DJKillaQueen

Yeah that Sepp Blatter moment was the highlight for me too....just genius. The reason why he was booed was for the following comment he made in 2004. "Let the women play in more feminine clothes like they do in volleyball. ... They could, for example, have tighter shorts." This guy is a symbol of the sexism that stopped the women's game progressing until recently and why he was given the honour of being part of the medal ceremony is beyond comprehension. Otherwise it was a great night......the atmosphere was awesome and for me it was amazing to finally see a women's final played out to a sell out crowd at Wembley.

Great post Burbage. I agree with your analysis entirely.

A conciliatory meeting is designed to bring the applicant and those opposed together, to inform of and discuss the application. Sometimes for example, the applicant can mitigate any fears and similarly sometimes those opposing can make the applicant aware of impacts they hadn't considered. It's not however an attempt to shorten the application hearing. The committee at the hearing will not be at the conciliatory meeting, so all objections will still be heard in full at the hearing.

I think you won't find many in social housing with incomes of ?60k (or anywhere near it) RC and therefore as a policy it would barely make an impact on the housing crisis. Similarly any household with an income of ?60k is more likely to exercise their right to buy. That's the problem with citing extremes as reason for change - a bit like, because a small number of large families cost the tax payer a ridiculous amount in benefits, that means all recipients of benefits are costing the tax payer too much. It only serves to spread ignorance of the facts whilst sounding good to those demanding action from the government to curb the 'scroungers'. Meanwhile, many decent people are suffering real hardship with no hope of escape from their circumstances whilst things carry on as they are. I think you make some good points LondonMix and broadly agree with you. I especially agree on the issue of lack of economic regeneration outside of London and in the north. There has been a constant migration south since the 80's. Liverpool, my home town, has lost a third of it's population in this time and as a result homes have been demolished because there aren't the people to live in them. I think as a nation, sucessive governments have been terribly bad at balancing the economy accross the nation as a whole. In fact they've made little effort to do so, hanging on the mythical mantra that the free market will take care of everything. The free market is exactly why we are in the mess we are, and I don't expect anything to change any time soon.

Southwark have reported that the government has given them funding that is ?2million short of what would be needed to maintain CT benefit at the current rates. Areas like Westminster have low CT bills because they have fewer residents in need of additional services. The wealthy can always pay for what they need when they need it. In poorer areas, the demands on things like social services are much greater, and LAs have to find the money for these services. So the irony is that the poorest will now have to pay anything up to 30% of their CT bills, bills which will on average be higher if they live in a borough with high numbers of people dependent on benefits, or with high levels of pensioners. I expect the result will be increased levels of the poorest facing court action because they can't pay their CT. I would challenge Cameron et al to try living on JSA for a month. They have no clue whatsoever of how difficult life is for people trying to get by on benefits. And we have to remember, almost 700,000 households in FULL TIME work are dependent on some form of benefit too.....because they don't earn enough to make ends meet. The government talks about getting people into work etc but it's all hot air. Without some meaningful efforts to create jobs, the rhetoric is just that. And everything this government has done so far has cost jobs, not created them. Their economic policies are not working but yet they go on, blinkered by their own privilege and not only completely ignorant to the consequences of their policies, but worse still, not really caring either.

Some of them look as though they've jumped from an aircraft!

But what is it that HB reform is supposed to do? Stop landlords charging so much for rent? Because that is not happening. All the HB reform has done is reduce the amount of private sector stock available to those on low incomes. HB reform is not a solution to the growing shortage of unaffordable housing. Finding a way to stop the ever widening gap between rents and salaries is, but no government has the balls to do what that requires. It's a bit like the lie that welfare reform is going to save the country money. So far it hasn't. The bill has gone up, helped partly by the numerous successful appeals against assessment decisions. The assessment system is a farce, with obviously ill people being found fit for work when clearly they are not. And tribunals are overturning assesment decisions by the bucket loads, only for those successful in getting through that process finding themselves being called up for assessment again soon after. It's quite simply harassment of the ill and vulnerable. The council tax reforms are even more worrying as local authorities will become responsible for giving rebates to those on low incomes and as you might have guessed, the government haven't given enough funding to local authorities to maintain the pevious levels of CT benefit. So gone is the one rate for all and in comes variable rates according to your local authority. LAs are not alllowed to change the level of benefit to those over pensionable age which means that those of working age will have to make up the shortfall. In Southwark that means a person of working age currently in receipt of the maximum council tax benefit will have to pay three times as much as they currently do (from approx ?1 per week to ?3). But some boroughs have a population where the elderly make up 30-40% of their demographic, meaning the burden on the rest will be as much as 30% of their CT bill. Very hard to pay if you are receiving the measly ?67 per week of JSA. Southwark are also considering abolishing the second adult rebate. This was primarily for family members and relatives living at the same address, but it also included live in carers. I'm opposed to removing any financial help for live in carers as they already sacrifice their lives to care for someone instead of leaving it to the more costly option of the NHS. Taking away any financial support just seems very mean to me. We are in this mess because we don't have a high enough percentage of people in work for the population we hold. Well the solution to that is to get industry, business and job creation going.......not to squeeze those who can least afford to be squeezed. The government are literally driving some people to despair, whilst not trying hard enough to find real solutions to the problems at hand.

