DJKillaQueen

There's no doubt that affirmative action has played a major role OD, but it was necessary to level the playing field and the outcome I would argue has been a positive one.

I agree that cats do tend to be worse for fleas but if they are regularly treated with frontline and staykill is used in the home then fleas are never an issue.

Go to the vet and buy a can of STAYKILL. It's the only household flea spray that works. You can spray soft furnishings and carpets and each spraying will last for up to a year.

I absolutely agree on the efficiency point, but there is no sense in the reports proposal if the right to buy scheme continues. And I share H's sceptical view on the impact the proposal would have, but for different reasons. There is absoutely no way that the sale of a few higher value properties will address the affordable housing shortage, or quickly enough. Homes take time to build. On the other hand, there are countless empty properties around London that could be used to address the housing shortage if LAs had the powers to force the owners to bring them into affordable use. And on another point, it is absolutely a false economy to use welfare reform etc to further squeeze the level of property available to low income housholds. The consequence of that is LAs being forced to house more families in B&B accomodation.....and if you take a look at how expensive an option that is then you really do have something to complain about.

'The point made by the report is that there is a real, measurable cost to keeping expensive housing in public ownership, which calls for an examination beyond bare assertion of the justification for it.' Like the apartments at Westminster? Buckingham Palace? There are countless properties owned by the state maintained at the expense of the taxpayer....let's sell them all off to private investors. I do think that we've lost the moral principle at the core of this issue to a debate around the 'commodity' that housing has become. At the end of the day, no person should be struggling to find a suitable place to live, and even though we can debate definitions of 'suitable', for most people that's a dry home, in fair enough repair with enough rooms to accomodation those being accomodated. If we want to persist with a housing market with prices that are increasingly beyond the reach of many in full time work (before we even get started on those without jobs) then we have to accept we need to provide housing they can afford, irregardless of what it does to the 'market'. Housing, like food and water is a necessity....and it's about time some people atarted to remember that.

Are you really trying to claim dj that 9.30 is going to stop people sleeping.....most people go to sleep after that time. If you choose to live next to a business, which as others point out has been there for a very long time, then you have to accept their will be some impact from that business.

Jeremy is right though. You are sounding as though you 'protesteth too much'. There will always be some noise with any pub and if I moved next to one I'd expect that, just as I would expect at least normal opening hours (i.e. till 11.30 evenings) and just as I would expect it to be noisier at weekends. I think you have been quite right to oppose later opening hours but the pub has now withdrawn that application. *crossed post with otta but saying the same thing*

They were dicussing this on BBC London radio this morning and threw in the following to the mix.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191075/Police-investigate-racist-outburst-passenger-London-bus-posted-YouTube.html Of all the callers (both black and white) only one person offered the view that this woman wasn't being racist, but prejudiced. His explanation of that followed Lee Jaspers line of racism needs power plus prejudice and then went on a long explanation of how slavery factors the power element (although many black people facilitated the slave trade as well, and were paid well with gold for it). Whilst there is no doubt that state sanctioned racism and prejudice has a detrimental effect on the opportunities of those it prejudices, how can it be explained that in America, where segregation existed in form right up until the 60's, there are now black judges, black people in positions of political power etc. I firmly belive the measure of an unprejudiced society is equal opportunity. If a group of people (irregardless of ethnic origin/ nationality) are given the same opportunities, some will take them and work hard, and others will not bother, and then seek to blame someone for their lack of progress. But an unprejudiced society is perhaps a dream of utopia, not achieveable in it's best form because other things get in the way for governments, like failing economies, and for the public, like the daily grind of just making ends meet. In my view there are two kinds of racism. Racism that is the basis for genocide and/or exploitation, and that has much historical reference. And racism that is the vehicle of personal attack and bullying. This is the kind of racism that belongs to the powerless, those who are not happy with some aspect of their own lives/ selves and express that anger through a hatred for those they think are taking away something that they feel should be rightfully theirs/ or someone they perceive to be culturally weaker. And I'm suprised that Lee Jasper can not see that.

Now you sound like you want to put the pub out of business altogether DJsenior. It's a pub. People will congregate there. They've withdrawn the application for extended hours so the thrust of the licensing application no longer exists.

