Gimme

Good question about students in bedsits. Not sure. Maybe you are right. Maybe living in a grubby bedsit means you shouldn't be allowed to sell the Big Issue to try to sustain yourselves. What about a squat? Are you homeless if you live in a squat? I suppose there probably a lot of people who call squats home and therefore aren't homeless. Its a good question Minkey. Maybe it is only a home if you consider it to be a home. So maybe anyone who doesn't think of the place they live as a home is homeless. But that opens up lots more questions.... Anyway, still think that having a pop at people struggling on the breadline and selling the Big Issue to make ends meet is unpleasant and unfair. That comment about the Big Issue seller buying Pampers rather than home brand nappies still makes me squirm.

Difference between not having somewhere with a roof over your head to sleep and not having a home. If someone lived in a grubby bedsit, very few people would regard that as a 'home'. Therefore perfectly possible not to be sleeping on the street but still be homeless. I think the basic rule should probably be: if you are selling the Big Issue you probably aren't raking it in and are therefore probably worthy of support. Personally I can't understand how people with kids can survive on minimum wage in London, let alone the meager pickings that selling the Big Issue must produce. The thing I find so unpleasant about the sniping about Big Issue sellers in this thread and others is that the people selling the Big Issue are probably on very low incomes and this is no-doubt being reduced further by people reading this thread and thinking 'I'll not give them anything next time since they are obviously workshy scroungers who are really very wealthy' or something similar. By all means boycott Barclays to reduce Bob Diamonds bonus next year but to hit the very poor in the pocket by sniping and gossiping is pretty destructive behaviour. Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > andrew-lynch Wrote: > We > > as a community must support The Big Issue. > Quality > > of the magazine aside we support the homeless > > community. Am I right? > > xxxxxxxx > > But I thought someone said above that Big Issue > sellers were no longer necessarily homeless?

Worth looking at: Britax Vigour 3+ travel system: we got the frame and pushchair, bassinet (pram attachment), car seat and Isofix car seat base for under ?500 brand new on Kiddicare.com. It has been perfect for our wee one. Reason we bought it was because Which? reviews rate it much more highly than the Bugaboo Cameleon but at a much lower cost. The best things about it are the excellent manoeverability and the ease with which the bassinet and carseat clip into the frame (no adapters required like on the Bugaboo). The worst thing about it is that it is quite chunky if you have a small car boot (but the wheels can be detatched very easily which does make things a little easier).

James, Re Tetrapaks - When we lived in Wandsworth borough, they collected tetrapaks as part of the general collection of items for recycling. Would it be worth finding out what Wandsworth do with them? Perhaps they just separate them and put them in landfill but perhaps they have another better solution.

At least now that the Co-op is opening, the own brand nappies might be a bit better. Allowing the seriously disadvantaged to avoid the dribbles and the attentions of the poverty snoopers.

