Alex K

Oh, good heavens. That could have crushed / decapitated an entire deckful of passengers. Were you up or down?

Right, that's signed then.

Hmmmm... Seabag's opinion aside: If our tenants don't mind, there's an end-terrace gable wall on Abbotswood Road that might be a decent canvas. But, differently spelt, we'd have to canvass the residents opposite to see if they'd object to living with art visible from their doors and windows. PM me, please.

Sounds brilliant, dulwichgourmet -- what date, please, and at what exchange rate? (I'd like to compare that with rates from other brokers on the same day.) Thanks in advance!

Thanks, all. Too much American TV before bedtime, I reckon. -- North OF London, within a half-mile OF Goose Green... "of" meaning direction, limit, distance. Or something. Maybe that's where the "quarter OF three" fits in.

"Of" to indicate direction (or extent of separation): North of London, or within an hour of Victoria Station, or "quarter of three". Probably too much American TV before falling asleep.

Up the ante. Go for the honeybucket challenge -- and do it for infectious hepatitis.

...

@mikeb -- An enquiry of King's College London in respect of that covenant might be in order; the consent of the College might have been required for the covenant to be breached or annulled.

Interestingly thought out, clever suggestion. But the brick-and-mortar aspects... the uphill side of the station building would have to be entirely reconstructed to create a passage broad enough for two-way traffic. Ah well.

@Mikeb -- Or: Should the council provide a subsidy for DHFC, in the form of a gift of metropolitan open land, to allow DHFC to stay (more or less) where it is? An alternative is for DHFC cut its coat to fit its cloth, and to say -- As we can't make a go of it here, we're folding / moving. Let the council say, God bless you and good luck. What would happen to the land on which DHFC stands? The document linked to by Bluerevolution, above, on p 6 contains a mention of a covenant, dated 1990, between Sainsbury's and King's College London; the latter sold the land to Sainsbury's, it seems, with the proviso ("Section 106 agreement") that restricted "use of the site to recreational, leisure or educational purposes". The present stadium was built in 1992. Does that covenant still hold? Would it be broken if housing were built on the DHFC site?

@BrandNewGuy: Thanks for this. Please PM me to obtain an e-address that I check more regularly than I do the forum, one at which I can receive updates from the proposed interest group. I have missed the Fox-on-the-Hill pow-wow tonight, which I regret, but I want to make what contribution I can to offering alternatives to developers' BIG IDEAS.

Anecdotal only, as any individual conversation must be. Fourteen years in our cul-de-sac, watching children sprout improbably tall, their parents' temples grey and waists thicken... and years it took for us to feel like "them in number XX, they've been there forever, they're all right, they keep themselves to themselves and never a problem from them, nice enough though when you have a chat". But we do now. And we'll be sad to leave what imperceptibly has become Home. It's not the same river that we crossed fourteen years ago, but... that's in the nature of rivers, innit?

"Rabbit activity". **squeeeee!!!** You couldn't make it up.

@bluerevolution -- scroll up to the initial post. Same press release, transcribed rather than linked.

Cronuts? At Ayres? Hurry on Saturday morning!

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It's not even that powerful or needed in the > current government. This isn't Major in 1996 > clinging on to a majority of 6. The whips are > barely needed. It's a stark message from the PM > and one that has the approval of Osborne all over > it. Should the Tories lose the next election, it's > now down to a two-horse race between him and > Teresa May. Well argued, and likely true. Thank you.

Gove may have become toxic. So: Away with him; but not with his policies. A new face at the helm, yes, but the tiller is held steady, and the ship continues to move in the same direction, accruing more and more momentum. Over the falls or into safe harbour? We shall find out. And one of the most articulate and aggressive Conservatives is freed from ministerial work to carry battle into the Labour / Liberal / UKIP camps. This might get interesting.

Lots of "metropolitan open land" in Southwark, it appears. In this .pdf document -- http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F6877%2Fsouthwark_open_space_strategy_2013&ei=nSfFU4q9H8ef7Aa9h4DoCw&usg=AFQjCNFZqb4kzTtqtkOggKUDKWJbZbxxGg&sig2=EfdCzFBC3GZXw4t37ufG6A -- you can see it all. The bits of particular interest to this thread are mapped on p 75, with this key on p 94 -- OS128 Greendale Playing Field Camberwell Natural or semi-natural greenspaces 2.12 ha OS129 Greendale Artificial Playing Pitch Camberwell Outdoor Sports Facilities - private 1.04 ha OS130 Dulwich Hamlet Camberwell Outdoor Sports Facilities - private 0.80 ha "Underused" is the term deployed in the document. Interesting to learn that OS129 is privately held.

Plan -- 1) Acquire metropolitan open land. 2) Move stadium there. 3) Build housing with "amenities" at the Dog Kennel Hill end, where stadium and carwash now stand. 4) Pocket much money. Cut out the intervening steps, and it's: 1), 4) Acquire metropolitan open land and pocket much money. The new owners of DHFC with their purchase have placed a bet that they can turn a profit. This profit depends on Southwark providing the subsidy of the metropolitan open land (buy as greenfield, sell as housing / flats). I hope that they lose their bet.

So many memories. Margaret, goodbye.

@Help-Ma-Boab, edcam, tlw - simmer down. No dismissal of brutality. No intent to sound superior. No trolling. And: No value attached to one usage of "floor" rather than another. The comment arose from an interest in how language is used, no more. When "floor" means "ground", when "floor" moves out of doors... it catches the eye (or at least my eye), and why not inform oneself about something eye-catching? Why not enquire into who uses "floor" in this way, and under what circumstances?

"Beating the man with clubs on the floor". Never would it occur to me to describe the situation thus. Certainly "...on the ground", maybe "...on the pavement", but "...on the floor"? No. When did "floor" move out-of-doors?

Well well well well well. Hurrah! No KLINGHOFFER, at least not live-broadcast... but much else and I am quite chuffed.

Nothing delights most people more than to be of use to someone else, to have their expertise sought. When I bought a terraced house (built 1870) in Pittsburgh, contemplating renovations, I knocked on doors all along the terrace to say -- May I learn from what you have had done? And every householder walked me from attic through cellar. Screw up your courage to the sticking-place, and knock on a few doors. The worst that you can hear is "No".