peckhamboy

I think the problem is as much people using the spaces when they're not entitled as a lack of spaces in the first place. Every time I go there I see people with no kids parking in the parent and child bays. I'm sure that if Sainsburys clamped down on it for a week, and then did random checks afterwards to deter repeat offenders, there would suddenly be a lot more chance of getting a space. In terms of the number of spaces, obviously the more parent and child spaces there are, the fewer "normal" spaces can be fitted in. Unfortunately, whilst the disabled bays are never fully occupied (or not by blue badge holders anyway), I think the number is set by legislation. Otherwise, an obvious solution would be to convert disabled spaces to parent and child spaces. Have you tried contacting the store manager?

In fairness, the questionnaire has an "any other comments" section at the end. I have quite happily added my tuppence about nappies and bin sizes there. Surely better to do that than to withhold comments until the form is redesigned?

I don't see what the problem would be in having a fenced off area for dogs to run off the lead, and requiring them (yes, all dogs) to be on the lead in all other areas. Since the council took down the fences in Goose Green, it's nowhere near as pleasant for young kids. I just wish that dog owners would remember that their "friendly and boisterous" dog doesn't necessarily appear that way to a 15-month old learning to take her first steps when it's racing round her and chasing anything that moves while its owner stands 50m away having a fag. The dog in question came perilously close to getting a size 9 in the face... Oh, and if that was you, please also remember that if you're in a park throwing a tennis ball for a boisterous dog, it might be a good idea to throw it away from a toddler and her parents and the lady with two smaller dogs on leads (especially when they're the only other people in the park), rather than directly towards them. Just a thought.

Or just let slip your username on here and then leave the computer on this page. Avoids creating a scene in public.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Captain Scarlet Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > was it the grammer police?.....looking out for > > exclamation marks? > > xxxxxx > > Or possibly the spelling police looking out for > mispelling of grammar :)) Or even the spelling police looking out for misspelling of misspelling... (I'm not normally a typo tyrant but you were asking for that one!)

Or perhaps like being asked to choose between being punched in the head five times this year and being punched in the head twice this year and three times next year. And then maybe a couple of times the year after that.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Children are a natural biological thing, in that > humans need to reproduce. > Having children is not a lifestyle choice. > They are our future, and all that. Emerson Crane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I stand by what I said having children maybe a > biological and natural function, but the NUMBER > you have is a lifestyle choice. Natural and biological function - undoubtedly. Natural and biological imperative - not even remotely. PeckhamRose- If you can choose not to have kids, how can you say that having them is anything but a choice? It's no different to owning your own house, or buying a car. If you can't afford it, don't do it. If I bought a dog but then couldn't afford to feed it, and it starved, would you suggest that the government should raise taxes in order to help me feed my dog or that I should be banned from owning dogs?

As Copleston Rd is in SE15, shouldn't this be in the Lounge?

All fair comments (including louisiana). But even discounting the slightly odd photograph, for someone whose specialisation is allegedly languages, the website is rather poorly written. My favourite bit is Is she suggesting that Ben Thatcher and Darren Anderton's first language is not English? And the text itself would shame a 7 year old.

Surely by definition, nobody could ever be guilty of "being in control" of a dog that is dangerously "out of control"? The concepts must be mutually exclusive?

...oh here we go again, another over-sensitive dog owner. Nobody is saying dogs should be banned from parks. All that most people ask is that the small minority of anti-social dog owners start behaving properly and: 1. Pick up their dog's mess. I don't crap in the street outside your house and I wouldn't allow my kids to. 2. Keep their dog on a lead at appropriate times in public spaces, especially in areas where young kids are playing and certainly in areas where there are signs up specifically telling you to use a lead. If you already do that, I don't see why this thread should upset you. In fact, I would expect you to support the sentiments. Agreed that there are one or two suggestions that are a bit ridiculous (eg muzzling all dogs bigger than a chihuahua) but they were basically ignored anyway.

To be perfectly honest, childcare costs in London mean that for a lot of women it's probably not worth going back to work anyway, regardless of child benefit. I imagine your gross salary has to be pretty close to the 40% threshold before net salary outstrips childcare costs (not taking into account childcare vouchers etc) so I doubt that CB would make a real difference for most. Of course, there will be some who are hit harder than others but that's inevitable. The irony is that a lot of people now up in arms over losing their precious child benefit are probably the same ones who complain that benefits are too widespread...

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I?m not sure about is why my island example > was in any way Guardian-ish? 2 people arrive on > an island, one happens to find wood to build a > hut. > > I gave two possible examples of what might happen > next - neither of which seem liberal per se. And > yet it gets called Guardianesque > > Interestingly some people assumed the person who > didn?t find wood was workshy or off sunning > himself. Without any evidence or fleshing out of > the story that was the assumption they made. Not ? > ?the other person went to find food, of which > there was none? or even ?found some flares and > tried to alert passing planes? ? nope.. workshy. > Now if I had said those examples in the original > story then I could see it was Guardianesqe (and no > worse for it btw) but I didn?t. People filled in > their own blanks True. But since the second person "does in" the first, it is not an unreasonable assumption that he would prefer a life of crime and living off the hard work of others to actually doing any work himself. And in any case, if the second fellow went looking for food and there was none, why bother doing in the first chap to get the shelter? If there's no food, they're both fcuked anyway.

