EDOldie

Was she quite short and, er, of a fuller figure? If so, remember her well and your description is a fair one.

Sadly trying to make a serious point via the medium of humour and irony but clearly failing. I don't know if the brown suited park keepers were a pre war product but he were certainly there in the 60's and may have only been discontinued in the early 70's. But by god they ran a tight ship.

Yeah, we've all got photos like that!

You sure thats 1947? Looks a lot later, like 1960's to me. Mainl that sign above the newsagents.

The only safe time to visit the park these days is when the little blighters are at school. In my day there were two very fierce, brown suited, Park Keepers who ruled the place with a rod of iron and took great pleasure in chasing nasty children out of the park. Wouldn't have had any fancy bikes upsetting the local gentry any day of the week, let alone a Sunday. Ah, it was a quiet and peaceful park in those days far, far better than today. The tree huggers have managed to ruin the place what with their nature gardens, trendy cafe, oh and the er, playground takes up half the park now. It was much smaller and quite difficult to find as well as being properly dangerous. Country's going to the dogs (they had to be kept on a lead too).

My understanding is that the original plan was to connect to Wimbledon via East Dulwich (and N Dulwich Tulse Hill etc etc.)But was ditched for cost reasons. My master plan is to carry on the Bakerloo line from E & C to Camberwell (as proposed many years ago) at the very least.

So, if the world decides to fart of it's own volition we are all pretty stuffed?

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the upside, this must be the first time that > more than four people in America have ever shown > any interest in cricket. Oh I don't know..Hollywood CC

Surely Tessa's swipe at Browns attack on Eton has nothing to do with the middle class labour voters in Dulwich who send their little ones private.

This from the BBc. Hmmmmm. There were suggestions on Tuesday that a cabinet minister might be about to quit to put pressure on Mr Brown's leadership - which were dismissed by Business Secretary Lord Mandelson as "pure journalistic invention". But later, after her name was suggested by one website, Tessa Jowell put out a statement saying: "This story is complete and utter rubbish and I have no intention of resigning."

No, exactly. It is completely meaningless, out of context as you say, and can mean anything anyone wants it to. The point is that we can't have the sort of discussion you suggest as none of us. Apart from Huguenot clearly, has the specialist knowledge to conduct the debate. What we can discuss is the reasons we might believe that mankind is causing climate change or not. My point is we don't know for sure, hence the scientific debate, and that this argument is being manipulated for everything except saving the planet.

But I think the aussies, perhaps a bit like white africans, are far less sensitive to race issues. I remember seeing an australian 'talent' show where the group dressed up as black & white minstrels which was truly toe curling and about the most offensive and racist things I have ever seen on television. However, all the aussies seemed to think it was hysterical and it took one of the judges, who was a white american, to point out just why it was so awful and why he found it so offensive. I suppose I'm saying some people just don't get it. Like whoever made that dreadful KFC ad

This sort of thing Timster? A compilation of paleoclimate records from lake sediments, trees, glaciers, and marine sediments provides a view of circum-Arctic environmental variability over the last 400 years. From 1840 to the mid-20th century, the Arctic warmed to the highest temperatures in four centuries. This warming ended the Little Ice Age in the Arctic and has caused retreats of glaciers, melting of permafrost and sea ice, and alteration of terrestrial and lake ecosystems. Although warming, particularly after 1920, was likely caused by increases in atmospheric trace gases, the initiation of the warming in the mid-19th century suggests that increased solar irradiance, decreased volcanic activity, and feedbacks internal to the climate system played roles.

Being asked how old you are at the Forum drinks

I knew I shouldn't have had a look at this thread, but here goes. Difference between China & the West? China is a one party state. The people who committed this dreadful crime, the execution that is, were all appointed, none elected. Whatever we think of our electoral system at least we have some sort of a say in our affairs. The Chinese people have none. We also have freedom of speech. The Chinese have no freedom at all. Any dissent is dealt with ruthlessly and no quarter is given. Tiananmen Square? And dare one mention Tibet? The Chinese govt have even tried to substitute their own 'Dali Lama'. The repression of the people endured during this current economic 'revolution' makes the Cultural Revolution look like a children?s tea party. I am not anti Chinese by the way, I am anti dictatorship. Perhaps if the Chinese govt paid some more attention to human rights the world would be a far better place.

