Nicholas Spears

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please don't ramp this up and make people worry - > it is utter utter rubbish found in the mail or > express Or Guardian... https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/03/burglars-code-chalk-marks-wall

Actually I'm reflecting on the motives of the seemingly many people who think the apparent suicide of a vicar police caught with child porn should be kept quiet... Why have so many people been anxious to keep this a secret? colville09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I only had a brief contact with the Rev but he > obviously was loved by his parishioners. He also > seemed to add much to our ED community. Maybe > people should reflect more on the motives, > exploitation of distress and morality of The Daily > Mail before they start getting hysterical. There > is something very sick about that rag and its sad > readers.

Join Dulwich Squash Club - it's one of the best in the country. Four courts and loads of keen players

Ann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seriously, whatever organisation is responsible > for these 'sellers' should be a bit more diligent > with their employees. We really don't deserve > this level of aggression on our doorstep. I have to disagree with you Ann as I'd been thinking about this before this thread started...I believe the organisation behind these 'sellers' is extremely diligent, and achieves more consistency in its recruitment programme than Goldman Sachs - they're looking for nasty aggressive people. Either that or they take fairly normal people then train them to be intimidating. I say that because they are so consistently vile - I've had run ins with them on about four occasions 'What are you looking at?' when I've glanced at them in the street, 'I'm not a burglar' out of nowhere from them on my doorstep, 'Are you a burglar?' from another one on the doorstep. Any normal door to door seller would simply hurry on when refused. They are aggressive for the sake of it because they seek to intimidate. I'd love to know who's behind it.

Louisa: Ah - Farmers. yes, have used it many times. But I still don't understand your criticisms of the Guardian. A little piece in the paper a reporter had spent half a day on is not going to be an all encompassing source of all things to all people. And since independent butchers have been closing in droves for decades, rather than opening, it's a good example. And a couple of examples is better than just listing loads. It's just a mystery why the William Rose bloke pretended East Dulwich was rough eight years ago.

Louisa: I think criticising the Guardian for being patronising and lazy over this piece is ludicrous. The butcher is responsible for falsely claiming East Dulwich was rough eight years ago - God knows why - and the Guardian could not seriously be expected to launch a full-scale investigation to determine exactly how rough the locale was. And maybe the Guardian didn't mention 'the farmers' (who I've never actually come across myself in hundreds of walks down Lordship Lane) because no-one mentioned them to their reporter. The truth is though that East Dulwich is a classic case of gentrification - no-one needs to twist anything to produce a piece saying that.

How do you know it's a halfway house, and what are they halfway between? What sort of residents does it have? I've always assumed halfway houses are for ex-prisoners on their way to full freedom. But I may be mistaken

Can you give me some guidance on how I could 'put some time and effort in to making the local school better for every kid' because, as one parent, I'm not confident I could do that in the few years my child was there. And I don't quite see why my child should suffer in the meantime, when they could be going to a school that's already better, like plenty of other children. And out of interest Otta, do you a) Have any children and b) what schools are you near? Because if you don't have kids, or you're in the catchment areas of say Dulwich Hamlet and Charter, it's considerably easier to adopt a more-right-on than thou attitude.

Did I say it was the best guide? Really? I'm saying it is an indication all is not well. Or is it ideal that NO kids in Southwark state schools surveyed, that's zero per cent, had a chance of getting in to Cambridge in the year concerned? What is the best guide, and where are the statistics to show how well Southwark is doing?

'Everyone must go to local schools'? What about if there's clear evidence that Southwark schools are failing children? A few years ago Cambridge university did research into how local authority schools prepared kids for Cambridge entry, and found many simply failed to offer children the chance to do the right sort of A-levels. 'The highest performing local authority, judged by the number of students achieving AAA in subject combinations that make them viable Cambridge applicants, is Reading with 27%. The lowest is Southwark, where NONE of the 111 state-sector A-Level students got AAA in an appropriate combination in 2006.' Your kids might not want to go to Cambridge - but it gives you pause for thought when you're worrying that Otta thinks you 'pathetic' for shopping around a bit. ps Yes I know, things might have changed a little since then, but the principle that some schools might be poor,and best avoided even though they're on your doorstep, remains. here's a link to a report on the research http://www.cam.ac.uk/news/poverty-is-the-main-barrier-to-a-level-achievement-report-shows

Because you don't want to be run over by a car you couldn't hear?

