DJKillaQueen

I think that's also the confidence of youth too.....whilst also being ignorant to the impact of certain things on others. When you were caught for an offence KK.....were you given any other kind of intervention or mentoring? Was there any effort to make you think about what you had done and why?

I think you are being a bit unfair to H Parkdrive and seem to have been quick to take exception to his points whilst only displaying anger in your own. Very few first time offences, unless they are of a serious violent nature result in a custodial sentence. We don't have the prison or remand facilities we would need for jailing every offender either. With burglary, judges prefer to give other types of punishment and means for intervention for first time offences. My experience has mainly been with youths who get into trouble and I know from that experience that the majority of young people, if caught early on and given the right type of intervention and mentoring do not reoffend. Many of them also don't know why they took part in burglary either. Often they are tagging along with someone else and the burglay was opportunistic, as opposed to criminal masterminds carrying out a premeditated crime wave. I also know that victims find that lack of motive infuriating, but that's just how many of these young people are. They truly don't think about what they are doing at the time and mentoring gets them to think. There are though a small percentage for whom no amount of mentoring will have an imapct and this is where I pesonally feel that the juducial system fails to protect the public. I know of one young man who committed over 30 offences before any judge gave him a custodial sentence (and for two years in his case). H is absolutely right. The law has to operate with a level playing field and keep a sense of perspective when it comes to punishment and sentencing. Victims often want something harsher, and understandably so, but good perspective and extremes of emotion don't often go hand in hand. There are too resources and organisations for helping victims of crime including a criminal injuries compensation scheme. *cross posted with LD but broadly saying the same thing :)

Three hours a day would be about right. What the ski instructor will do is build up the lessons....so day one will be basic ski turns, controlling speed, and stopping (on a nursery slope in the valley of the resort). He or she will get an idea from that at how quickly you will progress and by the end of the week they'll be taking you down a piste at a level that's right for you. I would recommend however doing a half day beginners course at snow-zone in Milton Keynes before going, just to give you a taste of what to expect (and to give you a head start). If you are going to a resort then the ski school there will have group lessons which will cost far less and probably be more fun. Plus you'll get to know others there for the first time like yourself which can be useful if you want other beginners to go out and ski with during the rest of the time. And some of those other beginners will be there with more experienced skiers...essential company to have if you do want to try anything but green or blue runs (which admittedly European resorts don't have in abundance). And don't worry about getting stuck with a group of people who don't advance at your pace because they will move you to a more advanced group if that happens. All of the european resorts have excellent ski schools. Have fun and enjoy it!

Also it might be worth bringing your complaints to the attention of Gerri Scott, Buddug. She is the director of housing services and cabinet member for housing. She is fully aware of the issues with current contracts management and repairs and determined to do something to improve the service. She's a very intelligent lady too.

