actuarygi

She hasn't even been charged and trialled in the UK court. If UK takes away her citizenship based on media reporting and popular sentiment and UK is really not different from dodgy states like China and Russia.

I live nearby ... I recall hearing some ladies shouting quite loudly every now and then.

It may be fair to the insurer to charge more premium for those who park their car in a riskier stretch, fairer in that they can discourage customers in this area from buying insurance from them and they can pay less claim. But it is not fair for the car owner whose lives on that stretch of the road and therefore park their car there and as a consequence have to suffer a bit more no-fault accident through no fault of his/her own. What would be fairer is to share this kind of risk amongst all policyholders. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The logic even is sound. If you park in > areas where there are bad drivers (and most people > do regularly park in the same sort of areas, as > they are near their homes, places of work or > places where they go for entertainment or shopping > - most people's habits are pretty clear) - then > you are more likely to be in a no-fault accident, > possibly more than once. If you live or regularly > park where there are car break-ins likewise. Areas > with bad drivers or break-ins are defined by areas > where these are being reported and/ or claimed on. > Your making such a claim (or reporting such an > incident without making a claim) places you in > those areas. >

Agree with what you say DulwichLonder. The pricing structure for general insurance products are very complicated because of the huge number of variables that are fed into the pricing model for each individual car. While it is generally true that the premium reflects the riskiness of the policyholder, this is at best an aspiration. The level of riskiness of one car versus another can only be an estimated based on a variety of sources that include the insurer's own data, industry data as well as subjective judgement and profit target. It is quite probable for the algorithm to spit out non-sensible results from a consumer perspective, as Dulwichlondoner suggests. I also agree that it is not fair for the non-faulty driver to cope with a premium increase because of a non-fault accident. These costs should be shared by all policyholders as bad luck is as likely to strike one car as another. And I also agree that the government has a role to play here since private vehicle insurance is compulsory. You may be lucky to get a cheaper premium from another insurer but you can't count on luck all the time.

The asbestos has gone now.

While walking my dog last Friday I noticed that a piece of asbestos was just standing against a wall near the intersection of Fellbrigg and Northcross Road. From the photo you can see that someone put on a sign that read "Dangers. Asbestos. Please do not touch." I have contacted the Southwark council a few days ago but I haven't heard anything from them. Does anyone know whether it has been removed ? I am quite surprised that asbestos material can be dumped just like that and exposed to the element. It is a highly dangerous material and there is no safety threshold for breathing in asbestos fibres that may be floating in the air.

I don't know a dog that won't chase cat.

Zelig Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And here is a prime example of irresponsibility: > > ali2007 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I take my dog for a walk in the park. On the > way > > back, I realise I need some milk. I tie the dog > up > > outside the shop as I HAVE NO OPTION TO TAKE > THE > > DOG IN. > > Yes, you do Don't be ridiculous Zelig, what ali2007 writes about is the problem faced by a lot of dog owners including me everyday. Dogs are not allowed into shop. Full stop. > The dog gets stolen. Then it would be MY > > fault for leaving my dog outside for 5mins? > > Yes, see above. Again, that is absurd. The thief stole the dogs and you blame the owner for it ? Get real. > > > > I would love to take my dog in but so many > shops > > are hostile. I tried to take her into the Post > > Office and was told to leave her outside > > Take dog home then come back. > (btw > > there is nowhere to tie your dog up outside > unless > > you want them to get run over by a bus) so I > had > > to leave. So instead of taking my dog out on > fun > > jaunts these days, she has to sit at home bored > as > > hell. Something's not right. > > Mistreatment of dog. Why not blame the post office for not letting dogs in the first place ? Don't start there. When dogs are on lead with owners they behave absolutely brilliantly. Extremely rarely the dogs will do a poo or piss while inside the premise, not anymore than staffs getting abused by "customers". > > How many threads have there been on dog escapes > tether outside shop, running scared, plesse help? > How many poor tethered dogs are attacked outside a > shop by nasty vicious pitbull/terrier type dogs on > or off lead with moronic owner in toe, proper pet > dog tied as if a sacrifice? How many kids/adults > that have a fear of dogs being too scared to > enter/leave/pass tethered dog and go about their > daily life? How much dog sh#t is carried on dog > that you want to take in food shops when > apparently, according to never-ending dog sh#t > threads, 98% of ed kids under the age of 10 are > blinded via dog sh#t. > So, treat the dog responsibly, don't impose and > dogs and owners and others all get along. Again, Zelig, 1. If off-lead stray dogs attack a dog leashed outside the cafe, it is the fault of the OWNER of the off-lead dogs. 2. Dogs don't shit in food shops. 3. When dogs yelp it doesn't always mean that they are stressed. Most often they want attention, like kids. 4. You just have to teach kids to go on with their daily lives when they walk pass a dog leashed outside a cafe.

Some travellers with their caravans seem to have moved to the Harris Girls' end of the Peckham Common now. A large pile of rubbish is also there this morning.

Neither can I ..

Yes when I say soup I am thinking more of the thick wholesome type, less of the liquish type.

How about fish soup ?

35 pound a bowl does not correctly reflect the character of soup. The price should be accessible for most people who don't want to cook lunch and simply want a healthy and filling meal against the cold wind and rain.