Interesting points. But who are you to question her life choices. As Belle said, don't give her money but don't flash around your prejudices about what someone should or shouldn't do with the money they've earned and try to persuade other people that someone is 'dodgy' because they own a cheap mobile phone and buy decent nappies that don't leak. People don't sell Big Issue to be wealthy. They sell Big Issue because they don't have a home, are on a very low income and it gives them a little extra income to live on. BI is not purely based on charity and you are not 'donating'. You get a product for the money you pay. The sellers buy the magazines and put in long shifts to sell them for the difference between what they bought them for and what they sell for. It is in reality a little bit of capitalism with a dose of humanitarianism thrown in. However, I'm fairly sure that they won't be becoming rich any time soon. If you own a house in ED, you probably don't know what it is like to be homeless. It probably isn't very pleasant living somewhere small cramped and badly maintained (as a lot of people who are deemed homeless do), particularly if you are surrounded by a community of people who are relatively affluent (as a lot of people in ED are). Having somewhere to live isn't the same as having a home (a point made by Huggers). There's nothing worse than the affluent sniping about people who make an effort to make a little bit of money to make their lives more tolerable. Try looking at it from their point of view. They are making an effort, they don't have a particularly pleasant time while parked on the pavement being sneered at, they aren't out robbing houses (or at least not that I know of) and they don't deserve people picking over what is in their shopping basket any more than you do. ClareC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gimme Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And I saw one of them eating a mars bar the > other > > day... not even a generic low cost chocolate > bar. > > Pampers eh... what scumbags... what will they > > spend the money they earn from selling the Big > > Issue on next. > > I mean, its not as if they have it hard sitting > on > > the pavement outside Somerfield all day selling > > magazines. > > > > Hilariously most people seem to forgive Big > Issue > > sellers for smoking but to spend the money on > > something selfish like Pampers for your baby > > eh... > > It's not really a case of whether anyone does or > does not want to give money, I think the consensus > is that people do, they just want to be confident > they are not being taken advantage of. It all > come's down to what is deemed as necessities. > > If she wants to buy Pampers instead of a cheaper > comparable alternative, gamble, own a mobile phone > and buy mobile phone credits and anything else > that is entirely her choice, however, not all > would see these choices as life necessities. > > Maybe it's just me but I would rather donate to > genuine need, she simply does not indicate that > with her life choices in my opinion - maybe you > see mobile phones, gambling and expensive nappys > as necessity in which case that's your opinion and > choice. > > At no time did I question her need for nappies at > all!!!! > > If I think owning a Ferrari is a necessity so sell > my house to buy one thus rendering me homeless > would you be so sympathetic I wonder? Extreme and > unlikely example however just making the point > that this thread is questioning if she is > genuine....The answer has not yet been forthcoming > from BI and certain of her "life choices" seem to > imply otherwise.

And I saw one of them eating a mars bar the other day... not even a generic low cost chocolate bar. Pampers eh... what scumbags... what will they spend the money they earn from selling the Big Issue on next. I mean, its not as if they have it hard sitting on the pavement outside Somerfield all day selling magazines. Hilariously most people seem to forgive Big Issue sellers for smoking but to spend the money on something selfish like Pampers for your baby eh... ClareC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ive always been suspicious of the girls outside > somerfield, I saw one coming out of Somerfield > with (presumably) her shopping which included > (amongst the numerous bags) Pampers - hardly a > nappy for the cost conscious! > > One of them was outside the new Sainsbury's local > a few weeks ago selling Big Issue (only seen her > there once), as I came out she was chatting on her > mobile phone !?!? Seemed rather ironic to me. > > Maybe its just me and the homeless these days have > mobiles and shop for named brands! > > That said the BI seller near my work and the one > by my gym are both lovely chaps who seem very > genuine - I give them both money and don't take > the magazine so they then have an extra to sell. I > definitely support BI but am genuinely dubious of > the Somerfield girls!

Barry, Since you are back, would someone be able to look at this request below? Minor in the scheme of things but more importantly very cheap to implement! Gimme Gimme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Barry, > > When I get off at ED, I often see people dumping > newspapers into the bins in the shelter and by the > ticket office despite there being a newspaper > recycling bin just outside the station. Any chance > you could put signs up by the bins telling people > to recycle their papers in the appropriate bin > outside? > > Gimme

The whole problem HeidiHi is that you don't care what other people think. Persecuting people who have no right to defend themselves based hearsay is pretty nasty. People take umbrage at your crass comments about people having half a brain in context of mental health and you call it PC. Defend someone who has had no right to reply and you call it 'excuses'. The vast majority of us think that women have the right to breastfeed in public but there are a lot of us who think that trial by internet and persecution based on hearsay is wrong.

HeidiHi: You talk about what happened as if you were there. Were you? Having an opinion based on heresay is one thing but suggesting someone should be kicked out of their job when you've only heard one side of the story requires a lot more caution, as should sweeping generalisations like "lots of people have had problems with the man".

Nice work HeidiHi! Not only do you call for the guy to lose his job (with all the dreadful consequences that that can entail) for the 'crime' of being rude (even though localmama has clearly stated that this was not her intention), but you also use the phrase 'everyone with half a brain' in relation to a mental health charity. You are certainly the target audience for the Daily Mail and Vanessa show!

sillywoman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "there's no one out to 'remove someone's livelihood'" No probably not, but the consequences of whipping up such a frenzy that the daily mail starts printing photos of the 'perpetrator' may be that he does lose his livelihood. I'm sure that all people who jump in their car drunk don't intend to have an accident or injure someone but that is frequently the consequence. That lack of intention is never a defence. Likewise in this case, ignorance of (or reckless disregard for) the possible consequences of creating a frenzy and media circus such as this cannot be a defence. I'm sure the guy realises that what he did was wrong and is probably very sorry he did what he did. But if the consequences go far beyond him showing his remorse, learning from it and apologising to the woman he insulted then it is a very sorry affair indeed.

