Tommy1000

Aristide makes a good point - you just both need to comfortable that the chosen surveyor has both of your best interests in mind. We have used Ken Power ([email protected]) who was very good, and pro-active. I can't remember exactly what he charged sorry, but I do remember he was at the more reasonably end of the scale (and about half of what the council's surveyor charged - as the house next door is council-owned).

We bought genuine ones from www.roofblinds.co.uk and I think they were cheaper than buying direct.

In response to Miga, I would disagree that the punishment is 'massive'. I think it could, and should, have been a lot harsher. It is no use comparing it to stamping, for example, because this is the THIRD time Suarez is guilty of this offence. As has been mentioned before, with many of the other acts of violence it can be harder to see definite intent. Not a problem with biting, however. Any talk of 'unprecedented' punishment is besides the point. The crime, and especially a third occurrence, is unprecedented. Frankly, if they're setting a precedent with a four month ban for what he has done for the third time, then I am disappointed that the precedent hasn't been set harshly enough. I would agree that fouls intended to injure etc are just as bad and, provided it be established (to whatever the deemed standard of proof would be) that it was intentional (or, depending on the incident, perhaps even just reckless) the punishments for these should be much more severe. That's a different discussion though to whether or not Suarez's punishment is, on its merits, justified. If not 3, how many times does a player have to bite another player to receive a four month ban? In the Premier League players pick up suspensions of increased length the more yellow cards they accumulate, so there is absolutely precedent in football for escalation of punishment. Many violent conduct offences in football have a degree of ambiguity surrounding them (was the injurious challenge malicious, for example?), but with Suarez there is no grey area. He is fortunate in all instances not to have faced / be facing criminal charges.

Suarez's ban didn't extend to international duty last time presumably because he was banned by the FA/Premier League, the body which had jurisdiction over him given he did it in a league match. Don't think they have power to ban players from international games. This happened on Fifa's watch, who have jurisdiction over all levels of football. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been banned from international duty also, but there seem to be logical (or at least procedural) reasons why he wasn't. The punishment could have been harsher also, given it's the third time he has done it. For screamingly obvious reasons, a repeat offence almost always attracts a harsher punishment than the last time. Looking at it narrowly you could say that Liverpool are collateral damage in all this, however, given that they have witnessed his antics first hand on more than one previous occasion, and inexplicably (and embarrassingly) stood by him, it could be said that another ban was only a matter of time. Brought into sharper focus of course given that they were legally obliged to sell him in the summer and decided not to. I'm not saying it's karmic but I certainly don't think anyone will feel sorry for LFC. And in any case, surely he is ten times more likely to stay at Liverpool now because of this.

We also did this last year, dropping the first floor ceilings by a foot. I think we ended up with something like 2.1 or so in the loft and 2.4 on the first floor. Which in both cases is perfectly good. Try and incorporate as large a velux window/s as possible as it can really take the edge off the impression of a lower ceiling.

Mourinho/Chelsea not winning the league is, at this point, right near the top of my shopping list...

I'm not saying the rule is right, but it should categorically not have been a sending off. The general rule is denial of a clear goal-scoring opportunity. More specifically, the rule for this situation (i.e. a handball) is if "the unacceptable and unfair intervention prevented a goal being scored". The ball was not going in so there was no goal-scoring opportunity denied, and no goal prevented. The more interesting question is why the ref gave any decision at all, considering he had already signalled for a goal kick and the linesman wasn't flagging. Arsenal were in enough trouble as it was (2-0 down, or 3-0 as it should have been with a penalty and a yellow card for Chamberlain) without wrongly going down to ten.

If you make the (sensible) assumption that people aren't in the habit of reserving a parking space daily with a wheelie bin just for their car, and are doing for good reason like the one above (or perhaps a heavy delivery or for a skip), then it's certainly inconsiderate. Whether it's the house's 'space' or not is besides the point in this instance, the act of reserving the space with a bin is not selfish (if done for good reason), movnig it is. But I also agree with Seabag's sentiment, the spaces don't belong to anyone but, if reserved on a rare occasion for good reason, then why would people not respect that. On the rare instances one of our neighbours has done that, I've parked giving them as much space as possible because I thought that was the decent thing to do.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tommy1000 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Indeed, can't believe Pardew's not there! > > Really? Pardew's record is only 3 wins, 1 draw and > 2 losses, even Moyes' record is slightly better > with 4 wins, 1 draw and 2 losses. > Semantics really, as Pellegrini should get it with > 6 wins and a draw. I'd give special mention to > Pullis, 3 wins out of 6 for the then bottom club > is good going... Sorry, I was being sarcastic! Agree with the other suggestions.

Indeed, can't believe Pardew's not there!

