Loz

What double dip recession?

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > GS will pay less tax because they are paying more > in bonuses so it will cost the taxpayer. Income tax rate > corporation tax rate, so the taxpayer is better off if the bonus is paid.

The Minkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Crown House NHO, 41-43 East Dulwich Road, SE22 > 9BY, Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm > Dulwich Library, 368 Lordship Lane, SE22 8NB, > Monday, Thursday and Friday 9am to 8pm; Tuesday > 10am to 8pm; Saturday 9am to 5pm; Sunday 12pm to > 4pm (toilets are usually locked but ask for the > key at the desk) > Kingswood Library, Kingswood House, Seeley Drive, > SE21 8QR, Monday to Thursday 9am to 5pm > Dulwich Park Rangers Officer, Dulwich Park, > College Gate Road, SE21 7BQ, Every day, dawn to > dusk > Rear of pavillion cafe, Dulwich Park, College Gate > Road, SE21 7BQ, Every day, dawn to dusk > Cycle hire block, Dulwich Park, College Gate Road, > SE21 7BQ, Every day, dawn to dusk" > > God forbid you need a pee outside those hours. After that, it's... Palm Tree, Goose Green Roundabout

You can just use the cache in Google. On the ever-annoying 'preview' pop up, click on the 'cache' link and voila.

... or just use the cache in Google.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is. > > Does anyone still have a gas oven? I've a gas hob > with electric oven. > There's got to be better ways to go than roasting > ones head surely. Stick your head in the microwave. It's quicker.

gm99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Meanwhile it appears that the CPZ has gone overboard leaving empty roads. Surely a reasonable > objective of CPZs would be to even out the impact of parking? I just hope the council agree to at > least revisit the hours of operation if things remain like this. Let me see... the options: 1) Lower the cost of permits 2) Change the operating hours 3) Increase size of the CPZ. Which do you think Barrie "A CPZ is the answer. Erm...what was the question again?" Hargrove is going to plump for?

Skischule Arlberg - St Anton, then? Great resort, but not a whole lot in the way of beginners slopes. On the other hand, as soon as you get over the first couple of days then at least you'll be up the mountain - the main learning blue is #5 from the top of Galzig to Osthang. I've not used Skischule Arlberg for skiing, but they have some good snowboard teachers. Do stop at the Moosewirt on the way down. Brilliant place. Mind you, doing that last 200m when three sheets to the wind is always testing. Hey, wir wollen die Eisbaren sehen... Edited to add: +1 for DJKQ's advice to get a lesson up at Milton Keynes/Hemel Hempstead before you go. If you can snow plough before you go you'll get much better value for money from your lessons.

And the beer in Austria is cheaper than French resorts, Nette. Most important. Mind you, gold is cheaper than beer in French ski resorts.

Get three hours a day in the morning (9-12). That gives you the afternoon to go off on your own and practise what you are taught. You do know 1-1 instruction is not cheap...

buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta, have you ever heard of road tax? Uh-oh. Cue a hoard of angry cyclists...

It's like a strip show, Rosie. But with more digits.

peckhamboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Planning permissions can certainly help on this > though - the council could impose any number of > conditions on developers that would help to avoid > worsening the problem, which would be a start. > Such as requiring off-street parking to be > provided (including dedicated car club bays > perhaps, so that the wider community actually > benefits), even requiring a covenant in the > freehold that the owner won't own a car (although > that one would be difficult to enforce). I believe (and James can correct me if I am wrong) that if anything, developers are dissuaded from providing too many car parking spaces in the guise of 'promoting sustainable transport options'.

Help-Ma-Boab Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could be a number of reasons. None of which add up.

Buddog - you finally, after 13 years, have found someone that may be able to help you, and you are behaving like an a**e to him.

Sign posts usually give the distance to a central point, rather than where an area starts. So 200 miles to London would be 200 miles to Charing Cross (the traditional 'central point' for such measures), not 200 miles to the edge of the M25. So a better question is: where is the centre of Peckham?

According to Google, Goose Green roundabout to Peckham Rye station = 1.1 miles, so not too far out.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any all you Objectors to the CPZ are playing right > into their hands by not working towards a > complete CPZ system you are goint to get us a > lovely expensive Fudge. A CPZ *is* a lovely expensive fudge.

Check the lead running from the monitor to the computer - if that is loose you will get a blank screen.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Carrie Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Adam > > > > - the rest (77%) are either against is or could > > not be bothered to respond. > > Carrie what kind of logic is that ?. Biased logic. > You can make no assumtions from those figures that the (77%) were Against. > For all we know thay could well be For. > > Maybe remove / edit your post ? Carrie made so such assumption. '(77%) are either against is or could not be bothered to respond' is a correct reading. You misquoted. So maybe remove / edit your post, fazer71? We wouldn't want misinformation being spread, would we?

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The CPZ will make life better for ME and ALL the residents within the CPZ ... and sod the rest. Yes, we know your attitude on that one. Look, I'm all for a system that will sort out parking in ED, but this isn't it. It reeks of 'something must be done - this is something, it MUST be done' sort of thing. If train users are an issue, why have the two closest streets to the station, Melbourne Grove and St Francis Place, rejected the proposal? If train users are the issue, why are people complaining about weekend parking? You've seen the numbers - they do not add up. So just saying, 'but what about ME!' is not a good argument. > The misinformation which is being spread is just a disgrace. What misinformation? You mean the flawed consultation document? The dodgy definition of 'commuters'? The idea that a CPZ will solve parking issues across ED? I fully agree.

peckhamboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Adam, I don't think there is a lack of empathy here. It is more that another way of looking at it > is that those who want a CPZ are effectively saying that they are prepared to pay to have their > problems pushed onto someone else. Not particularly community minded either. Exactly what I was thinking, peckhamboy, and pretty much the sentiment expressed by fazer71 yesterday.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (discreet) Gang Activity... More like wang activity...

You been reading Guardian Online again, Hugo? :))

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gsirett - Isn't your stance "people will be > leaving next door to the CPZ so they should have > their say" a little contradictory when put up > against your other argument of "you live next door > to the station so you should accept the > consequences" Not at all, unless you purchased/rented your house before they built the train station. > You want to park outside your house.... which is exactly the same as the people for the CPZ You are overlooking the almost certain result of the CPZ will be that no one - inside or outside the CPZ - will be able to park near their house. The number just do not add up.