Domitianus

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn't bother you're talking to a bloke who > thinks the family parking spaces at Sainsbury's > are a breach of his civil rights I guess I can't stop you being a complete ****, but at least you could try to be accurate.

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have been fighting a bit of a campaign about > swelfish parking at Heber, and w ehave seen both > local police down there and also traffic wardens. > Some parents still do whatever they can get away > with though. But don't you know, parents are SPECIAL! The law (or any other reasonable constraint of polite society) doesn't apply to them!

Mine was ripped off by a hedge trimmer too! Ever since I have felt half a man :-(

Don't tell me - someone shot or stabbed someone else to show how much they 'rethspeck' them?

Surely your school MUST be able to arrange an assessment by an educational psychologist????

What Jah Lush and Keef said. The name is sightly distinctive and gives a sense of cntinuiy even with an upgrade. If people know it is the Uplands they will go to see what has been made of it. The Vllage sounds naff and for ages people will be really pissed off having to add "You know....the place that used to be The Uplands."

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Politician makes policy to win votes shocker! > > Come on Quidsy - are you expecting me to believe > that you're arguing against any degree of populism > in politics? Whilst I'd like to see an ideological > backbone to policy making I don't object to some > measures that are vote winners too. This is the > 21st century. > > This is fundamentally a policy which will help > poorer families, by removing the stigma and social > barriers which continue to be attached to > recipients of free school meals and by offering a > healthy and nutritious meal to those 1,800 pupils > who are already entitled to free school meals but > do not take advantage of that entitlement. A > recent study by Leeds University showed that only > one per cent of packed lunches taken to school > contained the nutritional content that a child > needs - surely the idea of the local council > providing that is not so abhorrent? There are a number of presuppositions here that are untested: 1. school meals will be nutritionally sound - have we any reason to believe this? 2. if school meals are nutritionally sound, the children will actually eat them! (a lot of kids turn their noses up at anything healthy) 3. there is no other option to nourish kids. How about teaching those who make their kids their packed lunch a little bit about human nutritional requirements as an optionb?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can see that there is an argument that if poor > children are helped at an early age, money might > be saved later on (be it health or criminal > related)? > > I knew plenty of people who benefitted from school > meals growing up and I think it's a bit crass for > "taxpayers" to be quite so "I'm alright Jack" > about things It's not a matter of an "I'm alright Jack" attitude. It's a matter of whether taxpayers have an obligation to provide basic sustenance for other people's children even when they may be more than able to provide such sustenance themselves. I was one of those who benefited from free school dinners when I was at primary school as I was a child in a single-parent family. Obviously I was not at an age when I had the awareness to make a decision about the mores of such free provision but I am certainly not looking down from some elite perspective now. I am pretty sure that if such meals hadn't been provided my mum would have found an alternative way to feed us well. What appears to be the case here, however, is simply giving everyone free meals regardless of financial status. It's the same in my view as free school milk. I drank it as a nipper but could never understand as an adult why everyone seemed to think it so mean that Mrs T did away with it. It was a nice little freebie and I enjoyed it as a child but I would be very hard pressed to make any sort of case to assert that the state had any obligation to provide it. When I worked in PR we got free breakfast and lunch in the canteen where we worked. It was great. Saved a good few bob. After a while however, the bosses realised that it was costing the firm a small fortune and withdrew the perk. It was a disappointment but I can't fault them for it. Now....let's have something contentious. If I bought a pet and couldn't feed it would the state be expected to provide me with Felix or Winalot? Or would people say it was deeply irresponsible for me to buy an animal I couldn't support? Would people be likely to say that I should give up a few of my own luxuries in order to provide the basics for Fido?

Because it's not the state (i.e. the taxpayers') job to feed other people's kids, perhaps?

Have to say it - fair play to him, Mr Barber does seem to take an interest and hasn't waited until election time to do so. And, no, I am not political. I don't even vote.

Point may have already been made above but I don't have timne to trawl through - does anyone actually believe for a single moment that even one per cent of motorist will actually ADHERE to a 20mph speed limit??? They don't pay a blind bit of attention to a 30mph limit, FFS!!!! Consequently all the above calculations are utterly redundant!

reetpetite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really wish for these dreadful people to fall > flat on their faces in their dogs poo but I know > that wont happen. Don't be so sure! A cunningly arranged nest of trip wires, a hidden vantage point......

Maybe if we got her and rolled her in a big patch of dog pooh she would get the point? Just joking, of course, but it's a thought.

