DJKillaQueen

lol..so what you are actually saying is that the French are not human? lol

Why? Do you have a frog you suspect of being silly in your garden tonight?

Yeah me too...must rush down to Lidl tm (is it the one in Peckham?)

:))(tu)

No the drink tokens are neither here nor there. There should be NO alcohol sold or SUPPLIED on the premises after 1am and the alcohol that is supplied can only be done so with a meal consumed on the premises. No exceptions. So if they are not doing that then they are breaching the terms of their licence. If they are running the back room as a bar only they are also breaching the terms of their license. If the Police catch them doing that twice in a seven day period they can apply to a magistrate to force the premises to close. Southwark licensing would be very interested to hear of any breaches and can similarly review and withdraw the license at any point.

There's no obligation to pay for housing at all. By that do you mean there's no obligation to provide affordable housing? If so then where do you think that would lead? It's possible that you believe that achievement and financial benefit is only achieved by theft. I can assure you I have never said such a thing. What I have said that achivement is easier for some people because of the things they are gifted by birth without having to work for it. And some of those people aren't bright or talented or even hard working. There's perfectly bright people that profer a service in pennies that makes them wealthy. They're not bad, just clever. That's true. there are also very bright children who never get a sniff of a decent school. Nor do they get a house bought for them or a deposit paid for by parents...nor do they get a car on their 18th birthday....or any of the things that make getting on in life a bit easier. It's not government paying for housing, it's your neighbours. We all pay for it through tax. Just some of us have our houses bought for us by tax too.

LOL......'tainted'...I like it.... I'm just trying to fully understand exactly what your post is saying......I think you are saying there is no such thing as opportunity afforded by privilege....and that we are all responsible for where we end up in life (which of course is nonsense and blatently obvious to see as such)....but I'm equally not sure that is what you are saying..... Still trying to get past the tainted thing tbh......>:D<

Can you not see why someone receiving such a letter might feel they were being asked to give something back for their treatment? Is that conmpletely lost on you? I think it's a valid point. Secondly someone has targetted paitents only with this mail shot.....when a patient goes to kings for treatment they do not automatically agree to let their address be used for direct mail shots.....which technically are classed as junk mail. Do uoi expect that a shop has a right to direct mail you every time you buy something from it? Again I think that is a valid point to make. Perhaps there needs to be a consent form in place for all patients...you know one of those little boxes that says you do not wish to receive mail other than that related to treatment. Just because Kings is a hospital doesn't mean those using it shouldn't expect the same privacy afforded them by other companies in realtion to personal data (and an addrees IS personal data).

Damn foreigners, sneaking into our country illegally, breeding in uncontrollable numbers, infecting our population with displays of aggression and on some occasions ABH....biting today, knife crimes tomorrow I yell ya! And green fangs should just be damn well outlawed..... ;-)

What PR is asking is that if the letter was sent to recent patients how do the charity obtain a list of who those recent patients are? Logically the only departments that would have such a list would be those administering or administrating treatment....so whilst no details of individual treatment are accessed, a list of those treated is...and such a list must be linked to treatment (because that's the only way someone would end up on that mailshot). Also no-one is suggesting that Kings should not raise money. What is being questioned is the process of mail-shotting recent patients (in whatever context) to inform them that Kings carries out fundraising. To the average person that suggests a connection between receiving treatment and an expectation to support Kings fund raising. Suggesting that those in receipt of treatment are more likely to be receptive to direct marketting without assessing why that might be is a flawed argument. After all, Kings could mail-shot from the elctoral register....but instead, in this case, it has chosen to target (and it IS targetting) those recently having received treatment.

Licence here Note they are only licensed to sell alcohol up to 1am and only to those having a meal ON THE PREMISES. 135 - Intoxicating liquor shall not be sold or supplied on the premises otherwise than to persons taking table meals there and for consumption by such person as an ancillary to his meal. 'Late night refreshemnt' licenses only the sale of food and non alcoholic drinks. They are required to have door staff from 10pm 341 - SIA / Local Authority Registered Door Staff are to be employed by the premises from 2200 hours

That kebab shop does have a bar and restaurant attached to it so will have some kind of bar licence. I'll go and look it up.

I've never smoked but I do think a lot of non-smokers don't realise just how difficult it is for many smokers to give up.

and the game isn't always pretty I accept that point but to subject some ill and recovering from recent treatment patients to that is imo unfair. LM makes a good point (I haven't seen the letter sent out personally so refer to her description of it) that maybe the letter could be changed to make it clear it is not a request for donations, but a request for those interested in being kept informed of Kings fundraising campaigns to be added to a mailing list for that purpose.

Hmmm if you recently use the NHS you might like to pay something towards it? Isn't that the philosophy behind your approach in 'informing' recent patients of Kings 'fundraising activities'? Doesn't sit right with me I'm afraid. By all means fund raise but I personally see the direct targetting of recent patients as a bit much esp. as we ALL already pay for the NHS through our taxes. And I agree in part with you Keef except where we are talking about vulnerable patients, who may feel compelled to donate whether they can afford to or not.

