DJKillaQueen

But you are over reacting Louisa to something that doesn't impact on you at all.....

It goes something along the lines of once women hit puberty, they turn against their mothers and desire their fathers...............Frued imo had a very dubious understanding of psychology and sexuality which is why he is never quoted in these types of debate anymore.

People have different boundaries of tolerance for sure, but that doesn't convince me that something as innocuous as applying makeup is something to get angry about. The woman applying makeup, could have any number of reasons for not having the time to do it before she leaves. She could be caring for sick relatives, children, she might have worked late the night before etc. We are too quick to judge. Personally, I think getting angry at something so inconsequential, when there really are things that matter, to get angry about, is one of the most irritating qualities a person can have. So no, the woman applying make up doesn't bother me in the least....the person getting irritated by that though, leaves me asking all sorts of questions about their psychology and personality.

Freud also thought 'Women oppose change, receive passively, and add nothing of their own' and don't get me started on his theory of 'penis envy'. There is evidence to suggest that levels of estrogen and testosterone during pregnancy can affect a whole range of things inculding sexual orientation and gender dysphoria. It is an accepted concept that stress is detrimental during pregnancy too because of it's impact on hormone levels...so Freud's assertions are not the first place I'd look for any kind of genetic/nuture understanding of this issue. There is so much still not understood about the development of the brain, and the part genes and pregnancy play in personality (and they must play some part). Of far more interest to me (in the nurture debate) is some evidence that shows that during childhood, and in some adults too, the brain deals with extreme trauma in some peopple, by turning that trauma into a pleasurable experience. It's one theory behind why some abused children become themselves abusers. In some rape victims for example, rape instead of continuing to be a traumatic memory will become a fantasy - not one that they want to act out necessarily - but the psychological switch is made all the same.

And I just think judging anyone (without knowing anything about them), for such superficial reasoning as appearance or because they apply makeup on a train, is more reflective of the person making the judgment than the person they are judging.

Really???

I don't know anything e-dealer. I was just trying to dispell the idea that use of such a scanner in such a location is an imposition on civil liberties. That the reason for use of such a thing is namely to aid Police in their fight against often already known criminals and gangs.

I see your point John.

The law though permits knives up to a certail length (3 inches I think) and these detectors are aimed at specific things/ groups to be fair. Anyone carrying anything illegal will be caught and target groups, for example teens on their way to/from school have no vaild reason to be carrying knives either, whereas a scout on his/her way back from camp would. The Police are not looking to confiscate every piece of metal that passes before them, but to identify those who may in possession of such items who pose a danger. The other thing too is that if stopped, the police then have the power to run a check and you'd be suprised how many people (just as when they do ANPR checks) on bail, probation or with previous related convictions make up those stopped.

Agreed. Why resurfacing of this obviously poor stretch of road wasn't part of the works is mystifying.

Well let's hope they do kill it. Banks are not mortgage lending for good reason. The housing market needs to be exposed to the same market forces as any other sector, otherwise we are heading for a scenario where no-one can afford to buy anything (apart from the super rich), and you don't to be Einstein to figure that one out.

Ed may be brighter but the problems remain the same with or without brother David in the background. Ed is no effective opposition. I do think we've lost sight of who make good political leaders. We've been fed fresh faced media friendly (and not always particularly bright) inexperienced and privilieged wannabees by all the parties. Where are the people with great experience of politics, driven by clear plans for social and/ or economic change based on years of useful experience in anything relevant? Ed for me has the same problem as Cameron and Clegg. He is too young and knows too little.

Tbh the road surface on the East Dulwich Road side needs entirely resurfacing from the bus stop. Cycling on it is a nightmare.

There must have been some prior knowledge that led to the photo being filed as a house in ED so I tend to agree with Penguin that the photo is more likely to be where it says it is rather than not.

My surgery (Nunhead Surgery) is excellent but don't know what the accepted catchment area is for it.

Hmmm that's really interesting CS. Do you know if Underhill Road was used at all?

