peterstorm1985

Don't waste the salt (truly disgusting way to die) - quick nip with the secateurs.

Not so cruel aquarius moon. I do a much quicker job of killing them than the resident toad/blackbirds etc and the dead bodies always disappear so something is eating them. I'm just helping nature along. If they would just learn to eat the dandelions rather than my lettuce, I'd build them a safe-house.

Thinking more on the subject, there is a lot more damage done in my garden by snails and the foxes eat them so I vote for the fox. (I do regularly cull snails though by squishing them)

Evie, if your foxes were given contraception, presumably by drug laced food sources as they don't have the dexterity for anything else, then your foxes would have less young but that would merely allow other foxes from further away to move in. Availability of food and places to live causes the number of foxes. I don't quite understand why you think culling will happen. The foxes may be annoying but it's pretty rare for them to do serious damage. They've come into my house before but there is a simple solution. I shut the door when I'm not around to deter them - which, to be honest, is a sensible thing to do. If a fox gets in unnoticed, so can a burglar (you don't have to lock the door to stop the foxes so they're less of a threat).

Stats won't tell you the answer as other variables have just as great an effect. If there are two identical houses with identical things on display with identical means of access, then the one without an alarm will be a preferred option to a burglar, but if you live in the backstreets where no one walks along the street all day and an alarm would go unnoticed then it matters far more what can be seen through the window. Do you leave laptops around, with a 42" HDTV in sight? Or does your living room suggest you're still living in the 50s?

The problem is caused mostly by availability of food. Stop their food source - usually discarded takeaways - and there will be less of them. If there is a 'stinky' area in your garden it is probably because there is somewhere nice for them to live. They like cover at ground level, so if you trim off the lower branches of bushes they'll be less keen. The other obvious thing is not to be so nice to them; I don't mean do them harm, but shout at them occasionally. They do get the message. They are certainly not monitored. Contraceptives etc are a waste of time and incredibly expensive. Fox numbers rise and fall by food availability, which is why there are so far less off them in the country. If you see open skips etc of food waste behind the various food outlets in this area, that's where the problem comes from. I'm afraid there are also some very misguided people who feed the foxes.

Boring suggestion I know but the date is probably on the land registry record. Easily obtainable on the internet.

Thank you for responding Pugwash but what I was trying to get across is why do we need to categorise people by age? Lack of work and/or mental ill health can affect all ages with similar outcomes. Whilst those in later years may not find available activities, it's the type of activity that is missing, not a lack of something aimed specifically at them. There will be some in their 70s+ who want strenuously active classes and there are new parents in their mid forties with 15 years or so of parenting activities ahead of them. At the same time, there are young people with disabilities who may want something a little gentler. I'm happy that activities are aimed at the unwaged as a way of creating a deserving group for subsidised provision but I don't like the 'out to grass' inference of a minimum age. And now you've brought that starting point down to 45, I'm really going off you........

I hated Tony Blair as a politician but as a political thinker he offers sensible observations (not uncommon to find that those who achieved power did have something intelligent to say, buried by the demands of the ballot box). You can't threaten an entirely disenfranchised group to make them fall into line; there is nothing left to threaten them with that won't cause harm to others. Neither can you bribe (or inspire) them out of bad behaviour, as their wants don't match what can be given. It is of course a cultural issue; somehow we have to make them want what the rest of us have. Not always easy when we moan so much about our own lives and don't make it sound so appealing. They need education, not the sort that leads to a handful of certificates but the basics of life and society. It never fails to amaze me that we spend so much time focusing on exam results and yet we let even a single child leave school unable to read, cook basic food, or feel that no one gives a damn about them.

I'm really confused by this '50 plus and mentally with it' thing. I know that dementia can hit early in rare cases but 50 really is a bit young to raise the question in a general sense. There's also a hint of exclusion about 50 plus so if anything is to be offered for those below pension age (65) wouldn't it be better to be available to all.

Er, not sure where your definition of white/blue collar worker comes from there Ridgley. I know quite a few white collar (ie non-manual) workers who live on the breadline.

Those were the days, when people in their 50s could look forward to retirement.... I'm afraid my pension forecast suggests I've got time for another career between when I'm 50 and when I actually get to retire.

Kids need one good, able, and willing, parent. If they get two they're lucky and may be happier, but it may not make any difference. The same goes for believing in God, going to church on Sunday and all the rest I think we should focus on those kids who don't have at least one good, able and willing parent, and let everyone else do their own thing. (OK, I would actively discourage anyone from attempting to be that one parent unless they can demonstrate the necessary skills - GCSE in parenting?)

