DaveR

I was really looking for someone who will supply and fit, as it were

Anybody had this done for less than the ?55 they charge at the Apple Store? Either locally or in C London?

As much as people might be cross about it, a dose of realism is called for. This is a private legal matter (as opposed to one involving public law) between Pretty's and their new landlord. As has been pointed out, there are conditions that have to be satisfied before terminating a commercial tenancy and Pretty's need to concentrate on any potential challenge to that. In any event, if they have to move, they have to move - it's not that unusual for tenants, commercial or otherwise, and if Prettys really do have the level of support expressed here then they will do OK.

BR = Basic Rate i.e. they haven't assigned him a tax code based on his actual pojected earnings and are just deducting basic rate on everything. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/codes-basics.htm It's what they tend to do when they don't have enough info to work out a proper code, which will often be the case with temping.

Sutton = Croydon, but less exciting

Robert Poste's Child (brilliant if enigmatic name) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Comfort_Farm

"I moved to ED 1980.. It was a much more pleasant place then... You could walk into ANY pub back then and know someone, if not most people.. It was real community back then. Although some of these folks are no longer with us, many still are but seldom venture out. And I am talking about people who are 50-60. Not very old people. Pubs can be very hostile.. Well they are mostly not pubs.. Most cannot make up their minds if they are Pubs selling food, Restaurants selling Beer. If they are music bars,??? Coctail Bars ??? There are too many shopping tourists.. East Dulwich cannot cope with it.. The Sea-side resorts made parking so difficult (Ramsgate virtually impossible) to reduce the influx of W/E travellers. People have got there Town back and the place is a much better place for it." I'm sure most of this is true, or at least sincerely believed. But everything described is the result of economic/demographic changes, and you can't turn the clock back. The alternative to pubs that make money from food is pubs that have closed down. Get rid of shopping tourists and shops close down. And the example of seaside towns is an interesting one - in the 80s and 90s towns like Ramsgate were dying, and it was money from outsiders (weekend visitors, and visitors who ended up staying) that kept them going, and then revived them. The fact that they are now victims of their own success doesn't mean it was ever an option to sit tight and not change. Re NXR market, of course it's nothing like an old school market, here or in France, and there's no point in making the comparison. But it has some good stuff and a nice atmosphere and on balance it must be better that it's there, than not.

"Ha ha. A 'professional illustrator' complaining about people being too middle class??" and also the proprietor of 'Neil's Cool Guitar School', don't forget cock

"I think that's unfair, lemerson made a reasonable request in a polite manner." I read it differently - instead of responding to the substance of the post (which contradicted his/her assertions about lack of consultation) lemerson immediately responded in a way that, albeit politely, sought to undermine the credibility of the information via the implication that the poster (a) had an interest and (b) could therefore not be trusted to report accurately. Classic paranoid/obsessive/comspiracy theorist stuff, and consistent with the other posts. It is notable that all the other posts on the topic come across as pretty rational and considered, especially by comparison. FWIW, I'm in favour of the proposal for all the reasons set out sensibly above.

"Dear Souzie thank you for your response which suggests you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject. Could you clarify whether you represent the council, political party or contractor for the record so we all know where we stand?" I don't get this. Souzie's post was pretty much 100% factual. Are you saying that if, for example, she is a local councillor, you won't believe her? I'm afraid you're coming across as a bit of a nutter.

1 I've heard that if repair is to cost more than 25% of car's value then vehicle written off . So would it sometimes be better to not go through insurance and have car repaired privately ? Can one go down the insurance route only to cover costs of other vehicle ? ( I'm assuming it's not done to start suggesting they have private repaira ) There's nothing to stop you getting a quote for a repair to your car before deciding whether to make a claim for it. 2 Our insurance co are now offering a " free " service of finding us a another car - we indicate price range and type . But nothing is free is it ,won't this involve the insuramce co getting a commission and this cost getting passed on to us in the price of the car that's found for us ? You're right that the insurance co. wil somehow be making money out of it, but not necessarily at your expense - it shouldn't be too difficult to check via Autotrader whether any car you are offered appears to be at the right price.

The overall cost to you of taking the car will be the additional tax you wll pay on the benefit in kind plus the extra cash that you have foregone. The finance/payroll people at your new employer should be able to tell you exactly how much, but for a half decent car I'd expect it to be at least ?3.5 - 4k per year, not including any additional petrol allowance. That may well be less than it would cost you to buy/lease and run a similar car privately, but may, for example, be less than you currently spend running your own car. We did the maths on this a few years ago when the option came up, and worked out that the additional cost of getting a nice new Audi rather than carrying on with our three year old Renault was about ?2500 per year - not worth it for us. Edited to add - posted this before I saw your response. You've obviously got the figures so can do ther maths, but in your case comparing to costs of replacing your current car.

"Actually, unless you have walked in my shoes, you have no right to judge." What about judges? Those people whose job it is to judge things? Does a family court judge have to have been divorced, a criminal judge have to have been to prison? As Loz said, it's an entirely spurious way of closing down legitimate debate. I don't have an informed opinion on why a particular person, who I know nothing about, might use a food bank, but I have a perfectly valid opinion on why food bank use generally may have increased. See page 1 of this thread for some sensible debate.

