Burbage

If health professionals are generally opposed to privatisation, then they can probably be trusted to run the CCGs accordingly. The only difference between then and now is that from now it will be health professionals doing the commissioning, rather than faceless beancounters. What you intended to write, I suspect, is that the hospital trusts, after a decade of fighting over services with their neighbours, are nervous of having to fight with a new bunch of providers, especially now quality, speed and cost are likely to become factors rather than the size of the 'patients forum' or the number of leaflets they shift. In any case, if health professionals are so against privatisation, how is it that hospitals have happily been hiring up to half their beds to the private trade? Although we only learnt of that this year, it seems to have been going on a lot longer than the coalition, so either they the professionals are as much a bunch of mendacious, profiteering scum as Virgin and Serco, or Labour was a lot more evil than we thought.

Brian Tee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on local people, get your views out here!!! I'm not really local enough for your purposes. But, in case it helps, this suggests there were traffic incidents resulting in two serious injuries and one slight one on Scutari Road between 2000 and 2010.

I'd be indifferent to being used as meat for human consumption. I'd not be worried about catching anything, but I'd not see any of the benefits, either. For the above-noted health reasons, it's probably best if we keep things as they are, with at least one stage in between. Nobody is upset when ashes are scattered on the veg patch or blackberries picked at the cemetery, and neither have led to any second-hand plagues. We shouldn't ignore the ethical considerations, though, and turning cadavers into commodities, comestible or otherwise, is fraught with ethical problems. That's not least because, when it has been done in the past, it's been done by some very nasty people, who have left a bitter heritage. Hence the outcry over the innocuous use of crematoria to heat swimming pools.. Nor the cultural issues, which are just as important. For example, our understanding of a body's ownership doesn't mesh easily with the legal understanding. In law, death turns your body into somebody else's property and, in theory, there's not much they can't do with it. In reality, however, we surround the dead with assumptions of dignity and restfulness and respect of what their wishes might have been. Things that that aren't naturally compatible with, for example, being rendered for lip-gloss or extruded for pies. Many of those issues are created by our need for reassurance. We like to imagine that, when it comes to our turn, we'll pitch up with closed eyes, modest clothing, crossed wrists, touched-up faces and an absence of bodily fluids. We want to think we'll just be 'resting', and our death will be a smooth, painless and dignified transition. It's an unlikely ambition, but one that we go to enormous lengths to reinforce. However implausible that aspiration, it's persistent, and I don't see any likelihood of a shift. The cool, dark earth of the grave, or the cleansing fire of the furnace are hardly matched by a microwave at a Wetherspoon's or an accountant's gut, if only because of the scriptural allusions. Even if we don't believe in God or an afterlife, we won't really know if we have a soul until it's too late, and so tend not to gamble too much where eternity is involved. When the Trump sounds for the Day of Resurrection and we're supposed to rise again, whole and clothed in flesh, anyone turning up in pieces clad in pastry is very likely to get teased.

Have you been through the bank statements? If you haven't got them, banks should be able to produce at least six year's worth of statements for a small fee (you'll need grant of probate and a death certificate, but presumably you've been through that already). Even if the account's been closed, they should still have the records. If a large payment to Mole Valley isn't there (which might be the case if he'd paid from a different account that he later closed), a sudden decrease in the rental payments would suggest he had bought an extra share. If you find neither, then you'll have a clearer mind.

