DJKillaQueen

Any kind of pizza karter?

*clinging to huge's floating keyboard and mouse as I can't swim* ::o

How many buses and trains have accidents compared to cars? There's your answer (oh and that coaches are required to have seatbelts because they travel on motorways).

Hmm.....all the psychophantic threads/ posters get my vote.....but can't be assed making a list!

Mines a Bloody Mary... can't beat that!

*rescues Rosie from lake*

Very sorry to hear that you and your mum are going through this MP. Cancer is such a common experience (I too have lost people I cared about and currently have one old friend dying) but is never easy to get through. Her best option of course is to take any treatment that is likely to give her the best chance of recovery. As you say, she probably knows more than most about available treatments but seems to dismissing the one treatment that has been proven to work for many patients in preference for one that has no equivalent proof of success. Hard facts about survival rates may be the only way to go but sounds as though her mind is set. Wishing you and her all the best though x

The council can apply to tfl for money for road improvements rolling over two year periods. The current round is seeking money for improvements to the junctions around Peckham Rye Park including the two junctions where East Dulwich Road crosses Peckham Rye. Those junctions have had many accidents and one fatality. Lordship Lane also has had fatal accidents. Plans are drawn up by the local authority and presented to tfl for approval. The plans are currently out for consultation with anyone who wants to comment. So no, tfl do not have the say on everything, they rely on the local planning office to come up with schemes that make sense and are supported by the data.

There have never been crashes every week at this junction. There are far more recorded accidents at many other junctions in the area and the council can only go by that data. You may think this junction statistically is a bad one...but the data just doesn't support that.

Who cares where he is....probably waiting until he can find some manners before he returns. *if that don't drag the toad out from under his chosen rock of hiding, nothing will*

Statically it is far from being anything like a most problematic juction in the area. Yes there is reduced visability...so use the skills required to negotiate that type of juction. Being a poor driver is not an excuse for not being able to negotiate tricky junctions I'm afraid.

They will default on Aug 2nd if they can't extend their borrowing so they'd better hurry up and sort it out. And yes, as others have said above, the consequences of a US default are something to worry about.

Having just watched five episodes of Channel 4's 'Catastrophe', none of it really matters, as sooner or later some massive natural disaster will render us all extinct.

I think we can safely say the guy is insane. But insane people can appear normal until they snap. I don't think we can ever plan for the individual that goes off the rails like he did. He was off the radar, unknown to security services....and sadly, for all the plots and acts of violence that are thwarted, there are always going to be those that aren't.

Decriminalisation won't remove the criminal element. Just look at the criminal gangs making fake booze and cigarettes or importing duty free. The border agenices and Police are just as rubbish at controlling that. The gangs selling illegal drugs will still sell them, just undercutting the tax and perhaps watering the substances down further. And as is the case is now, the poorest will buy from the criminals. Street prtices for drugs like cocaine and ecstacy have fallen dramatically over the last two decades. The governments principle is to tax heavily anything that may be detrimental to health (by way of discouraging use). I personally can not see any form of decriminalistion that will improve anything much (apart from making purer/ safer versions legally available for those that can afford them) - although I think LadyD's point about redirecting tax into resources to help those that get into trouble is a good one (but can't see any government doing that - how much of the tax on cigarettes goes towards helping people to quit for example?).

Hmmm.... not sure they were measuring the ability to work under the influence of heroin Heinz lol....;-) Mind you...I would think nicotine is probably the most addictive thing out there.

But as a percentage of all people that drink alcohol there are less alcoholics. Look at the percentage of heroin users that are addicts and is going to be higher, mainly because of the psysiological addictive nature of the drug....all the data, stats and medical evidence support that (although I acknowledge that some heroin use is going to be hidden because of the illegal aspect). And it's an important distinction to make when considering issues of legalisation or control. How do you define an alcoholic? Having a glass of wine at lunch is not alcoholism. Nor is having a glass of wine at the end of the day with your dinner. But if you can't have a meal without drinking alcohol then that is a form of addiction yes.....but is it harmful? One glass of wine a day is not going to do much damage to most people's bodies or state of mind. My father was an alocohic. I know the differnce between that and someone having a glass of wine at lunch. Amy Winehouse wasn't always an addict. And maybe if she'd kept different company she'd never have taken heroin.

