aspidistra

I'd disagree that the problem is recognised by Those Who Must Be Obeyed. Here's David Attenborough's recent speech to the RSA, entitled 'Planet and Population: http://populationmatters.org/2011/news/david-attenboroughs-speech-rsa-population/ The point he reiterates throughout is how the subject of population growth appears to be taboo, across governments and NGOs. It's like the elephant in the room, that all avoid mentioning for fear of wounding - religious? national? - sensibilities.

I love the Chatsworth waterfall. Amazing how warm the water is running over the stones in the summer. Shoes off!

Sue, how on earth could we fall over? We have legs! :) As Goodliz says, maybe a newbie

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well that's the "Worst Fisking Award 2011" wrapped > up. Evidence, Loz, evidence? B)

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do not want to underplay the problems the > Japanese are facing at the Fukishama Nuclear > plant. However, the media hype and what almost > appears to be glee in reporting the problems seem > to be missing an essential point and focussing > disproportionate effort and reporting on the > nuclear problems. > > Jpana has experienced a major earthquake measured > at 9 on the Richter scale, followed by a > devastating tsunami. The total deaths have yet to > be calculated but are estimated to be far in > excess of 10,000 with associated infrastructure > and economic damage. > > To date the nuclear problems have led to no > deaths, a few hours of high, but not huge, level > radiation in a very localised area with radiation > levels outside 12 mile the exclusion zone being > barely above natural background levels. In the 60 > year history of domestic nuclear power there are > estimated to have been no more than 5,000 deaths > directly associated (if that - it is difficult to > find reliable and unbiased facts - I would think > the figure is much much lower) - while over the > last 60 years deaths from coal mining or the oil > industry will be much higher. > > Germany has, in response, even shut down all its > reactors for safety checks - yet they are not in a > earthquake / tsunami zone. MM, last month I attended a conference (RGS) where Chris Huhne spoke about his department's spending. Apparently 75% of his department's dosh goes on cleaning up after power (coal and nuclear), including compensation to individuals and their families. I've previously met 'consultants' (big four, working in government on seemingly endless contracts) who are contracted in their hundreds at least to compensate these people. A lot of the cost to society is not immediate deaths. Coal has been 'bad'; nuclear has not been 'good' though. And there are still beaches here that you cannot go near, owing to domestic nuclear contamination warnings (nothing to do with Chernobyl: Dounray). Never mind the health costs; we are paying significant sums for all this stuff (from way back) to be cleaned up. From a single UK nuclear power station that never had any 'disasters'. Who is paying for the NDA and all its works? I do think it's outrageous that only 25% of DECC budget goes on anything vaguely useful. Sure, driver drive like idiots and kill people. I'd like to do something about them too, but it probably wouldn't be allowed. It's seemingly only when governments (or their proxies) kill that we can control/influence.

I'd normally get a bus to Forest Hill (197, 185, 176 from LL beyond Plough), then train it. Change at East Croydon. 197 does take you to E Croydon station with direct link to Gatwick, and it's not slow off-peak, but I'd use it for other lower-risk stuff, not for flights.

Aw, Goodliz, what a brill story with a happy ending. :) Yes, if you'd got a pic in the recycling box, you could have sold that to the SLP as 'amazing things people do with their recycling boxes'!

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The licensing committee sat last night. Due to > family things I couldn't attend. The licensing > committee is a semi judicial committee and is not > legally allowed to be whipped along any party > lines. > > I'm told that the licensing committee Labour > members tried to ignore all the recommendations of > the Dulwich Community Council that were formed > after a very frank public meeting with residents, > market traders, shop owners, council officers and > local councillors. > > They then realised thy'd thrown out any expansion > and had an ajournment. Alledgely the Labour > members of the committe met privately with council > officers. They then found a way to re vote on the > issue and voted to review sunday operations in 6 > months time. Quite disturbing in that the > committee apparently gave the impression to some > that it might have been voting along party lines. > Equally after so much local East Dulwich > consultation to have local views thrown out is > very frustrating. > > So we will have to ensure the administration gets > the message Sunday market operations is bitterly > opposed by local residents. > > Well not just by residents, James. The CC meeting I went to (Feb?) was very clear: the only people who were in favour of Sunday trading were the council officers responsible for markets! Residents, traders and all spoke against. I'm not a 'local' resident (further away), and came away with the distinct view that I would not support Sunday trading should it arise as an issue. At the Feb meeting, I was singularly unimpressed by the guy from Southwark responsible for street markets. He seemed a total numbskull (sorry), and their running of the existing market seems anything but effective from all the reports made. Can it really be that he got his own way?

