EDLove

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The "plastic coppers" used to be out in force, > nearly always walking in threes, but I've not seen > any for at least four months on the streets of > SE22/15. Also, the Southwark-branded "community > whatsits" are no longer to be seen (not that I had > much faith in them anyway to do much more than hog > the pavement). If anyone who is one, or is > responsible for one, is reading this, do try to > solve the problem. I've seen lone police-officers walking the streets of SE22 on a few occasions in the past few months and had a lovely chat with one the other night.

antantant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They have plain clothed cops on the platforms / > top of stairs watching for people who turn around. That makes sense :) But it means that there were EVEN MORE police officers there than it originally seemed. Also, if they are there to weed out (excuse the pun) drug users, why is it generally thought best to do so during busy commuting times? Is this when most drug offenders are thought to be using the trains? - I'm genuinely interested.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah, EDLove, let's just let the freeloaders get > away with it, man. After all, it's the weekend and > the sun is shining! Whatevs, etc?. You've missed the point, man. I don't think freeloaders should get away with it at all, but I also don't think it's a good use of resources to have such a large amount of police-officers on this job. If it's non-payment of fares then I'm not sure why a ticket inspector on his own isn't enough (they manage by themselves on the trains) or, at most, with only a couple of police-officers to run after any fare dodger. If the problem is drugs, the police don't help themselves by waiting at the bottom of a long path in high vis jackets... a drug user with an ounce of intelligence would simply turn around and wait on the platform for the next train out of there. I do like to see police on the streets but this does seem a bit excessive.

Brilliant. A large group of police-officers spending time pursuing the worst criminals of all - those who don't pay their train fare.

Looking at the cost of > rents and living in East Dulwich it is a disgrace > that a successful chain there will not pay their > staff enough to live on. I'm not sure I understand this particular reasoning. What do the costs of living in East Dulwich have to do with the wages paid by a business located in East Dulwich?

Thank you for letting us know kaz@263. It's such upsetting news; Mackerel (or Macaroni as we liked to call her), was such a special little thing. It is nice to read the stories about her - we also had to 'rescue' her from trees on a few occasions and, as she often tried to follow us home, would have to carry her back to her front door. One of the first times I saw her, she was in the Ed shop on North Cross Road, curled up in a box of knitted socks. Absolutely gorgeous.

She is a gorgeous little cat with crimped fur and a grumpy face. She is often seen in the Ed shop on North Cross Road and seems to be well known in the area. We often see her on Fellbrigg Road (where she lives) when we're walking home from work and she loves to stop us for a chat and a cuddle. To be honest, I have fallen completely in love with her, as well as her sister. So, I was absolutely devastated to see pictures of her and her sister, as well as several flowers, attached to a lamp-post on Whately Road this morning. Can anyone tell me what's happened to her/her sister? Thank you.

So sad. As a treat, my dad used to let me and my sister stay up past our bedtime to watch 'Bottom'. Good times!

janicemuir Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't believe this post. What is wrong with you. > You should have some sympathy. What else was going > to happen to contents of the bin anyway? You > really need to get a life and perhaps start > thinking about the way other people have to live. Which post? I clearly said - 'hopefully this thread will encourage more people to donate their unwanted stuff to charity or perhaps leave it in a separate, clearly-marked box for any takers'. I'm sure these girls would prefer if the potential clothing was placed for them to take without having to look through dirty bins. I don't want people looking through my rubbish but I do want people who need clothing etc to have the ability to take it if it's clearly no longer wanted by the owner, which is why a lot of people do leave out boxes with a little note to say that the contents can be taken.

We take unwanted clothes to charity shops, clothes banks etc and sometimes leave stuff on the pavement next to our bins (for no more than a day) with a note saying that it can be taken by anybody who wants it. However, even though we don't want landfill to be stocked with discarded items and feel that it is better that they go to those who would make use of and/or are in need of them, I would probably find it quite unsettling to see strangers rifling through my rubbish, regardless of motives and where the bins are placed (I don't agree that it is 'open season' if your bins are on the street). It does, of course, take it to another level if people are coming on to private property to do it. Posters who claim to be happy for people to look through their rubbish are failing to provide home addresses... Surely it's a meaningless statement without this information? Perhaps those who are willing to have their rubbish looted should make this clear with a sticker on their bin? In any event, hopefully this thread will encourage more people to donate their unwanted stuff to charity or perhaps leave it in a separate, clearly-marked box for any takers.

