Bellenden Belle

Exercise......shakes the cobwebs and gives me an opportunity to focus solely on an activity, rather than my anxieties. The trick is motivating myself to exercise in the first place......

Dulwich Picture Gallery followed by feeding the ducks in Dulwich Park and a drink in the Dog; Sir John Soames museum in Holborn and the Jerusalem tavern in Farringdon.....reading this thread makes me think the Belle Carnells were being stalked when we first started dating!

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david_carnell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > Why not waive charges on > > presentation of proof of address in London? > > > Because these people are each pumping about ?100 a > day into the British economy. It's not like they > are coming for the weather. But they dont come to one of the most expensive cities in the world because of the free entry to museums, do they? Few will even take that into consideration when choosing their holiday destination. They do come because of the diverse cultural offerings though and would probably prefer it if we found ways of sustaining our cultural services.

The 45 minutes wait is definitely worth it....At the risk of a double entendre, I must say D-C's sausage sandwich has left me spoilt for all others. And men - take note - those 45 minutes can be spent bringing your woman in bed a cup of coffee and the Weekend papers.

Almost sold out but you could perhaps try this - an adapatation of Oliver Jeffer's Lost and Found. http://www.polkatheatre.com/event.php?id=42 Which has a great review here: http://www.thestage.co.uk/reviews/review.php/30014/lost-and-found I've mentioned on another thread here that the Adventure Theatre at Polka is designed exclusively for the under 5s - a small intimate space for just 70 children it offers a lovely age-specific introduction to theatre. And the theatre itself is designed for children - with a dressing up box; book corner; playground and garden. Also a child-friendly cafe.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I can assure you Mayor Boris Johnson via the GLA funds all sorts of bodies. ....If funding wont stand up to public > scutiny then it quite possibly shouldn't be > funded. James Barber - can you show me some evidence of this? Where London Council funded services haven't stood up to public scrutiny? And where is the duplication in services? Which other government funding body funds small charities/ voluntary organisations reaching hard-to-reach groups with a London-wide remit? There really is currently no other umbrella funding body and the plan after cutting these services is for money to be "repatriated to local authorities". Can you give me some examples of GLA funding "all sorts of bodies" because it states quite clearly on their website: "The Greater London Authority is not a grant-giving body and is unable to assist with funding. Its budget is relatively small and it is not set up to give grants or to sponsor other organisations." You can see that statement here: http://www.london.gov.uk/node/672

It is such a relatively small amount we are talking about - to cut it would actually render it useless. And yet as quids so rightly puts it I think it is vital that we continue to do so. Not even because it is in "national interest" but because in the midst of our economic downturn, it is worth remembering there is suffering beyond our imagination out there.

Molly - that's a very honest and thoughtful post - I'm really pleased it had a happy ending. I went through IVF (unsuccessfully) a few years back and I do recognise your description of the waiting room....it was one of those situations where people just didn't seem to talk to each other and there was lots of tension in the room. It's one of the reasons I posted the link to fertility friends above. It's one of those forums that is littered with annoying avatars; cutesy quotes; and endless counters. BUT if you can cut through that there is some fantastic support there. In particular there are London meet ups arranged - 10 to 12 girls having dinner and a chat together - which were both enjoyable and vital for keeping me fairly sane. It can put a lot of pressure on a relationship if it's just the two of you sharing that journey - it's really useful to have another place to go to to let off steam and ask "so how's it going for you?" And yes there were lots of cases of people not being successful, but rather than despair I felt a huge sense of collective hope so that each success story you cared about and shared.

Your points are pertinent new mother (I did indeed read your post) and as I said previously, this is probably not the best place to begin a debate. BUT I just wanted to clarify that there is evidence to suggest putting one embryo back can be a preferable option, and the least riskiest for the child and I do think that must be consideration. It's not just about "playing the odds" is it? Also - FET - frozen embryo transfers - can take place with the help of IVF stimulatory drugs, indeed they are recommended to increase success rates. To return to the OP's original request for help - a wealth of information can be found here: http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/

new mother Wrote: So, for older women where > egg quality is likely to be an issue, at the very > least, I'd be looking for a clinic that will > automatically put back the max number of embryos > ie 2 up to 40 and 3 over 40. > This is probably not the place to begin this debate. But actually evidence shows that it can be safer to put one egg back rather than two. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article1913144.ece http://www.bjog.org/details/news/587797/IVF_twins_face_greater_risk_of_neonatal_complications.html At Guys Hospital I attended an information evening which explained why they pursued wherever possible a "one embryo replaced at a time policy." I must say the evidence was very convincing. There are other options - including frozen embryos - which are viewed as safer options.

