DaveR

I heard about a guy who painted his wife with cheese. Twice. He double glossed her. I thank you.

If you read the whole story they are suggesting that Central London property values will decline in the first half of 2015 due to uncertainty pre-election re mansion tax, but then recover in second half to be flat overall for the year. Presumably the second half recovery is dependent on a not-Labour victory in the election. Then it says: ?Suburban London [that's us, I guess] is expected to be impacted as the rapid growth seen in 2014 slows, helping to rebalance supply and demand. Caution before the polls suggests that prices will be flat for the first half of the year, before rising modestly by year end,? So it's a kind of 'no news' news story, other than an implied dig at the mansion tax. Re good thing/bad thing, at the properly macro level the best solution to high London house prices is a booming economy in the other regions of the UK, but obviously easier said than done. In the mean time, there's an obvious need to build more homes in London and the SE.

"But whilst it might not go down well with the scenesters ...their pizzas are frankly a bit chewy. The Gowlett still wins for me. " Sorry - are you saying FM is for 'scenesters' and the Gowlett is, like, keeping it real?

"A new alcohol licence has been applied for 151 Lordship Lane to sell alcohol Mon-Sat 9am-11pm, Sun 10am-10.30pm" Is that the old Speedo Pizza site? The application doesn't show up on the licensing register web page - any more details available?

"But I don't know if they could sue to prevent my working with the client." Yes - the normal remedy for enforcing these type of clauses is an injunction. I think I may have misunderstood the reference to 'agency' in your original post as meaning a recruitment/temp agency, but it sounds like that's not the case, in which case it's not surprising that the client is not bound by any contractual terms. This type of term is known as a 'non-dealing' restriction (as opposed to non-compete and non-solicitation) and they are generally a bit more difficult to enforce because the risk to the employer's business is less obvious, but this is not my field so don't rely on that!

A specialist solicitor will give you proper advice based on the actual terms, but these provisions are common in agency contracts (and there will be a term in the client's contract with the agency either prohibiting them from employing you, or providing for a fee if they do, or both), and there are often disputes about whether they are enforceable at all, or to what extent. It's unlikely you're going to get advice that is definitive, and by far the best way to resolve these sort of problems is by agreement. Unless there has been a serious breakdown in the relationship between agency and client there's no reason why a commercial solution can't be negotiated - the reason these terms are common is because the situation arises all the time.

"It doesn't have to develop on school playing fields, even if it can and it would be in its beneficiaries' best financial interests to do so. What do the DE's current intentions say about its values and ethos." FWIW I agree with you, but that's different from saying they "have been misinformed or badly advised as to their purpose as a charity".

The 'entitlement' is cut and dried in the sense that it is set out in the terms of the lease. Whether or not planning permission is granted is another matter.

"It is not a 'cut and dried' case of entitlement on either side. However, one thing that needs to be made clear is that the area in question is currently part of Judith Kerr Primary School, and that there is no automatic reversion to Dulwich Estate." If the earlier post as to the precise terms of the current lease is correct, then it is cut and dried - the Estate is entitled in the specified circumstances to require that lease to be surrendered and a new lease granted excluding the area currently used as playing fields. It's not a case of reversion, which occurs at the end of a lease.

"The real problem with DE is that they have been misinformed or badly advised as to their purpose as a charity." I'm afraid the real problem is that many posters (unsurprisingly) don't understand how charity law in the UK operates, and how different the legal status and obligations of a charitable trust can be from what a layperson thinks of as a 'proper charity'. This has been discussed in some detail on other threads concerning the Dulwich Estate. Details regarding the Estate's charitable objects and beneficiaries can be found here: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=312751&SubsidiaryNumber=0

I'd recommend either of these: http://www.skates.co.uk/scooters/jd-bug-junior-original-street-scooter-reflex-blue.html http://www.decathlon.co.uk/play-4-scooter-red-id_8157804.html

As I understand it, the new provisions doesn't prevent pubs operating on the old tied model, but it prevents pubcos from imposing the model i.e. pub landlords (who, confusingly, are actually tenants) have a choice. There are undoubtedly some pubs that make enough money for the pubco/brewer as tied houses to make them worth keeping open, but not enough for the tenant - these are the kind of pubs that have a fresh faced and hopeful new team every 12-18 months, who become increasingly bitter as reality dawns, and then depart to be replaced by the next lot. Some of those pubs will close, some forever, and some will be reborn as businesses that actually serve their local market, whatever that may be. It's difficult to see why any currently popular pubs will close as a result.