If Mr Jasper really does believe that racism can only be defined as 'Racism requires power plus prejudice', then it means that the vast majority of white people (who also have no power in the terms he prescribes) can not be racist either....and you don't have to be Einstein to know that's bs. It's also an ignorant comment to make too. The animosity I've seen expressed between Africans and West Indians and indeed differing African nationals is something he might like to comment on too. What would he define that as? For me it's no different to the prejudice shown by any national to those of a differing nation (it's not exclusive to predominently white nations)....and last time I checked, racism was an acceptable word for describing that.

Local authorities already do sell off buildings, for a variety of reasons, including cost of maintenance otherwise. If we consider the opening line about the author of the above report, ''Alex Morton was Secretary to the Conservative Party?s...'' The recent conservative Party have always favoured and promoted the sell off of LA property, would privatise social housing if they could etc etc (right to buy was a form of privatisation via the back door) and it was the same conservative party that forbid allowing LAs to use the money from the sale via right to buy to build more housing in the 80s (hence very little social housing stock was replaced). SJ is right...the money would not be spent on new housing. How about instead, the right to buy scheme is abolished and the government stop taking a percentage of rents from LAs. Those two moves alone would do more to protect the social housing that remains and give LAs more ability to maintain it properly, whilst new house building can (as it already is) remain a seperate issue with seperate structure and financing streams. Unfotunately, until something meaningful is done to slow the inflation of house prices (so that the growing gap between that and salaries can stabilise), we'll never build enough affordable housing quickly enough to cater for the growing number of people and families who can not afford to pay rent without some form of help from benefit.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Everywhere I went this weekend was loud - even > staying at home, noise from outside was way louder > than normal. Down to the weather tho... noise just > travels much farther and crisper in these > conditions The most sensible post so far regarding this weekend. I have seen it from both sides.....justified complaints regarding noise and also similarly protracted camplaints by those who think any noise whatsoever is unacceptable (unreasonable). This is also what licensing committees have to decipher. In my experience, licenising committees at Southwark are most of the time fair and reasonable in their assessments. As I said earlier on this thread, I can not see the committee extending hours within a residential area, but their view would be different regarding a retail area. Similarly TENs that are issued for one off events are granted with the same logic (a TEN can only be opposed by the Police and Environmental Office btw). The flip side of the coin is that a business may be depending on an aspect of licenisng to stay in business. And it's all of those factors together, from all sides that a committee will weigh up and balance. Hence licensing never being able to make all of the people happy all of the time.

Isopropyl Alcohol is what you should clean the disk with. Failing that, rip the data to your PC and burn onto a fresh disk.

It's unrealistic to expect a pub to be completely noise free, which is why licensing is always a compromise.

Tbf ?50million is a drop in the ocean compared to most space programmes. It might also be that some of the money is coming from private or foreign investment too. We don't know. India, as pointed out above, has huge problems with real poverty. But at the same time it is a country that is developing successfully. Compare that to China, another country with huge levels of real poverty. Often, aid is required because of the lack of willingness for a government to engage in a social welfare programme, and some governments even take advantage of the fact that aid exists, to ignore their responsibilities (some preferring the maintenance of eternal war to the improvement of their economy and conditions for their people).

No not trying to compare Chippy...that wasn't my point. My point was what you alude to, that some noises are acceptable as everyday noises....and furthermore, some noises are acceptable during the day but not during the night. The party in the park may well have been excessively loud, but as a daytime one off, did that therefore make it an unnacceptable disturbance? My view is no....but if it happened every Sunday, then I probably would have a different view. It's summer, and we live in a big city.....there has to be some give and take within reason I think.

And yet Southwark deem reasonable hours for DIY and building work to be 8.30am to 7.30pm. There has to be a reasonable view taken on noise imo. My neighbours below had a baby and it would cry at various times of day/ night (as babies do) and wake me at night. But I never deemed that a reason for complaint when some people would. I live in a flat with neighbours above, below and around me. I have to accept that with that comes some noise, be it footsteps, washing machines etc. But if I am subjected to eccessive noise at 2am then I will have a word. Also if music is played so loud at any time of the day that my windows rattle (has happened in the past lol) then I'll definitely have a word. Fortunately I have a good relationship with all my neighbours and having a word is always easy. Genuine noise issues though, always start as mild disturbance and end up driving the affected mad to the point that any noise whatsoever becomes too much to bear.