In fairness to SM - I must say I read that post as being very straightforward and perhaps poignantly addressing the issue we all face at some point down the line: where the child become the carer rather than the cared-for. To be honest that is often the case for children even if their parents have not delivered their side of the bargain - it's a human dilemma isn't it? That even if we had a difficult childhood, we often don't walk away when our parents finally need us. And I speak from experience on that one. And this is meant as a general musing, no reflection on you Peckham Rose. Good luck.

Sue Wrote: > > xxxxxxxx > > I'm sorry I ever started this thread now. Goodness! I'm sorry you feel that way....I really was trying to be helpful. Isn't it much more useful to have a proper discussion about the reality of an arts centre than to build castles (or arts centres) in the sky.

> > But surely that's why people have websites, and > can link to them via their posts in the "What's > On" section? > > I do think there's a danger of duplication. > > Who would run the umbrella website, and who would > decide what was "arts" and what wasn't? > > Comedy? Folk music? Dancing classes? > > ETA: And what geographical area would it cover? > And who would draw the line? Sue surely you can see the difference between an umbrella website for the arts and a listing section of a local forum covering arts, jumble sales, public debates, etc etc? But if you can't, let's return to the original idea you suggested in your first post. An arts centre. Now look at all the questions above and apply them again ... duplication of facilities; who "decides" the programme. Who takes responsibility - for the marketing, fundraising, general maintenance...... Answer me those questions; make a case for support of why East Dulwich needs an arts centre and we can go from there.....

------------------------------------------------------- > Bellenden Belle Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > I think AJM's suggestion of a virtual 'hub' is > an excellent one where information on all that is > > happening can be made accessible. > > xxxxxxxxx > > Isn't that what the "What's On" section of this > forum provides? Not really. It provides lots of valuable information and is very useful but it isn't focused on the arts and so people need to look through lots of information. There are little oppportunities for venues to really market their products - an image can speak a thousand words etc etc etc.

Occasionally I find myself surprised at my response to questions like these. In theory, I should be absolutely supportive of such an idea - I work in the arts, I regularly attend 'arts events' across a number of genres, and I can think of arts centres that I've been to and really loved. But but but...... does East Dulwich really need one? I'm not so sure....I think most of us can agree that we have ready access to some of the best arts facilities in the country- The South Bank is a mere bus away for example. And on a smaller scale there's lots going on locally - from cinema clubs to comedy, art exhibitions ranging from South London Gallery in Peckham to Dulwich Picture Gallery, even music-wise there are options though I would be more inclined to indicate there's a gap in provision there. And my gut feeling is that if people aren't inclined to seek such things out when the reality is a twenty minute walk, then who knows if they would attend an arts centre. Arts centres can be great but they can also suck the soul out of an event - give me a gig in a pub anyday or a reading in a bookshop. Different spaces and venues bring with them different benefits - and yes, disadvantages. Arts centres often work in smaller towns where there is an absolute need for provision and where they become a focus for the community. I was in Lewes only this weekend and was thrilled at seeing half the town walking into the arts centre - a beautiful converted church - to see a film. People were greeting each other - it felt like a hub of actvity, it was hugely exciting. But there is nothing more depressing than an under-used arts centre. Salisbury Art Centre where I once worked was beautiful yet soul destroying in its emptiness. Chats Palace in Hackney was similarly underused - despite one would think a 'need' due to lack of local facilities, and there is a new arts centre in Shoreditch which again just doesn't have the same vibrancy and excitement one finds just down the road at gigs and exhibitions in Brick Lane. I think AJM's suggestion of a virtual 'hub' is an excellent one where information on all that is happening can be made accessible. Venues could have their own page so there was a one- stop south east London information portal. But bricks and mortar, salaries, rates, electricity, keeping a building staffed, negotiating late licences, marketing, fundraising, health and safety, public liability insurance.....nope, I'm not so sure.

I would never say never, but this is quite a difficult time to be opening a new arts venue. Arts funding is scarce at the best of times and many arts venues are going to be facing tough times ahead. Overheads for such venues soon mount up. I think you might be better off looking around at existing venues/ facilities and seeing where you could join forces. Union Chapel in Islington is a brilliant example of a multi-purpose building that is both a working church; social project; and arts venue to boot.

