louisiana

Why not contact UKBA? http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact/contactspage/191679/ After all, there must be a strong suspicion that they are not entitled to be here, or that if they are entitled that they might have conditions attached to their stay that they might be in breach of (e.g. they are under a student visa but they are not studying).

Really sad to hear about your bike being stolen. It's become a national epidemic. Some general, personal recommendations on bikes that may help others below. Don't know if any of these might have helped in this case, and other people may have other/better ones. Make your bike unique in some way (paintwork). Take a note of the frame number (stamped into the frame, often near the bottom or on the underside). It may also appear on documents from when you purchased the bike. Take photos of your bike. You'll kick yourself if it gets nicked and you have no photos to show anyone. Register the frame number online: http://www.immobilise.com/ If you've got Smartwater, use it on different parts of your bike too. Use two good locks at all times. That includes indoors or in a so-called secure facility. One lock - to secure the frame to an immovable object - should be something like a Kryptonite New York 3000 i.e. a really good D-lock. http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/cycling-accessories/kryptonite-new-york-3000-lock-review/ Use the other lock for securing the front wheel to the frame and/or immovable object. Some great little London Cycling Campaign videos here about how to lock your bike: http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1818 If all bikes were registered, and bike buyers insisted on seeing a valid registration with one of the national schemes, there would perhaps be a lot less bike theft. Maybe.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > If you want to know who's bankrupting the world, > look to the US. Quite. I find it amazing how willing the US seems to pursue expensive wars abroad while singularly failing on the infrastructure front at home. They really know how to piss money away on the wrong things. What do you think are the chances that the US might default over the next ten or twenty years? WRT China, I think the issues are much, much wider than debt, none of which are 'things we can blame the Chinese for'. They are just things that 'are'.

Routine thinking (which we depend on day-to-day: showers, taps etc.) is a little different from big picture stuff. Freeing our brains from the routine to tackle the big picture is surely what we should excel at.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Irish Banking... whatever next? Icelandic banking? :)

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SMG - Historically, every civilisation prior to > ours has collapsed - often leaving barely a record > of its demise: only the centuries of 'Dark Ages' > that followed in their wake. Tainter is worth reading on this issue. > > I agree with louisiana - the future for the > so-called western economic system looks dire. The > idea that it is somehow different this time sounds > like wishful thinking, in my view. Yes, special pleading, "this is different", "we are special" seems the incorrect approach, given the history.

SMG, I'm not denying that people have an uncanny knack of finding interesting solutions to problems. And I think most if not all of those who know me, know that I have one of the sunniest dispositions known to man :) But I'd venture to suggest that off-the-cuff talk of the inevitability of recovery - mentioned on this thread - sometime next-week-soon is really a little silly. Just because we rely on something happening doesn't mean it will; that's how children think. Meantime, I'm doing things like installing big-time insulation (energy prices will only go up, yeah?) and doing other stuff that may be helpful or useful (as well as being fun, in many cases). Because I do think that BAU is over, for a while at least.

SMG, I'm not denying that people have an uncanny knack of finding interesting solutions to problems. And I think most if not all of those who know me, know that I have one of the sunniest dispositions known to man :) But I'd venture to suggest that globalisation, added to global problems, have perhaps contributed significantly to something of a perfect storm, and that off-the-cuff talk of the inevitability of recovery - mentioned on this thread - sometime next-week-soon is really a little silly. Just because we rely on something happening doesn't mean it will; that's how children think. Meantime, I'm doing things like installing big-time insulation (energy prices will only go up, yeah?) and doing other stuff that may be helpful or useful (as well as being fun, in many cases). Because I do think that BAU is over, for a while at least.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > louisiana Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The financial services sector, like all other > > sectors, will do what is in its own interest. > Why > > would they do anything else? > > > > Recovery? What recovery? We're facing peak oil > and > > hence the likelihood of vastly increased prices > > for anything derived from oil and anything > using > > oil, peak a whole lot of other resources in the > > not too distant future, Western countries > loaded > > with debt, a still very possible sovereign debt > > crisis in various countries, a global change in > > the balance of power (China etc.), a global > > population *explosion*, increasingly skewed > income > > and wealth distribution in many Western > countries > > (including US and UK), a whole lot more > > unemployment to come.... Rather than any > recovery, > > I think we are facing crunch time. > > > Jeez - you must be nice to live with. Such > optimism. I'm a realist. There's plenty we can do to dig ourselves out of the hole, but let's not kid ourselves we're not in a hole. Also plenty of joy being reported elsewhere today (Lloyds Corporate Markets): *** Irish Banking - no gold at the end of this rainbow October 2010 We maintain a cautious outlook for the Irish Banking sector, primarily because of uncertainty around future economic growth. Disappointingly, the National Asset Management Agency (?NAMA?), a special purpose vehicle set up to help kick-start new lending and support wider economic recovery, has to date done little to improve conditions.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Louisiana ? all of that MIGHT happen, Some of it has already happened or is happening.

