Zebedee Tring

Are you really saying that before 2001 a adult woman could sexually assault any girl under 16 (including baby girl) with impunity and that a five old girl could theoretically give consent to a sexual act by an adult woman? That's not how I remember the legal position. I'd like further and better particulars of this (as the lawyers would put it).

I know that Queen Victoria didn't believe that lesbianism existed, but I don't think that things were quite that primitive in the 80s. I say this as someone who was and is deeply opposed to everything that Thatcherism stood for.

It's the name of the shop that makes it sound so twee and yummy mummyish. BTW is there an equivalent for fathers, such as "faddy daddies"?

Note on the website of the retail company with the amazing smug name: "Please note our Dulwich store will be closed for refurbishment from Sunday 11th January 2015 and will reopen on Friday 6th February 2015." So don't panic, yummy mummies. Your store will be open again soon.

How about "Small earthquake at Hendon - not many dead"?

Salsaboy, of course it's a sexual thing; that goes without saying. However, there is a difference between (a) a paedophile who just looks at child porn and (b) a paedophile who actively abuses children. I'm not defending those people in category (a), but they are not in the same league as people in category (b), particularly paedophiles who abuse children who are in their care or with whom they are in close contact for family, work or other reasons.

I am in the very unfashionable position today of seeing both sides of the argument on this thread. I know that the internet "community" generally favours people taking up black and white stances, but too bad. On the one hand, there are some deeply vindictive comments about Canon Richardson which would be quite at home in the world of the witches of Salem or "The Wicker Man". Way, way OTT On the other hand, one poster said "People are entitled to download whatever they wish and enjoy whatever they want", which has elements of the view of some people in the late 60s that it was OK (and indeed "cool") to put a picture of a naked pubescent girl on the cover of the Blind Faith album and acceptable for the Paedophile Information Exchange to be affiliated to the NCCL. My view is that Canon Richardson should be very heavily criticised for apparently downloading child porn. However, unless evidence emerges that he engaged in sexual activity with children (and as yet there is no such evidence), criticism of him should not be on the level of that hurled at the likes of Gary Glitter, Jimmy Savile etc.

Agreed. Too much hysteria in many (by no means all) of these posts. And I'm not defending what Canon Richardson is alleged to have done.

Whatever one thinks of Canon Richardson's behaviour, suggesting that he should be burning in hell is thoroughly offensive. Some of the comments on this thread are OTT. This in no way condones what he is supposed to have done

There's just been an item on Radio 4 "You And Yours" about the current Thameslink fiasco.

Has the service deteriorated since GoMoreSlowly (or whatever they're called) took over the franchise? If so, can the deterioration be attributed to the company?

When a cold caller called recently I pointed to our "No cold callers" sign. He replied "I can't read". He may have been telling the truth but from the expression on his face I think that he was taking the piss.

Your friend could drop elderly parents at the hospital. Drive back himself and use Sainsbury's car park on Dog Kennel Hill. Sadly, for three hours only. He can catch a 40, 176, 185 or 484 down to the hospital and back to Sainsburys. Not ideal though.

It would be better if this thread could stop consisting of a rant by Andrew 1011 against James Barber and could return to the issue of the Townley/EDG junction. And so that Andrew 1011 cannot accuse me of attempting to deprive him of his "domocratic (sic) right to have a view and to express it", may I suggest that he start a new thread entitled "I don't like James Barber".

(Removed after some consideration)

How did you know, Laur? Are you a Charles watcher? Lucky old Sunderland!

Probably Prince Charles or one of his voluminous family.

Andrew 1011, why are you having a go at James Barber? He has been more involved in this issue on the EDF than any other Councillor. If you're going to have a go at anyone, have a go at the Councillors, Council officers etc who were responsible for the crazy no right turn idea getting off the ground. Concentrate your fire in the right direction. For what it's worth, I am NOT a Lib Dem supporter, but I try to keep an open mind.

What is wrong is that a trial of no RHT will become a permanent no RHT because those people who want no RHT will make sure that it stays in place.

In principle I agree with James Barber's idea of an email to Helen Hayes saying that we won't vote for her if she and her colleagues push for this issue to be decided beyond 7 May or if the scheme includes a NRT from Townley Road. However, I think that if we indicate on the email that a copy will be going to JB, this will make it sound like a Lib Dem political stunt and may harden Labour attitudes. In my opinion copies of the email to Helen Hayes should instead go to her Labour colleagues in the Dulwich wards. A copy to JB could be sent separately.

I thought that the "rather over-animated female from SRS" was protesting her lack of knowledge of the NRT too much. Now what Duvaller says about this makes sense.

So have I. But I don't like being patronised - nor indeed spoken to as if I was a small child. By way of example the previous FB item on the Picturehouse blamed the building work delay on Santa! I haven't believed in Santa since about 1957.

I have signed up for Picturehouse membership. However, I don't very much like being patronised by Picturehouse on Facebook as one of the "Wonderful people of East Dulwich".

Wearing my cynic's hat, perhaps it would be worth reminding certain Councillors that this is a General Election year and that this issue might affect the way numerous local people will vote. Cllr Simmons said that he understood that the decision to introduce the right turn ban came down to the act of a single Southwark official. I wonder whether the guilty man/woman will be named and whether they will be present at the 28 Jan meeting to justify their stance.

But before any decision were made to have a trial of the no right turn proposal (a decision to which I would be opposed), we need to know where the NRT idea came from in the first place and whether any evidence was collated to support the proposal BEFORE the idea was actually floated.