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.

I think there's a danger of getting things rather out of proportion. There are a number of perfectly legitimate ways of reducing tax bills (especially for corporates) - all introduced by governments keen to encourage particular activities or to promote business and entrepreneurship. For example, payments of interest on debt are tax-deductible. A company would be mad not to take advantage. Surely the fault is with our overly complex tax system more than with the companies who have to navigate their way through it? And if the problem is multinational companies registering in countries with low tax rates, perhaps the cause is that our tax rates are too high? There is plenty of evidence that reducing tax rates also reduces tax avoidance as the marginal gains become smaller and it's no longer worth the hassle and expense of complex tax planning. It will never happen though. It requires imagination and balls, and it's so much easier for politicians to surf the wave of public outrage and demand that 'immoral' businesses stop their disgusting and totally legal ways of reducing their costs.

James What's happening with the ramp at ED station? It seems to be essentially complete but still barred off, with no sign of activity for the last couple of weeks. Is there still work to be done or has someone just not bothered to remove the barriers?

L4love Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm an events manager so I'm aware of the amount > of work and effort needed to put on a project of > this scale. I'm also a mother of two children who > still believes in the magic of christmas. With the > amount of activities included, I think, it's well > worth the price tag.I've just booked so I'm > putting my money where my mouth is.... > I'll keep you posted. Another suspicious first post. I don't suppose you happen to be managing this particular event by any chance?

User Profile : Lodine Email: Hidden (but registered users can send me a message) Posts: 1 Date Registered: 03/11/2012 13:13 Last Activity: 03/11/2012 13:13 Hmmm... No doubt your second ever message on the forum will be to tell us that you've just been and it was wonderful and LOCAL and worth every penny. Or maybe that you'd be willing to pay twice as much and that we should all support this fantastic LOCAL business.

And don't forget the ?5 for the compulsory adult...

?18 for a child though? Think we'll be giving it a miss, much as I'd like to spend time with some real elves.

EPB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a replacement bus service to London > Bridge. I believe it's called the 176. Not unless it's on a massive detour on its way to Waterloo - if you're going to be flippant at least be right. The 40 goes to London Bridge though and is relatively quick on a Sunday.

Robbie 1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >God forbid a young child goes under the wheel of a car if they pull away from their parents grip for a split second. How does the puffin crossing change the risks of this? It could happen anywhere along a road, whether there's a crossing or not. You obviously feel very strongly about the crossing but are you not at risk of getting things a little out of proportion? It sounds to me like the accident was a complete one-off, caused by a car stopping on the rcossing in traffic and not realising the lights had changed, whilst a pedestrian stepped out (on the green light?) just as the traffic started moving. I don't think a different type of crossing would have prevented that. With any type of crossing, the safest way to get across is not just to go when the lights are green but to make sure you have eye contact with the driver so you know he/she has seen you. cosmonaut Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hey this might be a stupid question but can > someone clarify this for me? > > "Remember that traffic does not have to stop until > someone has moved onto the crossing." > > Does this mean that pedestrians have to actually > physically step onto the road? Where does 'the > crossing' begin? I've always assumed that as long > as I have an obvious intent to cross, that is, > standing on the curb next to the poles and > watching oncoming traffic, that drivers had to > stop. > That's pretty much it - unless you have a foot on the road, the driver doesn't have to stop. It is a bit of an odd rule but without lights I'm not sure how else you could work it. Most drivers would slow down approaching a zebra if there was someone standing next to it, in order to see if they were intending to cross, although East Dulwich Grove seems to be a huge exception to that general rule - I've had cars speed up and swerve round me when I've been fully on the crossing pushing a buggy - so personally I'd be happy to see one of those zebras turned into something safer.

That whole junction is terrible, both for drivers and pedestrians. Drivers have to be constantly watching cars in the lane next to them, cars approaching on the roundabout, cars having to stop dead in front of them because someone's crossing the next zebra crossing, and also keep an eye out for pedestrians - including a huge number who don't actually use the crossings anyway. Why on earth those rossings weren't sited 5-10 metres away from the roundabout i have no idea - it would give drivers so much longer to spot pedestrians and mean they can concentrate just on traffic when entering and exiting the roundabout.

Qiute right. But you forgot to add - too many people wanting something for nothing, and too many people expecting everything to be provided by the council. Now, where's my free stamp and envelope?