And the wheelchairs are more like tanks than chairs......broken bones are a norm I'm told too.

It's a funny thing noise pollution. People clearly have different levels of tolerence for different kinds of noise. I think it was loud, but I wasn't unduly disturbed by it. I just thought it's obviously a one off event on a sunny afternoon and loud.

lol....I thought I'd quite enjoyed it and then I read this thread and realised you are all right and I am a poor deluded fool..........Eric Idle was great though, wasn't he????

Well to be fair to Pipsky I could clearly hear the music and MC from inside our Tenants Hall so yes, I have to agree it was probably louder than it needed to be to cater for the event. We have fun days etc from time to time around our Tenants Hall and if we had our sound system and DJs at that noise level we would certainly be subjected to lot's of complaints. Just because it's a one off event doesn't mean there should be a lack of consideration for the impact on local residents.

Yep, you are right....everyone hates Sepp Blatter. I tend to think he's the FIFA version of Edgar J Hoover. And he won't step down until he dies either......

I don't think anyone is asking for London to dole out money. And a government is elected to govern for the UK, not just London (which it seems to forget from time to time). Central government funding exists for ALL areas of the country, not just London. Given the cuts LAs have had to endure recently, I can't see where investment can be found for new enterprise there. The banks were bailed out with public money yet still aren't lending to small or start up businesses either. Manchester has seen some regeneration that is true, but it's been mainly helped by european funding. The relocation of media services to there and the expansion of the existing Granada studios have been a significant impetus, along with the branding of Manchester United, as too is the location of Manchester, well linked by motorway and canal to the sea ports of Liverpool and by motorway and rail to London. Most LAs seek European funding for various regeneration projects. And in the past there have been regional (or as they were formerly known) metropolitain government. But Thatcher abolished them all. Even if they were to be reinstated, they would have to be funded just as LAs are funded from central government from all the taxes collected. The treasury doesn't just collect money from London taxpayers after all.

lol....I've learned not take your provocations too personally H. For all of our battles (and our occasional moments of 'losing it' on both sides) I absolutely respect your passion for debate. I think we are more on the same page than you might think. I agree that poverty, accomodation etc and solving those inequalities need centralised sconomic planning at the heart. It's in a way what the 60's reformists tried to do with the challenges they faced with sub-standard housing and the creation of the NHS for example. Their motive was to provide a better quality of life for all, so the motive was good in essence. But the aspects of the model that seemd to work at the time of say the creation of the welfare state don't work now. So I'm not adverse to things such as welfare reform per se. What irriatates me is that everything (and this is true of successive governments) is always reactionary, and at the point crisis, so the reform is always more extreme than is comfortable to bear. There is a total lack of planning or taking the long view. I entirely agree that it would take generations, maybe even 50 years, as you say to do anything meaningful. But of course by then...who knows what new challenges will have emerged. I totally accept your points on rent capping and the impact on landlords. And to be fair to me I have always argued for measures that slow the rate of growth in house prices (primarily to allow salaries to catch up) expecting that to be a 30 year process too, rather than putting landlords in financial difficulty. There would still be growth but just not on the level there has been since the 80s. Having said that....nothing the current coalition is trying is steming the rise of house values or rents. It's a curiousity to me that in spite of three recessions and the severity of the current one (in three decades) that housing inflation has remained unscathed. And maybe that apparent invincibility keeps confidence high in bricks and mortar, and confidence is the key to any market staying boyant. I also tend to think that any government is reluctant to reign it in because we are also facing a pensions crisis in the future and governments are quite happy to have people invested in property, because they can always tap into that equity, if the pension falls short. Nothing's clear cut...... I agree with your point on quantative easing and I also agree with your point about median level being a satisfying lifestyle. I've always considered excessively taxing the rich to be a red herring.....as though that somehow would be a solution to anything. I'm more interested in tax avoidance by the rich than how much they are actually taxed. And I wholeheartedly agree on the equal opportunity mantra. Not everyone will make use of opportunity when they could do so and that is their choice, but let's at least make sure we can give everyone the choice and I think you'd agree there is still much work to be done in that respect. JSA is only given on the condition the claimant makes an effort to find work. I'm a big believer in voluntary work for the unemployed, for lot's of reasons. And many unemployed people who want to work voluntarily are able to find something they enjoy doing too. My brother, after giving up six years of his working life to be a full time carer to my mother then had a breakdown after her death. So at that point in time he needed the support of the mental health services and benefits etc (and me too) to keep him going. It takes time (sometimes years) for a person to recover from a breakdown, but he has had a lot of support from the agenices that were set up to support people like him and now he does voluntary work for the housing office as a scrutiny officer, and they send him all over to conferences and on courses. He still has his bad days and isn't well enough for full time work yet but he is at least keeping his hand in, doing something useful, which may well lead to a paid job with an understanding employer. I would defy anyone to begrudge their tax being spent on him whilst he gets well. So voluntary work can be very good for some on health related benefits. I can absolutely understand why an employer wouldn't be interested in employing a person who can not guarantee from day to day if they'll be well enough to work. Voluntary work is flexible though, so I'd favour in some ways a more complex system of benefits, but one that offers additional payments above the base benefit for those that really are trying. And again, successive governments know what the issues really are, but have failed as yet to come up with any kind of strategy that works for the long term unemployed. I personally think it is relatively easy to work out who is trying and who isn't, just as it is relatively easy to make decisions regarding illness (and I have to say the recent re-assessment process has been shockingly bad) and I know you would agree with me when I say that those that do have families should be supported a little by those families. Not everyone is lucky enough to be in that position but I do feel more could be done to make us as a culture more supportive towards our own kith and kin. I guess the underlying conflict for me is that governments try to be efficient by creating one size fits all solutions, whereas I would argue that a more individual approach is the right way to help the unemployed....but of course...that costs money.

