DJKillaQueen

No there are no spoilers on the other thread...we have been careful to discuss jumpers only........;-)

It's worth going to your next SNT ward panel meeting on this. Young people stealing from young people is it's own problem (and prevalent all over London irregardless of area). There have been problems with this type of crime in Peckham Rye Park. The SNT team have been focussing on this for several months now with good levels of success. The SNT team for Dulwich might need to do the same. The other thing of course (and this in no way excuses the muggers) is to not buy expensive phones for your children...or if you do, also buy them a cheap one for taking to school. After all, there is no reason for taking a phone to school other than to make or recieve a call if necessary...and any old mobile phone will do that.

I only got 4 right which can only mean that Sheen is more insane than I thought and Gaddafi vice versa!

Most premises where fights involving knives have broken out call the Police in every case and then do what then can to stop anyone from getting hurt. If shots were fired inside DH and DH did not call Police immediately etc, then yes, there are questions they need to answer. But without thorough searches on the door, including the use of metal detectors (and left's face it - how many bars, clubs do that) then it is ridiculous to suggest that DH are responsible for letting someone smuggle a gun or knife even onto the premises. This is the first time anything as serious as this has happened at DH. Yes there have been issues before with breach of licence on things like shutters, opening hours etc and they alone are enough to see a licence revoked if not addressed, but the club can not be blamed for the behaviour of a few guests at a one off event. What matters in any review is the action taken by staff as the course of events unfolded (events that could happen at ANY bar/ club/ party anywhere, but thankfully don't too often). Some training may be required or advice on the use of door staff etc.....but to take away the licence just wouldn't make sense. On the supply of alcohol to minors. The law is very clear. A member of staff needs only to sell alcohol to an adult who then gives it to a minor to be in trouble and ANY member of staff on the premises is legally required to confiscate alcohol from any minor they see in posession of it, or ask any minor they believe to be intoxicated to leave the premises. Also minors need to be accompanied by a responsible adult (a standard condition of all alcohol premises licensing) if a bar selling alcohol is in use. This applies as equally to private members clubs as it does to a high street bar. Again only DH can answer as to whether that was an issue on that particular evening, or in general.

Yeah but the old jumper was back right at the end of ep 12 and I finally get the importance of it. Without it Lund loses her instinct. She changed for a reverse number and the case went nowhere...even dismissing the clue on Olav's possible involvement. Brings the star jumper back and then things start to move forward again. Lund can't solve a case without it! Makes perfect sense now.

There is another problem with car clubs in that they exclude people with points on their licenses for certain things. Some people have no other option but to own their own car I'm afraid.

But money can buy treatment...and addicts who can't afford to buy drugs often steal to buy those drugs, or turn to dealing themselves/ prostitiution etc. Have you seen the waiting lists for most mental health related treatments for those dependent on the NHS? And the rationing once a patient get's it? Charlie Sheen can get as much counselling and treatment as he needs at the drop of a hat. Of course the seriousness of the addition is no different for rich and poor alike and equally the person wanting to get better has to want to, but let's not pretend that money makes no difference to the level of help available and the chances for some people of getting better.

He is in a very privileged position but lacks any will to change. Have no time for anything he says or does. I'll save my sympathy for those who really do want to beat addiction and can't get any help because they rely on the state.

I knew it was over when I didn't get the last rolo and had to pay for my own shoes.

There has been no money from the coalition government as yet for decent homes although around 50 million is promised for 2015! 50 million won't even begin to bring all homes up to decent standard. It does seem insane to me that Southwark should be selling off 3/4 and 5 bedroom homes when these types of property are in dire supply around the borough and where many families are living in extremely overcrowded conditions. On my estate alone I know of five families living in one bedroomed flats with no hope of getting anything 3 bedrooms and above through the current bidding system. Simon's explantion that these flats are leasehold properties bought under the right to buy scheme is correct in most cases.

Tarot seems to have gone on vacation. Muckylady definitely needs to come back to forumland!