Guys thanks for the humorously negative comments. On a more positive note the sign is not totally dark. The response rate for this thread is high relative to the average in the Lounge. Controversy may be thought of as the prelude to great thing. Let me explain a bit. I gather that the word soup is not very fashionable. And perhaps it alludes to the historical phenonmenon of soup kitchen. However, soup is not a bad thing either. A hot broth with chopped vegetable and diced meat flowig down the stomach, accompanied by good quality bread at lunch time can be nutritious, tasty, convrnient and cost effective for sustenance until dinner time. There are many varieties to suit people of different tastes, lifestyle and energy requirement. Soup can also be seasonal. The Spanish has been making cold tomato soup for centuries. But, interest in hearing your views !

Hiya, what do everyone think about having a cafe that specialise in soup for winter and salad for summer ?

" I think all dogs in cities should be DNA-recorded and the we'd soon see a massive decline in dog fouling as samples from streets are matched against the deliquent dogs. Big fines. Big difference." It is always easier to target the others. Why not the police start collecting human fingerprints and then run the database against those found on the rubbish that are left on streets ?

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If pedestrians have their own designated walkway, > why not? > > Motorbikes, scooters pedestrians have always > coexisted on green dale until now. Since when has > it been designated just a cycle path only. > > Just how many scooters etc vehicles use this > route. > > If a gnat farted these days there would be uproar > in ED and surrounds. > > Still the hood has changed and I suppose you must > go along with the new thinking. I am sure it is a bad idea to have scooters and motorbikes trotting down the cycle path together with school kids with their scooters and bikes coming out from Bessamar and schools nearby.

On the issue of bike helmet, there has been recent discussion about how useful they really are: Quoting The Telegraph: Henry Marsh, who works at St George?s Hospital in Tooting, London, said that many of his patients who have been involved in bike accidents have been wearing helmets that were ?too flimsy? to be beneficial......He said: ?......In the countries where bike helmets are compulsory there has been no reduction in bike injuries whatsoever.

Definition issue here. When I say highway, I mean a 3 lanes road with continuous stream of cars travelling in high speed.

From the OP: "I quite regularly see a male cyclist going past Alleyn's school with a toddler seated on the back (in correct safety seat) but she has no helmet and the main concern is that Dad also has 2 dogs in tow who run along the road on their leads which Dad holds whilst attempting to steer. It looks like a disaster waiting to happen......To see them wobbling along Townley Road pretty regularly makes me feel uneasy. " Short of any statistics to show that riding with dogs has actually increased the chance of falling over when compared to riding alone, any judgement over the inevitability of disaster, which is what the OP asserted, can at best be a very subjective guess. The intuitive assumption that the dogs will pullthe bike over must be analysed further. The likelihood of that is conditioned very much on the combined weight of the bike and the two people, and also on the degree of anticipation of the rider. Would the OP have overlooked these factors in her estimate that the Dad wobbled along Townley road ? The degree of danger exposed to the rider must also be considered in relation to the route. Townley road is not a highway as Pugwash put it. There are traffic in the morning, but it is not heavy and the cars are slow. I have actually observed that on average about 3 to 4 cars pass in 1 minute at a speed of around 10 miles per hour. An average rider would have completed that stretch of road in around 1.5 minutes. His average danger would be proportional to that of 5 cars going pass. This does not sounds excessive. One could make a reasonable comment that 1 car is enough to cause accident. This is tautological. An accident is indeed the occurrence of an unlikely event. 1 car is also enough to knock down a bike rider which is not carrying a child and 2 dogs running next to it. So - this is my analysis, and I reach the logical conclusion that it is best to leave the judgement of safety to the dad.

that is because all the indentation was gone when it was posted.

Let's summarise the discussion to-date and identify the missing bits. If 1 dog runs up to your kids uninvited, then if the dog appears to be aggressive then leathering else if the dog runs too fast or jump around or vigorously sniffs then leathering else do nothing else if 2 dogs run up to your kids uninvited then do ??? else if 3 dogs (and more) run up to your kids uninvited then do ??? What about any difference to response for big / small / medium dogs ??

I think the crux of the matter is what exactly does the OP mean by "bounded over", "jumped all around" and "vigorously investigating", and whether the fear that these actions aroused to the child means something on the dog, on the child or on the parents should be done, or any combination of them. If a dog had actually knocked over the child, or have showed to be aggressively growling at the child, then this dog should be leashed and kept close to the dog owner, full stop. But it is not clear if any physical contact was actually made or aggressive behaviour shown. Coming for a sniff is what dog does. Rarely would the dog carry aggressive intention. Of course nothing is certain, but we don't leash a curious but unknown human being for approaching a child who then become frightened, even if he or she may be seen as a nuisance and the very real possibility that this human being has evil intention. In the park situation here, the parent has the full liberty to tell the dog to go away, and most of the time the dog will comply. The actual danger that an unknown dog poses to a child can only be known and put into a proper context if statistics on the probability of unprovoked dog attack is compared to the incidence of violence one may encounter on the street. This will inform us on what is the appropriate level of fear that a parent should teach the child towards an unknown dog coming up to him or her.

Hi, We are from Sydney too. It might be worthwhile to consider Pennant Hills, Beecroft, Cheltenham. There is a dirct train that goes to Macquarie Park and city CBD running every 15 minutes (northern line). And also bus too (621), look up Hills bus http://www.cdcbus.com.au/HillsBus-Maps.html that will get you around, although no where near as frequent as london buses.