david_carnell

Sutton.

I know what Mike is getting at. The only reason millions of people saw their house go up in value in the last 15yrs by xhundred percent was nothing to do with their own acumen or Sarah Beeney style interior design skills. It was due to a stable economy. Yet the state (or the taxpayer) doesn't benefit. Instead a bunch of baby boomers ruin it for everyone else by living in ?300k houses they bought for peanuts that no one in a similar situation could now afford. Doesn't really seem fair, does it?

Absolutely no facts are being discussed here. No one KNOWS anything. Utterly pointless.

Nope. I think it would be interesting to know how long this is planned to be erected for but am not against it due to timescale, more in principle. It's ugly and unnecessary. Lordship Lane may not be the most beautiful high street in the land but it is relatively free of large scale advertising and major corporate branding. I like that. It's one of the things that keeps me shopping there. If you want to hide scaffolding - fine. But please don't do so with a giant advertising hoarding. And I shall make those views claer to the planning officer.

Loz - I'm not so dogmatic to suggest that if a tax rate didn't bring in any money that I'd still demand it was kept on a point of ideology.

I'm not that quick at typing, Piers (30wpm since you ask). My comment was aimed at those posting before you....Loz mainly.

So suddenly, because you earn six figures, you have to work any hours demanded of you? Blimey you guys swap sides quickly. Are you on the sides of high earners or not?!

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree - this is one of the areas of immediate > saving open to the NHS. Others might be to move > off the national payscale allowing hospitals to > pay more for scarce staff and less in areas where > the cost of living is lower. Greater utilisation > would be a good idea as well - in the private > sector theatres are available for 12 hours a day > (minimum) for 5.5 / 6 days a week and, on > occasions, 7 days a week. In the NHS 8 hours a day > for 4.5 days a week (apart from emergency) is good > going. Ditto imaging, pathology, pharmacy, stores > support, admin support and so on. Most major > hospitals and certainly almost all "bog standard" > DGHs effectively close for business on Friday > afternoon and don't resume, apart from A&E, until > 10.00 Monday. I don't want to break rules on veering off topic but is this not because of staff contracts. If you want elective surgery staff (surgeons, doctors, nurses etc) to work through the night and through weekends you have to remunerate them properly. And we wither don't have the will or the means to do that. > The NHS could also reduce the ridiculous amounts > of paper that flow backwards and forwards to > manage even the simplest matter. Let professionals > manage but don't ask them to prove and record > every single decision they make. Nurses should > spend more time with the patient than in writing > up the otes - these days the ratio has been > reversed. The endless committee meetings, the > reluctance to make a decision, the tendency to > "delegate upwards" and the general reluctance to > make a decision are all paralysing and costly. Whilst in principle I agree with you, I would highlight two issues. Firstly, the reasons for endless paperwork trails and their continued rise is the ver present fear of litigation and blame. We demand that our medical staff are held to account for the slightest mistakes. In such a climate it is not surprising that there is a desire to create a paper trail that can exonerate innocent parties. Second, I don't think the NHS or the public sector at large are unique in this. Having worked in large and small private sector organisations (one of less than 20 staff, one of thousands around the world) the scale of paper pushing and bureaucracy was similar in all of them. I think it is symptomatic of modern office life more than it is of public sector inefficiency.

Sue - don't feed the troll. He's being a twat. My vote is for an austerity Xmas. Bicycle powered lights and all presents wrapped in newspaper. That sort of thing.

Sounds like an argument for 60p.....

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david_carnell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think that was the original application > rather > > than the new one, no? > > Damn - DC is correct. The old one, 11/AP/1705 was > rejected. The new one, 11-AP-2953, is not yet on > the Southwark planning site. > > Back to the barricades, people... The definition of a pyrrhic victory.

Well I'm not rich by any calculation on here. But I'm envious! That's the only reason I could think it right to tax those at the top end more, right? Thanks for that damning personality assessment, Loz. On the subject of tax exiles fleeing Britain in the face of such unjust treatment I found this piece from last month by Peter Oborne quite apt:

Elbow, whilst being critically aclaimed, only acheived popularity with their 4th album, Seldom Seen Kid.

I think that was the original application rather than the new one, no?

James Whilst remaining neutral, could you give a method of doing so. Is it possible without the planning application being online yet? Thanks David

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The high salaried, comfortably off can, often, be > just a few months away from being very poor - as > their apparent wealth and assets depend upon > regular, high, salary payments. The recession has > demonstrated how quickly a high flying businesman > on ?150K a year can, once redundant and unable to > service the mortgage, school fees, car leasing > costs and the like that give the appearance of > wealth, have to give up these luxuries, cash in > whatever assets they posses and downsize > dramatically or even be made bankrupt. Wait, what's that I can hear? In the background.....very faint......I think it just might be, yes, it is......the world's smallest violin playing. Perhaps these people should stop mortgaging themselves to the hilt, stop sending little Johnny to Harrow and drive a cheaper car. The sorts of cutbacks you'd expect to make in a recession.

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I actually worked once with someone who thought > Peckham was a place they invented for Only Fools & > Horses. You can stun them next time, Moos, with the amazing fact that Nelson Mandela House was actually a tower block in Bristol.

This is pseduo-bollocks. It's to make money. Let's be honest about it shall we rather than obsfuscate with mealy mouthed phrases like this. And I'm all for covering scaffolding whilst building works are taking place. Why it can't be a plain coloured board or sheet is the question? I have enough advertising everywhere as it is, I don't want to encourage more of it just because it's temporary. It's a ruddy eyesore.

Whilst Lordship Lane is hardly an aspic-preserved Georgian delight, it is still someway from becoming the generic suburban high street that you'd find in places like Sutton or Bromley. I don't think you need planning permission for temporary hoarding like this to cover buidling works since it would be incorporated into the original planning application. If that's the case then I can safely place myself in the "opposed-to" camp. It's a carbuncle and residents would have little say in what it was advertising. Nein, danke.

Loz - I didn't mean "earn over their lifetime" I meant more than most people could ever hope to earn in a year even at the end of their careers when they should be at their earning peak. I'm afraid I would have to disagree and suggest oligarchs, sportsman and entrepreneurs are so small in number, although still distort stas due to their vast wealth, that I would class someone on ?150k as "rich". I would suggest anyone earning more than twice the average salary (or perhaps twice the average regional salary to take account of London distortion) would be classed as "rich". Although I'm not sure where that gets us. But that would be somewhere between about ?50k-70k per annum. Obviously it doesn't take account of wealth i.e. house, car etc.

There is already a thread on this.

Bon Iver - For Emma Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes Neither will ever repeat those heights. Guaranteed. Does that then lessen how good the debut album is, when you know it's a flash-in-the-pan?

How you can claim someone who earns approx 7x the average salary isn't rich is beyond me? It's more than the vast majority will ever earn in their careers. To suggest that they might be struggling to get by due to some punative tax measure is absurd.

The Strokes - Is This It? In retrospect, not the best title given the answer was yes.

Lovely pub, terrible service and food. Am I goingto be expected to sympathise with people who live in the Village now? Can't imagine there's the demand for a hotel though.