louisiana

jrussel, there are dozens of proposed developments in this area every month, many of them leading to the loss of many, many trees. At the end of my own garden, right now, there is a proposed development on a plot with some 50+ trees, which I have objected to (though not on the grounds of loss of trees). But presumably it's not that development you're referring to (the first proposal has been approved, and we're now awaiting decision on a second, what one could call 'ultra-development', which exceeds even the top end of urban planning guidelines in terms of density). Is discussion of urban development now subject to the Official Secrets Act? And is it really tenable to generalise from the specific/personal single case to an entire district or city? While many examples run counter to your argument?

I plan to recover some of my life from the world of money over the summer, so happy to do the odd day, or the more frequent half day or couple of hours. I take it you've got some decks in there? (Can't remember from when I was down there.)

If you don't like trees, why not move to a place with few/no trees? (Brick Lane? Western Avenue? Holloway Road? North Circular!) Most US cities have *vastly* lower density than London (2-10 times lower). Even San Fran, one of the US's denser cities, is less than twice as dense as London. We are already in one of the more densely populated cities in the world (ahead of most other European major cities too). The US experience of huge urban sprawl with very low densities is not the London experience (or the UK experience). We do not live in a country where people think nothing of driving 50 miles to buy a pack of cake mix. And some of the densest cities in the world are also among the most polluted. Think Calcutta or Mexico Cty. Have you tried to do a regression analysis of polluation vs. density? (and not just in the US) Having lived in an incredibly dense area of another city (often used as an example by Richard Rogers as the way forward in terms of urban population density), I can say the downsides exceeded the upsides e.g. incredible levels of noise 24/7 (a perception supported by OECD international comparisons) from so many people living on top of one another. Of course trees can absorb noise, but we didn't have any. The same city also experiences considerable flash floods, some of which led to drownings/deaths while I lived there. Flash flooding often increases when there has been a reduction in soil/tree coverage and an increase in tarmac/concrete, worsening run-off problems. Or are you proposing getting rid of rain in urban areas too? http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/WDC/Leisure+and+culture/Parks+and+recreation/Parks/The+Benefits+of+Trees.htm

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are sharp tongue's legal? Don't point that thing at me, you pervert!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think an anti-social life is underrarted I agree. I simply love spending time on my own, but some people seem to think it's strange to not be in a gaggle all the time. I can get quite shirty if I don't get enough time on my own. Anyway, oglander, I should have said SSEES (not SSEAS, which might be the devilish offspring of SSEES and SOAS). My apologies. I would have been studying how people build complex systems (systems in the widest sense, including people, places and processes). Sort of social anthropology meets design & engineering of complex things...

AllforNun Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can't wait till the school is built and you > actually get to walk around it. Suddenly the > bubble will burst and it will strike you that you > never actually had the qualifications or aptitude > to train as an architect. Was that aimed at me? (not sure) Design - interaction, wayfinding, service, environment, etc. etc. - is what I do for a living. No, I'm not an architect (though I did spend a couple of years hunkered down in the Barlett). But I do unfortunately get called in a lot to sort out the mess when environments of various kinds 'fail' (more often than not after millions of ??? have been spent). If they did not go wrong, I would be on the dole.

I'm not a parent, but I do live nearby, and I have taught in a London secondary school. I think the sale of playing fields has been disastrous, and this kind of attempt to cram lots of boys onto a small site is also a recipe for disaster. What boys have is energy. And what we are doing as a society - in this and other ways - is preventing them from using it up. Bussing kids off site for a few formal sessions is not a solution. And I agree with the comments made earlier on this thread about the quality of what is offered in public sector education. Just because it's public, doesn't mean it has to be crap, that we should have to accept crap. The students will pick up instantly on those differences. It will inform the way they think about the world around them. In the long term, such economies may come back to bite, in ways that were not expected. Some other countries not too far from us manage to provide far better quality state schools. Why is it so difficult here? Why, when presented with an opportunity to build anew a good school, do we decide not to?

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In ED? No, not in ED, kford. You can rest easy :). Another city entirely. Three times in one year, and each worse than the last. I was unfortunately responsible for a brief rise in the crime rate here, however, when an agent let my property to a low life. After he'd done a runner the police popped around, interested in discussing his whereabouts, as they were looking to pin a GBH charge on him (serious attack on a bus driver).

Excellent that you're doing so, oglander. (The studying, I mean. And also the coming onto the forum.) I have a friend who is also a mature student and is also studying at UCL (a master's in something related to psychoanalysis), and I myself completed a degree in my 40s, and then almost studied again at UCL (I was an undergrad there, many years ago): I was offered a research council studentship, but I turned it down, in part because I then realised I'd be studying and penniless until so-called retirement age! The middle years though are always good for doing those things that 'if I don't do it now I never will', and doing further study for various personal interest reasons is I think often important too, certainly among people I know. Are you in what used to be SSEAS? (which got absorbed by UCL?) Always considered an excellent place for all things east European. Anyways, there are plenty of us 'oldies' around these parts still, so no need to panic yet :-S. Though I must admit that over the years my friends have been getting younger (or at least, most of my friends are not around my own age any more, but substantially younger). I sometimes wonder why this is, and whether it is an 'issue' in any sense.