There is no doubt that Southwark Repairs and Contracts services are a mess. And there is no doubt that some of the people running those services should have been fired a long time ago. But to lay the blame for that at James feet is unfair. Local councillors are not full time employees of the state. Many of them have full time jobs elsewhere and fit their councillor duties around that. And councillors that work hard for their local residents find pretty much every spare hour of the day they have, taken up with those duties. The people who are responsible for overseeing repairs and managing contracters etc are full time employees...not politicians....and when they are incompetant (just as in any public service sector) are very difficult to get rid of and to hold to account. This is what is at the core of the poorer services of Southwark. Councillors come and go, and the party political control changes but those working for the council don't (a bit like the relationship between the civil service and government). James will sit in on the meetings that decide policy and general budgets for the council but he won't have any power to fire the person who took out x contract or y contract when things go wrong. Nor will he have the power to hire x person or y person. And even where he agrees that say for example, a freehold would be better off sold outside of the current rules...he would have to go through a whole process of proposition and voting and convince a majority of concillors accross the borough to support his proposal before anything changes. Jumping up and down demanding change and blaming him when none comes isn't going to make any difference to the system. Sometimes there just isn't anything he can do unfortunately. On local issues he is likely to have some influence which is why it is fair to press for a view on the CPZ consultation for example, but even there, the tone expressed by some hasn't been very pleasant to read. I could very well understand if he feels upset by it. I've had disagreements with him, it's the nature of the beast when you put yourself out there, but he clearly is someone who works hard and does what he can and it is perfectly possible to express a view of disagreement without resorting to insult. I don't think a public forum is ever the place to air personal grievances anyway (because who can know what the truth is apart from those directly involved) and he won't be the first to be driven off by the vitriol of some who post and probably not the last either. Back onto the topic of council contractors though. It might be of interest to you Buddug to know that this has been something that various organisations like 'Southwark Group of Tenants Organisation (SGTO)' have been lobbying and campaigning on for several years now (contracts management has been notoriously bad for a long time). The issue seems to be the lack of flexibility for the council within existing contracts and the poor service by some contracters especially when it comes to putting things right. I could list which contractors provide a good service and which ones the council have issues with. Unfortunately when the contracts were taken out the council didn't employ a skilled contracts consultant (something it would be well worth spending the money on for future contracts and renewals) so the contracts make it very difficult for the council to hold contractors to account or to get rid of them. In other words...the contractors got contracts that suited them more than giving the council the balance of power. The tendering process is always a balance of financial considerations. Some council contractors then sub-contract various aspects of work and so on. One of my recomendations at various meetings was to have resident inpectors to oversee quality control (Southwark got rid of a third of their own quality control inpectors in recent cuts) and indeed it is something we put into practise on my estate when major works were carried out over an 18 month period. The frustrating thing was that some of the snags raised whilst the work was ongoing were never addressed because that aspect was under 'guarantee' for a year. So on the one hand a plasterer was not paid by the contractor because his work was pointed out as substandard, but the snags that were left to be dealt with under the guarantee period were never addressed. Basically guarantees to doors and windows etc are worth nothing with the council often having to pay to replace or repair out of their own coffers rather than laying the expense at the feet of the manufacturer or contractor. Your comments about external peeling paint are a classic example of what happens when contractors sub-contract and squeeze the price so much that the sub contractor cuts corners. So an external hallway that should take two days with primers, under and then top coats gets done in one day with often the undercoat being forfeited (because you can't see that right?). There is also an 'attitude' amongst some tradesmen that when it's council it doesn't matter, because it's not the resident or tenant paying them but the council paying their employer...and they know that the chances of anyone with-holding their wages because they didn't do the job properly are pretty much zero. And no-one is going to complain about them pesonally either...instead it's Southwark who takes the criticism. It is no wonder that with a system like that, tenants and leaseholders are getting such poor value and yes I agree that leaseholders particularly get shafted. What other service would you be expected to pay thousands of pounds for and not have any say in who carries out the work? But definitely, the money saved by not paying for poor work could easily pay for inspectors to enforce a level of quality control. Failing that, contractors need to be held to account directly.

There's an MS in brixton which is only a five min drive away! I don't have any feelings either way on adding a waitrose to the area but when people suggest it should be at the expense of iceland or the co-op then I just think snobbery is at play.

I don't think hal is stirring. To be fair he is only looking at the evidence in the same cold way that an appeal lawyer would examine it. And the law is a game in that respect. The guilty can remain innocent as long as guilt is 'not proven'. Hals point regarding mitocondrial DNA with regards to Norris is a valid one. I've read enough about genetics over the years to be a suprised that mitoDNA would be considered conclusive enough. I would be very interested to read the court transcripts in relation to this. Having said that though I am of the opinion they are guilty and only poor police and forensic investigation at the time has allowed them to avoid justice until now.

And let's not forget that it was the parents of Stephen Lawrence who made sure that this case was never closed. Sometimes it takes dogged proaction to make things happen in the face of impossible odds. I also think it perfectly reasonable to re-examine evidence as new techniques for doing so become available. What matters is that those who are guilty are brought to justice irregardless of how long it may take to do so. Had Stephen Leawrence been murdered today (as indeed many are) the case would have been dealt with differently and those responsible may well have been brought to account within months.

