peckhamboy

Trains from London Bridge arrive on platform 1. Anything other than a transfer to platform 2 will involve two flights of steps (one down and one back up). Leaving the station will involve two flights down. Could you try getting off at ED (step free now) and then getting a bus from there?

Nainacox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The butcher on East Dulwich Grove is fantastic. > All organics. Will never go back to supermarket > meat again especially after the horse scandal. Do you mean the William Rose branch that closed several months ago?

What evidence is there that G&B is becoming a Starbucks? This smacks of a wind-up.

Thameslink was running fine this morning (better than normal!). The gritters were out and about as well, gritting side roads and pavements round the Bellenden Rd area, not just the main bus routes. I don't know if they're expecting particularly heavy snow or if they just have more grit and are more organised than normal.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, 2 trains an hour. Not sure that's right. There are two routes that come through ED - timetable 33 on that link seems to show trains every 10 minutes through rush hour. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like a normal service is planned. Of course, if there is snow, there won't be any trains back home though....

1/10

Indeed - it's so accepted/expected there that they don't bother putting the handbrake on when they park unless they're parking on a hill.

In fairness littlemoo, I don't think any of it was aimed at you. Another poster seems to be pushing it quite heavily and in a way that sounds more like advertising than experience, and has a history of promoting whippersnappers activities...

Nowt wrong with that. I've been known to trim a little slice off a fillet steak before cooking it and eat it actually raw. Damn tasty it is too.

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > aquarius moon Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > AC, > > > > To be honest, I don't think you & I are ever > going > > to agree on anything!! > > > Well maybe we can both agree that: > > Peasants are for sale in Herne Hill on a Sunday, 4 > for ?10 at the Farmers market. > > See, not so far apart after all. Would you put those in a casserole as well? And for the love of God will someone tell us where to buy these damn pheasants?

What shop's that then?

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aren't they developing a new primary school where > Dulwich hospital is? How many new primary schools > do you think are necessary? No. Probably at least two given overcrowding and current birth rates in the area.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's very curious is that Southwark Council is > the leaseholder (it used to be Dulwich Area > Housing Office) so they must be party to this in > some way. Not necessarily - the application form certifies that nobody has an ownership interest (including lease with more than 7 years to run) other than the applicant who is not connected with Southwark Council and that the site is currently vacant. So if Southwark is the leaseholder it has less than 7 years, isn't using the site, doesn't need to be party to the application and would probably be delighted if the lease could be ended and save us all money on the rent. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy.

> I have been quite interested, if it is true that > Starbucks has been declaring a loss for tax > purposes in the UK for most of its operations here > why it has not been charged with trading > insolvently - as clearly it must technically have > been - it would be interesting to see how the UK > company would counter a winding-up petition. Different tests. I'm no tax expert but profit or loss is basically income minus costs over a set period, whereas the insolvency test is essentially whether liabilities exceed assets or you are unable to meet your debts when due. In the latter, you can have plenty of assets on which you are not taxed (eg cash in the bank - you pay tax on interest but not on the capital). And then you factor in interest on loans, which is effectively offset against taxable earnings, other permitted deductions and amortisation, to give you your taxable earnings (or losses if you have enough deductions). So for companies with clever tax planners, if you structure your debt the right way you can operate at a loss for tax purposes without actually being insolvent.

I think you may be over-politicising the issue James. I appreciate that we come at this from different ideological viewpoints but I don't recall suggesting rates are reduced to zero. Even small reductions in rates can have significant impacts on behaviour. The point is that the UK has relatively high tax rates and relatively few benefits to living and working here. Those who really lose out in this game are the ones with sufficient income to be considered 'fair game' and insufficient income to be able to afford accountants and lawyers to take advantage of loopholes - which is why the 50% tax rate was reduced but the horribly cynical removal of personal allowance has been allowed to remain, why child benefit has been removed, why the childcare voucher scheme benefit has been reduced.