I would suggest.

Otta wrote:- For every household that ios over the moon with an M&S opening, there will be a family that is gutted about the loss of a shop were they can actually afford to shop. I think it's very sad. Ignoring the hyperbole, I suspect that the local demographic has actually tipped from Iceland to M&S - hence the changeover... Of course there will be those who greatly regret the loss of Iceland - but they are probably now outnumbered by those who will welcome M&S. Iceland would have stayed where it was(I suspect) if its market in LL was still as strong as in the past - the fact that it seems willing to move suggests that its forecast income from an enlarged site was not sufficient to justify higher rentals. The fact (if it is actually a fact) that M&S is moving in and Iceland moving out is a reflection of economic reality and that a function of both changed business pricing structures and changed population in ED. Over time I also suspect that the Iceland offer (at its end of the market) is being trumped by Lidl and Aldi. What this does mean is that choice for some in ED will be restricted - and that Iceland's absence, for some, will be a real loss. But those numbers will be less (and increasingly so) than those who think they will benefit from a small ED M&S.

Anschluss

Surely this was what e-Bay was all about....

(1) - The council charge a fair amount to institute a dropped curb and (2) many houses can park more than 1 car, so one car's space lost to street parking (through the dropped curb) may increase the parking opportunity (or reduce parking stress) by double. I can park 4 off street - and regularly park 3 - so my dropped curb has had a net benefit (assuming I/ my household would still have the cars, which I would) of 2-3 road-side parking spaces.

In 1901 family sizes tended to be much larger (and in addition there would have been resident servants), and many houses would have had (in the poorer areas) multiple families living in them. Most middle-class families in 1901 would have had at least one resident domestic servant, upper-middle class houses perhaps two or three. The number of new houses in the area (outwith individual houses which replaced bomb-damaged houses) are mainly the big blocks of flats, which themselves replaced exisiting tenements, which would tend to be highly occuied. Considering that by 1901 ED was already pretty built-up, 20% population growth doesn't seem unreasonable. Compare those resident in the City of London in 1901 and now, where there has been (I believe) a population collapse. Edited to say - I hadn't noticed that the original figures may not both have been 'ward' based - if 'Dulwich' is being compared with ED ward then, whilst my general comments probably still hold, the growth rate I suggest is rubbish.

I think there may be confusion here between curbs dropped to allow off-street parking access (private requests) and curbs dropped by the council to allow disabled/ wheelchair, buggy crossing of streets. These (which are often accompanied in ED by textured pavements for blind/ partially sighted guidance) are 'protected' by double yellow lines to make sure they are not obscured/ blocked by parked cars (and that people using them are fully visible). I can imagine that different protection for different dropped curb purposes could be confused. Where they are at junctions they would anyway be protected by rules governing parking at junctions; but where they were not at junctions additional protection might be required.

Let's hope they don't read this forum then...

I think this comment was an introduction to the first table which does then analyse impact based both on non-re-use and re-use. It's of course a truism, but those do tend to stand-out in executive summaries. You have to advocate re-use to then base analysis on that. And if re-use is important, education/ advocacy for its adoption may then be needed.

Was this "study" conducted by primary school children? I doubt it. Attached are links to two studies by grow-ups which tell the same story. If you are interested in facts. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO0711BUAN-E-E.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/57346/0016899.pdf

If you can get energised about reusing carrier bags (it really doesn't take that much effort) then try doing the same regarding car use, buying too much stuff (where "stuff" = practically anything) and overheating one's house and overchilling one's food. Or, simpler, let's just ban cars, and central heating, and refrigerators and freezers. Much easier to take the option of decision away from mindless people, and just manage their lives for them the way we'd like it.

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.

Legislation is being (has been?) introduced to require charging for single use bags issued by shops in England - this will tend to price the habit out of the market. I must hardly be alone in re-using 'single-use' bags e.g. for bagging non-recyclable rubbish. Any I get are re-used at least one. 'Banning' things in general I find questionable - (other than e.g. murder) - it tends to become an opportunity for those in power to exercise their own prejudices. The Taliban, and ISIS, are good at banning things they don't like, such as music and dance. And many people.

On balance, it seems to me that you may be over reacting. Understatement of the year

The downsides of living in or near a vibrant area of shops, restaurants and pubs is that these are, on occasion, noisy, sometimes even dirty. The upside is living in a vibrant area of shops, restaurants and pubs. Every silver lining has a cloud. At least such disruption is (reasonably) anticipated through location. Far worse is to live in a quiet suburban area with no shops or pubs, and find long, raucous parties being held nightly ? to which you haven?t been invited.