Demo about lollipop people in East Dulwich (27th June)

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> What can I tell you Alan - after your multiple

> posts on the subject I felt some balance was

> required

Plus you were sticking up for your mate!

Sorry, couldn't resist. >:D<

[Alan Medic]

Did you count the posts Jack? I made two before commenting to you.

[katie1997]

you multiple poster Alan - TWO posts!!!!!!!! get some persepective man B)

[Tarot]

This is a disgraceful of Southwark council playing Russian roulette with childrens lives,they could cut down on all their staff perks to cover this nessecity.

Maybe stop helping their staff with mortages for instance.

[Otta]

Huh? Christ, I've been working for the wrong councils all these years. Who knew.

[Fuschia]

Undisputed truth, the ringfenced grants I was referring to are those that make up school balanced - things like 'awards for all', allocations from the jack petchey foundation, govt grants for specialist status, School Sports Coordinators - those sort of things

[Undisputedtruth]

@fuschia,

I tend to think hollistically rather than just taking a small minded approach. I've made clear in my last post that there are still some ring fenced funding given by central government. Can I ask you which part of my previous post you didn't understand?

[EDmummy]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I'm struggling with the idea that private school

> pupils are somehow less entitled to publicly

> funded safety measures then state school pupils.

> All this stuff about "opting out of society" just

> stems from a personal disdain for private

> education... at the end of the day, private

> schools do not diminish the public purse.

>

> IMO the state/private thing has nothing to do with

> the original post. But I still think that if the

> parents are so concerned, we could surely find 100

> or so volunteers who can give up an hour a week.

I hope your post wasn't in response to mine about kids at Alleyns and Jags not only coming from Southwark. I just wanted to point out that contributions should come from all representative communities. Charter parents from Southwark (not those from Lambeth) already contribute to the cost. How can we make this equitable so all user communities contribute to the cost of these very worthwhile lollipop people?

By the way, why has the title of the original post been deleted?

[Fuschia]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> @fuschia,

>

> I tend to think hollistically rather than just

> taking a small minded approach. I've made clear in

> my last post that there are still some ring fenced

> funding given by central government. Can I ask you

> which part of my previous post you didn't

> understand?

You're a very agressive poster. I was talking about school based ringefenced grants making up a large part of their "balances"

You posted something about LA grants no longer being ringfenced. I pointed out that was not the case for schools and gave some examples.

In fact I said:

Fuschia Wrote:

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

> Don't be misled by the emphasis on school

> balances

>

> In most cases such funds are ringfenced grants or

> donations, parental deposits paid for trips or

> mOney set aside for ongoing building works etc

You said: "Ever since LAAs came in a few years ago, local authorities no longer ring fenced nearly all of the money given by central government. The idea was to allow the LAs greater flexibility in tackling their own priorities rather than central government's. When Eric Pickles became SoS for DCLG last year he scrapped the LAAs that came with negotiated targets beween central and local governments. There are probably some ring fenced funding but I'm afraid my memory has failed me from recalling such information two years ago."

I think what you have said is a bit irrelevant to what I said, actually. But I didn't feel the need to be rude to you.

A bit of civility goes a long way, you might like to note. People will take you more seriously.

[Undisputedtruth]

@fuschia,

I fail to see where I was rude, aggressive or lacking civility towards you.

I place the safety of children above whether I'm right or wrong. I think you should do the same and leave whatever personal feelings, though unwarranted, you have towards me to one side. Especially after Cllr Barber had released information on how the lollipop personnel are funded and so the debate should move on. From this point trying to continue with your own agenda is immaterial I'm afraid.

People who knows me takes me seriously. Nor do I feel the need to prove myself to you.

UDT

[Alan Medic]

Off topic I know but currently 7 of these on the first page of What's On.

[StraferJack]

True. We should complain to the mods

Although I doubt the what's on section gets the same eyeballing as the main section or lounge

[Fuschia]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> @fuschia,

>

> I fail to see where I was rude, aggressive or

> lacking civility towards you.

>

> I place the safety of children above whether I'm

> right or wrong. I think you should do the same and

> leave whatever personal feelings, though

> unwarranted, you have towards me to one side.

,,,

From this

> point trying to continue with your own agenda is

> immaterial I'm afraid.