Hello! I'm interested in getting back in to piano too and Roksana is clearly a great teacher based on these comments! However, there doesn't seem to be any feedback on fees, which makes me think it's going to be too expensive :( Can anyone give a response to this?

Haha! I'll purchase some skin thickening agent this weekend :D How much do you use and how often do you need to reapply?

Whatevs. It's mocking the OP and those who disagreed with LD.

You're mixing up two different threads. It's fine to discuss and disagree with Cella's original post - the forum is, of course, a great place for debate. It is a different matter entirely to start another thread which mocks her.

Otta, some people may find this thread worthy of humour but I'm sure a few others will agree that it's not funny if it's at the expense of someone else. Why shouldn't PokerTime query something that could be hurtful to the subject of the mockery and/or unpleasant for those who wouldn't want to be placed in the same position? We don't like the thread, but it's not always right to turn a blind eye and 'avoid'.

Agree with rahrahrah and PokerTime on this. LadyDelilah, it is fair enough that you disagree with the point being made about urination in public, but to then go on to ridicule someone's legitimate feelings about their experience (because this clearly is a parody of that thread) is not pleasant.

Tr? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The police? Really cella? There but for the > grace of God go I (save perhaps waving my dick > about but I very much doubt this was anything more > than a dumb, drunken reaction and certainly not > anything sexual). Sorry, I find this response (and some others) completely baffling. 1. You don't know that this man was drunk. 2. Even if he had been drunk, why does that mean that his behaviour is more acceptable/less worthy of condemnation? 3. Why shouldn't Cella report anti-social and illegal behaviour to the police? Because you have presumed that the man is drunk and believe that drunken people should be less accountable? Or because, in your opinion, this behaviour, whilst still illegal, isn't THAT illegal? 4. Why do you feel that displaying your genitalia has to be sexual in order to be offensive and/or breaking the law? How can you be so certain that it wasn't sexual? I think it's quite easy to take a laissez faire view on anti-social behaviour whilst living in a part of the world that doesn't really have to see it that often. If we were having to deal with men/women p**sing (or worse) in public every day or every week, I'm sure it wouldn't be quite so easy to dismiss it. All it takes is a small group of society to view this behaviour as acceptable (perhaps because of this new rule that being drunk is actually an excuse for fully grown adults) before it becomes a norm. Perhaps we should take the same view in relation to spitting, leaving chicken on the bus, dropping litter etc?

The owner has always been pleasant with us and it is a handy little place. It would be great if this thread could be used for the benefit of the shop - get more people using it so that stock does get shifted :)

I have also had the same problem with this shop on several occasions and don't think I will forget the moment my joy turned to horror when I bit in to a crunchy jaffa-cake. No-one deserves their Sunday afternoon to be ruined in this way :p. First World Problems. It's a pity, because I do want to be able to support a smaller independent shop in my neighbourhood. Nevertheless, they can still be useful when in need of an emergency chocolate. Anyway, the jaffa-cake disaster led to me looking up the rules re selling out of date stock (I probably need to get a life)... 'Products may often be labelled with ?sell by? and ?display until? dates, but these are not required by law and are used mainly for stock control purposes within shops. It is an offence for shops to sell food that is after the ?use by? date?. However, retailers can sell food after the ?best before? date provided the food is safe to eat'.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Surely working in fashion is no different to > > working in the art, music or any other > > entertainment industry. > > > > Fashion is there for people to enjoy and to > make > > people feel good- seems a pretty valid and > > honourable profession to me. Who's to decide > > what's shallow and pointless? > > I agree, but in same way that people can dress as > they please, people should equally be free to > express an opinion. If you fell that someone who > is dressed in garb which they believe to "hip" > looks like they've been sleeping rough, feel free > to say so. Presumably you don't mean that you would 'feel free to say so' to the person in question?

