Loz

Interesting by-election results. Labour win - no surprise there. But the Lib Dem vote holding up surprised even me. OK, a lot of tactical voting by the Tories, but I suspect a lot of Tories didn't bother (which would help explain the much-lower turnout). Looks like the Lib Dems will be around for a while yet. Back luck, Odyssey! :))

Helen, I think the main issues are: 1) Building a five (!) story building on that site. There is nothing more than two stories in the near vicinity. 2) The knock on effect of removing the whole car-park from match-day parking (especially now multiple clubs/teams use the ground) will be highly problematic. Residents already report problems with the astroturf 5-a-side parking with people parking in private off-street bays. 3) Providing 30 parking spaces for 60 residential units will cause congestion in the surrounding streets. Don't have a big problem with housing as such, but the scale of this is completely out of line with the site size and the surrounding area. And the removal of the only car park from a large sports ground is not a good step.

Strange - a Dulwich Hamlet supporters newsletter I found here says that "DHPD Ltd was dissolved on 24th November 2009", yet this was submitted in Nov 2010?!?! A DHST press release about the sale is here here. There are some interesting (though a couple of years old) opinions here. James: do you have any info about whether the lease on the land still expires in a couple of years time? And if the ground still has 'Other Open Space' designation?

>:D

If you fancy a nice walk (or a Number 37 bus ride), Half Moon dentists near Herne Hill station is quite good.

jollybaby Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another break here in on landells road last week. > Culprit has no taste in music. Left my new take > that cd in the glove box that he wrenched open. Not sure which is worse - having your car broken into or admitting in public you own a Take That cd...

I bet all the anti-monarchists don't front up to work in protest at the royal wedding...

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Next is a bedroom. young girl is sick of Barbie > pink.Any suggestions. Is she a sulky emo teenager? Then black walls, black ceiling and black curtains should do the trick.

Not LL, but perhaps North Cross Road??

Horizon has gone for a slash? Back soon?

Try telediscount.co.uk - no cards or accounts to set up. They are showing 15p a minute at the moment, but the cost can vary depending on the time of day.

> no-one has ever been sued for breaking the DRM on a CD or game unless they have also distributed it as far as I can tell. And, of course, this is where technologies such as bittorrent can slip up the unaware. Because downloading a file also turns your computer into a temporary uploader (due to the distributed nature of the protocol) then you can be done for a file-sharing infringement, even though you had no idea you were doing it.

Kingy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The copyright owner owns the right to copy it and > owns the intellectual property contained therein True > - copying it without permission is breach of copyright True > - breach of copyright is defined as intellectual property theft QED Utter rubbish. Please link to or quote the the relevant law that makes that definition. I'll save you the time - there isn't one. > I don't make the rules, True (thank goodness) > neither did I start trading the insults False

Kingy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Breach of Copyright IS theft of intellectual > property Aaaaand so it starts again... No it's not; it's breach of copyright. That's why there is no mention of the words 'stealing' or 'theft'. Now what "property" here has the copyright owner been "permanently deprived" of? A computer file they never themselves owned? And if your answer was going to be 'intellectual property', how have they been permanently deprived of it?

Re: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the EU Copyright Directive... I still don't see the words 'stealing' or 'theft' in there, Kingy.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Give Kingy a break. By law it may well be > illegal. Illegal, yes. Theft no. I object to the ads saying 'downloading is theft' as people like kingy start believing it is so. But 'infringing copyright' doesn't sound scary enough. > If it is, and as Kingy accurately says, artists > lose out which is why they try to protect their > material, the question is actually 'how do I steal > this music ?'. It is not stealing. Stealing means taking someone's property and depriving them of it. It doesn't mean depriving someone of a future profit that they probably wouldn't have got anyway. Put it this way. When I was a kid, my dad, being a DIY-type guy saw those old swingball contraptions. He had a good look at it, went home and knocked one up for us. Is that stealing? No, he just copied something. Now had he then started selling these, that would of course be a different matter, but copying things for personal use has never been taken seriously before now (remember home taping?). And it has certainly never been seriously considered as theft. > Which doesn't really mean Kingers deserves insults. No, but starting posts with "AND FLICK YOU TOO" does.

Kingy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fancy a face to face over this ? Preferably in a > boxing ring Lost the argument, then?

Kingy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > btw Rosie H > apparently my arse is so full of crap it would be > difficult to get a copy protected cd up there You are mistaking your head for your arse. That does not surprise me. I suspect you have arse and elbow recognition difficulties as well.