Great parable Sean. Of course, the work-shy fellow who does in the other one will end up with a shelter but will starve because he can't be bothered to find any food. Sooner or later, if he wants to survive, he'll have to do some work himself. Even golden geese don't live for ever.

Actually, not a great article. The main thrust of it, that you can be worse off with a pay rise than without it, will always be true in any means-tested system unless there is a graduated reduction in benefit as pay increases. Which, of course, would itself act as an anti-work incentive. After all, where is the attraction of working harder for more pay when you end up with exactly the same amount? So somewhat flawed but then, it is a free paper. You get what you pay for.

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that it affects more women than men? The vast majority of people affected will be couples where the husband is working on a salary of ?45k+. Yes, it will affect any single mums on that salary as well, but I'm not convinced that would represent a significant number across the country as a whole.

Conveniently forgetting that "the state" is funded out of our taxes. I know, let's all pay more tax so that we can all pay ourselves ?20 a week to feel valued for producing children. What a load of rubbish. How about - let's cut back the ridiculously complicated tax and benefits system that nobody properly understands, and have a simple, straightforward system that protects the vulnerable and eventually results in lower taxes for everybody? Obviously, that's still a pipe-dream but this is the first step. It seems to me that (almost) everybody appreciates that the government has to reduce the amount it borrows, and scale back spending to match actual income. That bit's not rocket science (although it was beyond Gordon Brown). But everybody wants the cuts to hit other people. If everybody tried just looking around and asking themselves "what does the government give me that I could live without", what would you come up with? Schools? Road maintenance? Healthcare? Or the ?20 a week freebie you get just for having a kid? A little bit of perspective would not go amiss sometimes.

The problem is that doing a full means-testing (by HMRC rather than the government) is costly and time-consuming, and would probably negate all the cost savings of reducing CB. As someone who stands to lose out, I still support the decision and understand the rationale for the apparently lop-sided implementation. Even though, if my income were split equally between the two of us, we would still be able to claim it. To be honest, I'm completely against the idea of universal benefits. The welfare system should be a safety net for the poorest and most disadvantaged, not a way of life or an income supplement. That said, I'm obviously a hypocrite since I claim it at present rather than sticking to my principles.

I would never have had my parents on facebook when i was 14 (if it had been invented then!). And certainly by the age of 16 I had been to house parties where alcohol and other substances were available, and no parents were present. And I don't think it did me too much harm (as one of sillywoman's recent NCT pupils, she may or may not agree with that!). Of course, as the parent of a 3-month old I'm no expert in parenting teenagers...

Dorothy - try a macchiato, a cortado or a piccolo. They're all pretty similar, but in theory have slightly different amounts of steamed milk. You can get a macchiato in most places but might need to go somewhere they take coffee seriously to get one of the other two. Or just give very precise instructions when you order it... Sounds like a piccolo might be what you're after (about half as much milk as a flat white, I think).

I thought there were signs up round the park saying all dogs had to be on leads? And unless I'm mistaken, there is already a designated dog zone round the perimeter. Is that right, or am I going mad?

Thanks James - I think you're agreeing with me! Even when tailbacks are 200m (and I accept that traffic in the mornings often tails back almost to Goose Green), I doubt that these lights make any real difference to that As mentioned above, the primary cause appears to be the Sainsburys lights, plus the fact that there is a bend in the road by the parade of shops with parking on both sides (and frequent antisocial stopping on double yellows) that means traffic through there is reduced to a single lane whenever buses are trying to get through.

Just seen the comments earlier on this thread about the lights at ED station. As someone who uses both ED and Denmark Hill stations, I'm often either crossing there as a pedestrian or going through on the bus at about 8am so feel reasonably well qualified to comment from both viewpoints. As a bus user, I have never found those lights to add any significant delay to the journey since traffic is so heavy anyway. The greater delays are caused by the Sainsburys lights, which is unavoidable in my opinion since that is a 4-way junction. In any case, the Sainsburys lights clearly have different phasing at different times of the day/week which mostly seems to work reasonably well. As a pedestrian, however, I think the suggestion of preventing a green light more frequently than every 2-3 minutes is not going to work. For starters, a lot of people walk to the station and a 3 minute delay there will often mean the difference between catching a train or not catching a train. Second, since traffic is so slow, long waits for a green man would simply lead to pedestrians taking their chances through the traffic, which would increase the risks of accidents, especially given the reduced visibility for drivers coming down the hill. On a side note, I have several times had or witnessed near misses (whilst crossing on a green man) with cyclists coming downhill at high speed and jumping the lights. Not sure if there is anything that can be done about that, though. A small minority of cyclists will always consider themselves above the law. Maybe when there's a red light, it could trigger a "Stinger" style device on the road???

Yes - the BT menu is not very intuitive, but you can change the temperature (ours is set to 30 degrees now) with a bit of perseverance! You can also turn off the alert, which was easier to find but needs to be re-done every time you unplug it, which is annoying.

Magpie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > My understanding was that his special advisor was > a bit of high flyer in terms of academic > achievement, and in political greasy pole > climbing. Still massively unexperienced clearly. Possibly an unfortunate choice of words, Magpie (or alternatively very well chosen!)