clive3300

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The area is not what it used to be. > Sure, but change is normal and this would be true of almost everywhere. To many outsiders, Rye Lane and much of the housing / industrial areas / council estates of Peckham are fairly indistiguishable from about 1/2 the built up area of London with the exception it is more black and more street-vibrant than most. London is mostly workingclass, full of small narrow houses, big 60/70s estates, little shops or local restaurants with garage doors, tired victorian pubs, charity shops, chain chicken shops (invariably with some US theme) and a mish mash of light industrial. Rye Lane could be anywhere - virtually the whole east and south east, more than 1/2 of the north and north west and a reasonable chunk of the West /South west. For each middleclassey Fulham or Dulwich there are 10 Catfords. If and when this is a problem, either outlay high-6 or 7-figures for the nicer pockets, move to the home counties or emigrate. Lousia, I think you have chosen the latter. Edited for grammer!

timtim Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but what annoys me on a daily basis is how > dirty the area is. Chicken bones litter the floor > along with remnants of hair extensions - yuck! > Plus the meat markets and fishmongers stink. I > wish the people of Peckham took a little more > pride in their home! Agreed. However just meters away from the station and shops of Rye lane / end of Choumert, the streets are clean and gardens well-tended.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used to spend a lot of time in Peckham too, I > have been driven away from shopping in the area > and socialising in the area because it no longer > provides me with anything that I need and also > because I have had some very horrible mugging > experiences locally. Peckham is my home, I was > born around here and my family have lived here for > further back than I or anyone in my family can > remember, I have watched the area change over the > years and tried my best to adapt to such changes, > but the violent crime has reached levels I cannot > cope with any longer and so as much as it pains me > to do so, I find myself shopping in Lewisham and > Bromley more often nowadays, not to say they are > perfect places, far from it in fact, but probably > because they still have a few shops worth > visiting. Peckham isnt this vibrant edgy place so > many like to make it out to be, compared with the > Peckham I remember from old, it's a s*ithole (not > to beat about the bush too much), and to be honest > the transformation of ED (which has equally > disheartened me) has left me no option than to > travel elsewhere for my needs. > > Louisa. What do you shop for and where? You seem to clearly hate both middle class and working class shops, cafes, restaurants. Everything really.

I have lived in south of Peckham Rye train station for 8-9 months and have had no problems (baring our doormat being stolen once). We have cars in the street and nothing has happened to them (one was keyed in ED). I commute to Blackfriars and for this PR trainstation is very convenient - far better than from ED however you try it. And easy accessiblity to London Bridge and Victoria is great. Myself and the Mrs regularly use it late in the evening and it always seems busy and safe. I seriously doubt it is more dangerous than the London average. Rye Lane is kind of fun to walk up occasionally, but there isnt too much Id want to buy there, but again, I have never felt unsafe. The people are overwelmingly decent working class black people going about their business. In our street in SE15 I hear far less yelling (actually only once heard people) that I heard in Crystal Palace Road SE22, where there were often scummo (white) chavs screaming for hours at each other. No foxes screetching all night either. The station itself could certainly do with a spruce up (though ED is nothing to look at either) and the shops around it are messy, but essentially within 1 minute of leaving the station property the area is very pretty (nicer than most of ED) with early/mid Victorians on lovely tree-lined streets, virtually no ugly buildings at all. On my morning commute I have not noticed anyone loitering around / causing problems. Facilities - Peckham Rye park is great; there are a couple of really good pubs, cafes and restaurants in the Bellingdon road area which means you dont necessarily have to do a 10-15min walk to Lordship lane for good pizza, pastries, coffee, curry. There isnt much beyond that and there is nothing special about Bell. Rd really. And apparently at some point PR trainstation will be redeveloped and the east London line go through it. So for me - Id much prefer the 40min per day saving on the commute compared with ED.

Statistically, not really enough people make more than 100k that much higher than 40% would make any difference to overall receipts. I do agree that the highest brackets should kick in a lot higher than they do. 40% kicking in at 36k is rough. But for that to fly, that lost revenue (and it will be a shedlot) will have to be made up somewhere else, or else government spending must be cut signficantly.

I was not attempting to critique the UK governments specific proposals, I was attempting to demonstrate that a central ID number-type system is quite workable and is more efficient than the mish-mash systems in place now; and how an ID number in itself does not lead to some Orwellian system of government due to practical and sensible spreads of information. Biometrics - A method of authentication to the ID number is a seperate issue which I can understand resistance to, but it doesnt mean it cant or shouldnt actually work effectively or securely. Anyway, I believe that most people were very resistant to ID system before "biometric" was even a word.

Who said biometric?

