DaveR

I hate shopping, and shopping centres, and most individual shops, to be honest. But Westfield has a Franco Manca pizza stand with a wood-burning oven, and a few other genuinely good and interesting food outlets, so I can be persuaded to go there. In every other respect it's like hell on earth, obviously.

I could understand Le Chandelier's reaction when an ex-member of staff made all sorts of allegations about them. But it seems to me that if a policy is adopted that legal threats, however groundless, will lead to an embargo on a particular business even being named, there is a danger that one function of the forum becomes essentially redundant.

"I found the hospital's ethos of using all means necessary to get the baby out bizarre. They're so anxious to avoid the miniscule increase in risk for the baby the longer it stays in the womb, but they don't consider the problems that failed inductions, interventions and Csecs can cause - let alone the implications for a woman who's left feeling completely out of control of the birth experience." I think it's unlikely that they are not entirely familiar not only with the level of increased risk, miniscule or otherwise, but also the countervailing risks that you identify. What you see as bizarre they will see as a policy based squarely on the latest medical knowledge and evidence. However, that doesn't mean that what is right statistically is right for you in your particular circumstances. My (vicarious) experience of 2 births at Kings is that, if asked, all the medical staff we encountered were happy to explain the advice they were giving and, although they were pretty forthright with their opinions, we didn't feel unduly pressurised.

Jkartel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the end of the day, i came here to express an > opinion and have discussions with others that have > the same views..... To be fair to the OP, she/he did make it clear that differing views were not welcome!

"Jeremy, as it happens London schools are now performing at well above the national standard. Lots of state-funded schools in Lewisham and Southwark are doing really well, at both primary and secondary level. It can be difficult to get a place at the more popular ones, yes, but it seems to me that it is not as polarised as it used to be." It's true to say that London secondary schools (including Southwark schools) are now performing much better than in the past, but average figures are composed (unsurprisingly) of good, bad and indifferent schools, and whether you are likely to get in to a good local school depends on a number of factors. It's also the case that the different levels of attainment at A level remain pretty stark. It all makes for genuinely difficult decisions for local parents and kids. TBH, it's easy if you dismiss the idea of sending your kid to a grammar school on ideological grounds, but many people don't, and have to work out what they think is best for their particular situation. There was a somewhat more measured discussion of this on an earlier thread (i.e. without sarcy pointless comments from smug, childless ex-grammar school boys).

I think a few different points are being mixed up here. I agree that cycling on the pavement is generally wrong for anyone over the age of about 12, unless there is a good reason for it. I also agree that when there is an accident involving a car and a bike the humane immediate response is to make sure the cyclist is OK, regardless of fault. On the facts here it seems pretty clear that the cyclist was at fault - whether there may have been some fault also on the part of the driver is difficult to judge unless you were there and had a proper sense of relative speed etc. The fact that cyclists don't have compulsory insurance doesn't mean that they can't be pursued for costs of damge that they cause. Most people are not insured for most things that they do outside their working lives, but if I kick a football through your window, I'm liable to pay. This incident doesn't tell you anything about relative risks posed by different road users at the statistical level etc., and, as already observed, there has been no shortage of discussion on here about pedestrians vs cyclist vs motorists.

Btw - North Korea? Really?

But this is England: the English keep and walk dogs. That is just how it is. No. Some people, English or otherwise, keep and walk dogs. Others don't. You are just the latest of many on this thread to imply that 'people' are supportive of dogs and 'they' ie Southwark council are anti dog. Hence the complete absence of rational engagement with the real issues

If I wanted to look down on people, I would buy stilts.

"The principle of preventing dogs from walking free in Southwark's 60% of parks is a very bad one. There needs to be a purpose behind every preclusion or segregation. The assumption should be that parks are free for all to use unless there is a compelling reason to restrict access." As I said clearly, the figures I mentioned are arbitrary, just designed to identify the issue. As you say, the assumption should be that parks are free for all to use, and the question that the survey appears to be aimed at is in what ways and to what extent do the behaviour of dogs and their owners impinge on the freedom of non-dog owning individuals to use the park in the way that they want. I still don't see any dog owners making any serious effort to address this question.

Tomorrow for breakfast I'm going to have caviar and foie gras on toast, with white truffles shaved over the top. With champagne. I call it a "Louisa".

