Students forcing Walkley family to move

[StarSparkle]

Originally posted by t020

I'm not "under myself". It's irrelevant how much of an issue you PERCEIVE it to be for other people. At the end of the day, most people wouldn't like false slurs against the area in which they live. I'm no different. Judging how important an issue is ob behalf of nearly 20,000 people? Get over yourself.

 

So students living in an area is a 'slur' against that area, is it? What a strange world you inhabit. Don't you have doctors and lawyers living near you in, where was it again, Eccleshall or something? Don't you realise many of your neighbours were almost certainly once students, and might take exception to your comments?

 

StarSparkle

[t020]

Originally posted by StarSparkle

So students living in an area is a 'slur' against that area, is it? What a strange world you inhabit. Don't you have doctors and lawyers living near you in, where was it again, Eccleshall or something? Don't you realise many of your neighbours were almost certainly once students, and might take exception to your comments?

 

StarSparkle

 

It IS a slur when the insinuation is that they act like "yobs" and go around vandalising cars and shouting abuse until the early hours. Yes, many of my neighbours (infact, just about all I know of) are graduates, but that's irrelevant. They don't cause problems and in their day, students moved the odd traffic cone. These days, a bit of criminal damage is thrown in for good measure.

[StarSparkle]

Originally posted by t020

That is my sneaking suspicion as well.....

 

StarSparkle

 

Oh for heaven's sake, T020, grow up a bit. YOU REALLY DON"T NEED TO SHOUT.

 

How stupid are you? I was not referring to JGHarston's post, I was referring to MY OWN posting just before his, where I made my comments regarding the figure of 50% re the student population.

 

Don't shout at me because you can't be bothered to read a thread properly.

 

StarSparkle

[dinp]

There is no reason for my post, other than to break you two up.

 

I'm a student though, if that has any relevance. Not much noise in my area, would be even less if we had double glazing!

 

[ToryCynic]

Originally posted by jgharston

Wards don't tell you wahat community you live in. Just what collection of 13,500 adults you have been placed in for electoral purposes.

 

Springvale is in Crookes Ward. Crosspool is in Crookes Ward. Doesn't mean that Crosspool is *in* Crookes. Crosspool is *next to* Crookes. Both Crookes and Crosspool are in Crookes *Ward*.

 

Wards are artificial constructs for the sole purpose of representing the same number of residents at elections. The Council has worked out a set of neightbourhoods which are a lot closer to the actual communities that people identify with.

 

See http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/facts-figures/indices-of-deprivation/sheffield-results for the index map. It's a bit difficult to see, but it looks like "Springvale" is a subset of "Crookesmoor".

 

They are an initial start, and there are some flaws in them, but they are a lot better than 28 groupings of 13,500 adults.

 

--

JGH

 

Hi JG,

 

I remember we went through this before.

 

Cheers for the link,

KB

[JoeP]

t020, StarSparkle.....

 

Please don't make me put you both on the naughty step....

 

Joe

[t020]

Originally posted by StarSparkle

 

Oh for heaven's sake, T020, grow up a bit. YOU REALLY DON"T NEED TO SHOUT.

 

How stupid are you? I was not referring to JGHarston's post, I was referring to MY OWN posting just before his, where I made my comments regarding the figure of 50% re the student population.

 

Don't shout at me because you can't be bothered to read a thread properly.

 

StarSparkle

 

 

I wasn't shouting, I was highlighting. If you were referring to your own figure of the *TARGET* 50% of school leavers, perhaps you should have been more clear, or at least corrected jgharston rather than agreeing with his figures?

[StarSparkle]

Originally posted by t020

I wasn't shouting, I was highlighting. If you were referring to your own figure of the *TARGET* 50% of school leavers, perhaps you should have been more clear, or at least corrected jgharston rather than agreeing with his figures?

 

I'll take that as the nearest anyone's ever likely to get to an apology from you

 

StarSparkle

[jgharston]

Originally posted by t020

"50% of the population" is a false figure. That would be 30m people. The *target* is 50% of SCHOOL/COLLEGE leavers, but it's currently at about 44% of them going into higher education. This is not of "the population" as a whole.

 

But, ultimately, if 50% of 18-year-olds go to university, then there will eventually be 50% of the whole population that will have gone to university.

 

I thought that was the whole point of geting 50% of 18-year-olds into University, that in 60 years time then 50% of 18-to-78-year-olds would have been to university.

 

--

JGH

[t020]

Originally posted by jgharston

But, ultimately, if 50% of 18-year-olds go to university, then there will eventually be 50% of the whole population that will have gone to university.

 

I thought that was the whole point of geting 50% of 18-year-olds into University, that in 60 years time then 50% of 18-to-78-year-olds would have been to university.

 

--

JGH

 

Yes, but it's 2005 and not 2065. At this moment, 50% of the whole population is a gross exaggeration. It isn't even 50% of the school leaving population yet. Even if government policy remains constant for the next 6 DECADES the target might still be missed.