Strafer said: 'Threads that try to warn people only serve to give the impression that things are worse than they are'. Surely they only tell people how things actually are, unless they're exaggerated? And if you don't warn people about crimes that have happened to you, aren't you giviing the impression that things are better than they are? Either way, I'll be watching out for the pair in the CCTV picture when I'm next in the pub.

This allegation is only libellous if it's not true. And it's not in breach of sub judice rules either: no court case is imminent, no individual culprit is named (a company would not be charged with theft, only invidivuals), and the chance of any jurors in some future case having read this thread is nigh on zero.

I had ADT round to my house a few months ago - and had quite a pleasant chat until I saw in the salesman's printed brochure the claim that 'One in 20 homes is burgled every day'. When I said that was impossible, because if it was true then the streets would be full of sprinting yobs carrying flat-screen TVs and i-pads, he persisted, saying it was 'Home Office figures'. Only a complaint to ADT head office, pointing out that the figures would mean there were around 365 million burglaries a year in Britain, secured the truth. The true figure, a boss said, was that 'One in 20 homes is burgled every year'. He claimed it was a clerical error, and not a cynical attempt at scaremongering. The brochure would be changed, he said. I then suggested they replace the original figure with one saying 'One in 7,300 homes is burgled every day' they did not reply. Or do they still use the 'one in 20 is burgled every day' figure? Do tell.

I always thought prurience referred to any unhealthy interest in sexual matters - not concern about potential burglars. And I don't know when the public started thinking that only the police had the right to any information about potential dangers.

Indeed. No law prohibits posting such a photo - you can take a photo of anyone you like in a public place or your own home. And you can publish it too (problems only might arise if it features a child). You, or the forum you post it on, could of course face legal action if libellous claims were made regarding those featured in the photo. But if your claims are true, and proveable as such, they are not libellous.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Sun Readers who attacked a paediatrician in > his home cannot in any circumstances be described > as Have A Go Heros There has never been an occasion when a paediatrician was attacked by Sun readers. As I said earlier it's an urban myth. Here's what actually happened: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm

"Remember when have-a-go- heros attacked a paediatrician in the late 1990s, after mistaking the term for 'paedophile'.. Nothing comes of trying to capture or accuse specific individuals." This business of a paediatrician being attacked is actually an urban myth - there was no attack. Some graffiti was spray painted on the house of a paediatrician, once, some years ago. And it is not entirely true to say nothing comes of naming people. Sometimes the guilty are apprehended or warned off.

Scary story - although one would assume/hope the mother was fast found. And no surprise that it was impossible to get an answer out of the police or the bus station. But alosinom67 is yet another of these perplexing people who choose to go on the East Dulwich Forum - well known as a public discussion forum - to tell people they shouldn't be discussing things or asking questions. Is there a worrying tendency towards people claiming more and more issues should be kept secret, or am I imagining things?

Apparently there's going to be a special investigation into the Kingsdale 'cheating' allegations on the Channel 4 News at 7pm tonight. I thought that had all gone quiet - and am hoping this will give some answers

How much respect should we give to someone who leaves bottles of mystery orange liquid on the street?

As far as I can tell she has absoulutely no excuse for not living in her constituency: She is not and was not married to another MP Her children have not been in school for years Her former husband's job was in central London, ie five miles away from her constituency Her constituency is cheaper to live in that Highgate, where she does live She has not been the local MP 'temporarily' If she does have 'family connections' to north London I'm sure she could maintain them by driving the ten or so miles across London to visit them whenever she wants 'time off' from her constituency. But what excuse has she ever offered for not living in the constituency she represents - has she ever talked on the subject? I am mystified as to why everyone on this thread is so keen to defend her for not bothering to live here. It's a major reason for me refusing to vote for her

Ah, 'undisputed' 'truth' - you're stretching my definition of logic yet again. Disputing my claim that the founder of Iceland is worth ?200m, you've trawled the internet to find a lower estimate of ?60m or so. How does that support your assertion that worthy Iceland keeps prices down by paying its directors more modestly than M&S? Even just ?60m seems like quite a lot to me

What sort of story are you writing WriterEm? Short story, novel, non-fiction? Inside 72, predecessor to Adventure, was quite atmospheric and felt like it was in New York.

The inappropriately named Undisputedtruth tells us that Iceland keeps prices down by, in part, not paying as much in director bonuses as Marks & Spencer's. So how come Iceland founder and boss Malcolm Walker has got a ?200m fortune? Not exactly a horny handed son of toil is he?