As Bob Dylan says, 'When something ain't right it's wrong'. Hitting children (or anyone else for that matter) is wrong. A spurious, possibly right wing, report on how 'smacking' children could improve their chances in life deserves utter contempt and rejection.

Thanks Quids, I am certainly not a racist as I?m sure anyone who knows me will testify. I have not taken any offence at Huguenot?s comments as I am now quite sure he didn?t understand where I was coming from or what he, or I for that matter, meant. I didn?t think this thread was about whether or not there is climate change caused by man. I don?t know, although it would seem blinding obvious that it is. But it?s not proven by any means. Lets face it, the leading scientists need to ?sex it up?. Is climate change another weapon of mass destruction? ? The question was ?are there still any climate sceptics out there??? It's only 5mins... Well, hello, yes there are, for all the reasons I?ve been putting forward. Is it any wonder I and a lot of others are confused when the govt takes the stand it does. If it pollutes (third runway), and it suits them, it?s saving the environment. But if you use the wrong light bulb !!!! It is hypocrisy on a massive scale. The Chinese are the worlds biggest polluters by volume but not by head of population. That dubious distinction lays with the Americans. Both of these very large (1 & 3 in terms of GDP I think) economies have dug in over climate change and we Brits have slavishly followed behind desperate for the crumbs from either table. They are both governed by self interest ultimately and I?d very surprised if there are many in either govt, or in ours, who really give a toss about climate change. But the Chinese and the Americans don?t like being lectured by us for all sorts of historic reasons we don?t need to go into here. I happen to think, and nobody can ever prove I am right or wrong, that that dreadful execution went ahead to teach our govt a lesson, which was to treat the Chinese with a bit more respect. As I said before the Chinese are very sophisticated when it comes to foreign affairs and completely ruthless. The fact they drew attention to it in their own statement is a very strong indication this was the case. If Huguenots correct however, I could just have solved the global warming problem. In the meantime the politicos have had a field day. They can dictate almost anything to us behind the mantra of the environment. And its not party specific either, they have all latched onto it. It?s a conspiracy I tell you ?NuttyOldie?

Sean, not sure I understand you, do you mean by 'pro-climate-change adherents' those who are sceptics of, or believers in man made change of climate? This is waht worries me by spin The Times I realise they are not impartial. I am more worried about what govts mean than what the say.

It was a carefully chosen word. But the principle of 'I am right therefore you are wrong' is one designed to stifle discussion and free speech. The third runway is a prime example of politicians spinning climate change to suit their lobbyists.

So your argument is that the scientists are always right because they are scientists? Anyone who dares to oppose them or disagree with them is greedy and/or an evil businessperson? Seeing a connection, denied by the Chinese, between different political agendas is at best 'deliberate obfuscation' and at worst racism. Oh and do you mean the Chinese (I'll just qualify this, as a country a very undemocratic one at that, rather than a race) are taking a reasonable stand on climate change? Er, these are the arguments of the kindergarten. The point is, once again, the scientists may be right but the politicians are using this in a cynical way to promote their ideology.

Westminster is all day on Saturday 08.30 - 18.30 but some parts of Camden are only to 13.30. I usually park near Lambs Conduit St (Great Ormond St) and walk from there to Oxford Street

Will there be one of these body scanners at the next drinks? Be able to identify a few on this thread by the sound of things

The one thing you cannot accuse the Chinese of is 'naivety' they are, as we have seen, ruthless and highly skilled diplomats. I think you could accuse our Govt of naivety in the way this whole sordid business has played out. But getting back to climate change you seem to be missing my point that the whole argument has been hijacked by politicians to further their cause both in the pro and anti camps. No wonder we are all so confused about what is true and what is not.

Uplands, Palm '72-'75, remember the disco and heavier stuff in the Palm and occasionally went to the Mag, bit bikery before they went to total disco, anyone remember the sheep pen in the middle of the room? 76 got into punk, and never looked back. Ah, nostalgia.

Proportional representation will be immpossible to resist