Jump to content

2 Lollipop men on Lordship Lane

jack bauer

By jack bauer
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon

Posted
Posted

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, allow the public sector educated rickety kids

> the protection of a lolly-pop man or woman or

> whatever, and the private sector educated kids

> have to run the rapids with no protection but

> their breeding, good diction, ample vitamins and

> natural superiority? Is that it Curmudgeon?


Oh now Michael surely you know the benefit of private sector is far shorter terms!

peterstorm1985

peterstorm1985

Posted
Posted

seanmlow Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I'm sorry, I don't think anyone in their right

> mind would drive through a crossing when a child

> is in close proximity. If they did this, having

> someone standing there with a stick to stop them

> is hardly going to act as a deterrent to a madman

> like that is it?

>

Sometimes I think it may be as simple as the fact that traffic lights - that the driver is concentrating on - are quite a few feet from the ground. Small children are pretty close to the ground and don't get seen; if there are railings alongside the crossing, children waiting to cross can become invisible (particularly at dusk/in bad weather). Lollipop signs are in the same range of view as the traffic lights so they are far more noticeable. It isn't always madmen that endanger children, sometimes just those with less peripheral vision.

Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon

Posted
Posted

Tanza Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Curmudgeon Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What annoys me about them is that they are only

> > there when the private schools are open!

> > what is that about

>

> Sorry that simply isn't the case. They are there

> every single day of the Heber term - in fact they

> always check with us about inset days and end of

> term dates. My six year old and I are so grateful

> for their help that my 6-year old insisted on us

> giving them a small xmas present and card at Xmas.



Well the Townley Road ones weren't there in the run-up to christmas when Alleyns had broken up as far as I saw - and I didn't see them the first week of January - nice if I'm wrong on this one

sillywoman

sillywoman

Posted
Posted
Do private schools have to fund their own lollipop people? I've wondered this about the ones at the Calton Ave/Townley Rd/ ED Grove junction. They are definitely only there during private school term time. If Alleyns. JAGS & JAPS pay for them - fair do's, but if they're funded by us then it seems a little wrong that the state school kids using these roads (Charter, Heber, Bessemer, DVI & DHJS) are left to fend for themselves at the beginning & end of term?
James Barber

James Barber

Posted
Posted

So after a breiefing from council officers.


ALL Southwark's lollipop people (school crossing patrol's) are funded from a tiny part of the Parking (fine) revenue account (surplus of fines collected over expense of catching people). The remaining surplus is used to provide other transport related activities.


Total of 52 lollipop people across Southwark at .


The two at the junction of Lordship Lane and Townley Road are designated against Alleyns School but clearly used by kids going to other schools as well.


Should I be making a case for these guys to work state school term times?

Twirly

Twirly

Posted
Posted

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So after a breiefing from council officers.

>

> ALL Southwark's lollipop people (school crossing

> patrol's) are funded from a tiny part of the

> Parking (fine) revenue account (surplus of fines

> collected over expense of catching people). The

> remaining surplus is used to provide other

> transport related activities.

>

> Total of 52 lollipop people across Southwark at .

>

>

> The two at the junction of Lordship Lane and

> Townley Road are designated against Alleyns School

> but clearly used by kids going to other schools as

> well.

>

> Should I be making a case for these guys to work

> state school term times?



Why do you even have to ask this question?!


If it's funded by the council, then of course they should automatically be providing cover for the state school terms. If Alleyns wants this service, then it should be paying for it. I don't have kids, but I think that's an abuse of public funds.

zeban

zeban

Posted
Posted

Twirly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > So after a breiefing from council officers.

> >

> > ALL Southwark's lollipop people (school

> crossing

> > patrol's) are funded from a tiny part of the

> > Parking (fine) revenue account (surplus of

> fines

> > collected over expense of catching people). The

> > remaining surplus is used to provide other

> > transport related activities.

> >

> > Total of 52 lollipop people across Southwark at

> .

> >

> >

> > The two at the junction of Lordship Lane and

> > Townley Road are designated against Alleyns

> School

> > but clearly used by kids going to other schools

> as

> > well.

> >

> > Should I be making a case for these guys to

> work

> > state school term times?

>

>

> Why do you even have to ask this question?!

>

> If it's funded by the council, then of course they

> should automatically be providing cover for the

> state school terms. If Alleyns wants this service,

> then it should be paying for it. I don't have

> kids, but I think that's an abuse of public funds.


Exactly. It's actually quite disgraceful I think.

Judge

Judge

Posted
Posted
So because someone chooses to send their kids to private school (actually saving the council money) that means that they can't take advantage of council provided road safety measures - does that mean that they shouldn't use zebra crossings on their way to school too since these are provided by the council?
Champers

Champers

Posted
Posted

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So after a breiefing from council officers.

>

> ALL Southwark's lollipop people (school crossing

> patrol's) are funded from a tiny part of the

> Parking (fine) revenue account (surplus of fines

> collected over expense of catching people). The

> remaining surplus is used to provide other

> transport related activities.

>

> Total of 52 lollipop people across Southwark at .

>

>

> The two at the junction of Lordship Lane and

> Townley Road are designated against Alleyns School

> but clearly used by kids going to other schools as

> well.

>

> Should I be making a case for these guys to work

> state school term times?





James thanks for finding this out and I think you should be making a case for them. Putting the funding to one side, I think most people would like to see kids looked after as much as possible when crossing the roads and during all school term times regardless of which school. I don't have kids but the two lollipop men on Townley Rd are lovely chaps and on the few occasions I happen to be walking their way they always manage to put a smile on my face.

Twirly

Twirly

Posted
Posted

Judge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So because someone chooses to send their kids to

> private school (actually saving the council money)

> that means that they can't take advantage of

> council provided road safety measures - does that

> mean that they shouldn't use zebra crossings on

> their way to school too since these are provided

> by the council?


Who said that? If Alleyns wants the service in their term time only (and presumably someone must have requested the service from the council and given the dates of the Alleyns term for these people to be employed at these times only), then they should pay for it.


If the council is providing it in the catchment area of a state school, then it should cover all children whatever the term. I am amazed that it doesn?t, and that someone somewhere has taken a decision that it shouldn?t ? and it?s that which I object to.


Champers has put it best.

James Barber

James Barber

Posted
Posted

I've already asked whether these lollipop people can be on duty at times that match both local state and private schools.

They are funded by the surplus between the costs of enforcing parking restrictions and fines paid.

This is good news in that it means no driver for schools that become academies or private ones to pay for this public service aimed at kids 12 and under.


I'll let you know how I get on.

MrTwirly

MrTwirly

Posted
Posted

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not affected by it either, but totally agree

> with my inamorata Twirly.


oh come on! pledging your undying love on the "an hotel" thread was one thing .. but this is beginning to give me a complex here ;-)


sire, I challenge thee to a duel.. Pythonesque fish slapping at dawn!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...