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hasn't it been decided that the Denmark > Hill/Victoria route will remain. It was never going to be axed. It's only the loop route that was going (Direct LB to Vic, which went through Denmark Hill)

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > That is why I think it is important for people who > do not agree with the current agenda, to make > their voices heard too, or we just get drowned out > by the right wingers. > Most 'right wingers' have no desire whatsoever for benefits to be removed as it's far too obvious what would happen if they were. (I thought you might have guessed by the second sentence of my post above, that I'm pretty right wing myself)

Being born 'bright', by which I presume you mean having a high IQ, is no less a matter of chance than being born into a rich family. I'm not sure why it means you should deserve more. I went to a Direct Grant school in the 70s. The system provided a grant for private schools to take a proportion of children who would otherwise be in the state sector. There were differences in the way the system was applied* but in my school's case, the method of choosing those children was a simple lottery. Names of all children went into a hat and if you were lucky you got a place. It did exclude children from special schools and remedial units but many of the new pupils entering the school at 13 had difficulties reading, so a broad base. The value of this system was that the 'grant' was no more than the amount spent on those same children in the state sector, it gave the state sector a benchmark of what a pupil could achieve, regardless of background, and it randomly spread messages of work ethic and aspiration into homes that might otherwise not have that example. Interestingly, while this system was in existence, the local state schools had remarkable results. As soon as the system was ended (by Barbara Castle) the local state schools went into decline. No benchmark. It is notable that class sizes in my school averaged 30, and that pupils entering the school at 13 with projections of no GCE results regularly obtained 6 or more good grades. *Some counties/schools were selective

I'm amused that someone thought it worth creating this petition but I won't be signing it, simply because it would take so many changes in legislation to remove benefits that it cannot possibly happen. If there was a petition to ask that all benefits should be handed out on a daily basis at 08:30 in the morning, thereby giving the recipients at least an idea of what life should be like, then I'd sign that.

Hi Aletha, I've been phoning round for contents insurance and set or suites clauses seem to be creeping across all areas as the standard. We have the same colour carpet throughout the ground floor of the house so it's always something I check. It used to be pretty easy to find a policy that would replace the whole lot if a bit gets damaged in one room, but now I've been getting lots of responses in the negative or that it would be considered on a 'case by case' basis. I had a conversation with one broker and your situation was almost exactly the example he gave me. It did occur to me that the fashion for 'feature walls' may be a problem as it seems to negate the whole room idea of wall-covering. There are still companies who will cover sets, or repeated decoration, but the premiums are a lot higher.

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Couldn't we partition Richard? Oh yes. Please, please richardbach, would you try and get at least 70% of the letters in the right order? And just the odd full stop would help enormously. It's testing my dyslexia to the limit.

Pugwash said "parents must be parents not mates and set boundaries and standards for their kids". So true. I sometimes wonder why we have youth workers when what we really need are parent workers. Children are born amoral, they have no idea of right from wrong unless someone teaches it to them. I hate to quote from a newspaper but when I read of a mother of a 12year old bleating that, "As a mother I can't be held responsible for my child", I really did despair. I might add that the photograph of the child showed he was clearly small enough to be within the limits of parental control. To anyone who did grow up in poverty and do well, let us know if your only known parent was a drunk/drug addict who encouraged you to roam the streets at night and expected you to contribute to the family finances through criminal activity. If so, then I'll be highly impressed by your work ethic in adulthood. Otherwise then perhaps it's not a fair comparison with the thugs under discussion.

Great idea LadyDeliah. If you started with what the Human Rights Act really says rather than what it is thought to say, that would be a really good start. The problem is getting the kids who really need help to come along. If you've spent your entire life believing that you're stupid - because everyone tells you that you are - you're not likely to go along to a class.

Edresi10: so that this argument doesn't run on needlessly, could you provide an extract/quote of the provision you refer to? Those amongst us with legal backgrounds may then be able to give an explanation of how it could be applied. Thanks

It may be too late to get back to the point of this thread but I'd just like to say that having this unit here may very well increase crime in the area, but it could do the opposite. As has been discussed on another thread, crims don't always like to be recognised (let's forget all the looters on facebook) so they're far less likely to start nicking if they think they're known. So there's a simple answer; if you see a youngster coming out of the new unit, try and engage him/her in conversation, make them feel welcome. You never know, feeling like someone thinks they're human not just lowlife scum may raise their self esteem sufficiently for them to consider alternatives to crime. Otherwise, if they think enough people know who they are they may choose to get on the bus to somewhere else before they steal anything.

I think this is a brilliant idea. I've also wondered whether we could set up secret sound systems around Peckham and play classical music - very gently so as not to disturb anyone but just loud enough to create a general sense of calm.

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now, if it had truly been a protest > against the rich and government, surely burning > books would have been a more potent symbol than > brandishing a pair of trainers. If there was even a vague connection with a protest against the rich and government they'd have targeted financial institutions - I've heard so much in the last few days about the evil bankers as some sort of excuse - but no, it all seems to be shops that are owned or run by people who've worked really hard to get something decent in life. It's as if it's an orchestrated attempt to stop anyone bettering themselves. Am I the only one to think that someone somewhere has a list of all the regeneration areas and is ticking them off?