That's a bit unfair H......and I haven't quite said that. All I have said is that the present situation can not continue, which is rents increasingly outstripping salaries, too small of a percentage of the population in work to support the needs of the rest, and some people suffering severe hardship through no fault of their own. I totally agree that the solutions are debateable, even if any exist.....and I'm happy always to engage in debate around those. The problems however are easy to identfy and they are real. I would counter that your solution is to do nothing and bash the poor even harder. Only a complete fool would fail to acknowledge the need for affordable housing for those who need it and I think even you would rather see more affordable housing, instead of HB being paid to private landlords to house people in the expensive private rented sector. If nothing is done, the consequences will be increased homelessness, overcrowding and poverty, and an increased burden on the state. I don't know where your comment jobs out of thin air comes from. I have long argued for investment in business and start up help, particularly to regenerate other areas of the country. I understand completely the difficulties involved but we have failed miserably to generate business and industry in the UK (outside of London) in recent decades. ''My suspiscion is that DJKQ as at heart a profound believer in centralised soviet-style politics and social management - a system that only ever impresses in philosophical debates, and never fails to disappoint in practice.'' That's just ridiculous and designed to provoke. Tell me, if Singapore gets it so right, what is the minimum wage in Singapore and what is the level of poverty and hardship? Do you even know? Here's a detailed study for your amusement.... (it states that almost 30% of the population don't have enough income for daily essentials).... http://13pangsh.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/singapore-poverty-inquiry.pdf Perhaps you've never had a ill a parent H who needs full time care......which is what my brother became for my mother....and she was too wracked with pain for half her life to ever have had any prospect of supporting herself financially or otherwise. These are the kinds of people that find themselves at the bottom, through no fault of their own, and as a civilised society we need to be better balanced than we are to make sure that those who need it, are taken care of, and that we have enough people in employment to pay the required taxes to support it. And just because person A or B has succeeded where others fail doesn't mean everyone can. Just be thankful you are able to work, have a quality of life that is decent enough. Not everyone is so fortunate, particularly in Singapore. So I will continue to speak out for the poor, not because I'm a self styled soviet communist, but because I have an ounce of humanity that makes me care enough to do so. Yes the issues are complex, and possible solutions even more so, because everything, including regulation has an impact on someone, somewhere. At the end of the day I argue for a fair society (fairness in both opportunity and reward), which is something we don't have at the moment (if ever we did). And that has nothing to do with left or right politics.....just common sense.