Marmora Man

Perhaps as some form of global ethical / architectural balancing the council could ensure that Peckham Rye station is restored to its former glory.

Nor should the councillor be swayed by the distant views of an ex-pat either.

???? - I agree your analysis, tho' I thought his brother David would have been a worse leader, alienating many in his party by slavish loyalty to first Blair (who wasn't ever really liked by old Labour) and then Brown who he couldn't ever quite bring himself to challenge. What are the current odds on Cameron as PM again after the next election. Should be a sure fire bet now I think

Narnia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I tend to agree with Katie1969. Is it not good to have a party that in some way is accountable to the people? Since the working population of UK is approximately 36m, with the total population being nearly 62m and given that total union membership is only just over 6m - trade unions can scarcely be representative of "the people". Additionally, trade union membership is skewed toward public sector workers, with almost 60% of public sector employees being in a union. In the private sector the % is nearer 5%. Thus trade unions are not only NOT representative of "the people" they aren't even a balanced representation of the workforce.

Ed wins 51% to 49%. Not a ringing endorsement. Is the scene set for a fraticidal battle to replace the TB/GB era?

MAC - just to avoid Microsoft based virus's.

It seems it will be one of the Millibands. As someone interested in the result in order to determine the quality of opposition and likelihood (or otherwise) of Labour toppling the Coaltion / Conservatives at next election my preferences are for the one most likely to lead Labour into the wilderness. So ...... Ed was not in Parliament when his Party voted to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has also accepted that identity cards and other police state laws were not entirely good things. When he was Environment Secretary in the Brown Government he gave the impression of believing the drivel he was given to read out. He appears to be conciliating the left of Labour and may corral the wagons to become progressive in the way that the Lib Dems were progressive - ie they always talked to themselves with approval but didn't persuade voters to put them into power. David is irremediably tainted with the Blair and Brown regime. He supported the Iraq / Afghanistan wars - which may persuade many erstwhile Labour voters to abstain if he leads the party. He supported every police state law that Blair / Brown brought forward - again this will not necessarily endear him to "old" labour members. His rise to prominence without any real evidence of independent thought demonstrates some key political skills - but they are scarcely appropriate to a potential leader of the country. He does not appear to have wholehearted support of his wider constituency. So - either way I don't see Ed or David being able to lead their party back into power - but on balance I believe David is slightly more likely to ensure a two term Conservative administration - he therefore gets my vote.

I think I preferred it before the bring back Hugenot campaign was successful.

Hugenot - you miss the main point. This is not about nimbyism but common sense. You are also arguing about the process of Vickster's campaign and not the substance. Originally there were no traffic lights at this junction. There was an effective system of traffic islands and zebra crossings that seemed to suit everyone. The traffic islands and zebra crossings were removed and temporary (I stress temporary) lights were installed to facilitate the turning of large vehicles associated with the works on the Thames Water reservoir. Now there is a possibility that these temporary lights will become permanent. Many object to this - and the additional rat run traffic is one part of the objection. This is not nimbyism - it is about practicality. Why not revert to the status quo ante - which was safe, effective and had no, reported, side effects. Some support their retention and have made their case too - but a casual reading of the associated threads would indicate that the ratio for removal to retention is about 5 : 1. Some people are implying that removing a set of traffic lights must, inarguably, increase danger of traffic accidents - taking that argument to its extreme then every junction should have traffic lights. The junction at Forest Hill Road / Colyton Road is not a major junction, cross traffic flow is not sufficient to justify traffic lights, the previous non traffic light system was safe and effective and allowed good traffic flow - lets get back to that is my argument. I intend to be at the meeting to make my point - no doubt others support their retention will be there too and we;ll see what the decision is. I hope logic and common sense will prevail over what I see as council bureaucracy and muddled thinking.

I have tickets for Birdsong on 2 Oct - hoping the staged version hits the same spots as the book. Will report

A request from Vickster Vickster Request and the thread Vickster would like locked at top of East Dulwich Issues - a request I support Forest Hill Traffic LIght Thread

While I agree with Pearson on need for fox control and do not have a hang up about his propose use of poison - cats are not anywhere near top of my popularity poll - I question the likely effectiveness. Foxes are territorial - kill one / some and their territory becomes vacant - new foxes move in. Unless you plan to be shooting / poisoning every night the problem will simply recur after a few days / weeks

> rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Marmora Man Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > However, my suggestion of a part tax payer > > funded NHS > > > supplemented by local fund raising efforts > > would > > > mean that the quality of the local hospital > > would > > > depend upon the quality of local support. > > > > The reality of this model would be poor > hospitals > > in poor areas. Brendan - your relentless opposition to all or any ideas that emanate from right of centre and your characterisation of all conservatives / Tories as evil toffs intent on doing down the "poor" tends to become boring. You need to move on from student yah boo politics to the more elevated arena of rational discussion. Plenty of poor areas have benefitted from the efforts of their own community to improve matters - a close friend of mine, a Tory, has spent most of the last ten years living in and facilitating such efforts in a run down, drug & crime ridden area of south London. Your views, and those of rahrahrah seem patronising, implying as they do that the poor or poor areas are not capable of organising themselves to support a local charity / hospital / facility

Which I agree with absolutely. However, my suggestion of a part tax payer funded NHS supplemented by local fund raising efforts would mean that the quality of the local hospital would depend upon the quality of local support - which could become a virtuous circle. Thus the ImpetuosVrow types would have to either bludge on others efforts, and I hope be embarrassed into doing something to match their rhetoric.

