DaveR

There are plenty of tourist traps in Trastevere too, and lots of good restaurants even in the touristy areas. This place is near Piazza di Spagna, and is great for classic Roman food: http://www.ristoranteotelloallaconcordia.it/ as is this place, which is on an island in the river: http://www.trattoriasoralella.it/index.php You should also definitely try the ice cream from these two places (they each have a few branches): http://www.ilgelatodisancrispino.com/en/home-eng/ http://www.gelateriafatamorgana.com/web/

"A cyclist was jailed for 18 months today..." Pay attention - the date on that report is June 3 2011.

Now that this thread has descended into the usual pointless tit-for-tat, can I just say that as someone who cycles regularly, I really don't care what people think about cyclists and their behaviour, whether in general or me in particular. What I care about is what they do, and especially, when they are driving, are they really trying their best not to hit me with their car? I care about that a lot, both as regards cyclists in general, and, unsurprisingly, me in particular. Because unfortunately, there are people out there who are not trying their best. There are even people, thankfully very few in number, who think cyclists *deserve* to be hit, or at least be put in fear of being hit, because they do things that make them angry. So my only contribution to this thread is to say, if the behaviour of cyclists makes you angry, leave it on here. Don't take it out on the road with you. The only thing that really matters is that we all get home safely.

That's rubbish - a completely incoherent and inaccurate rant.

There are no Premier League matches this Saturday, only FA Cup. The next round of PL matches is on Tuesday/Wednesday evening, and Arsenal, West Ham and Palace are at home, (also Watford, which is easy to get to from London). If they are very keen to go you need to check with both the home and away clubs - probably easiest just to call the ticket office and ask if there are any available for general sale. I wouldn't be that hopeful though - your best bet might be trying to get tickets for the away end for West Ham v Aston Villa as (i) it's a Tuesday night (ii) it's a schlep from Birmingham to East London (iii) it's live on BT Sport and (iv) Villa are shit and are odds on to get stuffed. However, if you're in the away end at Upton Park you're going to get abuse from a load of sweaty, sweary Hammers fans, but that just makes the experience more 'real'.

It's a good idea to be alert to the potential misuse of data and statistics, but equally, to say: "Clearly the stats are meaningless..." requires a little more foundation than "as they require self selection". However, it would be useful to know the difference between 1st place and say 200th place in terms of frequency, and also the variability over time, before getting worried/complacent about the present risk.

I know the OP means well, but this is exactly the wrong way to go about this. I seriously doubt you're going to boost your audience by criticizing people who go to the Picturehouse. You need to choose the right films, stress the fact that it's a fun night and a charitable act all in one, and get the message out more effectively.

"Southwark Council will be cutting down trees on One Tree Hill and in Camberwell Old Cemeter. Up to 12 acres" Please be clear - are there proposals to cut down trees anywhere other than in existing cemeteries? You keep on saying "One Tree Hill" but if you mean that part of the area that is within the boundaries of a cemetery, you should say so. I'm sure you wouldn't want anybody to be misled.

That article is crap: "It was normal to leave university and get a flat with your mates in Marylebone or Maida Vale or Primrose Hill or Notting Hill." In the 1990s? I don't think so.

"...we are trying to save the world" Words that strike fear into the heart of any sensible person, especially when coming from someone older than twenty five.

"Having if off" http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/last-man-to-still-use-phrase-having-it-off-dies-20160108105148

"replies which are fixated on issues that have been rebuffed repeatedly to a tiresome degree...." Pot. Kettle. etc. "you "against" people should stick to your basic points: You don't give a damn about trees, they aren't even trees, they are scrub you don't think 150 year old graves arn worth saving, they were meant to be dug up or should as they are ugly you don't go into the woods anyway, not tidy they are cemeteries! they were always cemeteries! cemeteries! get it? cemeteries! you don't give a damn about the future (global warming, flooding, rotting dead juices flowing down Forest Hill Road) you liked the way things were in the past before all these these bloody newcomers came in here, embarrassing you by appreciating things about the area that you never noticed. (Not intended for the majority of the people who were raised here who appreciate the natural beauty of East Dulwich area and are disgusted that the Council is digging up thousands of graves and sell off the plots to people out of the Borough. I meet very few people who are against saving the woods and the graves, which is why there is no group supporting the council plans and no one to speak for destroying these places of beauty and memories.)" This is not forthright language - it's deliberately provocative, misleading bullshit. That's not an ad hominem attack, save to the extent it identifies edborders as (yet again) a producer and distributor of the aforesaid bullshit.

