Loz

No need to go on Safari then, PGC...?

Godwin!

I've just come back from some time in Vietnam, where a lot of clothes are made. It is going through what I would describe as its own industrial revolution - the movement of labour from an agrarian economy to manufacturing. It has the same good and bad effects as like the one here a couple of centuries ago - people working long hard hours for low wages, but other things like education and (surprisingly, given these sort of articles) child labour use seem to be improving. I believe the net effect will be a positive one in the longer term. These 'cheap labour' jobs are central to this and jobs have no shortage of takers. The trick is not to stop using these companies, but (as this article does) pressure western companies to ensure suppliers improve terms and conditions and check that a fair wage is paid.

They could put 70mph signs up for all they are worth. Still couldn't do more than about 10mph.

I think he's pulling your leg, guys. At least I hope he is.

Always assume anyone and everyone on the road is an idiot.

Fnarr.

I think all the Number 2's live on the Guardian comment site. In both senses of the phrase.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy, what was the LTV ratio you managed to get? The last time I looked into it, it was in the > region of 60%. Just wondering whether it's eased off a bit.. We got 75% in August last year.

unlurked Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >99% of posts on this thread can adequately be dealt with by the poster ringing or emailing the council rather than using the middle man of JB. > JB may do good work at his case surgeries but it's all smoke and mirrors on here. What? You are actually saying that councillors like James Barber and Renata Hamvas should not use the EDF to make themselves available to the people of ED? Because people could just ring the council? Really? Why don't they then? Ummm... Councillors being criticised for making themselves MORE available on more channels? That really is the stupidest thing I've read on here in a while - and I've read buddog's posts.

Actually, in this climate, almost impossible. Anything over 80% is difficult to get a mortgage for.

Unless you've missed the message, Buddog, take it somewhere else. This is not the thread for you and your dribble.

Fairly standard approach, really. Switch to a BTL mortgage, release as much equity as they allow (usually you'll need to keep a Loan To Value of about 75%) and use that to finance a new mortgage on a new home. BTL interest rates are a little higher than normal mortgages, but that interest is tax deductible (as is repairs and other costs).

reddulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz nice of you to stick up for James. About Buddug stalking him. But can I just point out one > thing. James chose to stand for public office. That means he has to put up with people coming on > here challenging him as well as saying how wonderful he is. If he doesn't like it, I think > its time to not be a councillor. I agree, but there is a limit to what is 'challenging' James and what is just downright abuse. James can look after himself, but that doesn't mean I have to stand back and let it go uncommented. As others have pointed out, this is a thread for raising local issues that James (and a few other councillors, of all political colours) can be made aware of and hopefully do something about. Using it to launch tiresome attacks against the finer points of Lib Dem policy just puts people off making use of what is a rather valuable resource.

Buddug, you're coming over as a classic middle-class champagne lefty - all furious hand wringing and wild criticisms, but when challenged you show yourself as being completely unwilling of doing anything of any real value yourself. Also, you deny stalking James, but the constant attacks on him have been going on for a few years now. It might not be stalking as such, but at the very least it comes across as a rather unhealthy obsession.

Well, it looks like the final result was: Nudies 2, Prudies 0....

From mammary... erm... memory, they are technically topless on the cover, but generally cover themselves with their hands or arms.

Sounds like there might me a few possible takers for your ?20 on this very thread, OD. Well, early on this thread, anyway.

Fear not foxy, it's a security feature. It's called a shadow picture and it's to make it harder to just replace the photo by sticking a new one over it.

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa's bottom drawer turned out to be a trunk > freezer of salvaged Kennedys sausages and Manze's liquor. We've always wondered what was in Louisa's drawers.

Another vote for St Christopher's - a local charity as the hospice itself is just behind Crystal Palace Park. And the people in the shop are generally pretty nice as well! An anti-vote for Mind, as I think their prices are way too high.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, the faceboook campaign I like - and could be expanded to a lot of other unpleasantness > on there. Though, of course, there are free speech concerns as well. Once you start banning > things you disagree with, it's usually not long before it comes around to affect things you do. And, almost immediately, a case in point. Once you start banning stuff, something will always come back to bite you. In this case, the campaign was deemed 'abusive' and banned. You can't really turn around and claim free speech at this point, can you? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/31/facebook-locks-out-campaigner-women

Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am looking forward to my soup maker! Is that the blender with the heating element? They are all over late night TV in Australia at the moment and look like rubbish. A pot and a hand blender would do the same job.

Actually, the faceboook campaign I like - and could be expanded to a lot of other unpleasantness on there. Though, of course, there are free speech concerns as well. Once you start banning things you disagree with, it's usually not long before it comes around to affect things you do. But, nicely sidestepped on the nudity vs objectification issue, scareyt. Once someone points out a hole in your defence, blasting them with all manner of strawman allegation is usually a pretty good diversionary tactic. So well done, you. But any chance you could actually answer my query?

Obscene? "Lose the lads' mags'? More anti-nudity, disguised as anti-sexism? Surely the Hello, Closer, Heat, Cosmo, etc magazines of this world are as damaging to female body image and sexism - if not more so. Do we hear a whimper about those? Nope. Why not? Where are those campaigns? Somewhere in the distance I can hear Mary Whitehouse giggling.