"On the flipside however, by locating in affluent areas, potential customers who could actively benefit from affordable second-hand goods at a local level are excluded. People who really need access to cheap second-hand items are thus priced out of the market by the organisations which are arguably supposed to be there to help them" This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the rationale of charity shops - they are there to raise funds, and if they sell their goods too cheaply they are not doing their jobs properly. There are various charities that collect second hand good for direct distribution to people in need, and every donor has a choice about what to give and to whom.

"What I am suggesting is that we start to put our heads together about how the current system might be improved in order to promote the development of a more varied and useful shopping culture - not simply in our own community but throughout the UK" http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1512/lets_talk_about_your_local_high_street Obviously this is not about changing the system, but rather how the system we currently have is implemented. The current Southwark Plan is here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2284/the_southwark_plan It includes this: "Changes of use between Class A uses should be carefully considered to ensure that proposals would not result in an over-dominance of one particular use or a deficiency in A1 use, which again might impact on the vitality and viability of the centre." so likely to be difficult to get change of use from greengrocer to estate agency in that location. What the plan doesn't say is "applications by relatives you've fallen out with will be refused, provided enough people like your apples and pears", and it's difficult to imagine a system that would accommodate that.

davidh, most people have kind of moved on from saying what a shame it would be for the shop to close, to consider what realistically could/should be done about it. You are welcome to contribute.

"the point here is most of think that losing chris' shop is a bad thing and we wonder why the family wishes to tear itself apart" Many thanks davidh for your illuminating explanation of the issues. The alternative to 'losing Chris' shop' is, potentially, to impose on the freeholder not just an uneconomic tenancy, but a specific tenant. That is what London Mix and the Penguin were pointing out. In fact what is being encouraged on this thread is for people with no interest in the planning issues to oppose a fairly innocuous application, in the hope that it will achieve the same result. IMHO that would be pointless, others may disagree.

"The other option is full on upper class English eccentric = embracing the gaudy and f*ck you if you care." This, I suspect. The Village is a favourite haunt for trick-or-treaters because of the penchant so many of the residents have for covering their front gardens in fake cobwebs and dressing up as skeletons.

From looking at the planning application, the proposed works are to extend the ground floor to occupy the rear yard area and expand the shop space by doing away with the hallway housing the stairs to the upstairs flat. The flat is not being extended but is reconfigured, with access via external steps to the rear coming up to a decked area. Nothing there, and nothing posted here, to indicate whether there is any substance to this scare story, or to suggest why anybody (other than neighbours who might be overlooked by the new decked area) should oppose the application. Has anybody been into the greengrocers and seen the petition? What does it say?

An extraordinary alarmist post with essentially no hard info at all. As with the endless Iceland thread, the one thing that's clear is that an application for planning consent will be decided by reference to conventional planning considerations, and views based on the identity of a tenant will not be relevant

Will be in Penang in a couple of weeks - rendang there always good!

The Chinese shop in Peckham stocks a brand of curry paste called Brahim which is imported from Malaysia, and includes a very good rendang paste. The rendang is also very good at Bunga Raya in Thornton Heath. Haven't tried Mangosteen - let us know if it's good.

"It's worth checking out the document I posted above - if you are going to use your married name in any official context (bank account, mortgage, tax etc) then the Passport office do require you to change your passport to your married name once married." I think you may have misread the document; it says this: " A married woman who continues to use her maiden name, and is known by it for all purposes, may on request have the observation ' THE HOLDER IS THE WIFE OF ................. (name of husband)' entered in the passport." but that doesn't impose any obligation to change your passport just because you got married. Similarly, the OP said: " I wanted to retain my original name when I married but that the Passport Office had declared that any married woman had to have her married surname on the passport" which I'm pretty sure is wrong (although the OP was obviously told or believed that it was correct). There are also no specific requirements re bank accounts/mortgage/tax etc., although in some circumstances you may be required to prove that you are married if you do not have the same name in your ID documents. Going back to the specific problem, HSBC will have an internal process for handling and escalating complaints. I would call them, ask to be put through to the complaints people, and then if whoever you speak to doesn't come up with a solution, ask them to escalate to the next level. In my experience you generally get someone eventually who will actually have the authority to make a decision that will sort it out.

Greenwich theatre: http://www.greenwichtheatre.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1265:puss-in-boots&catid=7:playingnow&Itemid=1

Except the entire article is one long non sequitur All the examples that he gives of terrible stories printed by him or others either already involved some sort of illegality, or would still be pretty much unimpeachable even in a post Leveson world, unless the new Code contained exactly the sorts of restrictions that worry serious critics of his proposals. It's worth remembering that both the McCanns and Chris Jefferies took their cases to court and won. I agree with Levson's conclusion that existing legal remedies are not sufficient, and his proposals for free (or very cheap) fast track proceedings for individuals with a decent case are entirely sensible. I just don't see the need to hitch them to a quasi-legislative structure involving a whole bunch of essentially political appointees setting out to define the limits of public interest journalism.