Kingy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oh ! music sales are up are they ? is > that why HMV is closing 30 shops, Virgin and Our > Price are gone etc etc etc Sigh. That is because music sales on the internet have boomed - or haven't you noticed? Ever heard of a little company called Amazon? Music sales are up. Per unit they have gained year on year all through the 'downloading era'. > any breach of the terms under which it was sold is thievery in my book Fortunately the world does not read your book. I mean, I think you are a bit of an oxygen thief - doesn't mean the plod will be knocking on your door any time soon.

Did no one else watch Flash Forward?

The technical phrase, Pearson, is 'RTFM'.

Kingy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it's thievery and you are killing music 1) Copyright infringement is not 'theft'. Don't believe all the scary ads. 2) If you read the post properly you'll see she has bought the CD and wants to be able to play the damn thing. Since copy protection is not part of the Compact Disc standard, I would say she has been mis-sold a 'CD' by the record company - it's technically not one. That's not theft either, though, it's fraud. 3) It's not killing music anyway, music sales are on a high and climbing at the moment.

OK, a bit of full-on fisking is called for here... > The main topics of conversation with constant > updates on EDF from Councillor Barber > are the Extention of the market and the proposal > for a new M&S or Waitrose. How many Southwark councillors can you name off the top of your head? Have you seen the million-page long thread where Cllr Barber has sorted out numerous problems? I think it is pretty good and proactive work done by Cllr Barber on this thread. This is a bit of a cheap shot, really. > After the recent freeze, the 4" main in > Ulverscroft Rd. burst. It was repaired by Clancy > Docwa contractors for Thames water. However the > pavement outside my house (which is aspalt not > paving stone) has been washed away. I understand this is the > Responsibility of Soutwark Council who whould of > been informed my the contractors. Have you reported it to the council? Or do you expect them to constantly track hundreds of miles of streets? They are not mind readers you know. > There are many bad pavements in ED. There does > not seem to be any routine inspection of our > pavements and roads. Things eventually may be repaired , > but only after repeat complaints from the public. Oh come on. Pavements in ED are pretty good compared with the rest of London. > ED is Run Down with Dog mess, litter, broken > street lights. Well done, you are leading in the Most Ridiculous Comment of 2011. > Much of the litter is from the many Take-away > outlets, but there are very few litter bins. Granted we could do with more bins on LL, but this is hardly an ED-wide problem. > There are no Public Toilets in the area. This is London. There are few public toilets full stop. > It would seem that as long as we get a Waitrose > and expand the Market. ( more litter ) > Most people are happy with people peeing on the > broken pavements late at night > and throwing their food boxes on the ground. and > their ciggarette butts. Hang on, you have just surpassed yourself in the Most Ridiculous Comment of 2011. I don't know if you were having a bad weekend or are trolling, but really, you portrait of ED does not seem to be realistic. Southwark council is a long way from perfect but if you don't report problems then you can't really expect them to be fixed. In other words: if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Now they are - even if you disagree with their > policies - showing that they can govern. > > But they are NOT governing. They are a side show > to a Conservative government, a side show that are > destined to be humiliated in April by the > referendum on voting reform and destined to be > held responsible for any misery poured on the > public by the policies being currently pursued. > There are already signs that the economy is > downturning (a consequence of the measures put in > place by the coalition) and there is trouble ahead > for the euro and other things out of our control > that will almost certainly squeeze any chance of > recovery within the next five years. It is just > pure fantasy to think that either the > Conservatives or Lib Dems are going to increase > voting share in the light of all that. If you are in government, you are governing. They are making mistakes, but that's how you get experience. Also, the referendum is still alive and polls are showing a slight edge towards reform. There are no signs of a downturn at all - where did you get that from? Granted there's not much in the way of a recovery, either, but I wouldn't be playing Chicken Little just yet. As I said, the Tories are probably going to win the next election anyway. Labour don't have a leader of any standing and there are more credible candidates for Australian cricket captain than there are for Labour leadership. Labour have failed to convince the general public of their line that the cuts (as a whole) are not necessary. It should be an open goal, but Ed doesn't realise he's supposed to kick the ball. Anyway, my post was on the long term outlook for the Lib Dems and the experience they are gaining now is invaluable. There will be short term pain, but in the long run this will be beneficial for them.

It's not the individuals you will lose, it is the institutions themselves. If they move elsewhere bang goes the UK banking sector, no matter how many qualified traders you have. Also, I don't agree with this "they got all the money and the little guy is now paying it all back", you hear a lot, either. The UK rode the boom on the back of the financial sector. All the improvements of the past years have been funded by that. Now that the boom is gone the money is no longer there. No one is 'paying' for the crash - just that the money that was there is now not there and cutbacks have to be made.