Shaggy

I second Wimpey. Benders. Jakido Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe a Wimpy would do well; balloons.

The Harris Girls lottery isn't truly random. It is banded. I've pasted the appropriate part of the Harris Girls policy below. The logistics of running a banded lottery without using computer selection strike me as being mind-boggling, so I would assume that it is a computer programme that blindly allots the places, and therefore random in that respect. This does NOT appear to a new system introduced this year. According to their archived admissions policies, the policy was approved in March 2015 and first used in the 2016 round, for entry in September 2017. That would make this the second year of operation. http://www.harrisdulwichgirls.org.uk/120/academy-admissions/ d). One third of the remaining places available in each band ( rounded up the next whole number) will then be allocated to those living nearest to the Academy as calculated by straight line distance from the student?s home to the road junction of Shelbury Road and Colyton Road and living no more than 1 kilometre away from that point. Any applicants not allocated a place on this basis will be added to those awaiting random allocation as set out in e) below. Any places not filled by this distance criteria will also be added to the available places in each band to be filled by random allocation; e) Random allocation: any remaining students who have sat the admissions test and have not been allocated a place will be selected for a place in each band through a random allocation procedure until each band is full. Should any band not be full at the end of this process, students from the nearest adjacent band will allocated using random allocation to fill the unallocated places, alternating between the band above and below. The random allocation will be verified by a person independent of the Academy who will certify that it has been carried out properly and fairly.

Sorry I gave you a confused look and didn?t Bongowave back. I didn?t realise you were a Bongo until after you drove away.

Hi, Does anybody know of any sewing machine introductory lessons for kids that are being run in the area? My year 4 daughter is pretty good at crafts, and her grandparents bought her a good entry-level Janome sewing machine for Christmas. However, despite hours of attempts, I can't even thread the thing, so I can't even get her set up to experiment. Clearly, she needs outside guidance. Thanks.

Hi All, Does anyone have a phone number of email address for the 5th North Dulwich Brownies? Cheers S

So how many types of permanent residency are there? The Home Office does say quite clearly that EU citizens who have "a permanent residence document" will have it revoked on Brexit. As such I clearly haven't misunderstood. The statement is clear, but HO information is often inaccurate.

This quote from that page is what I make of it: "Permanent residence status is linked to the UK?s membership of the EU and so will no longer be valid after we leave. If you already have a document certifying permanent residence, you will still need to apply for the new settled status document. The application process for people who need to do this will be as streamlined as possible." But what I make of the document overall is this: these are proposals the U.K. government is taking into negotiations. The EU has made it clear that they aren't good enough. At this point in time, that document is utterly meaningless. So EU nationals who want to protect their lives here can only do one of two things: A) Trust David Davis and the skills of the UK negotiating team, and believe that everything is going to be alright. You may well be right, and save yourself loads of bother. B) Apply very soon for permanent residency and immediately turn it onto naturalisation, thus gaining all the rights of a British citizen and retaining all the rights of an EU citizen. You might end up putting yourself out needlessly, but it's the option with the most certainty. Personally, however, I have a huge ideological problem with the government's proposals, outlined in that document. They are essentially creating a special class for EU nationals. If one comes from anywhere in the world other than The EU, you get treated one way, but if you are an EU citizen, you get treated another way. EU citizens do feel like they are being treated like negotiating chips. By creating a special class for EU citizens, they are being made into negotiating chips forever, because all of their rights can be destroyed at the stroke of a pen. That is why the EU wants the citizens settlement to be adjudicated by the ECJ, which the HMG is resisting. Far better to avoid all this uncertainty by becoming dual nationality. However, this is an advice thread, not a political one so I think the bottom line is this: for EU citizens permanent leave is only of use as a stepping stone to naturalisation. Of course, this may change, but that seems to be the Home Office's current position.