Possession is certainly one factor, but it's not sufficient on its own to explain the swing in Man U's favour when it comes to playing at OT, particularly when Webb's been in charge. In the 11/12 season Arsenal didn't get a single penalty given at home, yet posted the highest possession stats in the league - what am I missing in terms of context there? And there were countless penalties not awarded, witnessed live at the ground and confirmed upon re-watching. And to add some balance and so that it's not all about Arsenal, I dislike Liverpool as much as I do Man U, yet I can't deny that they've had a rough time with refs over the last few years - this is what your eyes tell you watching the games and it's subsequently supported by independent review of the referees' performances. In just the same way as it's been clear that Stoke have had a very easy time of it with referees over the last few years also. Context is crucial, you're right. 'Reviewing' games in context is even more damning that the statistics on their own. Recorded fouls stats for example obviously don't show how many fouls were committed and went unpunished. Context is precisely what has made the referee bias at OT even more clear - we've all been watching in context for years and years. This is why - halfway through the season - it's easy to see the contrast (now the SAF has gone) in the way in which games are officiated at OT. Watching games on TV with my Man U supporting friends is quite something; they've been conditioned over the years to expect so much more from referees than anyone else and, now that all of those decisions aren't coming, their perceived sense of injustice is palpable. It's as if they have a lower standard than everyone else as to what constitutes a foul, at least for those 'fouls' suffered by Man U players that is. Have just googled the abbreviation 'ABU' - now there's conspiracy theory for you. In any case, I'm no 'ABU', I'd much rather Man U won the title / trophies than Chelsea or City. Even when you put the spending to one side, there's infinitely more class about Man U as a club than the other two. On Howard Webb: anyone who watches a healthy amount of football knows that Webb has been a friend of Man U for years. I wasn't arguing though that some decisions didn't go againdt you the other day. However, I wasn't surprised by the decisions - the two Man U players in question have given all referees plenty of reason to question the legitimacy of their falls to the ground. As for Webb, he is one of the worst referees in the league, by a distance. He constantly takes no action against offences which are yellow or red cards and frequently ignores plenty of other decisions. One of the biggest myths peddled is that he is a 'top referee'. Depending on your level of interest, watching full matches (as opposed to highlights) or reading impartial reports of refereeing performances will tell you this. His infamous World Cup final performance was merely par for the course. And yes, his performance at Stamford Bridge the other day was fairly typical as well.

That Stretford Enders article is laughable - the comments do a half decent job of highlighting its many flaws. This is a decent article on the subject: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9379989.stm Not about United specifically, but you can see the penalty data there plain and simple. And especially Webb's record at OT. Quite striking the difference in Webb's performance the other day now that SAF has gone, which is undoubtedly the difference. Everyone is aware of SAF's influence over referees and journalists and, now that he's gone, the difference is manifest. For what it's worth I thought Janujaz was fouled and the Young one could have been given as a pen. Can only think that in both cases the players' correctly earned reputations contributed to nothing being given. Welbeck dfinitely dived, minimal contact or not.

Couldn't agree more re Chelsea Otta. The shame of it though is that, until yesterday, I think they were having a bad patch. Referees carried them through their games at the Emirates and against Liverpool. They took 4 points from those two games when I don't think they deserved more than 1, if any at all. The league is wonderfully close this year. Remains to be seen whether Arsenal will choke, however, over the last few seasons we've actually improved in the second half...

unlurked will now be the first DirtyBox, the obvious way to raise the stakes in his trolling of Sydenham's inhabitants.

Some gold there, El Pibe. Must a troll always be self-aware? I'm not sure this is but, if it is, then it's to a professional standard: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1220249,page=1

I honestly had to google what 'flaming' meant. In case anyone else shares my ignorance: "?To post an email message intended to insult and provoke. ?To speak incessantly and/or rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude." I think you're right; some people just like to shock. And yes, the other kind, safe and empowered in their anonymity hiding behind screens.

Interesting reads. I hadn't realised that wearing helmets was such a bone of contention, though I did know it wasn't a legal requirement. Granted it's not going to help in a number of situations, but it would in some. I would certainly wear one if I cycled in London. I'm not sure whether or not legislating is the answer for wearing headphones, it's a difficult one. Comparisons with driving a car with the radio on, for example, don't withstand much scrutiny. You're already sitting in a vehicle with it's own engine noise and, in having a radio on, are not blocking out much else (notwithstanding that yes it is a distraction in exactly the same way). Wearing headphones on a bike, however, you're depriving yourself of so much more. The author of that piece is weighing up a few extra weeks, months or years on a (potentially great) number of people's lives in old age against a possible premature death of a cyclist caused by wearing headphones. I'm not sure those two things are as easily weighed up as suggested. It's beyond me why it's deemed appropriate in press releases to include statements of the kind mentioned when they're seemingly not relevant at all.