So what is the decision then? Is it more heinous to insult someone who is breast-feeding or to remove someone's livelihood, ruin their year and drain time and money from a charity? My vote is for the latter. The reaction to this incident has been a total disgrace. Okay so the incident wasn't nice for the person involved and what he did wasn't right, but to brew the outrage to the point that the CEO of a charity is apologising on national TV (and the bloke himself is now probably jobless) is nothing short of totally disproportionate and unfair. Whoever got the Daily Mail and Vanessa involved has behaved, IMHO, much more destructively and caused greater damage than the guy in the shop. Administrator - perhaps you should step in earlier when any of this dragging someone through the mud on the forum without any right to reply starts getting out of hand. Complaints about someones behaviour are okay but there has to be a line drawn at some point.

Keef wrote: "I do however agree with PGC, that it is very dangerous for a person to be torn apart on a forum like this, when they've not had a chance to express their side of the story. After all, it is not outside the realms of posibility that there was some misunderstanding here, and that he didn't come across as he had meant to." Surely that is exactly what a forum like this is for. People expressing their vitriol at something they've heard third-hand, organising slots on TV shows to humiliate the person nationally and generally trying to get him sacked, removing his livelihood and hopefully ensuring he loses his home too. If this was mumsnet, the guy would have been hung drawn and quartered by now!!! After what he did, I would say he's got away pretty lightly.

Are you bonkers? Politicians making themselves accessible should be applauded not derided. Trump Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Councillor Barber ? Should not be on this Forum: > Regular surgeries are held by all 3 Councillors. > All have Southwark e-mail address-mobile phones > for contact ? All paid for by us? Or is he here > for self promotion? If so ? don?t think its > working. .

On a more serious note... Reply just received from the council (on a Sunday morning too! wow) re their vehicle parked on the yellow lines opposite ESPH. Even the council officials don't like what their contractors are doing.... "I will see to it that the matter is raised again with our enforcement contractor. In regards of condoning it, the answer is no I don't, and I expect operatives to park in locations which are safe and not blocking the footway. On occasions they will park on single/double yellow lines to carry out their duties. Regards Nicky Costin Road Network, Parking and Marina Business Manager" So the answer is... every time you see one of the council vehicles parked dangerously, send a photo to Mr Costin. Presumably the contractors will get the message eventually.

Didn't take that long to find ;-) "oh dear god - "chemists" and "newsagents" and their endless cross-selling is a good one. No Mr WH Smith not only did I not want half a kilo of chocolate with my paper, but I don't want you slipping fekkin flyers for Dominoes and god knows what else in there either - stop it!!! " SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > interested to know what the bleating was about and > if it is really comparable >

Councillor Barber also failed to respond to an email I sent this week. He did however turn up on my doorstep with the Southwark council leader yesterday to discuss the point in question while he was passing during his leafletting. I think that is pretty good service.

Sorry Sean but you've been guilty of bleating about other things you think are important in the past so don't slate other people who think that council hypocracy is important. Not sure what you meant about the comment re breast feeding to teenage years but it seemed a bit of an adolescent comment itself. We had a near fatal accident in our street caused by someone parking on the corner (and a lorry swinging out to avoid it). The CEO vehicles park on that corner consistently. They need to set an example rather than doing it themselves and put people at risk 'because they can'. The car in the photo on this thread was parked there for a good bit of the afternoon so there was no worries about missing 'guilty' cars while looking for a space. Additionally, since there are two of them in every CEO car, they could quite easily drop one guy off and then find a safe place to park. SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > + > > Oh I don't know - many drivers seem to subscribe > to "just because you can't doesn't mean you > can't" > > The bleating on this thread beggars belief. Were > y'all breast fed until teenage years or > something? > > If people weren't parking illegaly then these guys > wouldn't even exist for you to moan about. you are > putting the horse before the cart so to speak > > As stated before - if these guys have to go and > find a "proper" parking space and walk back to the > guilty car the chances are it'll be gone. Much > like police chasing after joy-riders don't stick > to the legal speed limit because... come on you > can do this... because... > > If the roads are dangerous places it isn't because > of these wardens