Yeah the 95/5% split dates back to the formation of the landed gentry and includes landed owned by the monarchy and aristocracy. Obviously some land has been sold since then although for several centuries it could only be inheritted by the eldest son (something written into law to protect sucession rights for the privileged). Today those three groups still own 70% of land in the UK between them and you are quite right in that there has been a cover up by many of the land owners to hide the fact by not reigistering or making available public documentation. It seems they of all people do not want anyone to know just how unfair land distribution has been over the centuries, whilst also avoiding taxes. Kevin Cahill wrote a very good book on the subject called 'Who Owns Britain'. In it he makes a compelling display of how only around 6000 people, with ancestries dating back to the Norman Conquest own almost 70% on the land (that is less than 1% of the population). In 1872 something called 'Return of Landowners' documented who owned the deeds to what at that time. The landowners through their influence on the house of Lords had that book taken out of circulation at the time but it's all there. Afer WW1 the Liberals promised land reform and similarly Labour after WW2. Both failed to deliver on that - so entrenched are the aristrocracy and landed gentry in the politcal system and notably the House of Lords. It's part of the problem in keeping land values and rents high, compounding the issue of shortages of affordable housing and also deterring foreign investment as companies can locate elsewhere where land is cheaper with far less planning restrictions. Kevin's book shows that 77% of the population live on just 5.8% of the land (making a mockery of the argument that Britian is full!). It's a form of privilege that is perhaps the most unfair aspect of British culture and everything in Law, Education, and Politics is set up to protect it.

well to err is human after all :)

So why are there NO 'council' owned homes as part of the E&C development then James to replace the ones being demolished? Is that not a policy of reducing the councils housing stock. You take a typical politicians view....just as the lib dems when they led the council were never to blame for anything they did badly. You guys put a CONSERVATIVE counciller in charge of Southwarks housing for goodness sake. If that isn't a belief in conservative housing policy I don't know what is. The lib dem council blew ?100 million on a call centre (disgraceful amount of money) and then complained that there wasn't enough money for decent homes. As for housing debt. A good part of Southwark's stock were built in the 1930's - should the tenants of those flats subsidise debt, esp while (as is the case of my ward) one estate had it's decent homes work dropped after only the stage one contract (something my local Labour councillors are now fighting on - we never saw their Lib Dem predacessors!). The inability to use proceeds from 'right to buy' for reinvestment in housing under Thatcher's government was also a policy designed to discourage councils form replacing stock and I have sympathy for the point you make about a councils inability to raise funds for that kind of capital programme. Of course council's can only spend what they have but hiking up social rents is not the answer when a third of the workforce need housing benefit in addition to the unemployed. Or do you and your party really have no view on the unaffordability of private rents and housing by more than a third of the population James?

:))......has it sobered you up though?

Probably because we only know the function of approx 2% of DNA. The other 98% has been referred to as 'junk' DNA. Probably all the differences are in there as it is now thought that the 98% so called non-coding DNA has an important impact on the coding DNA.

lol..not guilty for LM. I stand by that view greenhouse gases (which after all are just a gases whose molocules can absord heat) have always been part of the earth's atmophere..but the point you made is that the level of individual gases has been different at times during the planet's formation and evolution...that is what I agree is true. It doesn't change that the process by which the earth's atmospheric temperature rises and falls is a greenhouse one (made possible by the presence of greenhouse gases). Also in my original point to LM, I don't say that the earth has always had it's atmosphere either, just that since it formed it has always been a greenhouse one. The theory is that the atmosphere is approx half the planet's current age at 4.5 billion years.

LOL...the thought of LM and methane............mmmmmm *tries not to inhale* You are not dim katie lol. In answer to your question, greenhouse gases and their emission have been part of planet earth's composition since the early days of it's formation (the required icy elements thought to have arrived in metors and comets from outer solar systems). So in that respect is has always had a greehouse effect going on. When the planet was extremely hot (and forming it's tectonic plates), volcanic activity would have emitted massive amounts of carbon dioxide for example (but too much for the right temperature for life). Only when the planet struck a balance with it's gasses did life become possible (along with water). The earth is unique in it's atmosphere and there are other factors obviously that allows those gasses to work they way they do, but they've always been there. So in that respect the planet has always had a greenhouse atmosphere. But the balance of that greenhouse effect needed for life has only been around in the more recent evolution of the planet.

Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas. It's two atoms are too tightly bound together to vibrate and therefore don't absord heat. Nitrogen is the same. Greenhouse gases are only those gasses with molecules composed of more than two atoms that are loose enough to vibrate with the absorbtion of heat :)

No those greenhouse gasses are what have allowed the earth to have the range of temperatures necessary for life. Without them too cold, too much of them too hot. It's called the 'Goldilocks Principle' and is why we are the only planet on our solar system with life. The main gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide and they trap sufficent solar energy to create the right temperature ranges.

That's true but in the modern lifespan of the planet it is a greenhouse atmosphere and it's that greenhouse atmosphere that has given us the ecosystems we have. Without it, life would not exist.