They've never shown any remorse and seem to be not very nice people either so I think they probably thought they got away with it and lived their lives as such. If they genuinely are innocent then that's what the appeals procedure is for. None of us were in the court sitting through all the testimony and evidence. We only get snippets through the media so can't make anything like a considered view on the jury's verdict. People do provide false alibis and lie under oath. Some parents will lie to cover up for their children. Clearly this is what the jury felt was the case here.

Except that act didn't exist in 1993 and so can't be used for any crimes prior to 2000. Today leading Police experts and legal experts (including Michael Mansfield) have all pointed out that they can only be sentenced according to the law at the time. I think they perhaps know what they are talking about.

The news has been reporting all day that they will be sentenced as juveniles Santerne, because they can only be sentenced according to guidelines for their ages at the time of the murder.

I think Hal is right in that they will appeal if given the permission to do so, but new evidence casting doubt on their convictions would have to come to light first. The crucial difference between the Barry George case and this one though is that the prosecution could prove that the speck of blood found on clothing was fresh at the time of impact and that it could only have come from the crime scene itself...making contamination highly unlikely. I don't know the ins and outs of how a forensic scientist goes about proving that but that is not something that could have been said beyond doubt about the speck of gunpowder found on Barry Gearge's clothing for example. The other thing is that they will be sentenced according to the rules in the year of the murder. Both men were juveniles at the time and will be sentenced as juveniles. I fully expect controversy when the sentences are passed. They won't be getting any 25 year life sentences.

I think the owner is only interested in how much profit he can make unfortunately.

Iceland on LL expands into a superstore. ED launches the nations first missing feline helpline. And Iran.

Very sad news and I echo the sentiments and condolances of every poster above. Simon will always live on in the memories of oother forumites and his posted words will live forever xxx

I kind of have mixed views on this quids. You are right in that that is how many youngsters find themselves caught up in that world, but some kids do walk away from it too. Not every kid on an estate is drawn into criminal gang culture and not every estate has issues with gangs either (I know you weren't saying that). But even on the quiet estates things happen from time to time and it suprises/ shocks the vast majority of decent people living there. I witnessed the tail end of what looked like a roberry by three youths onto another a month or so ago, but when I got to the victim, he'd been stabbed and cut more times than I could count (turned out to be 27 times).......and at the time I stayed calm and did what I needed to keep him alive (and he did survive) but for days after I was in shock. These were KIDS trying to murder another kid (with a ferocity that is shocking).....and it seems, simply because he'd wandered onto 'territory' he shouldn't have. WTF is that all about...what is going on with these kids that makes them so ready to attack, kill and maim, and why do we keep making excuses for them or a society that doesn't care enough to do something meaningful? Should someone accused of assault even be on bail? Some of these youngsters are clearly dangerous. We should be able to protect society and other youngsters from them more effectively than we doing at present.

And I'm going to recommend tmobile.....great packages and free blackberry. Virgin have good deals too but there's a tmobile shop in rye lane that you can pop into to get advice or help with anything. AND have had no problems getting a signal at home so you shouldn't have any problem either.

Bbc radio reported that it was a fight between two rival south london gangs out shoplifting in the same store. If that's true then bargain hunting had very little to do with it. Sadly just another example of the shocking mentality of some young people that turns them into murderers.

I just have a differing view that's all.

Finally someone makes a sensible point. Otta is right about women and tennis and the impact of the power game. Hingis was the last serve and volley grass champion but the power baseline game has chanbged that and the advent of the williams sisters has had a major impact on the marketability of female tennis. H we'll have to agree to disagree. (He fa had let womens league and club football evolve for a good ten years before they acted. If you read press articles from the time (and i have as part of research for a book)you'd see that one of the many points made at the time was that if the fa were so concerned about poor taste why wait until the sport was so estabished financially before acting. Clubs were unhappy too because of the revenue they were about to lose. My honest opinion though is that the growing popularity irked those with misogynistic views at the fA and they acted acoordingly for lot's of reasons. Alan, womens footy might not be for you and that's fine but I've seen many poor perfomances by englands male team recently and mostly good from englands women. The real barrier to evolving support for the womens game imo is that ladies club football is not played anywhere near to the clubs home ground. This is as true for arsenal ladies as it is for millwall lionesses where league matches are played out at little better than training grounds. You are never going to get grass roots support at that kind of venue. Contrast that with ladies cup finals which are played at proper grounds and get decent spectator turnouts. In other words put a footy match in a proper ground, price the tickets right and home supporters will come. There just has to be the will by the clubs to stage the games on par with the men's game and then give it time to build.