dulwichgirl2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree with Loz bu do not see the checks and > balances working well enough unfortunately. > What would they be, anyway? The easiest way to look at this is as a disability-rights issue. Suicide is legal, and we cope happily enough without any checks and balances against the able-bodied from taking their own lives. The proposed changes to the law merely permit assistance to be provided to the incapacitated in the commission of a legal act. In nearly every other area, the provision of such assistance would be a legal obligation. There is no way to ensure that the actions of others don't provoke suicide. In fact, it's highly likely that all our legal suicides are prompted by the actions of others. However much, as a society, we might wish to force people to carry on living in a world they hate, among people they hate, or in mental or bodily torment, we can't stop them opting out. Except, happily, when they're held captive by disease, in which case we've got a handy law. If we change that law, then there will be the possibility that the incapacitated might be pressured into requesting death. But that's why advance directives exist, and they should be essential if the assistance of doctors is required. Not that, if the Daily Mail is right, it would make much difference. Where the assistance of doctors isn't required (and dying at home is, according to our politicians, the dearest wish of everyone), things are probably a bit different. But it's not polite to talk about that.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if I am correct, as it is not a national speed > limit, but set by the local authority, the police > won't enforce it (I could be wrong here) so I > raise the question "great idea but what's the > point ?" It's a good question, and the supposed answer, as others have noted, is that because they usually require traffic calming measures to be put in they do reduce speeds a bit, some of the time, in some places, at least until drivers get used to them. It's too early to tell if they work, though. For a start, they only exist in places where casualties are rare, so you'd need many years of data to get any sort of useful picture. Moreover, in residential streets, most incidents involve cars which are turning or parking or flinging doors open at cyclists, which aren't much to do with speed limits. You also need to be careful what numbers you were looking at, as it's rarely raw data. For example, the reductions in casualties over the last decade are all very nice, but you need to do some digging to find that the biggest reduction has been among car occupants, while the numbers for pedestrians or cyclists have stayed static and increased, respectively. Good news for some, indubitably. But not for everyone. The main problem is that it's cheaper, and politically much easier, to put out a bit of paint and signwork than to put in speed cameras or police patrols that might upset drivers or burden the Met. In the same way it's politically easier to focus on residential streets rather than on busy shopping areas where the casualties mostly happen but where traders and TfL will oppose anything that might hamper the convenience of drivers. 20mph zones are something, and they might be an improvement on nothing. We can't tell either way, yet, and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to. However, as a political fudge to appease safety campaigners, they're certainly impressive, and that may very well be the point.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The figure also includes spending by several > government departments investing as a result of > the Olympic opportunities, transport > infrastructure upgrades and counter-terrorism > security. "investing as a result of opportunities" is one way of putting it, but you're right. It's remarkable how quickly people have forgotten the seven years of expensive weekend closures, rail-replacement buses and signalling failures that were needed to prepare for the games. Or that, if the games hadn't happened, we'd all have been exploded in our beds by terrorists, and there'd be no prospect of a 'trickle-down' from the train-drivers bonuses to reinvigorate the economy. Even if those investments could be argued, the whingers can't deny that we've got a lot more for our ?6.7bn than we got for the ?2bn we lost on Metronet or the ?12bn we threw away on the NHS IT project. It's difficult to see how anyone can justifiably complain about the cost of a stadium and a pool and a bicycle track when they cost, all together, less than half the price of nothing.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It was presented as just posting the catalogues > through letter boxes, but I completely agree with > all Fox says. That may be true, or it may not. Legitimate delivery companies do exist. However, the Registrant of the domain (registered in March this year) is UK Health & Fitness, a company that doesn't exist, unless it's the same as UK Health and Fitness Solutions Ltd which, according to Companies House, has a different address and will be Dissolved on 14/08/2012. The address of the domain registrant is, interestingly enough, 58 Stanbury Road, London, SW15 4EH And that's interesting because the postcode doesn't match. There's nothing inherently suspicious about what may be a suburban terrace (in Peckham or Richmond, depending which bit you believe) with a dodgy postcode is operating a domain registered in Canada to run a website hosted in Arizona, but it does suggest a lack of transparency, especially given the website, designed by a Paul Vagg (who appears to have designed nothing else and seems oddly coy about attracting new clients), neither carries a privacy policy nor the registration details of the company operating it. Both of which are fairly illegal. Neither is it very worried about securing your personal information - the form is plain http instead of https. I do know that people do run round putting unsolicited leaflets and catalogues through doors, even though it's never the same person twice, and I presume they do it for money. But I suspect it's only worthwhile if there is literally nothing else to do and HMRC doesn't find out. I also suspect that they're not recruited by dodgy websites, even if they have got a picture of the London Eye. I'd steer clear, if I were you. And, if you're ever tempted by similar sites, just check them out (using 'whois' and companies house). If things don't match up, it's almost certainly a scam.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you won't find many in social housing with > incomes of ?60k (or anywhere near it) Funny you should mention that. ?60k happens to be the threshold for at least one housing association. It's obscene, of course. But it's well-meant. The aim being to get a nice mix of people in social housing, rather than end up with ghettos for the unemployed and dispossessed. Though, thanks to subletting, it can sometimes be difficult to tell. Your point about extremes is a good one, given that 'market rents' are an average of a market that, in London at least, has no ceiling. As that was partly the reason they needed a limit in the first place, there's an irony to that which would be delightful if it wasn't so miserable. The way they've implemented it would be almost impressive to anyone who'd not had the pleasure of working with our allegedly public servants. Averages, as any schoolkid might once have known, are tricky things, and there is a bit of a difference between the median and the mean. In this case, and countless like it, what seems to be happening is that landlords, being 'guaranteed' a rent of 80% of the "market rent", irrespective of anything more than postcode and number of bedrooms, aren't going to be slow in making sure their rents match that 80% figure, whatever the state of the property. For a great many properties, that will involve an increase in rent which will increase the 'market rent' which will increase the 80% limit. So, instead of being trapped in a spiral of market-driven rent increases, councils will now be trapped in a spiral of government-sanctioned rent increases. The tragedy is that it will take a while for rent rises to affect the market rents and for the market rents to affect the housing benefit limit. And, during that while, tenants will have the choice of making up the difference or throwing themselves on the mercy of the council, thereby increasing demand and, with all the poignant beauty of a mathematical certainty, increasing the market rents. In short, the government, and that branch of the civil service that has never run a business nor worried about paying their own rent, have merely replaced one vicious cycle with another. Except that, instead of holding councils to ransom, it'll make thousands homeless, too, no doubt to be 'decanted' to areas that last saw employment when Nelson had a pulse, and thus "trickle-down" the "London Premium" across the British weal much in the manner of the "Olympic Legacy", the "Knowledge Economy" or the "Finance Sector". I don't particularly blame the politicians, who rarely have the wit for detail, as it was clear that some sort of limit was necessary. But the way the civil service has drafted it would count as breathtakingly incompetent in any other country. The only reason it's allowed here is because they've worked so tirelessly to amass such a staggering portfolio of cock-ups that a few thousand people on the streets counts as almost a result.