The financial services sector, like all other sectors, will do what is in its own interest. Why would they do anything else? Recovery? What recovery? We're facing peak oil and hence the likelihood of vastly increased prices for anything derived from oil and anything using oil, peak a whole lot of other resources in the not too distant future, Western countries loaded with debt, a still very possible sovereign debt crisis in various countries, a global change in the balance of power (China etc.), a global population *explosion*, increasingly skewed income and wealth distribution in many Western countries (including US and UK), a whole lot more unemployment to come.... Rather than any recovery, I think we are facing crunch time.

'Died' presumes it was alive at some point.

If we have banks that are too big to fail, and each time bail them out to prevent failure, those banks will tend to behave in riskier ways in order to maintain the same level of risk. Further, if we compensate all savers who lose their savings in failing institutions, then people will tend put their money into any old pile of Ponzi. (Remember the Icelandic banks offering stupid rates of interest?) Again, they are merely maintaining their risk level. In other words, by guaranteeing both sides, government has raised the bar on risk to an unacceptable level, and as a consequence opens itself up to sovereign bankruptcy. We need to return to a situation where there are many small institutions that are not too big to fail. And we somehow need to ensure that people, investors, are not absolved of all responsibility for risk management in their personal affairs. I don't think it's realistic to say that we can control the risk through regulation of institutions (with only approved institutions being added to the approved list for savings protection, for example). It's clear that regulation has been poor to date (and how do you regulate a bank that's not even in the EU?) and we just don't have the resources any more to build bigger empires of regulation. Modern complex society has built vast edifices of regulation in many spheres that has proved inadequate because people will always behave like people i.e. find the holes, the gaps, be subject to corruption, tick the boxes without doing the analysis, the regulators get too close to the regulated etc., and cause all kinds of unexpected (and seemingly expected but unplanned for) consequences to occur.

Don't forget, one of the major ways banks make their money is by conjuring money out of thin air and lending this invented money to people, with charges and interest, thus creating debt as money. This is *not* money they have taken as deposits from anybody. This is fractional reserve banking. Also, check out bank behaviour in the USA, where the last week's news across the country and across media has been dominated by the story of banks and their contractors fabricating legal documents (i.e. mortgage notes) on a wholesale scale. Which otherwise might be known as fraud. The many and varied consequences of which have included people who own their homes outright (no mortgage or charge of any kind) have had their homes foreclosed (repossessed) due to said fabricated documentation. And a long et cetera. Bank of America and another major bank have now stalled foreclosures states-wide owing to the massive cock-ups being revealed. (And given that HSBC has major interests in this sphere in the US, there may be similar issues there.)

Did I catch Area Man's name correctly? Wodger? Where is Wodger? Is he on the forum? Welease Wodger!

Which is kind of the point, MP. Mumbo jumbo is mumbo jumbo. Camp Hill communities do good works in the same way as religious groups. Like many 'thinkers' Steiner had some interesting ideas and some potty ones. But we are currently running a system that promotes the potty at public expense. Next stop Scientology? (They're working pretty hard at getting charitable recognition everywhere they operate.) In fact we are currently sending cheques from HMRC to fund seriously doolally groups across the country (through gift aid, charity tax breaks etc.). I have no beef with people doing this stuff with their own money. Just not with mine. That is why I think a secular approach is best: do not involve religion or pseudo-religion in government, state education etc. Then people can make their own choices in their own private lives, and pay for it themselves.

Yes, he's from East Dulwich, and he eats couscous... so he's middle class. He also reckons the middle classes of ED don't have the balls to revolt.

