Jump to content

2 Lollipop men on Lordship Lane


Recommended Posts

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 2 lollipop people on lordship lane/townley road are not allocated for Heber School, so they must be for Alleyns.


the lollipop person at heber school had to be applied for last year, before that their was no lollipop person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • They have. They asked in the original consultation. I’ve talked about it above. Around 3000 people (57% of a self selecting sample), were against the scheme. But the point you seem to be struggling with is that it wasn’t a referendum. We don't routinely have referenda on matters public policy in the UK (Brexit aside). We elect people to make decisions and then we judge the quality of those decisions in the round, and either re-elect them, or kick them out. That’s representative democracy. It’s not a good idea imo, but happy to listen if you do want to make the case for the routine use of referenda in matters of public policy. Not so much if you just want to use it selectively for a single issue you feel strongly about. Still ducking the question I’ve posed to you more than once now on claim of inadequate signage and intimidation of emergency services I note.
    • Sounds like you are running scared of the idea Earl, come now with so much debate over what is a consultation /referendum surly it's a simplel way of settling the argument 🤔 
    • Pot holes feel like they’re becoming more of an issue (based purely on my perception, don’t know what data there is). Even worse outside London imo. I suspect as Mal says, heavier vehicles are part of the problem (both SUVs, but also EVs which are generally heavier than ‘conventional’ cars), but regardless the council need to be more on it.  You can use the fixmystreet app to report them (and other street maintenance issues). 
    • Prior to the LTNs do you have many examples where the results of consultations were not acted upon? Seems to me the council is picking and choosing when they action the feedback from their constituents.......   Have you looked at the results from that, if not, tale some time to have a look, its quite enlightening..it seems the majority do not think the changes will have the desired effect....but you know it's not a refendum so the council has chosen to ignore the feedback of constituents. They must be assuming full responsibility for ignoring residents feedback- clearly they think they know what's best for us. If it all goes wrong let's see if they take responsibility!   Earl, here's a question for you (and i know you wont answer it but lets see)...why do you think the council has never asked a yes/no question to local residents about anything to do with the LTNs - wether they exist or whether we think the changes they have suggested (using our money) are needed/worthwhile? Or a consultation with a yes/no answer but we all know why. I still laugh that the council had to re-run the CPZ consultation with a yes/no answer and finally had to listen to their constituents...they took a hell of a spanking! They have been cheating the system for years and getting away with it. So does that not apply during consultations then? (P.S before you answer take a look at the definition of a consultation as provided by the Local Government Association).
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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