As big as an alsation? Are you sure it wasn't an alsation? lol

lol...well to be fair the Olympics were in the beginning the preserve of the elite.....dominated by the upper classes........so there's the tenuous link to stately homes we are all looking for :D

It all goes down the drain eventually.....

To be fair to admin...how do they know what is libellous when looking at a spat between two or more people? They don't. Admin can only protect themselves from outside legal action by not facilitating action upon complaint that is libellous to the complainant.

To be fair guys the OP sounds like a local film maker just trying to get some ideas off the ground. And I may be interested in getting involved (will pm you Peckham Docs). So I would second the lady at Honda Ryders and have a few ideas too.

Well funding cuts have had a noticeable impact on some types of 'policing' to be fair. Things like the noise pollution team etc are a result of that and unfortunately we are now in a climate of too many incidents and too few resources to deal with all of them. And do any of us want to pay more tax to make up the shortfall? So in that climate, any department is going to focus on those incidents that might lead to a successful conclusion. Repeat offences are more likely to have more resources focussed on them (so it's important to still report everything) but we can't expect the council or police etc to solve everything.

The usual deal with licensing is that any premise with late licensing is required to have door staff after 11 pm. Location has nothing to do with it. It's a standard requirement with most late licenses.

I'm going to that game too MrBen. Expect it to be a high qaulity game. Japan beat the USA in the final of the World Cup (on penalties).....and play like Barcelona. The USA will want to win this one more than usual. Glad to hear it sold out too.

We've had graffiti problems from time to time and the reason why Southwark Council have such a robust policy (and they really do) is because if graffiti isn't cleared up, it encourages others to do it. Mnay youngsters who write graffiti don't see it as anything major (although technically it is criminal damage) and nor are they often the career criminals some would like to think they are. In my neighbourhood we remove graffiti as soon as it appears, either ourselves or have the council do it. Removing graffiti from a car though is a different challenge. It is fair to say that there is an issue with the way that young repeat offenders are treated especially in respect to more serious crimes like burglary and robbery, where custodial sentences are a lat resort after a long line of repeat offending.

LOL I want wrestling masks for my cats........tooooo funny.......... :D

LOL what? I hope the socks are clean!

Trampolining foxes? Now there's something you don't see every day :)

We know what you were looking at then, while the rest of us were listening to the commentary ;)

lol yeah I think the posies look a bit cheap too......

Interesting debate. I always see stately homes as being akin to museums, and as such they have their place in the cultural heritage of the nation. Yes they are symbols of past individual wealth (with both negative and positive associations) but by the time they are handed over to the National Trust, that wealth is gone. It's also important to point out that the National trust perserves for the nation, not any individual. Equally however, sport and especially sport like the Olympics (where many sports are represented, and often by athletes who have trained purely for the honour of participation, not money) also have their place and value. I saw a poster on facebook today for example with Jessica Ennis and a caption asking the media to focus on role models like her for our youth, rather than reality show wannabees and Katie Price. So my view I guess, is that we can and should have both, with one being no more important than the other. And with that...the men's 100m final is about to start.....a visit to Hampton Court can wait :D

I agree Otta. Our Athletes are doing brilliantly. Am happy for Murray too. Don't think Federer was at his best but that takes nothing away from Murray. The Olympics have been great so far.

Wow, Murray won a major final! Thought he might do it this time though....yay!

Because UK suggests a 'united' kingdom, which we certainly no longer are. GB however lauds how 'great' we all are......and I can live with that :)