>

Now I am suspecting you are a troll!

[ratty]

Tarot Wrote:

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

> This is a disgraceful of Southwark council playing

> Russian roulette with childrens lives,they could

> cut down on all their staff perks to cover this

> nessecity.

> Maybe stop helping their staff with mortages for

> instance.

My wife works for Southwark Council, can you let me know how I can get them to help out with our mortgage please?

[Undisputedtruth]

@fuschia

I think you just proved my point about your agenda.

UDT :)

[Fuschia]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> @fuschia

>

> I think you just proved my point about your

> agenda.

>

> UDT :)

Udt - I have no idea what you are talking about, but most of it seems pretty silly so I am just going to ignore you I think

[maxxi]

I realise 'mummies' are going to scream at the thought but...

If children are old enough and responsible/intelligent enough to negotiate the walk from home to school (barring these crossings) with all its attendant dangers (dirty old men offering 'sweets', cyclists on the pavement, ordinary agressive humans) then is it really beyond them to manage to use a pedestrian crossing without the assistance of an adult? If it is then perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to complete ANY part of the journey alone.

[Undisputedtruth]

Maxxi,

There is a strong financial case to retain lollipop personnel as each death on the road, as Cllr Barber has pointed out, costs ?1.5m. Is it too much to ask to pay just ?20 per day for one lollipop worker? Even grown ups get knockdown on roads.

[Loz]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> Maxxi,

>

> There is a strong financial case to retain

> lollipop personnel as each death on the road, as

> Cllr Barber has pointed out, costs ?1.5m. Is it

> too much to ask to pay just ?20 per day for one

> lollipop worker? Even grown ups get knockdown on

> roads.

On that maths, it sounds like you are arguing that there should there be a lollipop person on each and every corner in Southwark at all times?

[maxxi]

If I accept those figures UDT, you seem to be saying that there need to be lollipop persons on every pedestrian crossing on every street in every town. At present there are many pedestrian crossings used by children on their way to school that do NOT have lollipop personel.

The one by Iceland on Lordship Lane, for example, is used by a lot of children and is made more dangerous because of the proximity of a bus stop that means some children are tempted to rush across to catch a bus that is about to pull away. Should this crossing be manned or are children only in danger if the crossing is in sight of their school?

Also the argument that it is "only ?x a day" could be used for anything - and often is.

[civilservant]

not just 'mummies' will scream!

very few children have a journey to school that doesn't involve crossings and it's not really about children being old enough and responsible/intelligent enough etc.

I - a (definitely) older and (presumably) responsible/intelligent adult - often have trouble getting across roads at school dropping-off or picking-up time, although to be fair, some of the people driving like arses seem to be dropping-off or picking-up 'mummies'

and while I'm here - there seemed to be some indiscriminate Lounging of threads around the middle of June, including one of mine.

I'm sure Admin had his reasons, but it was disrespectful and inappropriate to Lounge this one - http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,686594,686966#msg-686966

[civilservant]

are the savings from axing lollipop people being recycled into free school meals for all primary school children in Southwark? a more targeted redistributive agenda, therefore?

does anyone know?

[Undisputedtruth]

Maxxi, as with anything financial there should be a cost/benefit analysis or roi. If the analysis shows there's a need for a lollipop person to be present at the Lordship Lane crossing near Iceland then why not?

For me, removing the Lollipop personnel didn't make financial sense at all. Even if you did scrap them, they could end up claiming unemployment benefit and this would offset some of the savings made.

@civilservant,

No one knows the true situation since Southwark tend to keep information close to their chest. It's as if open government doesn't apply to them.

[minder]

Just a thought but for the past 3 years I've always thought the lollipop man just past North Dulwich train station was employed by the private schools in the area anyway. He comes in for a lot of abuse from motorists and pedestrians but stays really calm throughout. He doesn't mind telling off the teenagers and mums who cross on a red light!

He does a good job but as soon as the private schools pack up (which is usually 1, 2, 2 and a half weeks earlier than the state schools in the area) then he isn't there.

[Administrator]

> I'm sure Admin had his reasons, but it was

> disrespectful and inappropriate to Lounge this one

I was unaware that it had anything to do with East Dulwich, I am now though and so have moved it to the East Dulwich issues / gossip section.