LOL....is that allowed? LOL

The issue of not operating within the terms of a licence is of course another issue and I have been very vocal on that before. When touble flared at the recent event it was well within it's licensing hours. If people are intent on fighting then there's no amount of licensing that can prevent that. Even when door staff are present, they are vastly outnumbered by guests. DH may well have believed in good faith that ending the party early was sufficient to stop further trouble. Without knowing what happened in the DH bar it's hard to know. For me there's a huge different between not closing shutters and the rare occasion of someone being fatally attacked after an event. If DH were a magnet for such behaviour, that would be different, but it's not. This was a private party, not a night club open every weekend and attracting the same regular crowd.

Exactly. People are what make tragic things happen not a venue. DH will do what they can to prevent anything like that happening again but they shouldn't be punished (and in turn the many more law abiding people that use the club) because of the actions of people at a one-off event.

The glaring point that is being missed is the inability of the private sector to create anything like the number of jobs needed to validate the verbal attacks on the unemployed. In many areas of the country, the unemployed outnumber vacancies 8-1. The private sector didn't deliver during Labour's boom years, and there's no way it will deliver during the coalition years. It's a misguided view of the economy. So I can only be left concluding that the likes of Cameron really do not care that millions of people will be pushed to breaking point on benefits and low incomes that don't even cover the most basic costs of living, with no hope of finding a job no matter how hard they are squeezed.

He has the right to say what he says but his views are woefully ill informed and he shows how little he actually knows about Islam and the history of the countries he pilories. He confuses dictatorship and tryanny with religion. Yes one might be used to justify the other (and often is) but his argument doesn't exactly want me to go rush and have any kind of meaningful debate with him. I think he's just an attention seeker tbh.

It does seem a bit odd that the bar didn't call police.

Problem is that pubs are often locked into expensive brewery deals - limiting what they can have on tap.

They are a committee run organisation. Anyone over 14 is allowed in a bar with a responsible adult but often bars don't enforce that in regards to private functions. Also what a lot of committee run organistations don't realise is that if anyone under sge is drinking in the bar or someone of age is buying aclohol for minors, that ALL committee members on the premises are legally liable and can be prosecuted. Similarly the premises should refuse entry to any minor they suspect has been drinking alcohol (elsewhere). I don't personally think that the fact that DHFC is a licensed premise in itself precipitated events that evening. All bars have anti-social behaviour from time to time and deal with it accordingly. They can't be held responsible for what happened outside and away from their premises and according to reports they ended the party as soon as trouble flared inside the club.

We already have more CCTV than any other country in the world (and a proposed bill will cut it and it's permitted uses). Most burglaries happn on homes that are not secure. How many times has it been pointed out that sash windows are easy to force unless you have the right locks in place (and use them) on this forum? The message is clear....put good locks on your windows and doors and USE THEM.

Now it's more mood lighting; less plebs. Well there are several pubs in the area that manage to do good business withput ripping locals off (and yes some pubs definitely DO take advantage of the more affluent sector of ED. The Ivy House is NOT in ED btw. Obviously gigs and events will make money but you need to have people coming in at other times to drink. The last managers of the Ivy House completely ingnored this and did nothing to appeal to lcoal residents.

The best Earl Grey I've ever tasted is found at 'Home-Made' on Barry Road. I asked them at the weekend what their leaf was and they told me they buy it from a suppliers in portobello Road who specialise in providing leaf tea and ground coffee. *I personally find Twinnings to lack punch which is ok if you like your tea mild and fragrant....but I don't.*

The Ivy House is my local. The last owners made the huge mistake of completely ignoring the local residential demographics and priced locals out of being able to afford to drink there, instead following the price ranges of various higher priced ED pubs. Basic business failure tbh.

It is swings and roundabouts....there are bad customers as much as bad tradesmen. It is normal for some kind of up front fee to be agreed and on average companies ask for 30%...others more, others less. The key is have agreed terms that you are happy with and a contract in place that explains what is agreed. A builder that takes all the money up front can rip someone off as much as the customer that never had the money to pay their hardworking builder. There is an element of trust on both sides. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a builder to cover the building materials costs with an up front fee, and for the customer to pay in stages as the work is completed. That is how most large building contracts are set up. Binda is a con man...and a con is a con whatever the service being offered.

The Mother stitched it up I think with magic vanishing thread (you know, a bit like those dissolving stitches that hospitals use). Troels can't have done it as he NEVER wears a jumper.