Told you. Burger other than from van = snob. In other news, seafood other than pint of whelks = pretentious nonsense

This thread is hilarious. Dog owner 1: There is no problem with dogs! Dog owner 2: What a sensible comment Dog owner 3: Southwark clearly want to ban all dogs - why not ban children! Dog owner 4: Yes, I totally agree Unsurprisingly, dog owners showing zero interest in whether there may be any genuine issue as to whether the current situation best meets the interests of both dog owners and non-owners (or 'canine haters' as they vare apparently known). I asked earlier in the thread what I thought was a simple question - would it be acceptable for Southwark to decide that a minimum proportion of all public parks be dog-free? (Say 30% by area). A further proportion be dogs on leads only (say another 30%), and the balance unrestricted. The figures I have chosen are arbitrary, but why is there anything wrong in principle?

SJ, Louisa has spoken. Burger other than from van = SNOB

It is a real shame that Callows are leaving LL, but as already mentioned, good that they're not leaving the area. There does seem to be a pattern at the moment of commercial landlords seeking big rent increases,forcing out established businesses, and then finding that big paying tenants are not (immediately) to be found. The market is clearly due for a 'correction' but I would favour a business rate regime that has a strong disincentive to leaving properties vacant. BTW, I can't believe that anyone is still trotting out this old nonsense: "The Snob Element has helped to establish a situation where only those places charging such prices can afford the rent and rates." People have money, they spend it on what they want. Some have more, some have less. Are you suggesting that if there were more people in ED with less cash it would be healthier for shops?

I would say that they are pretty good at getting them from non-swimming to swimming independently, less good at getting them swimming strongly and with good technique. My kids enjoyed the lessons and liked the teachers so all in all I would recommend for getting a kid swimming, and if you want more there are other alternatives.

This is a quote from the Guardian article in EP's link: But Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, argues fracking is not the only reason Texas is going dry ? and nor is the drought. The latest shocks to the water system come after decades of overuse by ranchers, cotton farmers, and fast-growing thirsty cities. "We have large urban centres sucking water out of west Texas to put on their lands. We have a huge agricultural community, and now we have fracking which is also using water," she said. And then there is climate change. West Texas has a long history of recurring drought, but under climate change, the south-west has been experiencing record-breaking heatwaves, further drying out the soil and speeding the evaporation of water in lakes and reservoirs. Underground aquifers failed to regenerate. "What happens is that climate change comes on top and in many cases it can be the final straw that breaks the camel's back, but the camel is already overloaded," said Hayhoe. The point about fracking is that the rational evidence suggests not that there are no drawbacks/negative effects, but that those that can be accurately measured e.g. chemical use are not particularly severe for what is, after all, an industrial process, and those that are reliant on risk analysis e.g. do not represent signficant risks. The economic argument in favour is unanswerable, at least in the short - medium term. However, the argument is not just about science or economics but also politics, which is perfectly appropriate (science and economics might support eugenics, but most people don't). The political argument against (at least insofar as it's not based on pretend science) is, as EP said, this: "My main issue is that it so fundamentally detracts from any efforts to do anything about carbon reduction.", or to put it another way, cheaper fossil fuels lessen the incentives to seek (non-polluting) alternatives. I can see the argument, but I'm not persuaded, for two reasons. Firstly, stopping fracking will mean more energy from dirtier and more expensive fossil fuels for a long time to come - a big loss for an uncertain future pay off. Secondly, the incentive for greater overall fuel efficiency will never go away (at least in a competitive market) and tbh I think market driven mechanisms are the only means by which human energy use is going to fundamentally change.

Egypt also front page of the Times, not generally considered a lefty paper. The Mail I can understand, long since given up any pretence of being a proper paper, the Telegraph is inexplicable. Not persuaded by comparison with Sharpeville, Tiananmen etc. Sometimes single events fit neatly into a pre-existing narrative and encapsulate in one hit a narrative that might have been going on for years, sometimes they reveal a hidden and signficant truth that has previously escaped the public consciousness. Either way they stand out as more than just the news of that day. What happened in Egypt during the last 48 hours does neither of those things - rather (worst case scenario) it points the way towards another Syria scenario, where a country slowly and bloodily tears itself apart (with assistance from others) and the rest of the world quickly slips into atrocity-fatigue and tries to look the other way.