No. I'm sorry to say I haven't misunderstood. This is from the Home Office's notes to EU citizens applying for ILR: "If you already have a permanent residence document it won?t be valid after the UK leaves the EU." So it is "because of Brexit", and indefinite leave is no option for an EU national unless one wants to use it for naturalisation, because as soon as it becomes of use, it will be taken away. Theresa May did indeed test the legality of removing people's nationality, so it technically probably could be done, but if we left the EU and started stripping naturalised EU citizens of their British citizenship we would make ourselves a total international pariah, so it's probably unlikely. Although you never know these days. https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate/permanent-residence

There is very little point applying for residency without using it to apply for citizenship. The Home Office notes on Permanent Leave to Remain clearly states that all EU citizens will be automatically stripped of their Permanent Leave to Remain as soon as Brexit is implemented. Your fate will then be in the hands of David Davis. Even this government can't strip people of citizenship though. Therefore, the only way to properly protect yourself is to apply for Permanent Leave and immediately turn it into citizenship. To do this, apply for a five year a qualifying period that ended more than a year ago. That gives you the five plus one you need for citizenship. If you are married to a British citizen you can also apply for citizenship as soon as you have Permanent Leave. But with all the delays, if you don't get your papers in before the end of summer, your papers may well be still being processed when Brexit hits.

Hi all. I'm planning to buy a Mazda Bongo for summer family camping adventures. Can any forumers recommend a good localish Bongo garage or mechanic? Also, does anyone know of a reliable Bongo dealer within day trip distance of East Dulwich? Any Bongo tips or debate would also be welcomed.

On a point of information, (and yes this probably should be lounged) the last time I bought snails for prepration from a supermarket in Burgundy, they cost me 11 euros for four dozen. They were the good quality, Burgundian ones that my mother-in-law recommends and cooks on a very regular basis. There is a general shortage of snails from Burgundy, as the locals eat so many of them. Cheaper snails are easier to get hold of at a lower price. They tend to come from farms in Eastern Europe. All of Burgundy and most of France agree that they are nice, especially covered in garlic butter, but aren't of the same quality of the ones from Burgundy. So, that's how much snails cost, and the statement "snails are snails" would be disputed by most people who regularly eat snails, including me.

How do they source them? They come from a snail farm in Burgundy, like all escargot de Bourgogne. The clue is in the title. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They're basically slugs that happen to have a > > home. > > > > Louisa. > > Yes.. and who would eat Slugs..? Even with Hot > Garlic Butter.. :) > > Most restaurants if not all do not call them > 'Snails' They refer to them as Escargot" so it > sounds posh. > > .. and justifies places charging 2 quid each for > them. ( not quoting La B.B price) > > Foxy

Indeed. Virgin say it is because they are improving the network and it should be better than ever at 1600

The Supreme Court judges won't be giving a verdict. They will, however, probably hand down eleven judgments.

I don't think the back tracking over article 50's reversibility is sinister. I think it is actually because of the judgment. This is why: I was at the hearings and the judgment. I think one of the most interesting exchanges occurred at the end of the first day (Thursday). For most of the day David Pannick for the claimants had been pointing out, very simply, that parliament makes the laws, and if it had intended for the government to have had the power to trigger Article 50, that would have been put in the EU Referendum Act, which it wasn't. His case seemed absolutely watertight. Only an idiot could oppose it. Then, Lord Thomas said (and I paraphrase a bit) "That is all very well, Lord Pannick, and I doubt anyone could disagree with you but for a huge assumption that you have been making FOR ALL OF TODAY." Pannick looked rather worried for the first time. Thomas then explained that the claimants' case was ENTIRELY based on an assumption that Artice 50 could not be notified in a qualified way, and an assumption that Article 50, when triggered, could not be reversed. Thomas then, surprising explained that if it could not be reversed or qualified-triggered, his case was clearly a strong one, but if it could be reversed or triggered in a qualified manner "you have no case at all." Pannick explained that he didn't think it was reversible. Thomas told him quite bluntly that he wasn't to interested in what Pannick "thought", he was more interested in what Pannick could successfully argue. He said he wanted proper arguments on that point when on the next day of the hearing, four days later on Monday. On the Monday morning Thomas asked if that point had been addressed. The Government said that they had addressed it and they agreed that Article 50 could NOT be reversed or triggered in a qualified fashion. The Government asked the judges to allow them to continue on that basis. Pannick said he wasn't going to oppose that argument. Lord Thomas said "very well", as there wasn't much more he could say. And they continued, and the Government lost. This shows quite a few things: 1} The judges went straight to the heart of the weakness in the case. They did not give the claimants an easy ride, and they handed the Government a nuclear trigger that could destroy the claimants case. So biased my harris. 2) David Pannick, the country's finest public lawyer, hadn't even entertained the thought that Article 50 was reversible (or had gambled the judges wouldn't ). The look on his face when the judges pointed to the hole in his case was priceless. 3)The government didn't even think it was a point worth arguing. Maybe because it isn't worth arguing, or maybe to keep their powder dry. One interesting point, though, is that if it does turn out that Article 50 is reveresable, then the courts will quash Thursday's ruling. That wouldn't be a bad thing at all, because that would allow the government to negotiate whichever bloody Brexit they want, be it full fat "close the borders and weave baskets" or Brexit lite "full open borders, full trade access, no voice in the meetings." Then, we could even have another refendum in which we are asked to agree the deal, or go back to the status quo. jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are now backtracking fast over article 50. > > It was agreed BY BOTH SIDES, as part of the > government's defence in the High Court, that > article 50 was irrevocable (once triggered no way > back). But High Court said that entailed the > equivalent of legislation as would change rights > established under EU law. Hence court found > against government. > > Now they are putting it about that article 50 is > NOT irrevocable so no rights are affected so no > legislation necessary (oh joy of governmental > duplicity) despite having argued the opposite > assumption to the High Court. > > So, they now hope, the Supreme Court will say its > not irrevocable so there is no need for a vote. > > Not sure how impressed the Supreme Court will be > in an argument that contradicts the one put before > the lower court - but who knows. > > I see Truss has now made a statement in which she > does not mention the issue that has outraged so > many: the attack by the popular press and some > members of parliament on a fundamental aspect of > the constitution.