To add a little perspective, shift patterns vary from country to country. A number of countries (e.g. Spain) have 24-hour shifts for firefighters, which has always struck me as a little bonkers.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Santerme said: > > "...She wasn't working for some "peace through > sustainable bicycling collective" but as a > sub-contractor on a very large USAID program..." > > Who exactly was she working for as an aid worker? > The idea she was a subcontractor implies she was > in it for the money rather than some humanitarian > impulse. > A sub-contractor or contractor is a worker who has no employment rights (sick pay, maternity etc.) and who loses their job at the end of a particular project for which they have been contracted. It is a way for employers to control costs, and is extremely common in project-based work. I fail to see how being a sub-contractor makes her some money-loving grub, as you seem to suggest. Her education and professional life (below) hardly support that view either. **** Norgrove was born in Altnaharra in 1974... She spent her childhood on a croft in the Isle of Lewis ... ... studied at the University of Aberdeen ... gained a first-class honours degree in tropical environmental science; her coursework involved postgraduate research at the University of Chiapas in Mexico, and a year of study at the University of Oregon (1993?94). She attended the University of London ... graduating with distinction in a masters degree in rural resources and environmental policy. In 2002, Norgrove was awarded a PhD from the University of Manchester in development policy and management... worked for the World Wide Fund in Peru, initially supporting and later taking charge of the WWF's Forest Program in the Peruvian portion of the Northern Andes. Norgrove worked in countries including Afghanistan (first for the U.N, in 2005?08, and later as regional director of DAI, based in Jalalabad, starting in February 2010), Laos (as an environmental specialist for the U.N. from 2008?09), Mexico, and Uganda (where she researched how national park management affected the indigenous population around Mount Elgon National Park). She was involved in projects for the United Nations. She spoke Dari and Spanish, and was in Afghanistan at the time of her death working as Regional Director for a USAID project implemented by Development Alternatives Inc., which rebuilds businesses and infrastructure in developing nations...

There's the old Woolwich site too.

Given that in 1975, the top 1% of US citizens earned 9% of income, and that in 2007 the top 1% earned 22/23/24% (sources vary), yes MP, the perception-reality divide is probably continuing to grow. People are basing their perception on a historical situation which has not been true for some time. With the top 10% and 1% both now gaining a much higher proportion of total income than they did 35 years ago, their wealth pots are just growing and growing.

Not on iplayer? Bum. Must be a rights problem. "Gi'us a job, I can do that" is part of my repertoire. In fact I used it twice last week.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you've been using the fire place for several > years to burn various solid fuels and have been > getting the chimney swept with no issues then the > question around impact on neighbours is proven. Um, installation of a new appliance does rather change things. That is, the law requires that the installation of a new appliance complies, plus the installation needs to be certified by building control, or it needs to be self-cert by someone who is HETAS-equiv: in either case, they'll put a certification plate in, probably next to your gas or electricity meter. That tells any subsequent occupant that the device has been safely installed. A high-efficiency (smokeless zone) stove does perform quite differently from an open fire, in terms of temperature etc in the flue. > Fitting the register and short flue tightly and > securely is fairly straightforward, if a little > messy. > I can see the reqt for the certification / checks > in a lot of circumstances. It's a legal requirement in all cases. If you DIY it, you still need to notify Building Control, and get them in to inspect and certify it once it's in (and install the appropriate certification plate). The same principle as for gas installation - both have the capacity to kill people if there are any installation errors. > However, in this instance I and my neighbours are > happy. I'm intrigued. Would you not, for example, apply for planning permission for an extension 'cos your neighbours were happy? Would you not install legally required smoke alarms in a building in multiple occupation because the residents were happy? Does being happy mean you can ignore safety regulations and the law? Building regs certification doesn't cost much, it's just a few quid AFAIK. (I've done it myself before when I knocked two flats into one. They were pretty helpful really.)

KidKruger, was that the cost of the Building Control Certification? (which you need if you are not a HETAS or similar Competent Person - not required if a HETAS registered installer.) "In England and Wales there is also a requirement that Building Control Consent is obtained for such work unless the work is carried out by a Competent Person. For solid fuel and wood burning appliances a Competent Person is someone who is registered with a scheme operator, such as HETAS established as such under Building Regulations Part J for that type of work." Annoying, yes, but does at least assure your neighbours and the fire brigade that you haven't put in an installation that could cause a conflagration.

I've just had one put in and it's great. You can even cook up some food on the top (rear-mounted flue). Chimney lining is expensive, but highly recommended for safety reasons. I think the whole thing cost around ?2,400, including all the building works.