Gutting indeed... I still miss his breakfast show on Radio London years later. Wishing him a full and speedy recovery.

AnnaJ. I believe I agreed with you that the post you quoted sounded dismissive. Your question was whether you were the only person who saw a middle ground. I was merely clarifying how for me, there is such a middle ground - where such active ingredients are properly and thoroughly examined by trained professionals. I was putting my own reservations about "Chinese Medicine" in context, rather than dismissing your posts, which I have indeed read.

Annaj - yes that sounds dismissive. But I think much of the frustration is aimed at those shops which set themselves up on the high street and offer solutions for every ailment going. And they come with the umbrella tag of "chinese medicine" as if somehow that is enough for people to put their faith in them. It isn't. For many people it will absolutely be a waste of money - and the placebo effect will kick in because they will feel they are at least trying and doing something.

> Ok, so, artemisia annua has been used in chinese > medicine, sucessfully, for some time to treat > malaria. Western scientists thought "well, now, > that's interesting" and researched the herb to > find the active ingredient and investigate its > potential use. So, yes, western science, but > science that wouldn't have happened if those > scientists had dismissed all traditional herbal > medicine as woo and not bothered to research it. You refer to 'scientists' and investigation and research. Which surely produces evidence-based medicine. Which is regulated. The issue isn't about dismissing the herbs and the active ingredients - but questioning the TCM industry, which goes unregulated and encourages self-diagnosis/ medication based on anecdotal evidence. They're two different issues aren't they?

Marmora Man: Firstly, I would question your description of funding services as "nice/ good / laudable". Many of these organisations respond to an actual social need - whether it be responding to homelessness; hiv in families and children; or helping people with severe and enduring mental ill health (all examples of London Council's funding). Take those services away and there will be a far greater demand on other resources - including health, social services, and possibly even policing. Your comment that charities funded from government sources are not strictly charities but "more like quangos" does not fairly represent the current voluntary landscape or indeed the future plans for using the expertise of charities and voluntary sector more effectively as part of the The Big Society. Charities often receive government funding as one of their income sources. Charities in recent years have been supported and encouraged to apply for government tenders because it has been acknowledged they are often a cost-effective way of delivering outputs and outcomes - for example supporting peopleto return to employment. That does not belittle their charitable status and in all the charities I have worked in, funding received by government resources has funded only a fraction of the work delivered.

These cuts are likely to affect voluntary organisations working with some of the capital's most vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. What is so important about these grants are that they provide funds for London- wide services which simply don't exist in every borough. Not every borough can provide targeted work for specific vulnerable groups, yet by contributing to a general fund they can currently ensure their residents can access the specific services for their particular needs. So a charity in Camden might also receive referrals from Hackney, Islington and even further afield. And this funding is heavily monitored with boroughs receiving detailed figures of exactly how many of their residents have accessed the services they've paid for. Even if councils ringfence the money to support local voluntary groups, it will mean charities in that borough may receive support, but what of the other services across London their residents might need to access? For a charity, how do we approach upwards of twenty boroughs to negotiate funding? Essentially this will signal a cut in many targeted services. And how ironic that as the coalition applauds the sharing of services across local authorities and talks of The Big Society, it appears to be cutting off one of the most important funding resources available to charities working across the capital.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's got a whole page ad in today's Guardian. > > They promise delivery by 7:00am on weekdays and > 08:30 on weekends inc Sunday's Observer. Not sure > what happens if you have a different Sunday paper. > And you pay less than the cover price. > > Seems pretty good to me. Actually if you use the delivery service it seems you pay the full cover price. A quick calculation for me works out that I am better off with my current subscription saving 33% each year (about ?150) and paying ?2 a week to my local newsagent to deliver rather than paying full price for the Guardian to deliver. I also like the flexibility of my subscription vouchers so I can use them when on holiday in this country or give them to friends if I go abroad. Thank you to everyone for the links to the home delivery service.

dulwichal Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks all. The Times email prompted me to check > the Guardian site and they offer the same service > which I wasn't aware of. > > Thanks for you help Really? Could you post the link offering the same service at the Guardian? I ask because I was only aware of a subscription service which sends vouchers to be redeemed at a local newsagents. Our newsagent delivers - but sadly teenagers on bikes is indeed a thing of the past, ours gets driven round in a car by one of the shop's owners. Just don't mention the environment....

The 12th is looking good to me....will be lovely to see everyone. I have very fond memories of some of the forum drinks.