I dropped into the new Evans last week for new brake pads - open until 8pm on weekdays, which is very convenient. I'm pretty sure I'll continue to use Balfe's as well, but it's good to have another local option. And I hadn't noticed the price match guarantee before, which is good to know.

He did spend 5 months in the nick, including a short but undoubtedly nasty spell in Belmarsh, so not completely meaningless. And the early release provisions apply to everybody, not just 'celeb' offenders.

I guess it was a mistype for 'shabby' I don't think there's any contradiction between saying that people make choices but the consequences of their choices may be largely determined by future factors over which they have no control, and it's particularly apt for the UK/London property market over the last 30 years or so. But the OP said 'I want a 2 bed flat in ED cheap' because otherwise he'll be renting forever, to which the answer (regardless of the current market situation) is 'go find a two bed flat you can afford - like everyone else has to'. And I'm bound to say that if you can afford to rent in ED you can afford to buy somewhere.

The quickest way would be Camberwell New Road, past the Oval, Vauxhall Bridge, then along the river. I confess I've never been through Vauxhall Cross on the bike during morning/evening rush hour but I've been told there's a safe cut through somewhere. The other alternative would be to find a decent cut through from Camberwell Rd to Black Prince Road and then go over Lambeth Bridge, but that would definitely be a bit slower.

"But it seems that we agree that options for young people in terms of affordability in (very, very loosely) central London are bloody awful, in a way that is very different to even a decade ago." I definitely agree with that, but one of the reasons for it is just that London appears to keep on getting more desirable and (in aggregate, and comparatively) richer, whilst not really increasing the density of population in the most popular bit i.e. Inner London.. My comment about building in back gardens was only partly tongue in cheek - there is a thread on that topic where someone says 'what we love about this area is the space, and peace and quiet etc." Well, fair enough, but that comes at a cost.

"It's also extraordinary how often people on here that got on the housing ladder an aeon ago sow seeds of wisdom, wisdom won by (essentially) their good fortune to be born earlier. "Hey, I couldn't afford Wandsworth in 1998, so I bought in East Dulwich, what's the problem with living in a shoe, the old lady did"." You're missing the point. Property in London has got proportionately more expensive because of rising demand and static supply, and inner London even more so because demand for the 'urban' life has outstripped that for the 'suburban'. What is stopping people (on even pretty good incomes) from buying in places like ED is people with even more money stumping up for houses, not people who bought years ago when it was cheaper. It may be an unpleasant fact to face when you're 26 and looking for urban cool but affordable places now are not ED, nor even Catford, but Ilford, or Bexleyheath, for example. It might not seem fair, but until we start building (maybe in some ED back gardens?) that's the way it is.

At the very least the debate above indicates that you probably shouldn't do something that might radically changes traffic flows and volumes (i.e. implement the no right turn) without some actual data on what those flows and volumes are. There's no point in addressing a perceived problem here if you just create anew one somewhere else.

"I think the dude was jesting." Yeah, he was, but it's extraordinary how often on here people say 'it's not fair, I can't afford to buy a house' when what they mean is 'can't afford to buy a house where I want one'.

Slightly off topic, but when my kids were younger we did the 'video message from Santa' every year: https://www.portablenorthpole.com/ We always did the free version so can't comment on the paid for stuff.

"The options appear to be: lower prices to the public, and keep landlords on similar margins to the pubco days Keep prices the same and allow landlords to make a living and encourage them to stay in the business Can't help but feel there is a wider societal lesson there somewhere" I think there is too, but we may not agree on what it is. I think the lesson is that lots of small(ish) independent businesses freely competing with each other will provide a better product, and be more responsive to changing customer demands, than huge plcs. Whether landlords make a living (and some still won't) should depend on their own hard work and enterprise - and they'll decide what price is right for the product they offer.

"It's a shame there's no room for a footbridge" FFS, it's not the M4. Do you really want to live in a neighbourhood where the assumption is that people walking can't cross roads safely?

Nuclear war near misses since 1945 http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/home/chatham/public_html/sites/default/files/20140428TooCloseforComfortNuclearUseLewisWilliamsPelopidasAghlani.pdf

I'm all in favour of changes to make cycling safer, and even in favour of stuff that is mildly anti-car (even though I have a car, I recognise that in residential streets, the less traffic the better), but even then I don't think the new 'no right turn' from Townley into EDG makes any sense. And it needs to be clarified whether eastbound traffic on EDG will in practice be reduced to one lane at the junction, which needs to be avoided at all costs.