dulwichbloke

Papa Johns East Dulwich 40 East Dulwich Road East Dulwich Greater London SE22 9AX Telephone: 020 7732 2255 Standard Opening times: This store is currently Open

So don't eat it then! But, more to the point - stop constantly whining about the place!

Didn't he used to be on Gladiators?

Why did you need 'advice' on that? Surely the answer is obvious?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The chances are tha I probably pay far more than you, but who knows (I don't know what, if anything, you pay)? What I do know is that my share of a broken paving slab (assuming one does even break) would be de minimis and is therefore an utterly trivial matter. On that note - I'm getting back to my work. I shall leave you to worry about the great Papa John's paving/planning crisis...

Jeez, motor bikes and paving stones? Some people really do need to get out more!

Jeez, bikes and paving stones? Some people really do need to get out more!

I had no idea where their tomatoes come from (or really care) but I do love their pizzas. They are very tasty (come to think of it, their tomato sauce is good!) a bargain too - as the advert (much discussed on here) makes clear. I'm getting hungry again just thinking about the subject. I shall order one this evening.

... and those damned motor scooters. I don't see why they can't just deliver on foot. It would be eco friendly too. James Barber ought to do something about it...

Oh, thank God! We can breathe easy again. Oh no! I forgot about The Gardens cafe...

I was delighted to see this advertising trailer - if it hadn't been there I might not have seen the great deal they were doing on large or extra large pizzas! The only downside is, I have put on several pounds since Papa Johns opened up close by! I intend to keep supporting them though - I'll just have to cut back on my other food...

Erm, Diwali maybe?

And without entering the debate, because I can't be bothered, DJKQ I just can't follow your logic when you say there are already teenage burglars in the area, therefore the unit is ok/won't make any difference. How does that follow? Surely, if there are MORE teenage burglars in the area because of a unit (presumably quite a few would have been convicted of burglary/theft) then there would be MORE of them in the area, which surely is a consideration is it not? It doesn't mean the situation is the same, just because some are already here does it?!

Well, he was sent to the Crown Court for sentencing because the Magistrate decided he didn't have sufficient sentencing powers, which means he thinks he should get more than 6 months (which is the limit for sentencing to prison in the Magistrates Court). I agree he may get less, particularly with his 1/3 off credit for pleading guilty, but I don't think he can expect to get off very lightly in this atmosphere and with the courts focussing on deterrence in these circumstances (the riot being an aggravating feature as well).

Whether or not his conviction would bar him from that employment, I suspect the fact that he may well get more than six months in prison is going to interfere with his school attendance.

Nice thought, but I shouldn't think there is anything to help to clean up in LL. Was there in a restaurant yesterday until about 10.30pm and during that time the damage to Londis, Palmerston, PO etc occurred. Unless something major happened after that, there won't be anything to clean up (not outside anyway and I suspect inside is/will already have been taken care of). The Palmerston's window was already boarded up by 10.30pm. LL escaped lightly I think, although there was a time it looked like it wasn't going to and we were wondering what we had done going out to eat. It was surreal to see groups of people who were obviously rioters. or would be rioters, moving up LL from the roundabout end (they were almost all coming from the Peckham direction along ED Road past Goose Green). When I say would be rioters, I don't mean people wearing hoodies, I mean groups of aggressive/nasty looking characters, apparently in an agitated state, with their faces entirely covered (except for their eyes). There was a very bad atmosphere, but it didn't look like LL was targeted as some places were - it looked more like they were heading home/on somewhere else after smashing up Peckham. Must admit, it was a relief to us, although sorry for those whose places were attacked.

.

Dumdum I know it's your first ever posting here, but I'm afraid I don't really follow what you are saying... "I blame kingsdale for employing teachers like booboo who obviously couldn't cut it as they only worked there for a year. I had the opportunity to tour the school as a local resident and had found it to be nothing but excellent, I must admit we were very skeptical about going but if my children were not grown up I would of been more than happy to have sent them to this school." So if I understand your only ever posting, you are saying that you 'toured' the school once and are able to state from that, with confidence, that it is excellent and presumably also that you know the allegations of exam cheating are bogus (based on that one 'tour')? Also, if your children were not grown up, you would of [sic] been more than happy to have sent them to Kingsdale.... so why were you there doing a tour? How can you be so sure? I'm not saying the allegations from the 6 whistleblowers are correct, but I just don't follow how you can be so adamant you are correct, based on what appears to be almost no first hand contact with the place.

Sorry - meant to add link. Only the 6 'whistleblowers' http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23973072-exam-cheat-investigation-at-school-hailed-by-cameron.do

If the reports of allegations in the South London Press are correct, if federated with Goodrich, Kingsdale might have some useful pointers to give to the governors of Goodrich for improving exam results/pushing Goodrich up the league tables towards the coveted 'outstanding' status?

Ha ha ha... just pressed enter and that posted in about 0.2 seconds!! Yesterday it would have taken 20 or 30 seconds of agonising wait (if it loaded at all, that is).