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is that an actual fact? Of course it's a fact....think of all the people you've ever known that drink alcohol, and how many of them can't get through a day without being drunk or drinking a substantial amount of alcohol?

That said, I am pretty sure there are rules about serving intoxicated people, and whoever served that man was very much in the wrong. It is actually an offence to serve someone that is intoxicated, for which you can be fined. Every licence holder knows that - and that goes for bars and retailers alike.

that there are also functional heroin addicts and recreational users that are perfectly capable of keeping it under control. Yes they exist but most users of heroin are completely messed up by it. I'd even argue that most of the people I have known that regularly use any kinds of drugs recreationally are messed up too. Now it might be that heroin is an 'addicts' choice of drug...i.e. that most people just looking for a buzz would choose something else before heroin but I think to try and water down the impact and nature of heroin as something that can be kept under control is not a view that most doctors and drugs workers would take (not that I am saying that you are watering down it's impact). Heroine, on the other hand, is the only drug that mice in labs will work for and choose over food. I think that demonstrates perfectly the addictive nature of the drug. It has the power to make addicts of people rather than being used by those who are addictive. Heroin causes physiological addiction. Some will be strong enough to resist that, but most users aren't. A few pints of beer will never turn you into an alcoholic in themselves. My father was an alcoholic and I thnk most people have experience of that more than they might know someone afflicted by heroin. But the fact still remains that the vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so sensibly.

I agree will all of that......but see what you did there? Using the word 'Waitrose' in the drawing room - shameful behaviour ;-)

Millions more people are using alcohol, so as a percentage, those that fall foul of it are significantly less than those who use heroin and get into trouble. Heroin is a far more dangerous substance, whichever way you look at it. There is no scope for moderation with heroin in the way there is with alcohol. Where I do agree with MP is that the current approach isn't working. Policing is having so little impact that's it's barely noticeable. But I'm not convinced that legalisation via prescription would change anything. There are already healthy black markets in counterfeit (and otherwise) prescription drugs. I don't think legalisation will eradicate an illegal trade in drugs at all. There are problems with prescribing anything as an attempt to control something that addicts find very hard to resist. We see that with methodone (which I think is widely accepted at being a more problematic substance than Herion). What happens when the doctor isn't prescribing enough doses....? Or the addict wants a hit at 3 am in the morning. Nor would prescribing as much Herion as an addict wants help anything either.....that would just be irresponsibly feeding a death wish. Having said all that....I am short of ideas on solutions that might work.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you're referring to the idea of dressing Jenny > Agutter up in a see-through skimpy dress then I'm > with you all the way on that one!! Funnily enough me too! :))

What I actually said is that we couldn't gain control over natural resources.....that's exactly the kind of 'reading what you want to read' mentality that get's people's backs up. Take the massacres in Sudan and Darfur for example. We did nothing there because China vetoed action (because China is heavily invested in Sudan mining it's resources and buying it's oil). Morally we would never get away with invading a country and then mining it's resources - that was my point. And my following point about safeguarding aid was proved valid yesterday when Somalia's rebels warned the west not to deliver aid, denying that there was even a famine going on. Happy now? MP on the other hand, who has consitently demonstrated knowledge in debates on the middle east and africa (I have a lot of respect for his knowledge and views), feels no need to wind anyone up...just simply says he found a statement contradictory, and says why, without having to be condascending. People do stop posting because of the rudeness of some on this forum (it's not unlike any forum in that respect though). You know that as well as I do and you know what...I don't blame them either.

That's an interesting point regarding China MP and one that had never occured to me before. India and China have similar problems in that the gap in inequality is very large. That is kind of a factor in the early stages of all economic/ industrial revolutions but I think it leaves us with a sour taste to see it. Education is definitely a factor in dropping birthrates. In countries where women feed into higher education and work the birthrates drop significantly (for obvious reasons). But India China and parts of Africa are still a long way from matching the rest of the world on that. And then of course you have those cultures where women are cut of from education and careers on religous or other cultural grounds. Infant mortality is an issue still but so too is the issue of having lots of children because they can work. Although India has laws regarding the use of child labour, they are not efffectively enforced, so the irony is, that having more children is seen as a solution to poverty as well. Of course we all know that it's not but if children can work (and effectively pay for their keep) then there's no disincentive to have less children.