Crikey, can this be a young 'un? Loz's advice seems spot on, given that this is out of hours (or I might have suggested London Wildlife Trust, who are in the area).

Surely it's the mum that's dumb, if it's her they're living off? Just sayin'...

The cancer that is creative accounting is unfortunately much more widespread than Southwark, being standard across both private and public sectors.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You might change your plans regarding people > staying at your house on that night, however, > which is one of the questions :) As Harold Wilson almost said, a week is a long time in domestic inter-personal relations. B)

I was on a 12 yesterday. When an inspector got on, not a single person got off. The inspector did not find a single person who did not have a validated ticket/Oyster. I use the 12 a lot, and have only ever seen one person nabbed by an inspector.

Funeral directors make a lot on stuff like coffins (and few coffin companies sell direct - it's a cartel). One company that sells direct (inc. wicker) http://www.coffincompany.co.uk From their site: "A study, commissioned by Axa Sun Life Direct, analyses the average cost of a standard burial and cremation in each of the 10 government-defined regions. The 2008 figures show that the average cost of a funeral in the UK was ?2,549, but hit ?3,424 in London. Over the past five years, average UK funeral costs have increased by 32.8%. For a burial, there is the cost of a double-depth grave and clergy fees. Component costs in the standard funeral include an average ?444 fee paid to the crematorium, ?142 for doctors' fees needed for cremation. The basic average burial cost is ?1,124, with clergy fees for conducting a service typically being about ?92. Additional services that are often used include the death notice, a funeral notice, service order sheets, extra limousine hire, flowers, venue hire and catering at a wake, a memorial or Book of Remembrance and probate - the administration of the estate. The cost of using all these services would add an average of ?4,149 to the funeral bill."