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So again, how does this make sense financially? > Unless there's a different motive for the mass > vaccination campaign. It makes sense financially because children who are vaccinated against the disease aren't going to spread it to more vulnerable people who, as uncleglen pointed out, catch things expensively. Schools, together with hospitals, act as distribution hubs for infections. The current thinking of our finest medical minds is that it's easier to get kids to stick things up their noses than it is to persuade nurses to get vaccinated.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ............................... The occasional > philanthropist may choose to do so, but the more > sensible philanthropist directs their charity to a > specific cause or causes rather than expecting > government to spend their money wisely. Sort of. Though the bizarre way in which 'Gift Aid' works means the philanthropist is not just directing their own money, but a comparatively large chunk of potential tax, effectively forcing the government to pay a portion of its revenue to a donkey sanctuary or whatever, irrespective of the need for hospitals, schools or humanitarian aid. The rich can afford more lawyers than HMRC and can domicile themselves anywhere that'll take their money, so they can 'plan' their tax as they wish. If seemingly-respectable banks think nothing of laundering money for wealthy drug barons and terrorists, when our justice system whores itself out for libel-tourism and our government happily sells the buildings that HMRC inhabits to shady companies in tax havens, it's a fair bet that the rich are likely to get what they want, even if mere citizens don't like it. So it is, indeed, lazy to imagine that taxing the rich is a viable option. That doesn't mean that the rich pay their fair share, they don't. It's just we can't do anything about it. In that sense, the rich are acting undemocratically. And, for that same reason, individuals shouldn't try to reduce their contribution below what others are paying. If you aggressively reduce your tax bill, however legally, it means everyone else has to pay a little more, exactly as when someone puts in an aggressive insurance claim. That's fine if it's a level playing field, and everyone's using the same, legally sanctioned, clearly spelt-out reliefs and credits. Otherwise, it just penalizes those who can't afford accountants, who aren't very good at maths or who retain their moral scruples. That may be your point. You may be suggesting that the comfortably-off should join the super-rich in actively reducing their contribution to the minimum they can legally get away with, and thereby increasing the contributions of those who are worse off or retain a shred of dignity. But I hope not. Not just because it's morally repugnant, in the fashionable phrase, but also because it's risky. Governments, and tax authorities, do change their minds, and the consequences can be nasty. Look how unpopular, for some sudden reason, the use of 'service companies' has become in the public sector. Inheritance tax schemes that involve, oddly, wholesale ticket-touting, look as if they might be challenged. And business property relief, effectively a subsidy for buy-to-let, as well as an IHT fiddle, surely can't last for much longer in its current state. You may be able to keep one jump ahead, for a while, but the moment you stop paying attention, you risk getting stung. Sure, some of those claiming to be worse off - those in the cash-in-hand grey economy, for example - are already doing that to you. But that's not a moral justification for anything. Sure, you should only pay what's due, but you should only pay what's reasonably due, not what you can engineer to be legally due. I'll admit this is as utopian a vision as your own. Nobody imagines they're not nice people. So when the accountant suggests something, you go along with it and don't pay much attention. When a big-name employer insists you're hired through a service companies, you set one up. When the friendly family solicitor introduces his colleague from the tax planning department, you listen. And when the plumber prefers cash, you pay in cash. In such little ways, most people are happy to corrupt themselves and cheat their neighbours. And that's no reflection on the rich.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was it TJMP, or someone else, that was responsible > for gross underestimate of the costs of hosting > the Olympics. Starting at ?2.9bn (from memory) and > rising now to ?9.6bn? I don't wish to be rude, but your comments are unhelpful, and counter to the spirit of the times. For a start, it must have been someone else. You don't get to oversee a multi-million pound bidding process only to do the work yourself. And, besides, you're forgetting that a good chunk of the overrun was spent as contingency, which, obviously, doesn't count. TJMPs role, in respect to her constituents, was to go on the telly to reassure us that the ?240 we're contributing through the council tax would be turned into almost tangible benefits, worth ?700 or more to each and every household in the Metropolis. And for that, we should be grateful. Even if you ignore the games' contribution to the upsurge in sporting participation, the frankly embarrassing proliferation of playing fields and the clear benefits to public health, we've got a nearly new shopping centre within a day's walk, a cable-car relieving pressure on parts of the DLR and an upgrade to our traffic network that will, finally, deliver what the congestion charge once promised. And if that wasn't enough, you'll not need to buy the Radio Times for six weeks. Now is not the time to be negative. Now is the time to sit back and watch, with all due incredulity, this once-in-four-year spectacle unravelling on our very doorstep.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we are supposed to accept that cutting off part > of a child's willy because it's written in an old > book is acceptable because people think it's > important. Less than a month ago a bunch of politicians in Zimbabwe thought it important enough an issue for them to voluntarily undergo circumcision. It is simplistic, and dangerous, to reduce this entirely to the issue of whether adults should mutilate children or not, and the faith argument is irrelevant at best. This is not the same sort of abuse as we saw in the 'witchcraft' trials, nor in female genital mutilation. It is, in most cases, a medical procedure carried out by qualified surgeons, albeit a superficially cosmetic operation done on non-medical grounds. We don't know what the original motivations for it were, but it seems an odd thing to invent, and must have had some reason. We can safely assume it wasn't to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, but we can't be sure that other health benefits weren't a motivation. After all, many of the rituals prescribed in 'old books' turn out to have sound (for the time) medical reasons. Either way, as it stands at the moment, it's a statistically very safe procedure that may have health benefits, and can be seen in a similar light as vaccination. In this case, the effects of a ban are likely to be quadruply unhelpful. Not only would any benefits be reduced in terms of HIV/AIDS, it could upset religious communities, spark similar bans in other predominantly Christian states (such as Zimbabwe), and prompted the faithful to attempt the procedure in secret at home. In short, what appears to be a clear-cut moral question is muddy enough to make the obvious right answer a very wrong one, and a ban would create many more problems than it cures.