Sorry? dont know what the connection is between this and an ID card. The "hypothetical secure, well designed and distributed database system"(s)already exist. The core change is moving from using your name, post code and housenumber to identify you to a random number. Saying you'd throw out ID concepts because the NHS are idiots is like saying we should all stop using computers for the same reason - a wild overreaction based on misunderstanding. This isnt rocket science - developing countries have done this successfully because its the only workable solution in such an environment. This works reliably in countries where 1/2 the population doesnt own property or live in formal housing or have phones or bank accounts. Many cant read or speak a language anyone understands. Throw in that there is no reliable central repository of the formal property that does exist and the people working for the government are largely badly educated and dont give a damn. And yet you want to make banking, benefits and voting secure. This already exists. The UK system only works at all because the country is stable, educated, fairly homogeneous and developed. That doesnt make it optimal.

Yeah what use is the internet if not for cool stuff like that :)-D

I lived for a while unemployed and not able to get any kind of benefit (being an immigrant). I had to do the rounds at friends' sharehouses and my hot meals were stir-in dolmio on no name pasta; Cold meals were bread and chutney. This way I could eat for about ?1-?1.50 a day, but lost about 15kg (2 stone). In the end I got some horrendous commision-only "job" selling pots and pans to ghanian/nigerian women, before things up-ticked a bit. A rough few months.

Sounds like virgin media have improved somewhat from NTL or NT-Hell as they were called. I signed up for NTL 18months ago. But they took about 3 weeks to come out to install the cable. They then realised that the cable under the road was damaged so they spent another 4.5 months nearly fixing it. This of course didnt stop them charging me every month, sending me warning letters; even passing things to debt collectors - even though it had never actually been connected. Although there was a note in my account saying this, invariably something would change the connection date to show it was (and had) been connected. They would keep telling me to phone Faults. And of course because I had signed for phone, broadband and cable, there were different accounts that werent easily connectable on their computer and so I had to phone and get each part of the bill retracted. Naturally a fair chunk of the time, they had no record at least one of the customer account numbers and swore blind they hadnt sent me a red letter even though I was holding it. I raised many complaints with them, never once getting a callback. I raised complaints about the lack of complaints, but no one ever responded either. Sometimes I was given a complaint reference number, but invariably when I gave it on the phone, I was told there was no complaint numbering system, or the number was invalid. Of course I tried to cancel my contract, but as I has signed up for a year, I would have had to pay out the whole contract in advance. Easily the worst company in the entire universe.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you did say "everyone" a substandard education - > only in your subsequent post did you exapand to > say that, in fact you didn't mean "everyone". So > was my analysis flawed or was I going with the > facts as presented? I mean everyone. When you spread the talent and resources thinly, everyone suffers. So the people who could get the most out of an education and contribute most to the economy (the doctors of the future, if you like) suffer because the best biology teacher in the school is wasting her time trying to explain reproduction to a bunch of laughing kids throwing things.

i would hardly consider my old school to necessarily be the best way to do things, but here's how it sort of worked. From what i have heard from Brits, a few friends who teach etc, it seems a bit better than the UK's system. The kids were more or less ranked on ability, classes 1-10. However on a skewed bell curve (which is the sort of distribution you get), typically you would find kids 20-30% of kids with higher than average (academic) ability who can be clearly ranked. The rest hover around a broad average and are somewhat unrankable. The teachers and headmaster had the ability/power to choose to put kids where was practical for everyone. The important bit is that this wasnt controlled centrally by some 5 year plan: The I. J classes were a bit of the dumping ground for unruly kids, and they loved it there - throwing paper aeroplanes etc. They didnt bother people who cared, and generally, people didnt bother them. They still had to pass the same tests to finish, which they were allowed to, on a Lower Grade. Naturally these people ended up in careers where school grades are irrelevant. The E-H tended to be informal collections of kids who collectively preferred a certain subject, for which they might get the best teacher of that subject. For subjects they didnt care for, they got the grad teachers, or the teachers not teaching their primary subject, or the crazy/uncaring teachers. These kids generally were never going to be going to university, nor had much interest in it. My argument is that good teachers arent stamped out of some factory somewhere. The really good ones that can make a real difference to talented kids are few and far between. Making them effectively punching bags for undisciplined, uncaring kids who will NEVER give a damn is a waste of their time and talents, and virtually guarantees they will leave the profession in a few years, taking their subsidised degrees with them. And gee, in spite of ?1000 a week contract wages, lots of them do. Here is the waste in taxes. Any argument that believes all teachers are equal, and that there are enough good ones to go around is simply unworkable. That said, no one is saying put all kids not scoring A+ in the workhouse. Many careers dont require academic credentials. Why dictate them and waste people's time? This is the nanny state in action. You must learn French, the civil war, spherical geometry, blah blah blah

peace

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I went to a government school where I did get a > decent education." > Ohh dear - what to make of that. Apparently the > decent education didn't include how to make a > consistent argument >:D< nice try: unfortunately you have made a wrong assumption in your analysis: not all government schools try to give exactly the same level to all kids regardless of ability. Some are/were pragmatic and not driven by the ideology which seems to govern modern UK schooling my school had 10 classes per year, ranked by ability. few in the last 5 did any more than the absolute minimum, and they tended to not have the best teachers. They didnt care, and the better teachers went to the best pupils. didnt appreciate the snide remark. perhaps continue your education sometime huh