"Pub culture is alive and kicking in the suburbs and beyond, it's just gentrification has wiped out most traditional inner London boozers, because, you know, working class people can like it or lump it, who cares if they don't have anywhere to go for a drink locally. Sell up and move out, this area isn't yours anymore. As long as the wealthy newbies have somewhere to take their prams and eat poncy food that's all that really matters. Now put those pickled eggs in the bin and pass me those stuffed olives, this chateauneuf du papp tastes shit without them." A nice story that fits with all Lulu's tired prejudices, but also dead wrong. Cheap take out booze, big chain stand-up lager barns and just changing behaviour are what have killed off old-fashioned pubs, and the trad working class ones more than any others. Where they survive unchanged it's generally because the local area is so depressed that no one wants to make better use of the site. A pub like the CPT in the suburbs wouldn't have become the Gt Exhibition (which may or may not be your cup of tea but is still recognisably a pub) - it would now be the Golden Dragon Chinese, or else would be boarded up.

1. Southwark Woods is a name of a campaign. "Woods that exist in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries" might be more geographically accurate but does not trip off the tongue so well. This does not alter the fact that woods exist at both sites in question; Southwark Woods (capitalised) is a misleading name deliberately chosen to add 'heft' to the campaign to save them. 2. Woods always grow through "neglect" as, by definition, they are only lightly managed if at all - whether this is appropriate space for burial is the nub of the issue; It's not true that woods always (or even usually) grow through neglect - the majority of English woodland is actively managed and has been for centuries. 3. The graves in question do not have this lease AIUI. The 2007 act does not apply and these plots were leased in perpetuity - someone with a better handle on this can expand further I am sure; I don't know whether this is accurate as a matter of fact, but it is striking that the voices of those who appear to have an interest in visiting current graves appear resolutely opposed to your campaign. 4. 75 years is often cited as a minimum best practice period before which reuse should be considered - this depends a great deal on local conditions though and the clay soil type means that decomposition tends to be slower than elsewhere; No citation for the 'often cited' best practice, and in any event see 3 above. 5. It is One Tree Hill and yes the woods there (that border the nature reserve) are under imminent threat. Unless I'm missing something, the only 'woods under threat' are those within the boundaries of existing cemeteries.

"Yes, DF, that is why I asked DaveR if he thought those/any family who requested a hangar on their street should also give up their car, if they have one. He did not answer." Just to be clear, I didn't answer because it's a very stupid question.

So the objections are (i) I don't like the look of them and (ii) I want to park my car there. Obviously dressed up with all sorts of nonsense like this: "All I can say is that these hangars are a sort of cyclist CPZ and bring us one step closer to CPZ en masse" but that's the size of it. You should start a petition immediately.

"Many people, with children, with infirmities, racked with age (I've worked through all three of these!) finds car travel, at times, a boon, and cycle travel an impossibility." True, but many people with none of these qualities nevertheless travel by car. Or, looking at it from another perspective, there are other cities where bike use is substantially higher and no reason to believe that their population is substantially different from London. There is also plenty of evidence that being active before you are infirm makes it less likely that you will become so. So I don't really see that as a valid objection to measures encouraging people to cycle.

"It is true that no one can predict which, or how many species, could be affected in this instance." It's not true at all - it can be done, by real science, using real data, rather than pretend science with no data wheeled out to provide dubious support for your dubious cause.

"However, the number of species an area can support is proportional to the habitat area (Species Area relationship). Ergo, significant loss of habitat will cause species loss. Do you think that is important?" This is exactly the sort of blatant misrepresentation that is giving the already misleadingly named "Save Southwark Woods" campaign a bad name. There is no evidence that the specific actions planned will lead to species loss. It's also significant that you feel the need to denigrate the Friends of One Tree Hill, who have a long-standing and committed relationship with the area and, in all likelihood, a much more developed understanding of the actual likely impact of the planned works on the overall habitat. You're trying your hardest to dress this up as a reasoned and reasonable cause, but it's not - it's a bunch of ill-informed single issue fanatics.

It's obvious that there are parts of London (and I'm sure other big cities) where the police are either going to take more precautions going in than in more placid parts of town, whilst at the same time try to be softly softly to avoid big confrontations. In fact, trying to reconcile these two things is one of the big difficulties, and it is particularly acute in big estates that are essentially enclosed and to an extent cut off from wider communities. But the Trump point was specific - there are 'no go areas' and the cause is radicalised muslims. And that's rubbish. As is all the Grok being spouted above - stickers on lamp posts and cannabis farms FFS.

Grammarian?

I'll definitely get accusations of ponciness etc. but the best mince pies I've ever had are from Konditor & Cook.

http://www.nomachetejuggling.com/2011/11/11/the-star-wars-saga-suggested-viewing-order/

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [www.moneysavingexpert.com] > e-rate-calculator that's cool. I have my own excel model that does it, but that link is much easier. There are a whole series of calculators on that page that are very useful - product comparison, overpayment calculator, and offset mortgage vs savings accounts.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/mortgage-rate-calculator