TheRealMorris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it acceptable to approach your new next door > neighbour if you take a liking to them? > > If yes, how should said approach be executed? > A polite word in the stairwell works wonders. "I know where you live" nearly always produces some sort of result. "I hope the screams didn't disturb you" is a braver gambit. To build a negotiable bond, however, you really need to set up some sort of obligation. Cups of sugar are sufficiently cliched to be spooky, but asking to borrow a bar of soap or a bed-sheet is morally neutral. Things are made much easier if you're stuck at home all day, as I suspect might be the case here. In which case it may be possible to accept parcels on your neighbour's behalf or contrive a mix-up in the post. Once that's established, you may be able to lure them on to home turf with a cryptic note, but do make an attempt to hide the worst of the evidence first. Try to find some clean clothes, get the stains out of the hall carpet and hide the tins and bottles in a box. I hope it works out for you.

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When it comes to pasta I personally like > simplicity and speed. If you can make it without > having to go to the shops specially it's a plus. Pasta, garlic, frozen chopped spinach. A sliver or two of gorgonzola, a little bacon if you've got some. Pine nuts if you must. A little olive oil. Quantities according to taste/diet. 15 minutes max. Start pasta cooking. Fry garlic/pancetta/pine nuts for two or three minutes in another pan, then turn heat down, add spinach and cheese to melt, stirring once in a while till mushy. When the pasta's cooked, drain it, mix everything together, and put in bowls. Serve with black pepper and a bottle of sherry. You can use fresh spinach, if you don't mind the washing/chopping. And you can substitute the gorgonzola with anything from ricotta to stilton rinds. Or just add parmesan after. What goes wrong with this is overcooking, which turns the spinach bitter, or adding too much cheese/pancetta, which makes it too salty.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...they are Parakeets, they've been wild in London > parks for YEARS Where's the fun in that? I was told they were kept by the manager of one of the estate agents, who'd be grateful to hear of any escapees.

