Loz

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich seem to have gone crazy. Several > residents complaining about particualr hedges and > other residents complaining about having their > hedges cut back by Southwark brutally to the > property line. Good grief. The council does something for nothing and people complain about it. So now we may get hit with a bill to do it instead. Barstewards.

Since Strafer came in all guns blazing* I'd always assumed he was an old hack under a new name. (*see what I did there?)

Can we organise the Dulwich White Middle Class Gang? Armed to the teeth with rolled-up copies of the Guardian.

But the question is: is that the fault of the media, picking up every minor gaffe and making a complete song and dance of it? If I was in that position I'd probably stick pretty closely to the script as well.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for the offer, but I'm good in that area at > the moment At the moment? And you can still type? Impressive.

Pk - I'm guessing you don't like Ken Clarke much, no matter what he may or may not have said. You've said much the same as Clarke, yet you still can't bring yourself to admit it.

Is this thread converging with the privet hedge one?

Hackblade Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The absolute key for me is some decent heavy > dumbbells going up to at least 30kg. I'm not a > hardcore freak but most gyms do not cater > adequately for even average guys because they only > contain light free weights that limit progress. Check out Hamlets - there's some pretty big chunks of metal in there...

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > of course i don't think that all cases (even > within a category) should receive the same > sentences > > I agree, and this is basically how I interpreted > the crux of what Ken Clarke was saying. He just > made a bit of a mess of it. Yep, me too. The thing is that I reckon most people believe it, but when someone says, "rape is rape", they nod their heads not understanding the full consequences of that statement. Rape is so much emotional subject (understandably) that a small logic injection is sometimes needed. Unfortunately, Clarke rather tripped himself up on that front.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > So are you implying that all statutory rape should > > be considered on the same level of seriousness as > > all violent rape? > > that doesn't follow at all from what i've written So what you are implying, pk, is that some rapes are more serious than others? Therefore you are also implying that some rapes are less serious than others? But isn't that what Ken Clarke implied?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plus it's all a distraction from the real issue. > That a woefully low amount of rapes even make it > in to court in the first place, and thence to a > very low conviction rate compared to other > crimes. That's not actually true - unless you consider that all crimes generally have a woefully low attrition/conviction rate. There are two figures: Attrition Rate (from complaint to conviction) and Conviction Rate (cases that an actual charge is laid and that are convicted or plead guilty). The only attrition rates for various crimes I can find are: Attempted murder - 14% Robbery - 10% Cruelty and Neglect of Children - 9% Rape - 6.5% / 12% Violence against the person - 4% It is worth noting that the 6.5% is the figure for rape complainants that end in a conviction for rape only. If you take into account other convictions (e.g. sexual assault) then the figure rises to 12%. Part of this is thought to be due to misunderstanding by the complainant about what 'rape' is (in the eyes of the law), though I imagine part of it is chances of a realistic conviction meaning prosecutors going for a lesser charge. What happens to the cases that don't make it to court? According to the Stern review, of the other cases 15% are withdrawn or retracted very quickly, 20% are later withdrawn by the complainant, 23% had insufficient evidence and 14% went for other reasons. In around 26% of cases, a suspect was charged with something (be it rape or sexual assault), of which 19% went to trial. Conviction rates for rape once it gets to court (both trial and pleading guilty) are actually quite high ? 59% in 2009. Of course, none of these stats covers incidents that are never reported.

They had a right to film the child (it's a public place, it's legal). You had a right to be uncomfortable with their actions. The police don't have a right to make you delete anything. Next.

I'll be in Derby. So hell is is then.

So are you implying that all statutory rape should be considered on the same level of seriousness as all violent rape? That a girl of 16 years and 1 day who has sex with a boy of 15 years and 364 days should be treated at the same level as a John Worboys? Really?

Gonna go all Jeremy Paxman here, pk - what were the words he said that implied that some cases are not serious?

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You need to understand that he got the phrases > 'date rape' and 'statutory > > rape' mixed up. > > i do understand that > > what point are you making? I am asking what were the words he said that implied that some cases are not serious?

Of course I know what 'imply' means - I meant that to use the word means you are giving us your take on what he said, rather than give us what he actually said. Here's the transcript. You need to understand that he got the phrases 'date rape' and 'statutory rape' mixed up. In fact, he rather got himself all twisted up in the concept. and later

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If everything goes as Oakland minister Harold > Camping predicts, the Bay Area will suffer a > world-ending earthquake around 6 p.m. Saturday, It's like a Hollywood movie rule - every modern major event involving nature, aliens and religion must happen in the US.

I can barely do 5MPH down LL most of the time.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and is he right to imply that some cases are not 'serious'? What do you mean by 'imply'? What were his actual words?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your little boy is very cute, do you mind if I > take a photo? There are social faux pas moments. And there are burning torches and pitchfork moments.

From the Torygraph... Good grief. No overreaction there, then.

See a doctor.

The rapture is just the taking to heaven of the chosen few. So if you are a committed Christian, it's bye bye. For the rest... http://www.barterbooks.co.uk/catalog/images/books/kcmug.jpg

jane1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi > I am a 30 some thing year old white woman with 1 > 12 year old son, who is looking 4 Mr Right in East > Dulwich, > r u out there??????? > I am just so fed up of being cheated and lied to > by men i have given up trusting and hoping i will > ever find my true prince charming, > so if u r a nice, loyal, friendly,honest, looking > 4 love and mayb a long term relationship in East > Dulwich 2 type of guy. > please get in touch with me................ In my humble experience... most women who make this sort of complaint tend to run a mile from a "nice, loyal, friendly, honest" type of guy. They are attracted to the bastard, usually with the ever-present thought "but I can *change* him". Every person in the room can see that your current bloke is going to do the dirty on you. Except you.