OK. So everyone wants something done. What exactly? I am not saying that nothing can be done but what practical steps do people suggest? Clearly there are some dog owners who simply do not care and are happy for their dogs to c**p in the streets. Equally, unless we have a prohibitively expensive (and Police State-like) situation where there are dog wardens on every corner ready to levy fines; and cleaning service hit-squads prowling the streets ready to scoop away every turd the moment it is deposited, there will inevitably be dog pooh on the streets from time to time. Instead of moaning about the Council and expecting them to do the impossible, has anyone any practical suggestions?

Would be great to see the Uplands as a boutique hotel. ED, as has been noted, needs a local place to put bods up from time to time. Uplands rooms were pleasant but they lost brownie points with me when my mum stayed there having booked B&B. She got up in the morning to find no staff in the building and no-one to provide breakfast. She had considerbale difficulty getting out of the place without setting off the fire alarm as the doors were still locked. When she rang later to complain and ask for a refund on the breakfast part of the B&B, she was told that there would be no refund as the breakfast was complementary and she had really only paid for the room!!!! Great news folks! Let's all head along to the Uplands as they do free breakfasts!!!!

I'm sorry but I just don't get this at all. Are we walking along the same streets? Yes, dog pooh is unpleasant but I just don't seem to notice any great amount of it. Perhaps you are so annoyed about this that you are 'filtering' for dog pooh and can spot a turd at a hundred yards?

Today's Independent: "'Less than half of under-10s walk to school'. Children The number of British primary school pupils walking to school has fallen to less than half, figures released yesterday indicate. The Office for National Statistics reported that in 2008 48 per cent of under-10s walked to school, a drop from the 62 per cent who walked to school in the 1989 to 1991 period. The corresponding data for the number of youngsters being driven to school jumped from 27 to 43 per cent over the same time-frame." interesting?

lillyanginger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are we not talking about the Infant and Junior > School here - reception to year 6? This is the > school with an entrance in Hillsborough... If that is so my point is a little less valid but in a previous post I did assume we were talking about ten year olds or more and was not corrected. If we are talking about very young kids, then let the PARENTS do the walking. Park a couple of hundred yards away, walk down to school, collect your kids and take them back to the car.

Class wars apart, I see no reason why, if Hillsboro Road is such a log-jam, children shouldn't be encouraged to walk the length of themselves to pick-up points in rather less congested areas. If the Alleyns' parents have been organised enough to 'agree' a one-way traffic system, the arrangement of what I have just suggested should be wee buns! I went to a very old and prestigious school in Belfast City Centre during the 1980s (Troubles still very prevalent) and every day I and hundreds of other pupils from same school walked the couple of hundred yards to the City Hall bus terminus to board a variety of different routes to different parts of the city/province. The notion that children need to be picked up directly outside their own school is quite ridiculous! If we were talking about a nursery or primary school the situation might be a little different but this 'difficulty' seems to be one of the parents' own making.

The Queen walks. ALthough I accept that her ***t does NOT stink!

Perhaps a solution would be for said parents to collect their children on one of the other roads nearby rather than having to congregate on this street? If my information is correct Alleyns pupils are above ten years of age and can presumably be expected to stroll a hundred yards or so without walking in front of a car/falling down a mine shaft/taking sweets from strage men etc etc? Or would that be an 'elf an' safety issue?

I agree that parents agreeing a practical solution amongst themselves is positive. I am not so comfortable with the fact that some appear to be trying to 'enforce' this rather than seeing it as a type of voluntary code.

Does it matter? Fact is. whether one is an Alleyn's parent or not - they can still choose to obey the real law rather than the made-up law of the Alleyn's "We own the roads" posse.

I think the appropriate reply in this situation would be along the lines of: "You can make whatever agreement amongst yourselves you like but I adhere to the law of the land and your cosy little agreements are b****er all to do with me so **** off!" Alternatively, you could tell them that you and a group of ED residents had decided amongst yourselves that the road in question was to become a toll-road and that you were there as designated collector to take ?10 of all the other users, so hand over the dosh! See how they react to that.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I apologise for not mentioning his memory. I > assumed it would be hard confusing a handful of > police outside the station against police vans, a > helicopter, roads cordoned off, traffic police, > face-to-face and door-to-door enquires on Lordship > Lane. > > I will let the "lie" allegation go. I was on the scene for about half an hour after the event, having watched it unfold from the moment sirens were first heard. My recollection was that during the time I was there there were at the most half a dozen police or so at the scene. You are correct in mentioning the helicopter which I had forgotten and if there were door-to-door enquiries later I was not aware of them. Fact is, and the point I was making was, having ten or so police with a dog at a very small local station in a comparatively uneventful London suburb is the type of manpower I would expect to see deployed if there was either an actual major incident or a reasonable expectation of one. Neither of these seems to have been the case.