Been on the wiki again H? lol. The FA did ban womens football from League grounds which effectively banned the playing of league football and formation of any kind of league on a par with the mens game (it killed the womens game). There are many books on the subject which I have read because hey ho...I was involved in women's league footy at the highest level for quite a few years (so no need for wiki here). Yes gender politics of the time played a role but would it have really mettered if no-one had gone to see the games as opposed to a crowd of 53,000 attending a game? 1920: The first women?s international game. Preston-based Dick Kerr?s Ladies beat a French XI 2-0. Attendance: 25,000. 1920: The biggest crowd to date for a women?s game. On Boxing Day, 53,000 watch Dick Kerr's Ladies beat St Helen's Ladies 4-0. 1921: The FA bans women from playing on Football League grounds. ??the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged." There is more than one view on the subject, not just the wiki H view. And to say that sending men to war was a sign of no respect towards men on an equal par with the ills of a patriarchal and misogynist society is just nonsense. Even you should be able to see that......although it can be conceeded that life was pretty grim for working class men and the poor just as much as it was dismissive of the rights of women. Again to suggest womens sports are never going to get the same response as male sport because of some genetic imperitive is based on no evidence.....I think attitude and culture has everything to do with it. How many men even bothered to watch a women's world cup football game. Of all the men who I know did watch women's football for the first time this year (catching a world cup game), they were all very suprised at the level. It's really insulting to suggest that the best international football is somehow inferior to men's football and only shows the ignorance of those who say such a thing.

The rules of the FA/ club etc normally apply to a code of conduct within which issues of prejudice and racism are referenced, and the club and/or FA can rule on breaches of that code of conduct as they see fit and usually based on a probablity of fact. The law on the other hand has it's own rules and procedures in relation to racism as a crimal offence and it goes without saying, requires a higher burden of proof. So a player for example can find himself in trouble with both his club, the FA and the courts and be punished in different ways by all of them. I too have listened to various debates on the radio about Suarez and I think what has amazed me are the apologies some commentators have made for him because he is from 'another country and culture'. Negrito is clearly a word that points out the colour of someones skin, however it is translated, and I'm afraid the moment you use that in a context in which colour has no bearing, then you are being racist. Suarez deserves his punishment because there has to be a culture of zero tolerance on this. The same will go for JT if he is found to be guilty.

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh Joy > > A whole fish that's been swimming in it's own > shite in a Scottish Loch for under a tenner. > > > :-S That made my decision not to rush out and spend a whole lot easier......cheers Nette (tu)

Bah humbug! >:D

I don't find myself enraged at the article because it poses some very valid questions. It has always been hard for female sportswomen to get sponsorship and recognition on a par with male counterparts, even for those at the top of their game, and the question as to why women in general are not as interested in sport as men is equal to the question as to why are men mainly only interested in sport played by other men? Since when did sport require gender specific audiences? Women who watch sport have no issue with watching male sportsmen so why should any man who likes sport have any issue with watching women play football or cricket and so on? It's that assumption made by the article that irks me. In America for example, women's football is more popular than the mens game, and their league is a lucrative professional one as a result. In the UK the FA banned womens league football in 1921 because it was selling more tickets than the men's game (although the official reason was that it was considered unsuitable for women). It wasn't until 1972 that the ban was lifted and in 2008 the FA apologised for it. I do think there is an institutionalised misogyny within sport in the UK....and that is reflected by the media.....unless a woman breaks a world record or wins a medal of course (cue that famous quote by Charlotte Whitton that says a woman has to be twice as good to be half as recognised for it). The article talks about this years women's world cup. The BBC had to be badgered into showing the England quarter final on a terrestrial channel. They didn't show any other games. That I think is just shameful. We also have a rather fine ladies cricket team too. They are the current world cup holders. But who knows that? The media and TV could do a lot to raise the profile of women's sports....it just chooses not to.