Marmora Man

According to Marianne Faithful's version (once heard as I watched her thru cigarette smoke at Ronnie Scott's) it's hidden in his sleeve! Somewhat free translation of the original but that voice is a true smoke scorched caberet singer's.

Not sure if would be any cheaper but Oral Max Fax surgeons and dentists do this work in private hospitals, and are usually geared up to give competitive quotes, often undercutting a competitor's written quotation to win work. The BMI group have hospital in South London - avoid central London Private Hospitals - they'll charge Harley St prices

Not quite the 30s perhaps but Lotte Lenya and Brecht's Threepenny Opera is pretty damn good.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marmora Man Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Never tried it for stress but acupuncture > helped > > with migraines and delivered an almost instant > > relief from the pain of a frozen shoulder. > > I'm surprised to hear you say that. I felt sure you would be worried about breaches to the hull... True - but I'm not totally watertight. MM

Never tried it for stress but acupuncture helped with migraines and delivered an almost instant relief from the pain of a frozen shoulder. I believe there is a scientific basis above & beyond the placebo effect. Not sure about impact on psychological / stress issues - but worth a try.

Google knows best in roughly 58% of cases according to some early research!

Overwhelming support for something doesn't make it right / sensible / suitable. We have already learned that TfL have carried out a review which indicated that the cost / benefit equation doesn't deliver a positive outcome. There may be a "democratic" wish for the 63 to be extended but there are democratic wishes for all sorts of things that are deemed inappropriate, impossible, impractical or too costly. Forget the political solganeering, I believe in TfL's objective assessment, not you cynical political stance of promising what is not going to happen.

I still think the condensation trails are pretty as the sun sets!

Even better in the evening when they catch the setting sun, glowing red and pink.

Gavin Edwards Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our Assembly Member Val Shawcross has e-mailed me > and asked me to post the following on her behalf: > > "Politics is all about priorities and choices. > TfL have carried out a cost benefit analysis on > the extension proposal and decided not to allocate > the resources required to make the 63 link to > Honor Oak. Having looked at the figures I believe > it is worthwhile because it will encourage more > local people to use public transport and reduce > car use - the benefits to the environment are not > properly costed in. It will help people > economically in the area- easier access to jobs > and colleges, for example and in the wider > picture its just a worthwhile and well supported > proposal to make life more convenient people of > the area. Boris Johnson has made it his explicit > intention to reduce the subsidies to bus services > in London. However, I believe that passengers > should be seeing some improvements to the bus > services for the high fares they are paying, I > particularly feel that communities which do not > benefit from Underground services need some > additional bus services. This is a relatively > small change to an existing and well established > service." So what I suggested has taken place - an objective cost / benefit analysis by TfL. However, a politician who has no authority yet but wishes to head up the Transport portfolio under a possible new administration says she believes they have got it wrong. Great - an airheaded politician, anxious to be elected is making promises based on nothing more than opinion, promises that contradict the professional opinion of experts. Thank god Val Shawcross has nothing to do with dangerous matters. As I said before - take the politics out of this.

Political promises - easy to make, difficult to keep. I truly doubt that the 63 extension will ever be a priority - if it were easy and low / no cost as its proponents suggest it would have already been implemented. To even make this a political issue is ridiculous. It is a reasonable request but one that should be susceptible to an objective assessment regarding costs, practicality and potential benefit, not whether we vote Red or Blue, Ken or Boris or Monster Raving Loony Party.

I like the new bus and intend to use it when I can.

nashoi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally I'm not in favour of an elected second > chamber, but MM can you explain what an "evolved > constitution" is, if it isn't one that keeps > modernising? It's my term - and I meant it to mean gradual, small, minor, tinkerings rather than a wholesale re-writing / initiation brought about by an abrupt change of circumstances such as revolution, invasion etc etc. Each change being incremental such that only, over a long time, does the difference between the constitution of 1650 differ substantially from that of 1750, 1850, 1950 and, I hope, 2050.

The upper house is not broken and doesn't therefore need fixing. Any attempt to turn into an elected representative body will require major changes to the existing constitutional arrangements or risk setting the Commons & Lords on a collision course. There is no democratic clamour for change - just a few political anoraks who see the British constitution as an elaborate board game that they can tinker with and then put all the pieces back in the box, rather than a complex interaction of competing and balancing forces that have evolved over centuries. Britain is almost the only country in the world that has enjoyed quiet evolution of political and constitutional processes over such a long period. No revolutions, no civil wars, no invaders, no history of bloody massacres and tribal strife sunce the 17th century. For this we should be grateful but the anoraks seem to believe an evolved constitution is shameful a d that we need to "modernise" and be "progressive". Why?

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a strange thread. > > silverfox, if the only value you can find for > anything in life is monetary, then yours is a sad > existence indeed. > > MM, I find ugly clothes, hair, make up, voices, > children most displeasing - but by and large, I'm > of the opinion that people should be able to wear > what they like. And Rosie - I'm not arguing to ban anything - tattoos or tattoo shops. I have merely stated I dislike them and find them ugly. Tho' I'd support ????'s point - I've seen many a sailor's tattoo with the name of his first ship, the ports visited and so on - still not attractive but I can see some tradition and logic there.

UDT - your choice of words reveals the reason behind your opposition - Tories. Why characterise the reforms as Tory reforms? In many ways the coalition are extending, taking to a logical conclusion and improving on changes and reforms commenced by the Labour government. You weren't so vocal in opposition to these measures but, once a change can be labelled Tory, your visceral hatred of anything Tory rises to the fore. Try objective analysis, true experience and contributing ideas to a debate instead of jumping in with Student Union level sloganeering and you might, just might, find that people pay some attention to your arguments.