Had Virgin broadband 50Mb (getting 47Mb right now) installed today. So far (obviously it is early days, but) it is lifechanging!! Unbelievable speed - never seen any internet so fast. Maybe it is to some extent the comparison between my hopeless/unusable old 140Kb (Talk Talk) compared to the 47Mb (Virgin Media) but I don't think it could be much faster - searching/loading is close to instant. I have downloaded e-mail attachments in pdf and Word and they are very fast indeed. Delighted, but keeping fingers crossed it doesn't all go downhill from here!

Here's the point I was referring to in only general terms last night (as it was too late and I was too tired to go into detail)... DaveR - you say that Goodrich would have more money... I don't blame you - this is something said to the meeting by the finance governor during the first 5 minutes. But, on a proper analysis it is far from clear that there will be more money available and there could well be less. The realities of Goodrich must be looked at as follows (what is set out below is from the BBC website but is also reflected in the DFE website and others and the figures are from the DFE website):- "How do schools benefit from becoming academies? Converting schools receive more money. To start with, the Department for Education pays ?25,000 towards conversion costs. Once operating as an academy, the school receives the same per pupil funding as other state schools. However, it also gains control of a portion - up to 10% - of its budget which would previously have been held back by the local authority and used to provide services, such as special needs support, across the borough. If the school is able to buy in the services it needs more cheaply, or has proportionally less need of those services than other schools in the area, it might benefit financially from becoming an academy." Pausing there for a moment - the key is "or has proportionally less need of those services than other schools in its area". Goodrich appears to be a heavy user of Southwark's central services and therefore presently benefits from receiving services which may in reality be subsidised by other schools who are lower users of central services. For example, looking at Goodrich v Dulwich Village's figures from the DFE website the huge difference can be seen: (These figures from the DFE website:- http://www.education.gov.uk/inyourarea/schools) Goodrich: Pupils with special needs without statements - 95 = 13.3% of the total pupils Dulwich Village: Pupils with special needs without statements - 11 = 4.1% of the total pupils THe key thing to bear in mind is that the extra 10% which will no longer be held back by the council is calculated (as the BBC and others including DFE, point out) by reference to the total number of pupils NOT the number of children with special needs. Therefore, using the figures above, Dulwich Village would receive their 'extra' 10%, which would probably mean they have more money, because they would no longer be paying for services not used by them (which they were effectively paying on behalf of Goodrich and other heavy users). They would only have to pay the costs of 4.1% of the school population with special needs. Goodrich on the other hand would get their 10% based on the number of total pupils, but will then need to pay themselves for (very costly) provision for the 13.3% of pupils with special needs. That may well work out as being a loss over the present situation where other schools subsidise Goodrich's 10%. There are 2 consequences of this, apart from the fact that in reality Goodrich may end up with less, not more, money (neither of which are, in my view, good)... Firstly, provision for special needs may decline and those children's needs may not be met in the same way they are now as a non academy school and secondly, in order to balance the books, the school may have to reduce provision for special needs and/or reduce the number of children with special needs who are admitted to the school in future. Otherwise the school would operate at a loss, which it just could not do. Now, I am not saying for sure that these are in reality the outcomes/figures - because I do not know. However, this was not addressed last night and I suspect, based on the apparent lack of real analysis/understanding by the governors, that they had not taken this fundamental point into account properly or at all. They appeared to be saying that they hadn't done any detailed number crunching and that the 'consultant' would do that later. These are crucial issues and the devil is in the detail (as always) and I did not think it was good enough for general statements to the effect that there would be more money were at all appropriate unless and until the proper analysis has been done and the reality established - otherwise the governors may be misleading all concerned and misdirecting themselves in their decision making process. Another special needs factor to be condsidered is that upon conversion to an academy, the right to appeal any failure to provide for any child to the SENDIST Tribunal on the part of a parent would be lost - no such appeal would exist (unless the law is changed). When combined with the inherent pressure on resources outlined above and the possibility of reduction in special needs provision, this may or may not be a concern to parents (it is to me). Finally, I was rather surprised when the meeting was told (again by the finance governor) that Goodrich would save money by not having to pay theLEA's 'overheads' when buying in services directly. I'm afraid that is naieve and misleading (I am not saying deliberately so, but nontheless it is misleading). Overheads do not just disappear because a school is buying services directly! Who will actually recruit the staff for special needs/other services?? They won't just magically appear - a manager or administrator (ie an additional overhead) will have to be engaged by Goodrich to carry out this function and to manage invoices, make payments, check the provision has been delivered, etc etc. All contractors will need to be checked for CRB compliance etc. Who will do that? In most cases, schools appear to contract with the local authority to source some of the exact same services as they were receiving directly - is it seriously suggested the LEA won't charge for an element of their overhead?! I know this is all a bit long, but I didn't want to appear to be unfairly making generalised criticism of the 'finance' guy without actually explaining what I was referring to.

I signed up today, so will let you know how they perform (from the end of next week when the engineer is coming). I intend to tell him/her about the local problems being reported and make sure it is working speedily before he/she leaves. I have now had no internet for 2 weeks with Talk Talk. Things are all relative... if Virgin Media is a few Mb slower than the service I am paying for (but still 200 times faster than what I had before), happy days! If it is totally crap, I shall exercise my rights under the money back in the first 28 day clause in the contract... It would have to be non-existent to out do Talk Talk!!!