kford - sent a link of your photo to Nick Costin (the man in charge of all parking enforcement in Southwark). Hope you don't mind. I've already sent pictures of his staff parked in similar dangerous situations and got the following reply from one of his managers in the past: "The legislation allows all Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO) on official duty to park their vehicles in parking contravention while carrying out their duties." Personally I don't think that's acceptable. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should (unless there's no alternative). In this case (and the vehicle parked in the same place today), they could quite easily have found somewhere safer and not on a double yellow line to sit on but they are so arrogant (or badly trained) that they quite clearly made no effort to bother. Will raise this with councillors if there's no acceptable reply from Mr Costin.

Anything that makes driving and crossing streets more dangerous should be tackled. When it is the council parking dangerously it is unacceptable as they are the ones supposedly responsible for making the roads safer. That is what annoys people more than any old car parking there. puzzled Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > is this really a major problem? I detest southwark > council and all their works, but can't say this is > in the top 10 niggles. sounds like someone has a > persona;l grievance with the parking gestapo.

Stamp feet, hold breath, throw toy, sulk, GIVE ME AN ANSWER TO MY EMAIL COUNCILLOR BARBER! What, 2 emails in a whole 2 weeks that haven't been replied to? Have you sued him yet? I've no beef with people criticising politicians of any party but James Barber is really pretty helpful as councillors go and he makes more effort than most to address people's concerns on this forum. Perhaps your EDF name 'iamhere' says it all. It says, 'I'm here pay me attention'. No wonder you have started the most self-indulgent thread on here since the thread about someone having received letters addressed to someone else through their letterbox one day (which was subtitled 'The Royal Mail should be shut down' or something)... iamhere Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just want to vent my dissapointment in my > experience of how unhelpful our LIBDEM councillor > James Barber is - he has ignored / failed to > respond to emails and has not kept to his word - > ignorant would be an accurate description to > describe him. > > East Dulwich resident!

Someone using their phone ran into the back of my bike (pedal bike) in a transit van at a roundabout last year so I know they do cause accidents for sure. He couldn't have missed me if he was concentrating. I was only wearing a high viz jacket and 2 flashing lights.... the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you find out from 'Lord' exactly how many > accidents are caused by Mobiles? Im sure they DO > cause accidents. > Also what about Police on their radios does this > cause accidents? Taxi drivers talking to Control > Etc. Is the Radio bad to? > I wonder. I know listening to Enigma sends me to > sleep and Bat out of Hell wakes me up!

I don't really regard breaking the law in a number of dangerous ways trivial. The only thing trivial is your silly response. "BUT MAYBE THEY WERE ONLY THERE BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO LAZY AND INCONSIDERATE TO PARK YOUR CAR PROPERLY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE" - I was standing outside my house nowhere near my car. They were not there because of anything I did. Driving while using a mobile phone is the cause of lord knows how many accidents every year. Not sure about abysmally dangerous parking but it if it wasn't a problem it wouldn't be regulated agains. The reason I get annoyed (and so do a lot of other people) is that those enforcing the law should not think that they are above it but frequently do. There is nothing wrong with carrying out our duty as taxpayers and citizens to ensure that those who we pay to enforce our laws also abide by them. sniffy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was today, > 11:24pm > > by sniffy. > > > > You had to edit that 2 times, Sniffy?? Was it > not > > wildly deranged enough or badly punctuated > enough > > on the first two attempts? Not enough question > > marks or exclamation marks to get the point > > across? > > ------------------------------------------------ > For sure, something like that ;) > Really though, some people just whinge about the > most trivial things... > When quite possibly they're in the wrong in the > first instance? > Just MHO > > All peace and good will kind of stuff > x

Just missed getting a photo of parking attendant car double parked dangerously on sharp corner while ticketing and then driving away talking on a mobile phone. I have however complained to Nick Costin about this. These guys are the worst parkers and drivers in town and must be controlled or removed from their jobs.