Where is your evidence for this? Why would you oppose the private sector, third sector (aka charities) and social enterprises taking on responsibility for delivering NHS services if they can deliver the same, FREE, service more effectively? Or do you fear that a massive state run monopoly and its equally massive unionised workforce might be shown up as less efficient and effective than the propagandising myths that surround this ageing monolith aver?

UDT & CHIPPY: Your different links point to the same research which broadly lauds the state funding "free at point of delivery" aspect of the NHS and the fact that British citizens do no need to pay directly for the service(s). This is not, and has never been, in question under the proposed reforms. The references are irrelevant to the argument. The NHS can, and does, promote and provide equity of access to care & treatment between those with wealth and those without. However, this does not preclude it being inefficient and not fully fit for purpose. Equal access to a poor service is no great boon to mankind.

Jeremy, It affects me because the tattoos are, invariably, on public parade and, as I find them ugly, this affects my aesthetic pleasure in crowded places. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - and so is lack of beauty and ugliness. I prefer to be surrounded by beauty.

I understood that the craze for tattoos is declining. I certainly hope so. I wonder what the tattooed generation will look like as their skin loses the lustre of youth, sagging and becoming wrinkly. I can, perhaps, see the attraction of one top class tattoo discreetly placed, but a plethora of cheap works plus piercings on man or woman is just ugly to me.

Poacher's pockets - the solution to all your shopping needs.

Interesting stuff - we're planning to move from Marmora Mansions to the West Country and are debating at present whether to buy "ready made" or take on a project that can incorporate much of what you're suggesting. Don't know the answers to your questions as we're just at the beginning of our thinking - but I've always been a fan of geothermal having been party to installing it it in the NHS a few years back - massive savings over 50 years, tho' very high set up costs.

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect they are more than earning their wedge > from private companies poised to get into a > lucrative market > > Your suspicions are true > http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.com/2012/02/n > hs-privatisation-compilation-of.html The blog which is highlighted is not exactly damning. A number of senior politician (House of Lords & House of Commons)have investments and interests in companies that are involved in healthcare. The majority appear to be either consultancies or pharmaceuticals. If the conspiracy theorists paused for a moment in their mad desire to find perverted motivation behind every coalition policy they might recognise that these various consultancies and pharma companies are already deriving an income, and almost certainly a good income, from the current healthcare arrangements in UK. The sainted NHS is already spending well over ?1bn a year on consultancy, interim management and other advisors - I doubt this figure will change significantly up or down following the passing of the new Healthcare Bill. As I have written elsewhere - I know from personal experience that the NHS is a massive bureaucratic and sclerotic, inefficient organisation that is barely fir for purpose today - let alone for the future and inevitable increased demand. If you strip out much of the rhetoric the essence of the reforms are just three: a. Get rid of a layer of management - a good thing. b. Replace manager led Primary Care Trusts with clinically led Care Commissioning Groups - a good thing c. Make it easier for non state run organisations to provide care - free at the point of delivery - at NHS tariff rates. Another good thing as it will encourage change and competition (NOT for clarity commercial competition necessarily but competition to do better and provide the best, competition to innovate). Innovation is desperately needed in the NHS, identifying how to achieve more with less. How to provide the care in the most appropriate and least costly setting. The current NHS management structures are biased toward maintaining large white elephant hospitals, hospitals which are beloved of the public who would, ideally, have one on every street corner. However, they are not the best place to provide much of the care that our ageing population needs - but while most clinicians in hospitals can see the changes that are required the self perpetuating managerial class that run the PCTs and Hospital Trusts have been incredibly slow to initiate change. Again from personal experience of working in a Healthcare Charity I have seen a contract for care removed from the charity and passed to the local Trust because - and I quote "If we didn't support the Trust it would have to lay off staff and might become bankrupt". Yet the charity was providing care with no elective waiting time whatsoever, had no MRSA or other hospital acquired infections, a lower return to theatre, a lower revision rate and higher quality KPIs in every area. BY all means indulge yourself in a Red Friday - but it might just be a better move to truly understand the need for change and to put forward sensible alternatives rather than cry wolf and demand no change to the status quo every time someone attempts to reform the NHS. I can't think of any other organisation or system that was designed in the 1940's that has not changed dramatically - yet people persist in wanting to preserve the NHS in aspic.

For info - the Elipsos Sleeper Train dining car.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Final cost, MM? Loz, Well, it was a "special" holiday to celebrate my wife's birthday so didn't stint and went 1st class / premier class for much of the way. However, avoiding 1st class, the whole journey could be done for approx ?200 - ?250 pp - which as it effectively includes a night in an hotel is not bad. Think on Sleazy Jet costs: ?50 each way for flights, ?10 surcharge for using credit card, ?20 for taking baggage, parking at airport - another ?50. Add in and the safety demo, inflight sales patter, overpriced Easy Jet sandwiches, grim close up seating (I'm 6'5"), waiting for luggage at carousel, taxi / bus to city centre from god knows what obscure airport is theoretically close to you destination and so on. By making the journey part of the holiday we avoided the hassle, felt relaxed and were happy with our perception of value for money. We're considering railing to Florence of Venice next. Check out "Man at Seat 61" website for advice on railway travel - all over the world. My first trip was to Damascus on the true Orient Express nearly three years ago.