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > WhyBoilerWhy is perpetuating myths regarding > national debts abd banks that suit people who > simply cannot believe that we are ALL responsible > for the financial straits we're in. > > First - we need to move the debate on from the > taxpayer bail out of the banks. > > The principle expenditure by government (i.e. the > taxpayer) on the financial crisis was just over 40 > billion quid in the 2009/10 tax year. Over 95% of > this was spend on recapitalisation of banks > including RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock and Bradford > & Bingley. > > This wasn't 'lost' money - it means that taxpayer > retains equity in these banks that can be recouped > at an appropriate time. > > Only 400 million was 'lost' on the financial > services compensation scheme, more than made up > for by the additional value obtained in banking > equity. That's 0.5% of national annual > expenditure, so is not responsible for the state > we're in. > > So if that isn't causing the problem what is? > > In the private sector, banks had been lending out > more money than they could seriously expect to > recoup. This undermined their ability to trade, > and the subsequent belt tightening made it more > difficult for business to borrow money. Banks built sand castles made of falsely-triple-A rated derivatives built on shaky loans. They are solely responsible for creating those vehicles, which they though would somehow magic away all the risks. Investors (and ratings agencies) were daft enough to believe them, and are consequently also to blame for that. > > This isn't a catastrophe caused by the banks - it > was caused by all of us borrowing more money that > we could afford and spanking it on houses and > cars. Huge-nut, some of us never bought into that particular bubble, never bought the car, the house and the long etc., taking the view that it was all a pile of cards. Some of us decided that hamster-wheel economics was not the way to go, and never borrowed a cent, instead deciding to work hard, live within our means, and buy things only when we had the money, and some more set by for a rainy day. Are we also to blame? > > There are those who said the banks must carrry > some of the blame for this, because they allowed > people to borrow too much. Whilst there may be an > element of truth to it, it sounds like an obese > sweaty ingrate with failing health blaming his mum > because she didn't lock the biscuits away strongly > enough. There was bad on both sides, but lots of lies told by the banks to clinch those deals. Most peeps do not expect banks to behave like casino owners or drug pushers, but maybe everyone now knows better. I hope so. > > So what has this to do with Public Service cuts? > > Public Service cuts are actually about the fact > that the government is spending almost 800 billion > quid every year, but only gets just over 600 > billion quid in tax income. This means that > they're borrowing enormous sums of cash (about 150 > billion a year) from international money markets. > > In total we currently owe almost 900 billion. > > The banking crisis has made this cash more > diffficult to come by, and made the interest costs > higher - currently we pay out 40 billion a year in > interest! Downgrading our debt would make it more > expensive too. We don't want that. > > Secondly, we mainly reassured the money markets > that we could pay the debts back because we > stupidly claimed that our country would get richer > and richer in the future. The lie of endless growth. Growth has always been used by governments to sweeten the debt situation. We can grow our way out of debt: until we can't. There is no endless growth in a finite world. > > This turned out to be a load of bollocks when we > realised we only appeared richer because we > borrowed it. It's like taking a thousand pounds > out on your credit card and claiming you earned > it. > > So what does this mean? > > There is no current plausible alternative to > cutting public spending. Huge windfall taxes on > financial organisations won't make a dent in the > debt. Indeed. So how will reducing corporation tax on larger firms reduce out structural debt, or contribute towards any reduction? If government wants to send a message, at least it should be consistent! The corp tax take as proportion of all tax take does not make an attractive sight (over last 3-4 decades). It is such disjunctures that cause people to realise the hamster-wheel nature of their (financial) lives, with majors corps contributing less and less, and payroll contributing more and more. Recent statements by one or two banks have been hilarious in their attempt to fudge this issue. > > so why are we criticising the banks? > > Partly because they're a symbol of failure, but > mainly because the government wants someone else > to blame. Governments criticise banks and bankers today because it's a short-term PR gain. They only "do" short-term PR gains. Tomorrow they will be friends again. > > If you look at our neighboring nations, you'll see > they're not as messed up as we are. QED. Your neighbouring nations? Or ours? :) I'm looking at some of my neighbouring nations where I have lived and worked and have family, and see that they are as much up shit creek as we are, if not more so. For very slightly different, but actually quite similar, reasons.

Visiting Japan? Why not make the most of your stay by studying for a Foundation Degree in Applied Nuclear Disaster Management? On-site internships providing hands-on experience available for the right candidates.

"In business, Scientology is a very useful tool." Terry Leahy, this afternoon on Radio 4. Now it all falls into place.

To be wrapped by Christo in a giant police uniform.

Have you thought about cycling? (depending on destination, obviously) It may be possible to devise routes that are off-road, along quiet roads, on designated cycle paths on pavements, etc. It would probably get him there a lot faster. I think there's a group locally involved in devising safe journeys to school by walking and cycling. (The P4 bus also suffers from the same problems.)

"If you c it, you should probly say 'Hai'" :)

ladyonabike Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ANOTHER Italian restaurant?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Dulwich Estate properties are let to the highest bidder. The Estate is not concerned about whether there is any variety in the local offering, or indeed whether properties are let to operators providing anything of much use to the local community.

One way of dealing with this nonsense is to call him a bonker instead of a banker, I suppose. :)

Southwark desperately needs to have an accurate body count, for funding reasons. What you actually put on the form is another matter.

Tacks all over the path.

Apparently Mr Fred "the banker" Goodwin is not, was not, and never has been a banker. And he has a superinjunction to stop newspapers calling him a banker, and to stop newspapers mentioning the fact that he has the injunction. Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/10/fred-goodwin-superinjunction-banking But thankfully John Hemming MP has mentioned it in the House, so lips can be unsewn. The sooner Lord Neuberger's committee reports, the better. Why on earth are our courts being clogged up with this kind of nonsense?