"Apart from the tube in Central London, the rest of the transport system is very sparsely occupied during the day." It's obviously true that it's busier at 8am than at 11am, but I'm not sure what your point is? Use of public transport in London has steadily increased over the last 10 years, both in absolute terms and relative to total journeys and other modes of transport. The latest TfL report is here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/travel-in-london-report-5.pdf As I said before, the number of rail journeys has also never been higher. It seems pretty clear that demand for public transport is healthy.

Not strictly on topic (but more efficient than starting a new thread), interesting recent stats on the extent of bike use in Central London: http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2013/06/bikes-make-up-around-a-quarter-of-rush-hour-traffic-in-central How much higher would the figures be if the roads were more overtly bike friendly?

"Public transport is under used and it is not surprising" In London, at least, this is evidently not true, and in fact the general stats for rail use indicate journey numbers now are far higher than any time in the last thirty years, and there is a problem with lack of capacity. "Fares are too expensive, infrastructure creaking and TOCs are a joke who cream of tax payer subsidies to shareholders" This is easy to say but the evidence for each of these propositions is contentious, at least. Fare levels are a product of semi-regulation, so some are 'too expensive' but others are cheap as chips (whether considered comparative to other rail operators, or by comparison to transport alternatives). The infrastructure is creaking because it is under pressure from increasing demand and because it is in the process of being upgraded - there is no way of carrying out infrastructure work without disrupting services. Finally, profits in TOCs are modest because franchise agreements specifically provide that additional revenue from fare increases above a certain level are surrendered by the company to the DoT. The reason why fares are rising is clear - govt. subsidy is falling and investment spending is rising. TOC profits and returns to TOC shareholders are pretty much static. A change in the ownership structure of the railways as a whole might improve things but I wouldn't want to bet on it as a hypothetical. My comment earlier about handing the lot over to Deutsche Bahn was at least partly serious - its a tried and tested ownership model with a tried and tested owner.

If you maintain that this is a sensible and constructive position: there isn't a problem Southwark have a hidden agenda the only problem is with irresponsible owners nothing can be done about them anyway then I think we'll have to agree to disagree

It was mainly this: "Were the discussion about cyclists or teenagers we wouldn't be talking about bans or restrictions for all just to deal with the anti social behaviour of a few" which is directly equating dogs with teenagers, at least, but I'm happy to include your comment as well, chuff. I'll say again, I don't have a dog in this fight (so to speak) but I think there is reasonable debate to be had (and ultimately decision to be made) as to whether the current dogs/parks situation is optimal, and if not, what might be done to make it better. The contribution to that sensible debate by the majority of dog owners who have posted on here is essentially zero, amounting to: there isn't a problem Southwark have a hidden agenda the only problem is with irresponsible owners nothing can be done about them anyway So, let me put a straightforward question. Do all you dog owners think it would be reasonable for a non-dog owning Southwark resident to ask that a minimum proportion of the space in all Southwark parks should be dog-free?

BTW, I wasn't kidding about the TGV. This is the website: http://www.idtgv.com/en/ Return fares Paris - Nice still available in September for 50 euros.

I'm pretty sure that the money a tax break would cost would be better spent on direct investment in transport infrastructure. The problem with UK rail fares is that they are partially regulated within a system of private ownership, so TOCs rip off those that they can to subsidise those they can't (as much), and then top up their revenue by selling off some capacity at below cost. That's why the UK has simultaneously the highest (walk up single fares) and lowest (advance off peak returns) rail fares in Europe. It seems to work though - passenger numbers and journey frequency have never been higher, and the rolling stock in particular is 100 times better than even 5 years ago. Interestingly, European operators are beginning to move towards UK pricing models, which is great if you want to get the TGV from Paris to the South of France at lunchtime on a Tuesday. There are only two ways of actually bringing rail fares down - higher public subsidies or greater efficiency. You can tweak the price regulation to favour one group of consumers over another, but that's just redistribution. There's no appetite for increasing public subsidy (although some targeted infrastructure projects would help) so greater efficiency is what is required. I'd be in favour of handing over the entire UK railway business to Deutsche Bahn.