Jesus. How about both? Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the OP is lecturing, preaching or anything of the sort. She appears to be making a suggestion that could save someone's life. No-one's saying that the cyclist isn't behaving legally, but it's plainly debateable whether not wearing more visible clothing etc is 'safe'. If it had been a near miss with a car then, no, the OP would probably not have posted something equivalent. But then it's not car crashes which have been dominating the news for two weeks. There are also different things at stake: the same situation involving cars is far less likely to result in the tragic loss of life. This also might make such a plea less likely. Edited for typos.

Not sure why you're focussing on apportionment of blame which is absent from savage's post, davidk. Indeed why can't savage come on the forum, admit a mistake, explain what she will do in the future to reduce the chances of something similar happening and, at the same, make eminently sensible and reasonable suggestions as to how the cyclist might cycle more safely? Unless you're disputing that high-vis clothing - to take one example - is a good idea? You said "It is the cyclists responsibility to ride in a way that is appropriate for the conditions. His clothing and safety gear is irrelevant." This is inherently contradictory. Clothing and safety gear could not be any more relevant to ridiing in a way 'appropriate for the conditions'. We can only hope that you don't go around dissuading cyclists from wearing high-vis clothing which will greatly increase their liklihood of being seen by drivers.

We're in Nunhead, not far from the station, and we heard it too.

I think any debate as to the merits of people's own anecdotes is a distraction. I don't think anyone on here is denying that motorists and cyclists alike can, and frequently do, behave like idiots. The difference I think is that nobody is trying to defend the motorist and their breaking the law. LadyDeliah, however, is doing exactly that when it comes to cycling on the pavement. We would all give pretty short shrift to any motorist that thinks they're above the law and, for example, unilaterally decides that it's ok for them to jump a particular red light (regardless of whether or not such decision jeapordises someone else's safety). Of course, some motorists do this (and worse), but I'd be amazed if any such offenders would put much effort into defending their actions. That is exactly what a cyclist is doing when they decide that certain laws don't apply to them. They presumably think it's fine for them to ride on the pavement, and this could be because they don't care or it could be because they think that they can do it safely. The point is that it's not their decision to take, beyond their own personal bubble a decision has been taken that, for the greater benefit of all, (adult) cyclists aren't allowed to ride on pavements.

gamechanger is right - legally speaking you're required to disclose to your prospective buyer any disputes with neighbours. The potential pitfalls with this are that the landlord might not be planning on selling any time soon (so won't care) or, even if they are, be happy to lie and not disclose the information. If, however, they are planning to sell in the next few years then it might help the OP insofar as the landlord either pays for soundproofing or - to try and avoid having to pay - engages and tries to do something about the problems. They should be motivated to do something really as they may either lose a tenant over it or never get piece and quiet for the complaints. The kind of behaviour described is (you would think) unlikely to stop should the OP move out and a new tenant move in.

Sounds awful. It's bad enough living below (for example) a pleasant neighbour with a heavy foot, let alone someone who - based on what you describe - is going out of their way to disturb you. She may well have a personality disorder. She may just be a nasty piece of work. Given that your neighbour most likely does not have dementia, I wouldn't take much notice of anyone stepping up as your neighbour's apologist. Considering what you're putting up with, I would say that your first post is remarkably measured. It would be bad enough if it was just passive-aggressive behaviour you were contending with, but it sounds way past that. There are a number of areas you could look at: - I wouldn't let the council take no responsibility and would push them again. Late night operation of domestic applicances is explicitly listed on their website: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/412/noise_problems/377/be_a_considerate_neighbour/1 This is also common sense / decency, which is certainly not trumped by someone looking to save a few pennies on their electricity bill (what a bizarre excuse to offer on your neighbour's behalf). - The aggressive behaviour: if you receive any kind of threat from your neghbour again (thinly-veiled or not) consider calling the police. If you receive anything at all along the lines of 'getting someone round to sort you out' then certainly call the police (perhaps on the 101 number). - I don't have any direct experience with the EPA, and chesterpuss may be correct, but on a first reading of what it's intended to cover ('unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of one?s property') I perhaps wouldn't be so categoric that it will not offer you any assistance. - Tort of (private) nuisance. i think it unlikely that you'd ever go down this route, however, it's certainly something you could bring to their attention (say, for example, if you ever document all of your grievances in a letter also setting out what action you may take should they not stop doing those unreasonable things which are disturbing you). - Keep a written record of everything: noise (uses of washing machine late night etc), altercations etc. - Have a look at the forums on this site: http://www.noisyneighbours.net/ You may find some useful strategies. Good luck.

These look effective: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contech-ScareCrow-Motion-Activated-Deterrent/dp/B005MW9VOM