I'm a libertarian atheist - to me the visit was just an irrelevancy. Spoilt the newspapers by filling pages with stuff I had no interest in whatsoever. If the pope and his followers wanted to "do their thing" so be it, it didn't affect me, no one made me join in and that was fine by me. Working yourself up into a froth about the visit by yet another representative of an ancient belief system based on legend and myth seems, to me, a waste of time.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But it's the London Games! That doesn't mean it has to be within 5 miles of Charing Cross - it's costing London tax payers a bundle of dosh. Boris has tried to inject some sense by mandating the use of Wembley stadium rather than building temporary stadiums, but further money could be saved by holding the shooting at Bisley, the horse events at Gatcombe Park and so on.

RahRah - why is this so? I gave you some facts - you have made an assertion but given no reasons. A charity based hospital could be locally funded (charity / local taxes / municipal [aka council] support / local fund raising events / philanthropic gifts etc), locally controlled, supported by the community it serves and reflect the needs and desires of its users. That's broadly how things used to be - and still are in some countries - Canada for one, where up to 50% of local hospital funding in some states is raised locally thru' dedicated fund raising professionals. If the sums raised are, relatively, limited they may be spent more wisely than block grants from central government.

Khans is about the only place I can by good Ginger Tea - chinese origin I think and full of granules but with a real ginger kick, better than herbally ginger tea bags that taste of nothing

There are two themes here. I support fully the shooting of grey squirrels - anywhere. I abhor the damage being done to Greenwich Park and the are in the name of Olympics. Perfectly good alternative exist for horsey events which would also spread the Olympic effect across the country.

Just a point of historical fact. Hospitals in this country have, for the vast part of their existence, relied upon charity and voluntary support. Barts was established in the 13th century as a religious charitable institution, many other similar hospitals followed in subsequent centuries. The biggest nationalisation ever was the "creation" of the NHS which took over previously charitable and municipal funded establishments in 1948. So for just over 60 years we've had a tax funded (NOT government funded) health service against several hundred years of charity funding. Charity still has a major role to play, not least in the less "fashionable" elements of healthcare such as geriatrics, mental health and so on - supplementing tax funding and often being more fleet of foot in meeting the aim in a timely fashion. I therefore support the use of charitable aid and the methods that Kings has deployed - which are I feel, professional, correct, legal and laudable. DJKQ's point that is facile - the tangible benefit of a majority should not be compromised by illogical concern for the intangible "feelings" of a few.

It's just training - at 18 I was told that Royal Navy time is 5 mins ahead of all other time. So if I arrived "on the dot" of 5.00pm for a 5.00pm meeting I was, by RN standards, 5 minutes late. It was drummed into me over the first year's training. Thereafter I've never missed a train, plane or boat - but I have spent many hours in waiting rooms, terminals and docks and now never travel without a book or newspaper to while away the waiting time. Family are now used to this - and have, in the past, got up at some unearthly hours to catch a plane for holidays.

Ideally of bread also made on (in) the Aga. Our first married home had an Aga that was almost pre-historic, made 1920's. converted from coal to oil sometime in the 60's and still, sort of, working in late 80s. Our first meals were a shambles but gradually we learnt its ways and my wife's homemade bread, rising gently on the back of the Aga, then cooked inside it, was fantastic - fresh or toasted with Marmite.

Mark Dodds Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah. Fireworks - Tories trying to distract us > plebs from the cliff edge we're all going to fall > over when the recession bites even deeper. Or just carrying on that old Tory Ken Livingstone's policy on fireworks, given that the Thames Festival and fireworks were one of his initiatives. We watched from our little roof garden here in ED and enjoyed the display. It is a bit like watching ?50.00 notes being burnt in front of your eyes - but prettier.

What is with hotels or B&Bs and toast? You come down in the morning, blearily ask for one pot coffee and one pot tea (Mrs MM) and they turn up with a rack of toasted, sliced bread. By the time you've sampled the cereal buffet, eaten a small bowl of fruit salad and tackled the "full English" cooked the toast is cold, limp and unappetising. Why the waste? Why the awful bread? Offering decent bread, toasted to order and served at the end of breakfast would be so much better.

Re: One o Clock Club: Volunteers = lower costs = more control by users. However, such a move also requires reducing the dead hand of bureaucracy to allow volunteers to participate without onerous CRB checks and similar hurdles.