Thank God you joined this thread! Completely agree. XIX Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I genuinely don't understand why one of the > solutions being suggested here is to raise taxes > and penalise property-owners, by extending CGT to > cover primary residences. > > How is that going to tackle high property prices? > > > Has anyone thought of the effect that it would > have? It would make people reluctant to move (the > combined costs of selling and buying - CGT and > stamp duty, let alone solicitors fees etc - would > be excessive), and hence supply of houses on the > market would drop. Which is exactly counter to > what those suggesting this measure want - ie > increased supply of houses on the market. Property > is one of the ways in which normal people have > been able to generate wealth and better their lot > in life (and before I'm pounced on by the > left-side of the debate, I don't think there is > anything wrong with that), and I don't think we > should try to prevent people from doing so (within > reason of course - I agree that secondary > properties, unoccupied homes etc should be taxed > accordingly). > > Whilst penalising the wealthier may make some > people on the left-side of the political divide > feel warm and fuzzy for a while, it stops a long > way short of actually solving anything. And please > lets not fool ourselves into thinking that > increased money in the Government's tax-coffers > would translate directly into whatever you think > it is they will do with the money to solve the > problem. We all know it doesn't work like that. > The allocation of money will change according to > the subject of public interest of the moment, or > with changing Governments. > > I think increasing a tax like this would be little > more than a reactionary knee-jerk measure which > re-assures some people that the less fortunate in > life are being looked after. But of course it > doesn't do anything for them directly at all. > > and as for "recovering misallocated wealth" > ?????????????????? This sounds utterly orwellian. > > > its not 'misallocated'. its generally people's > hard-earned money, which they have put in to > property, which has appreciated over time. > contrary to the seeming popular belief for a lot > of people on here, I don't think most people were > born in to or inherited great wealth. Most people > are normal, and work hard for years to buy a home > to live in. > > The focus should be on the Government ensuring > there is enough supply of cheaper housing at the > bottom end of the market for people to buy, not > just hoiking up taxes for property-owners. > Counter-productive nonsense.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, unlikely as I've got a big dog and I doubt it. What if they stole your dog? :p

Very true - ?80k after tax is about ?53k. So, yes, saving ?40k out of this would probably lead to a very solitary existence! But it's not impossible, especially as it is more than people earn on minimum wage.

miga Wrote: > If you were earning 80k and saving 40k after tax a > year you should have a TV show called "world's > best saver"! Why? Not everyone lives to their means - it's possible that people can comfortably live on half their salary (especially if that salary is ?80k). I'd watch that TV show though! :)

minder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just read your link EDLove. Thanks for that. > Always thought Shaun Bailey was ok but now I've > read this piece I've changed my mind! > > By the way who decides which areas suddenly become > the place everybody wants to live? The estate > agents no doubt. > > Why should 'poorer' people as you put it be forced > out of their homes that they've lived in for > years? > > Agree with Pokertime about the Heygate Estate, > just near the Elephant and Castle. People were > moved from their homes of many years and were > promised alternatives. This never happened and of > course the builders moved in and created 'luxury' > flats. > > Are you trying to say that every working class > person should be forced out of London just because > the government didn't replace housing stock lost > to the 'Right to Buy' policy? Hi Minder I'm not sure what factors go into decide which places become desirable. Yes, perhaps estate agents fuel the fire. As more people come in to London, and less housing is available, it is natural that the central areas become more sought after and, therefore, more expensive. Which, unfortunately, means that more and more people (whether low or middle income) can't afford to live there. This seems to be happening to a wide section of the London population, not just 'poorer' people. The use of the term 'poorer' people (or the poor) originated in the article and flowed from there. It doesn't sit too well with me either. I also noted the problem with the breakdown of communities but, in light of the housing shortage, it appears that community is something that, sadly, might not be so easy to retain. I didn't say that this breakdown was something I thought was right, just that there may be more immediate priorities, namely finding people places to live (which may be made easier if expensive accomodation is sold off to fund the purchase of more properties for the same value). You're absolutely right that failing to find alternative homes is not acceptable. I'm not sure how you jumped from some brief thoughts/queries about poorer people living in the 'expensive' parts (though the perameters of 'expensive' is still not entirely clear) of London (which is something that most low and middle earners cannot ever hope to do) to the rather extreme statement that all working class people should be forced out of London, which certainly is not my view.