McCatllar

Gone.

Wise move.

A tad patronising je pense. Got anything meaningful to add, or just like being a smart-arse?

Gone.

Try the south of France and you?d be a a tad nearer.

Hi Folks It?s been 7 years since I left the lovely ED AND i miss it still.

East Dulwich Forum. What I always assumed was a discussion board for local people is obviously being used by the media to fill out stories and that changes my perception of the role of the Forum completely. Of course, most of what is posted is non-contentious and fulfills an important role in community exchange. When bad things happen, local people should have the freedom to seek information, pass information on and generally express their views as with anything else which gets discussed. However, the Forum isn't restricted to local people and the equivalent of a conversation over the back wall might as well be broadcast on the 9 oclock news. I can't see a solution to this, but I sure as hell won't say a damn thing about anything remotely sensitive again.

You could start it up as a social enterprise. Information about social enterprises can got from Social Enterprise London...another voluntary organisation funded by the London Boroughs Grants Scheme (that has had its budget cut by 63% - a cut which is, incidently, supported by Cllr James Barber of another EDF thread). Welcome to the Big Society.

Something I find somewhat upsetting... On page 3 of this blog I wrote "A reasonably reliable source tells me that, after shots being fired in Sainsbury's car park, a group of up to 15 boys chased an individual down Dog Kennel Hill and caught up with him outside the library where he was fatally stabbed". This has now been translated as a "witness saw" by virtually every newspaper (including Nationals and the BBC) report. The 'reasonably reliable source' was, in fact, a barman at the pub a few yards along from the incident and it was second....or third...or any number you care to mention, hand. He said the attackers were black and the victim was white...so, not so reliable, huh? I wish I had not posted anything now...and I guess more than a few EDF members will be, justifiably, saying the same. The account probably has some vestiges of truth but I think it would have probably been of more assistance to both the reporting of the incident, and the investgation, if the barman had kept his trap shut and I had been a bit more clued up as to how journalists now ply their trade. Apologies.

I'm still reeling at the notion of a 13 year old with a gun.

Thanks Taper for a robust response to Tarot's presumptive and patronising take on local people being interested in what is going on in their area...and why. Imagine if no-one batted an eyelid. Cause and reason are important to future prevention and it is a role we all have in our community. I resent wanting to know what has occured almost next to my home being described as 'voyeurism'.

I'm slightly baffled by the lack of news on this incident. The BBC still carries the story on its England front page but it hasn't been updated since yesterday lunchtime. When similar incidents occur...especially where firearms, knives, gangs and a fatality are involved the news hacks are usually on to the story and the details in no time. A reasonably reliable source tells me that, after shots being fired in Sainsbury's car park, a group of up to 15 boys chased an individual down Dog Kennel Hill and caught up with him outside the library where he was fatally stabbed.

Apologies. I was very angry when I wrote my previous comment (if you knew why, you'd understand), but I realise it was inappropriate to express this on the Forum.

@Huguenot I plead justification...it relates to another thread.

Yes (re the actual subject matter). Is the East Dulwich Forum supposed to be used as a quasi Party Political Broadcast platform? No, especially when contributions are made by political non-entities who can't even follow their own party line on account of their: a) ignorance and; b) laziness at addressing their ignorance.

Dear Councillor Barber It may interest you to know that the Mayor's expressed preference was that it was important that the Grants Scheme continue with the same or similar level of funding it currently administers. This is because the Mayoral office, and the GLA, has an appreciation of the need to tackle some of the most difficult problems strategically and not in the a piecemeal way. As an earlier contributor noted, many of the services provided are deeply misunderstood by the general public, are costly and not 'vote'winners....nevertheless, they are essential. I believe you are a Liberal Councillor. Perhaps you should discuss this issue with your colleagues in Sutton and Kingston (who control their councils) who are supportive of the Grants Scheme and understand its relevancy to the overall needs of London as well as those of their own borough. Interestingly, Southwark has lost out being a net beneficiary...ie, the value of the voluntary sector services it receives is greater than the annual contribution it has made to the Grants Scheme to date. So, you are a turkey voting for Xmas, plus several varieties of stuffing to go with it. Perhaps you should ask eg Southwark Law Centre what they think about losing their grant which enables them to provide specialist services across a large number of boroughs (but, primarily, Southwark). Perhaps you should actually make sure you know what you are talking about before you make posts on a local and public website. In my experience, making comment on an issue when you are clearly inadequately briefed is unlikely to garner votes at the next election.

It's decision day tomorrow!! The Leaders of London Councils decide the fate of the Scheme tomorrow morning. Peaceful demo taking place outside 59 Southwark St, SE1 - starts 10.00am organised by UNITE). Will probably make tomorrow night's local news.

Another underwhelming contribution from Cllr Barber (probably wise to check your facts first). When the Mayoral office and GLA were established, there was extensive deliberation and consultation with regards to those bodies, such as the then London Boroughs Grants Scheme, which might be best managed by the new arrangements. Since the revenue for the budget of the Grants Scheme comes directly from the 33 London Councils on a per capita basis it was agreed that it would not be appropriate for the new Mayoral and GLA authorities to be taking decisions about what to spend the borough's money on...particularly as overall political control may be different. The status of the Grants Scheme is established in Section 48 of the Local Governemnt Act 1985 and it was confirmed within the statutes establishing the Mayor and GLA structures. London Councils came from the merged London Boroughs Association and Association of London Authoroities (briefly known as the Association of London Government - ALG). The Grants Scheme was one of a number of bodies which was subsumed into the ALG in 2000.

Wanted...volunteers to help organise. Visit the events section.

Please visit the events section!!

Excellent and helpful response. THanks

Actually, if there were the choice of purchasing goods and services from more not-for-profit social enterprises, I would definitely go for it in the same way I would bank with only ethical investors (if I had anything to invest). I would also go for a company which guaranteed it wasn't on the tax-fiddle...or practising 'creative accountancy' (AKA 'theft'). But hey, this thread is supposed to be about the plight of the London Councils Grants Scheme...have you tackled the consultation questionnaire yet???!!!

@ Bellenden Belle...and anbody else interested, you can give your thoughts on the proposals for the future of the London Councils Grants Scheme by taking part in the consultation (closing date 10 November). http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/grants/aboutourfunding/futureofgrants.htm

This ruse has happened to me loads of times...last time a couple of weeks ago. Recorded delivery, but the door bell not rung, just a note shoved through the door. I think I may print all these comments off and send them to the complaints part of the Post Office. Clearly there is major problem here.

A ?28m London-wide scheme providing funds to voluntary sector organisations providing services for Londoners for the last 25 years. All the London boroughs contribute annually to a central pot...things funded include services for the homeless, women and chidren who have been subject to sexually violence, domestic violence projects, free legal and advice services, work in schools. Most services would not be economically viable if only supported by one borough. Southwark benefits from these and other services equivalent to around ?1m per year. It is proposed that the boroughs will stop contibuting to the Scheme from 1 April 2011. Only one borough so far has said they will spend their share on the voluntary sector locally (Lewisham). The likelihood is that most of the money the boroughs would no longer give to the Grants Scheme will go straight into the big black hole of their deficit cuts. 360 organisations providing vital services face closure...so much for the Big Society. To register your opposition, contact the London Voluntary Services Council http://www.lvsc.org.uk/ ,write to your councillor and the Chair of the London Boroughs Grants Commttee [email protected] For more information about the Grants Scheme, including what's funded in Southwark, visit: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/grants/default.htm