London Skybar

[Octoman]

I suddenly thought you might come from Kennington or something. I was jsut using it as an example to make a point.

Its not poor people, no. I remember this discussion previously. Someone short of money isnt automatically antisocial. I grew up in a rural community and some of the local labourers, farmhands and the like had next to nothing and yet they were some of the kindest people I knew. I'm not sure what possesses someone to go out and start making the lives of their neighbours miserable but lack of money isnt the definitive factor.

[pricemazda]

I grew up in a village outside Lincoln. But Kennington isn't rough, it's not the Heygate.

[Smarty]

Originally Posted by Octoman

Kennington proves my point though really. It does have some lovely parts. But it also has horrid bits. Cleaver Square where they play boules in the summer is great but a couple of streets away you will probably get mugged for your boule set.

I used to live in Kennington and loved it. I'd still live there if I could afford it but it's become way too expensive so I've moved across to Bermondsey (which has now become equally expensive). When I was there it actually had one of the lowest crime rates in London, contrary to popular belief. Probably to do with a larger police presence because of the number of MPs that live in the area.

[GSAA]

BTW I think I haven't stated my budget. I only have around £1200 available each month, that's including rent. As a student I'll be prepared living cheap, it's like that for students in most cities I think. The only realistic option would probably be flatshare, in decent areas they seem to range from £400-700 on moveflat. Will I realistically be able to live with £500-800 left after rent? Also, will I be able to go for a night out at least once a month?

[DarJoLe]

If you have that amount of money a month I'm going back to being a student.

[n_pon88]

interesting little piece on nicknames that we give to buildings
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11838167

[Cat man do]

They make the distinction between 'look at me' and 'background' buildings which is akin to the debate we have here concerning the balance between landmark and in-fill.

[Bigcat]

Each local authority has to have a certain amount of council houses available so irregardless of the area you will generally find shit holes next to half decent streets.

Apparently the government doesn't want one single area to be complete dive soley full of council and affordable housing so each authority takes its share of the burden, even Westminster and Chelsea have shitty areas.

[vareynick]

Originally Posted by GSAA

BTW I think I haven't stated my budget. I only have around £1200 available each month, that's including rent. As a student I'll be prepared living cheap, it's like that for students in most cities I think. The only realistic option would probably be flatshare, in decent areas they seem to range from £400-700 on moveflat. Will I realistically be able to live with £500-800 left after rent? Also, will I be able to go for a night out at least once a month?

I think if you want to get the most for your money, Wandsworth has to be a sure fire first look... It not only has the lowest council rate in London, but the whole country.

It's pretty nice here too. Nice and close to central London, a few nice parks (Wandsworth Park, Wandsworth Common, Battersea Park, Clapham Common etc), plenty of great areas for wining and dining.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by Octoman

Not at all.
Lets not talk about Kennington then because you are taking it personally. The same can be said of most of London outside of the premium areas.

When I lived in Clapham north I was a couple of roads away from a dirty great housing estate. 100% of the trouble would come from that place. Walking through it at night was a non starter. A couple of roads away were attractive victorian terracing where I lived which was full of decent people who had jobs and didnt vandalise the area.

This is my problem with large parts of London (or any big city for that matter). Unless you ar loaded and can buy exclusivity, even if your immediate vicinity is attractive it is constantly polluted by the massed dross that surround you.

I feel compelled to agree with you. Portsmouth is the same (on account of its high density for this country). There are some absolutely stunning little streets surrounded by swathes of dross. Also, why do inner city council estates seem to smell of chip fat?

[chrissus83]

Russia???????? I mean, Spain/Portugal yes, England yes, even Holland/Brussels maybe. But Russia??

Congrats to Qatar though. Very unexpected but they had a good pitch, and its good that the middle east will have a major international event as a platform for some positive PR for once.

[El_Greco]

A handful of wintry, Christmassy photos of London -

[woodgnome]

Predictably pathetic comments from the usual rabble. Having the greatest city in the world as our capital obviously isn't enough for some people...

English a second language for 40% of London pupils

-- Link to London Evening Standard article --

More than 40 per cent of state school children in London speak English as a second language, research shows.

In total, 233 languages are spoken in the capital's schools by 450,000 pupils, with Bengali, Urdu and Somali the most widely spoken behind English.

The percentage of children who are bilingual has increased in 10 years, from 33 per cent in 1998 to 41 per cent in 2008.

The report, published by the Institute of Education and CILT, the National Centre for Languages, shows 59 per cent of pupils speak English as a first language. Panjabi, Gujarati, Arabic, Turkish, Tamil, Yoruba and French are also in the top 10.

Teresa Tinsley, director of communications for CILT, said: "All the major languages of the world are represented in London, including most of those with more than 10million speakers worldwide, yet most of us would be hard-pressed to name more than a few dozen. Headteachers know schools are like football teams, they are very multicultural."

Almost all the languages heard in schools have more speakers now than 10 years ago.

