Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately Lewisham Council have already said they are withdrawing funding for the library service as they are with two others in the borough. A tendering process is in progress and the new organisation will start to run the library from June/July this year. A whole thread about this is on SE23.com. I envisage an organisation with current experience of running community libraries are likely to be awarded a contract.


This all derives from local authorities funding being reduced by central Government to reduce the National debt. And as regrettable as this is, due to what the last but one Administration did to the UK's finances, the people (everyone) is going to experience the consequences. This is not party political, it is a consequence of what happened. This is not about those who have against those that do not have, it is everybody who is being affected in some way or other.


And for the record I believe Osborne is totally Unjustified in penalising the poorest and weakest in society, and in particular those who have it probably harder then the rest of society.

yes, thank you for that. The lady who is putting a list of volunteers together for forest hill library is also collecting manual signatures for our petition.


national debt reduction can be done by other means such as getting better at collecting taxes from the very rich etc...

yas Wrote:

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

> council wasn't. it was with the school! we have

> suggested fundraising but you can't run a nursery

> relying on fundraising year in year out! so there

> has to be a sustainable way of maintaining it.



So if the council was not involved in the process of Fairlawn, why are you drawing parallels with planning issues that did involve the council? Apples and oranges...


This is the point - he council had nothing to do with the decision, so petitioning them was the wrong direction to go in of you were hoping to change the situation.

yas Wrote:

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

> "I'm beginning to think Yas is just satirising the

> whole concept of petitions. I keep getting the

> image of Nigel explaining his amplifier goes up to

> 11."

>

> How do you mean?

>

> So by your argument petition to save lewisham

> libraries is a waste of time?



You've either not understood the point or are deliberately constructing a strawman argument.

JoeLeg, i am ignoring you as the direction of your argument is getting personal again!


The point i was trying to make is if everyone stuck to consultation results, then nothing can be changed! So for instance in place of Forest Hill Leisure Centre, we would now have a block of flats and a tiny swimming pool! M and Co would've gone and its place we would have had Morrisons who had the licence for that premise.


Lewisham Council is the correct body to direct our petition as they provide the funding for the schools!

Lewisham Council is the correct body to direct our petition as they provide the funding for the schools!


Then your petition should be about Lewisham Council changing its overall funding policy on nursery provision. It cannot allocate additional funds which don't meet its funding criteria or formula just to support your favoured nursery. It would, inter alia, then have to remove funds from another nursery to meet its budgets. You could use 'your' nursery as an exemplar of why you want them to change their funding formula and budget allocation - but that's what they would have to do.


In your position I would have inquired of a local councilor what the options were for additional funds to be found - if there are any. But tax payers' money is not available for disbursement just at the discretion of any local authority - they have to allocate funds based on open and agreed criteria. Funds under their criteria are not sufficient to keep your nursery open, based on its falling roll. What you are petitioning the council to do, I would suggest, is likely actually illegal - since such a funds allocation would not then meet its declared criteria for funding.


And the decision to close was not the Council's - nor could they then make a decision to re-open.

Sorry no offence, but Penguin68 you are not in a position to speak on council's behalf. Nor do you know what else we had done before taking up this petition or what else we are planning to do to support our case.


So please kindly let other people make their minds up as to whether to sign our petition or not!

yas Wrote:

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

> JoeLeg, i am ignoring you as the direction of your

> argument is getting personal again!


It's not a personal attack to point out how you are making strawman arguments. If you start a debate you need to be willing to have your position challenged. You take it personally, you shouldn't, it's not; simply an observation that you seem to be twisting people's words. If that's not your intention then I apologise, but it's how it looks.


> The point i was trying to make is if everyone

> stuck to consultation results, then nothing can be

> changed! So for instance in place of Forest Hill

> Leisure Centre, we would now have a block of flats

> and a tiny swimming pool! M and Co would've gone

> and its place we would have had Morrisons who had

> the licence for that premise.


Yes, I absolutely agree.


>

> Lewisham Council is the correct body to direct our

> petition as they provide the funding for the

> schools!


If your intention is to change things in future, as a direct adjustment of policy, then again I agree. But this kind of thing takes years and isn't going to get Fairlawn reopened next September. Too little too late for that.


Seriously, read what people like Penguin68 say - they have it right; unfortunately you don't.

yas Wrote:

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

> Sorry no offence, but Penguin68 you are not in a

> position to speak on council's behalf. Nor do you

> know what else we had done before taking up this

> petition or what else we are planning to do to

> support our case.

>

> So please kindly let other people make their minds

> up as to whether to sign our petition or not!


Ok, you know what? I'm backing away from you now.


That's just rude. You have no idea what you're talking about.

yas Wrote:

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

> So by your argument petition to save lewisham libraries is a waste of time?


No, putting a petition to save Lewisham libraries that is directed to Fairlawn Nursery governors would be a waste of time. Much like putting a petition to save Fairlawn Nursery to the council is a waste of time.

yas Wrote:

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

> but we would've spoken to council about it,

> wouldn't we before taking up a petition like that?



And the council ignored you? And you didn't learn from that?


Surprise surprise. Enjoy your ignorance.

see i am going to sound rude again, but this is the problem with you non-parents (i should hope), you simply don't understand why we are prepared to go to such an extent to protect our children's future! Making a great fuss about a public nursery closing, caring about our local woods are just part of it!

Huge assumptions regarding "non-parents" and you know what they say about people who assume


I don't understand why you are spending so much time and energy arguing your case on the Forum, you are not reaching the decision makers who can change things, if indeed anybody can. Anybody who feels inclined to sign your petition will already have done so and your constant bickering is not likely to encourage others to sign. Can only think


(a) This is just a wind-up as I've said before, a satire.

(b) You're just looking for a fight.

actually no, we put this petition on this site to collect signatures. ppl started to attack it left, right and centre. this nursery closing is very emotional and a rather sad event for both parents and the members of staff. having ppl call you a liar, arrogant when all we were trying to do was draw attention to this case is really very annoying at the very least. hence why i was inclined to engage in bickering!

"but this is the problem with you non-parents (i should hope), you simply don't understand why we are prepared to go to such an extent to protect our children's future!"


That is a thoroughly disgusting statement. I really hope you consider just how wrong it is. What do you know about us "non-parents," what do you know about the heartache or tragedy we may have gone through to end up in your "non-parent" category? How dare you assume that you care more about local amenities than we "non-parents" do? Plenty of "non-parents" put plenty into the community and not just out of self-interest because they want things for their own families. Thank goodness most parents aren't as smug as you.

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

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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