I've been mugged three times. You will most definitely tell the difference when it happens to you.

Those union jack cushions/pillows!

'Age of criminal responsibility' is not the same as 'when a society regards you as being an adult' (which covers a whole range of rights and responsibilities and is spread over a range of ages). And I'm not sure, CWALD, why a criminal responsibility definition is relevant to the age of victims of crime. I'm just wondering why 'children admited to hospital' assumed in that report a definition of children as up-to-but-not-including-16-yr-olds. It strikes me as a strange (new?) definition. In my books, a 16-year-old is not an adult, who still has a lot of maturing to do. Or am I being dreadfully old fashioned?

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And has anyone done the stats for 16- and > 17-year-olds? They are also children. Legally of course it's 18+ versus under 18, though the criminal justice system - and other parts of the law - have often in the past used 21 as the cut off (e.g. youth custody vs. adult prison). Have we somehow drifted over the years from 21 to 18 then 16 as the marker of adulthood? Is this sensible?

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh and Louisiana my dear this is the lounge... > things are allowed to get off topic ;-) Yes, *this* is the lounge...but *that* wasn't :-S

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You see - Davina Boutique has got it right. This woman clearly needs help. Perhaps the Govenment should set up a Tessa Task Force.

Given how on the ball our dear Administrator usually is, I was a little surprised that that particular thread was allowed to ramble off topic for so long without a peep... Though what riles me most was the hopeless Mastery of Caps and Lower Case a certain Individual displays.

And has anyone done the stats for 16- and 17-year-olds? They are also children.

I have just swtched to Ebico Good prices if you're a low user (no standing charge), plus fair treatment of pre-pay customers, who I think get a very raw deal otherwise (I'm not one, but I do think they get treated unfairly by most). So, an ethical and socially just business run on a not-for-profit basis. You may not see them much on the switch sites as they refuse to pay commission to switch site owners. They rely on word of mouth.

The Verve - apparently booked by Emily, not Michael - were also brilliant, closing on Sunday night on the Pyramid. They played the set of their lives. And Goldfrapp were excellent too. Lots of great stuff in the smaller tents and venues: The Duke Spirit (fab! singer), Bass Clef, the Human Jukebox, The Blsck Dog, The Presets... Emily's Park area - up next to the stone circle - is developing nicely, and this year there was a lovely new small and perfectly formed DJ venue called Igloo, which on Saturday was back-to-back Ninja Tune DJs. Ooh, and a crazy music venue (House of Dolls?) run by the Rubbish Fairy person over in Mad Max-style Trash City. Rain on Thursday eve, but from then on it was flip flops all the way, with hard-baked ground.

Debi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought the purpose of the exercise was to draw > attention to the environmental issues re plastic > bags (in which case it's been a cracking success!) > rather than ensure everyone with a particular > postcode gets a free bag ... Was the funding awarded to 'draw attention' generally (regardless of community/geographical area)?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For London you can get all the stats you want from > the Met > > Last year's summary data Apr 07 to Mar 08 is here > > Or you can look at any particular month/year just > here The head of A&E at Kings said hospital figures for knife and gun victims were more reliable than any others (perhaps because everyone gets hosiptal treatment, but not everybody is counted in the police stats). Also note that in the case of Southwark, victims in the orth of the borough would be treated most likely at other hospitals (Guys/St T's etc.) An 'offensive weapon' could be anything: a machine gun, a knife, a brick, or even a blunt pole supporting a banner at a demo. Wthout a further breakdown of the police stats into actual weapons/implements I don't think we learn much. > > Don't forget to balance the figures against weight > of population - more accurate Um, I think you'll find both types of data are equally 'accurate'. It's just that one set is absoluate and the other relative. figures are crimes > per head rather than totalrimes as it gives an > idea of 'risk'. Mind you, for the EDF risk is > pretty nnon-exisent for being suject to a violent > crime in the locality. Yes, 'in the locality'. Most people don't actually spend 24/7 on the streets 'in the locality' though. I'm much more likely to be in the street somewhere like Camberwell or Peckham or Elephant (such as travelling late at night) than I am in ED: when I'm in ED I'm usually in my house.

In C4's series of programmes this week on knife and gun crime, the head of A&E at Kings said (I think) last night that last year 319 victims of knife and gun attacks were treated in King's A&E. That's around 6 a week. I'd imagine the bulk were knifings - the programme didn't give the breakdown.

No vouchers ever distributed to our road in SE22 either. As mentioned before, those at Glasto will have been away around 29/30th, and I'm now away in Frankfurt on work. I imagine the bags will have run out by the time I get back, as they seem to be in no way restricted to those living in SE22. Which I thought was the purpose of the exercise??

Perhaps if we triangulated using Jay Rayner, Zoe Williams and Lucy Mangan, we'd find the heart of something or other. Perhaps even ED.

What's more, she's not a Z-list luvvie off some soap on the telly. Qual-i-tee