No, there isn't a point there. Just a series of irrelevent assertions. The question now isn't "should there be a Brexit". That's decided. The question is "how do we do it." To say "trigger article 50 and hope for the best" is a childish response. There is a reason why children don't get to vote. But you are right to say that the govement didn't contemplate the effects of a leave vote. This is what has left us in this situation. If the Referendum Act said (like all other referendum acts) "there shall be a referendum AND if leave wins this shall happen...." But all it said was "there shall be a referendum." So yes, it is a big mess and people need to stop bleating about "the people's will" to shut out those who are thinking about the issue and foresee problems, and work out in a considered fashion what to do. If you think giving Therea May carte blanche do do whatever she likes and not tell us what it is until she's done it, you have greater faith in her than me. LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shaggy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And your point is? > > My point is this - at no stage was it indicated to > the electorate that Parliament would then debate > the outcome - it was clearly stated, again, "This > is your decision. The Government will implement > what you decide". Such was the naivety and > arrogance of the ruling elite (on both sides of > both Houses) that they did not contemplate the > effects of a Leave vote. A question was asked, an > answer was given, now the goal posts are being > jiggled about in a frantic attempt to appease that > ruling elite.... > I'm sorry if I wasn't air headed enough for you > first time round, I do hope this clarifies that I > am, indeed, a really stupid girly....

And your point is?

Today's court ruling is an interesting barometer. I'm sure that lots of those offerings their "opinions" haven't read it, but all it does is to simply state that the government doesn't make laws. It proposes laws, and parliament votes for them or against them. There may be a democratic imperative for parliament not to oppose Brexit, but the government just doesn't have the power to overrule parliament. If it did, we would be living in a dictatorship. Here is the reason why it is a barometer: it is possible to have a reasoned viewpoint in support of Brexit. It is not, however reasonable to say that the judges in this ruling are wrong, biased, or acting in an undemocratic way. Those suggestions do not withstand a moment of scrutiny. Any "opinion" to the contrary isn't based on fact, and therefore is worthless. So the response to the ruling will separate the ill-informed morons from normal sensible people.

Using commas and full stops isn't hard either. kibris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well thats not hard get the one before or the one > after 1810

Anyone else experiencing this?

Why has about a route to East Dulwich been lounged?

Better luck next time, James.

I'm going to send an email. However I think a group email from a group of people might have more force. Please reply on this thread and PM me if you want to be included. I will write it and share it before sending, and also agree who to cc in. I may be being naive, but I'm sure that if we do demonstrate to them that the session has support, then they will have a good incentive to put it back on, and probably will.

It was quietish-- but it was only half the pool. Never empty.