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At least their children will still have an equal > start in life. That is just a dream. I am fine on spending taxes on poor kids with ability and who are interested in learning. But I object to taxes being wasted on keeping kids (of working age) in school who dont give a damn about education. I similarly would object to kids with ability being stuck in classes with clearly hopeless, disruptive and uninterested students. Spreading the resources, both money and human, simply gives everyone a substandard education. Only the lefty nutters think everyone really wants to do an honours degree. Most kids want to get the hell out of school and the last few years of school are a total waste. I went to a government school where I did get a decent education. But if necessary my kids will go to private if they would really benefit from it. However, if my kids just want to pull pints in a pub all their life, thats fine, but then no private education and they can leave school at 16.

what if some kids dont want to learn? or arent bright enough to learn past a certain stage?

Another e.g. - How much harder would it be to conduct benefit fraud with an ID system. Currently people can claim to live in multiple places and claim multiple times. Each council unaware that Joe Bloggs in one address is the same as another. With a unique number this, and many other simple cons that cost the taxpayer millions, become impossible.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Someone gets my ID card data - they get > everything. I'm screwed, am I not? > > Show me a data system that cannot be > hacked/manipulated and I might reconsider. It depends on how the system is designed: A monolithic central database containing everything where the only access requirement is your unique id would be this vulnerable. But only an idiot would design it as such, and its probably well beyond the capabilities of a single real world database. If someone has your unique id number / card - its just a number. In itself it doesnt PROVE who you are, but for simple transactions might be enough. More complex would still require additional documentation (the level of proof dependent on the risk associated). E.g. A phone account query requiring less than buying a car on credit. But once the link between the number and a person is made (from the point of view of a company or gov organisation) then the ID becomes a convenience. At no point can a company "look up" all your records using your ID number. E.g. your sort code and account number are potentially much more vulnerable to abuse (they link directly to your bank) - but without the correct authorisation, they cannot be used. So your NHS records would be linked to your ID, but only within the NHS Database. Similarly your tax details within the Revenue. But the revenue database has no access to the NHS (obviously). However if they need to, authorities could get individual access to each to find out everything, but no one employee would ever have that access, any more than they would now. And to be honest - if they could do it then, they could do it now, it would just take a bit longer. But the value comes in e.g. 1. when someone has committed fraud - its linked to their ID card and as soon as someone authenticates their documents to that number, it can immediately be flagged. 2. If someone steals your identity - instead of having to move house as someone is using some stolen bills, there is the potential for just getting a new number (granted you would need police clearance etc), completely seperating you from the stolen ID 3. You dont have to remember a zillion account numbers - the ID can work just as yoru post code can work now. but you dont have to give your physical address. I hate telling people where I live for transactions that have nothing to do with my location

Whats really so bad with ID cards? It can increase efficiency by giving each person a reference unique identifiable number. I am from a country that has them, and in my experience a much better system than trying to engage the government (or companies) using the UK proxy system - your post code (which is not properly crosslinked between services, or uniquely identifying). And this proxy system can be a nightmare when you change properties, have multiple properties etc. Its fine for companies to use as its just a number to identify you uniquely without necessarily having any more information about you. The UK system seems fairly easy to manipulate for the frauds you read about daily - banks, benefits, property, passports etc etc. If these were linked to a single number this sort of thing can be eliminated.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My favourite 2 pubs in the area are The CPT, and > The Plough. > > Plough has a great selection of beers, and good > staff, plus a nice big paved garden. > > The CPT is my regular haunt. It's 2 pubs in one, > has an old "lounge bar" complete with fire which > is cosy in the winter, and a "public bar" (old > name) which is a more modern side and has the big > screens. > > To me the staff make the pub, and the CPT staff > are great. However, they're all moving on, so no > idea what the place will be like in the future... I used to live close to the CPT. proper old gin palace gone to ruin. friendly staff and some interestingly wierd locals. The best is during a rainstorm, the staff calmly walk over and deposit buckets at various points (particularly that iron cast iron pillar) as the water pours through. I miss it a lot.

Spangles30 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes good luck to them. Hopefully the service will > be better than in the Peckham Rye Cafe. I went in > there (again) this week and the chap and blonde > girl behind the counter were as miserable as > ever.... Mrs clive3300 heard a customer have a go at them because the quite delicious ice creams were hideously expensive at ?2.

Ant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A proactive repositioning of dynamic stakeholder > capacity to utilize shareholder leverage going > forward in a global best-practice marketplace > yielding result-led strategic brand synergies... > > Urgh, I'm making myself feel sick. ...going forward

And if I was going to die 10 years younger, Id prefer it was from excessive fun, travel and a great lifestyle, then too many battered sausages. But hey, thats just me.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When are those figures from? The 1970s? I am browsing and the figures really do seem to be something from the 70s. This graph must be miles out, and yet claims 05/6. They dont even measure people with a household income of ?52k. I mean 21yr old graduates in the City make 45k these days... http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44188000/gif/_44188235_uk_income_dist2_gr416.gif