Jump to content

Harris primary on Dulwich site ("James Barber is a big fan of Harris")


dds29

Recommended Posts

Be aware James Barber is a big fan of Harris; when the Dulwich Police Station application was in the offing, he wrote a very cross post after I directed people to the Anti Academy website, which contains lots of information about Harris...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi dds29,

Yes, I admit it I'm a big fan of all good or oustanding school providers.


I'm a big fan of The Charter School who have done amazingly well. Kingsdale I'm not such a big fan sicne they started their lottery for admissions. Big fan of Goodrich, Heber and Goose Green - all have been making great progress and also took bulge classes when our community needed them to. St.Anthony's who managed to complete a rebuild while still on site, expanding from 1.5 to 2 forms of entry. Amazing. We also have lots of other schools not in East Dulwich ward.


When we faced a looming primary school places crisis and Southwark Council were doing nothing. I helped Judith Kerr Bilingual school find a local site on Half Moon Lane. So I;m a big fan of them coming to the area.

When I approached every school provider I could think of to open free schools in our area - and I'm not a fan of the concept but it is the only realistic showi n town - Harris people were the only one's willing to sticj their necks out. So yes, I'm grateful they have supported East Dulwich and invested time and energy on us when no one else would.


And lastly I'm most grateful to all the local families who have helped ensure we had enough local support to make free school application successful. By leading on making free schools happen we've ensured we've school providers who are mainstream and not the more extreme parts of the education spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Southwark council comprises 63 councillors, of which approx 12 to 15 represent areas that are covered by this forum. And you 'call out' probably the only one that has opened a dialogue with you about schooling?


Idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hospital site is 28,300m2.

Health people say they expect to need 7,000->9,000m2 for new super duper replacement facilities including parking for at least 100 cars.

Haberdashers' Aske's believe they would ideally have 19,500m2 for a new secondary school.

A primary school would need minimum 1,800m2.


I would prefer the primary school to be elsewhere but without Southwark Council zoning another site, such as 520 Lordship Lane for educational use, the maths for boths schools and a fab new health facility do work on the hospital site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Loz and Townleygreen, I suggest you read the

> following thread to get the full picture:

>

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5

> ,1407450


I had read that when it started, and I have just updated myself.


So, I'll ask you LM - what do the other councillors (14?) for the area think? You don't know do you? Instead, you abuse the only councillor that has taken the time to open a dialogue with you.


Not very clever really, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though a primary school isn't needed there and local parents (and more significantly) Nunhead parents do not want or need another primary school, especially on that site?


Harris got local support (rightly) for the police station, trying to use that support to slip another one on the hospital site stinks.


And just because the space "required" could in theory fit in to the land, does not mean that it would work in reality.


James has done lots of great work locally and especially in workingr towards the secondary school for the hospital site.


But I have no idea why he's tarnishing that by supporting this stupid stupid unpopular idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loz, in fact I know what the other local councillors feel as they have posted on this extensively via social media. It is split along party lines. In fact this matter was voted on at the most recent Southwark meeting so please don't accuse me of acting without knowing what's going on as most people on the forum know that is not the way I behave.


James has told out and out lies today about what is going on and to suggest that he should be allowed to get away with stating things that are patently untrue because he is posting on the forum is ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, if you answer the questions on the other thread, if a retraction is needed because I have misunderstood the suggstions you have made regarding historical positions both you and Harris have taken, then I will make the edit and apologise.


Until you clarify what you meant by answering those 4 questions I can't but assume you are trying to convince posters of things that are simply not true by being misleading in your statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree with LM. James does lots of good stuff, but when asked a direct question that he doesn't like the answer to he will show us just whst a "good" (if good is being like all the rest) politician he's shaping up to be, and avoid answering it completely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otta Wrote:

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


> James has done lots of great work locally and

> especially in workingr towards the secondary

> school for the hospital site.

>

> But I have no idea why he's tarnishing that by

> supporting this stupid stupid unpopular idea.


I'm not saying that James is right or wrong here, just that starting an all-new thread with this title, when there was a perfectly good thread already covering the topic, was a bit childish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otta Wrote:

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

> Totally agree with LM. James does lots of good

> stuff, but when asked a direct question that he

> doesn't like the answer to he will show us just

> whst a "good" (if good is being like all the rest)

> politician he's shaping up to be, and avoid

> answering it completely.