There are 12 languages spoken by more than 10,000 pupils, compared with eight in 1998. Gujarati, Panjabi, Greek and Chinese are the only four languages to have declined while the numbers of pupils speaking Somali has increased the most, from 8,000 to 27,000, making it the third most widely spoken language among London schoolchildren.

In Tower Hamlets almost 75 per cent of schoolchildren speak English as a second language - the highest percentage of any borough. More than 28,000 pupils speak EU languages other than French, Portuguese and Spanish, while more than 19,000 speak Arabic.

Ms Tinsley said the large number of languages spoken could benefit the economy and boost tourism.

[woodgnome]

Wet commutes forecast as parts of London predicted to be underwater by the end of the century

-- Link to Practical Action article --

Large areas of London could be underwater by 2100 as a direct result of climate change, research has shown.

Development charity Practical Action has released an alternative tube map that highlights the impact climate change and rising sea levels could have on the capital.

If climate change talks scheduled to begin in Cancun this week are not successful, it could lead to a 4C rise in global temperatures by the end of the century. This, in turn, could lead to a 4m rise in sea levels proving catastrophic for London and potentially devastating for developing countries.

The "London Underground Map 2100" highlights those areas that could be underwater if no action on climate change is taken including Westminster and the Houses of Parliament, London Bridge, Embankment, Sloane Square and Canary Wharf.

All of which would mean people would potentially face a swim rather than a walk to their jobs in the city and cause embarassment for the UK on the world stage and affect how London is perceived for business and finance.

Margaret Gardner, Director, Practical Action said "if no action is taken against the temperature and sea levels rise as predicted, large areas of London could be underwater by the end of the century - a frightening thought. But what's more frightening are the effects that will be felt in developing countries where people are already living on the front line of climate change and experiencing the worst effects of floods, droughts and extreme temperatures."

"In London we have an insurance industry and the necessary capital to do something about increased flooding risk. We can build barriers and do whatever is necessary. But in Dhaka and other cities in the developing world, there isn't the spare cash to just invest in infrastructure to help people to adapt to climate change. So the answer has to be to avoid climate change in the first place."

"Practical Action works extensively with communities living in these areas helping them to adapt to their changing climate but without action on climate change, the consequences will be too catastrophic to overcome."

Practical Action works with poor communities around the world helping them to adapt to the effects of climate change. From teaching Bangladeshi villagers to build floating gardens on flood waters in order to feed their families, to introducing camels in drought-prone regions of Kenya.

[GSAA]

Originally Posted by chrissus83

Russia???????? I mean, Spain/Portugal yes, England yes, even Holland/Brussels maybe. But Russia??

Congrats to Qatar though. Very unexpected but they had a good pitch, and its good that the middle east will have a major international event as a platform for some positive PR for once.

That's probably FIFA's way of trying to expand football internationally. South Africa 2010, South Korea/Japan 2002 and, even further back, USA 1994, are other examples of "non-traditional" hosting countries for a World Cup.

[the spliff fairy]

^yep Middle East is a potential market of 400 million, plus all that money and bling they could throw *cough* I mean invest in the sport...

[pakboy]

Originally Posted by GSAA

That's probably FIFA's way of trying to expand football internationally. South Africa 2010, South Korea/Japan 2002 and, even further back, USA 1994, are other examples of "non-traditional" hosting countries for a World Cup.

fifa doesnt do anything, its a vote done by all countries that decides where to play

[kerouac1848]

English a second language for 40% of London pupils

I hate headlines like this because it distorts the reality for alterior motives (i.e. this paper's own political position)

Also, the same article says this:

The percentage of children who are bilingual has increased in 10 years, from 33 per cent in 1998 to 41 per cent in 2008.

Now, bilingual essentially means being able to use two languages with equal ability. As long as the pupils can communicate in English to the level of a native speakers it doesnt matter if it comes second after what they speak at home. As they get older and move away the home language will decline in importance anyway. The most important thing is linguistic standards for all pupils, which very much includes those of British, Irish and Anglophone Caribbean descent.

Also, whilst in total the use of a language other than English is high this is spread over a large number of other language which means English remains by far the most wide spread. London doesn't have the situation like some US cities in the South-West where the prevalence of Spanish is so strong it is almost threatening the usage of English in school. If the third most spoken language is used by less than 30,000 kids than London has little to worry about.

[Octoman]

Bilingual is fine. I dont see why children who cant speak English should attend school though.

[kerouac1848]

Bilingual is fine. I dont see why children who cant speak English should attend school though.

But this article isn't about those kids though, that's why it pisses me off. It's just pandering to its dopey right-wing audience with a populist headline (I know, I know, it's a trashy tabloid, but still).

I would be interested to know how many children actually cannot communicate in English to standard they should of their respective ages. It is more of an issue for teenagers that arrive with little-to-no English than primary school kids. However, you'd be amazed at how quickly they can pick it up. My ex-gf came to London from Brazil at 13 with basically no English and was fine long before her GCSEs came round. Her range of vocabulary is greater than many native English speakers.