Hmm just had a look on the 1911 census. There are no entries for 191-200 underhill road.

The Bovril airship was flying as early as 1913. So if you are right about the airship I would say the photo is pre WW1 but only just.

This is a debate that has been had for decades. Remember the video nasties one in the 80's? Did rapists exist before television and photographic media? Yes. Did sexual child abuse take place before television and photographic media? Yes. Lot's of unsavoury aspects of human behaviour have always existed, and I've never been convinced that anything is a primary cause of that, other than when the bounds of law and order are removed (like war for example). The only area where reserach does seem to stand up though is in that a high percentage of those who abuse (be they adults on children, or children on children), they were themselves abused as children. But not all abused children become abusers. We seek to prevent/ break cycles of abuse (because they are more often than not cycles) by developing civilised cultures where cetain types of behaviour are not acceptable (use of law) and by seeking to protect children from exposure to harmful influences. But history shows us that what one person defines as harmful is not what someone else defines as such and documents well the harm caused by prohibition of openess around issues of sex and sexuality. I personally wouldn't ever want to got back to that kind of repressive culture. All I can say is that if I had children, would I welcome some ability to prevent them from watching material not suitable for them? Yes I would.....but here is the dilemma for me. Most parents would want it to be their choice as to what they define as suitable, and not the state (and I broadly agree with that) but if that parent is themselves of a controversial belief system, then what? This thread is specifically about sexual exploitation of children. I think that exploitation is wrong but don't necessarily agree that all the forms discussed here are expoitative. And also the issue of what young people do between each other is a different issue to adults who seek to sexually exploit children. We do have laws in place to protect children from all of those things. Sexual abuse is a crime, whatever the age of the perpetrater. So for me the key is to educuate and empower young people to be in control of whatever they face, and to be able to seek the right support if they need it, rather than shutting off entires areas of the internet to them. Young people are just as capable as being appalled by something as adults........we should trust them to have the right reactions to things sometimes too.

I couldn't agree more LondonMix. It seems as though this governement is determined instead of helping to normalise rents/ house prices, to further inflate the problems. What happens when minimum house prices go up even more as a result? Will the government then increase help it gives to first time buyers? And has it no consideration for where the money to pay for this will come from? This too combined with increased discounts for right to buy council tenants, another ploy to further deplete affordable council rental stock. My opinion is that governemnts in this country see home ownership and the equity involved as the solution to the long pensions crisis. What else could be the thinking behind this totally illogical policy? And at the same time, we are about to see a range of measures come into force that will force some families and individuals into homelessness and severe hardship at the other end. I'm just left speechless by this coalition's take on housing problems.

Would be really cool if we could identify the house...and then look at the census for the period and possibly identify and date the people in the photo.

Just because there are houses along parts of it doesn't define it as a residential road. Many A and B roads have some residential dwelling's on them. When someone moves into a house on a main road they understand that as such there will be lots of traffic. Moaning that you don't like cars driving perfectly safely at 30mpr (which the vast majority of drivers do) is also selfish.

It's definitely Edwardian from the outfits. I'd hazard a guess of around 1900-1910.

We are not alone e-dealer, it was the pub of choice for my long standing neighbours too, but everyone goes elsewhere now. It also used to be known for it's good food (and we all would regularly eat there).

I agree that it was pricey, which is one reason why people stopped going there and if the priceyness and poor value has stayed then there'll be initial interest followed by a tail off (unless the food is absolutely amazing of course). There is an abundance of pubs locally where I can get a nice pint of cider on tap for less than ?4 and get a decent main meal for around/less than a tenner. The Clock House for 15 years was my first choice local pub, but then just became stupidly expensive for the regular pub goer. I don't mind paying over the odds for a good meal but it would be a treat, not a regular thing. Similarly I resent paying West End prices in a South London enclave, and in that respect I think Youngs had been milking us all, and paid for it with a loss of custom. But I'll take a look for myself before the weekend and see if anything is different in that respect.