Rather like dropped kerbs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Barber,

Could you elaborate on your dislike of Kingsdale and its lottery system? Also, you have never been a friend of Goodrich School. You shamelessly supported a management team that almost destroyed the school and have refused to acknowledge the amazing job the current Head has done to turn things around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So,if there was a nunhead primary in ED, how would those children from nunhead get to school? Yes, mummy and daddy's car. How about adding some more traffic congestion to our already crowded ED streets. I support the secondary school and health facility. Nunhead primary belongs in Nunhead!
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

    • Ok here goes.....   Since day 1 of the LTNs the emergency services have been very clear - blocked roads increase response times. Southwark councillors were more than aware of this from the beginning of the LTN debacle during Covid because, when the council were going LTN mad and were trying to carpet bomb them everywhere they had suggested one for Peckham Rye and had initiated a consultation. As usual they took glowing endorsements of their proposal to close parts of Peckham Rye from the cycle lobby but got negative feedback from TFL and the emergency services due to the disruption their physical closure barriers were going to have - the emergency services made their preference clear that they do not like physical barriers. Needless to say Southwark ignored that emergency service input and pushed ahead with their plans only to cancel them when the realised LTNs were turning residents against them.   Now the video below (from March 2021) is interesting from a couple of perspectives: 1) Clearly LAS were making their feelings on permanent closures very clear to Southwark - please scroll to 1 hour 4 minutes to hear from them - 51 of the 170 delays caused by LTNs in London were in Southwark - yet it took over a year for emergency vehicles to be given access and, if I remember correctly FOIs showed that LAS had been writing to Dale Foden and the council alerting them to the delays. So why the delay and why is there a constant narrative from local lobby groups that the junction has to be closed to ALL traffic (including emergency vehicles) and why the new designs return to a partial full closure of the junction - most rational and pragmatic people can surely see that the compromise installed in 2022 to allow emergency vehicle access was the most sensible approach.   The council put the desires of local lobby groups ahead of the emergency services...which is madness...and then that leads us to point 2)....   2) Notice the presence of Jeremy Leach on the call - not a councillor but the Co-Optee of the council's environmental scrutiny committee and he is constantly pushing the councillors to do more to deal with traffic issues and reduce traffic. I suspect he is deemed one of the "expert" voices the council was turning to for guidance at this period. But, much like the activist researchers the council turned to Jeremy is very much an "activist expert" and was chair of the London Living Streets, co-founder of Action Vision Zero and part of Southwark Cyclists - so you can see why if the council was taking guidance and direction from him how they may have not been making decisions in the public interest. Clearly someone has convinced the council that the junction needs to be closed to all vehicles as there cannot be any other explanation for why they held out for so long (that created increased response times) - remember they are wasting another £1.5m to close one arm of the roads permanently again - honestly if someone wants to enlighten me to a part of this story I am missing then feel free but to me it looks like something very odd has been going on at the DV junction and the council is ignoring the majority and listening to the few...   https://lrscconference.org.uk/index.php/agenda-speakers/jeremy-leach-co-founder-action-vision-zero/     No it was 64% of the total who lived in the consultation area - 57% when the council looked at all the respondents to the consultation.   3,162 (64%) wanted it returned to its original state 823 (17%) wanted it retained as was 422 (8%) wanted a different measure installed 564 (11%) wanted the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features   So back then the 11% got their wish!   In every consultation in relation to the DV junction there has been overwhelming rejection of the council's plans by local residents - yet they carry-on wasting our money on it regardless - just who are they trying to placate?
    • Calton was particularly hideous. An ambulance wouldn’t have got anywhere fast.   
    • Not clear what point you are trying to make here Earl? A majority of those consulted wanted measures returned to their original state. Majority is the salient point. Again, if consultations are pretty irrelevent, as you seem to suggest, then why do oragnisations like Southwark Cyclists repeatedly prompt their members, whether local to the consultation area or not, to respond to consultations on CPZ or LTNs. What a waste of everyone's time if of no import in terms of local policy-making.
    • Funny how some people don’t remember how awful it used to be  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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