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not in this case Voyageur-spellings are countable > nouns- but you are correct it could be the verb > "spelling". Atticus and Voyageur are delightfully correct. "Spelling" is the gerund of a verb. You can, if you wish, use it as a verbal noun, such as in "her spelling is poor"; that is what gerunds are for. But to claim a gerund as a countable noun, and then to pluralize it, is a manifest error that would once have warranted corporal punishment. Would a jogger take "runnings" in the park, or a diner take their "eatings" in a restaurant? The line between grammar and insanity is finer than many think and, with respect, I suggest that the orthographical mishaps of others should be the least of WoD's worries.

I don't think it's ever been an all-day feature. Sometimes it's there, sometimes it isn't, and I've not worked out exactly when or why. It's a TfL-controlled junction (the number for reporting faults goes through to TfL), so it'll be run by their big computer. Which means it could be down to anything, and not necessarily on purpose.

Lee Scoresby Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I ask again, how does this truly shoddy outfit > keep its contracts with Southwark? And I'd love to > know too, what pay and perks is the FL boss taking > home? We should know. > 1. It's a private company, run as a charity (encouraging health and efficiency among oiks having been a charitable aim since they first built the workhouses), put together by a number of councils. 2. They keep the contracts because it's sort of part of Southwark, just without the accountability or benefits. 3. According to the notes to the accounts (courtesy of the Charity Commissioners website), the boss seems to earn something between ?100k and ?150k. 4. However, given the popularity of schemes whereby senior staff pimp themselves out as service companies, it's possible the boss doesn't hit the wage (or National Insurance) bill, but is hidden away amidst other unspecified costs. This is probably unlikely but, as a rule of thumb, it's best not to believe anything signed by an auditor. That appears to mean the services are supplied by a monopoly provider which is immune from both private competition and public-sector democracy, but able to take advantage of being both a private company and a registered charity. That would explain its relentless, if surprising, success. It's clearly a win-win situation for everyone (apart from taxpayers or service user, but that's not unusual). I'd not be surprised if the brighter minds at councils weren't considering similar arrangements for the provision of other services. Such as care homes.

The Cllr Barber thread has a bit about why it's not been mended for 18 months, and what exciting plans the council has for it.

Another...

Another...

Not fox squirrels, but grey squirrels that aren't. There's a project about them (www.blacksquirrelproject.org), where you can report sightings if you feel the need.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a case of investors will abandon us rather > than bankers moving offshore. Its the investments > that suffer the tax and these will go elsewhere, > leaving us with too many bankers. > Not necessarily. One of the things a transaction tax might curb is high-frequency trading. That's currently one of our exchange's selling points, and it allows institutions to build very quick computers to arbitrage tiny price differences in nanoseconds. This comes in for some criticism as it substantially distorts trading volumes and effectively skims the potential gains of 'real' investors, by buying and selling immediately before they buy (thus 'normalizing' the price upwards) or vice versa before the sell. The argument for it is that it 'curbs volatility', thus protecting investors from uncertainty and distorion. The argument against it is that it's a risk-free way of gaming the market without any intention to invest in anything for longer than milliseconds, and amounts to nothing more than a bank-imposed transaction tax on everyone else. To my mind, if investors were going to be put off investing by the a tiny tax, they'd have gone already, assuming they knew how it works. If a new transaction tax is set at the right level, and makes the high-frequency scams unviable, then proper investors shouldn't notice any difference.

For other localish settings, George Gissing's "In the year of Jubilee" is set around the top end of Camberwell during a Jubilee year. It's not the best of his novels, by some way, and he wasn't the best of novelists. But it's not entirely unreadable, especially if you're fond of ham-fisted victoriana. I doubt the political burden of it will impress many, though parts of it might strike a few delightful nerves. Gissing was fond of portraying misery, but wasn't in the business of campaigning against it, which might look a bit exploitative in these more censorious times, at least to those unfamiliar with daytime telly. On the other hand, being mostly mired in misery himself and not, apparently, one to easily forget a grudge, there's a plausibly autobiographical pretext for his unfashionable opinions.