Earl Aelfheah

There is a lady on my street who does this every time she parks. I can only assume it's deliberate. Perhaps she doesn't like anyone parking near her, I dunno. Very annoying though.

Basically, we need the tube, or a tube type rail service for SE London, which isn't in conflict with high value Kent / Surrey commuters requirements - as exists across the rest of the capital.

Fundamentally, there is a conflict between the needs of an efficient suburban railway service, designed to move people into the city from outside London quickly, over a longer distance (meaning fewer, but regular trains which don't make too many stops) and an inner London metro service, moving high numbers of people short distances (which requires lot's of stops within a relatively small area with high frequency).

Ruislip Lido has a sandy beach.

If they cancel the last remaining train which is still timetabled to run every hour they'll have 100% reliability.

That's true Jeremy, but the current problems are far broader than what's happening at London Bridge and are in no small part down to management failures.

It would be great if it were to come under TFL. The sooner the better.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > red devil Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So we'll have a PM that hasn't been elected > either > > by the Tory membership or the country as a > whole. > > Brilliant!... > > It's called 'taking back control' Unlike when Brown took over from Blair, we have not just a new PM, but effectively a completely new manifesto. We're also about to oversee the biggest changes to our constitution, legal system and all manner of associated regulations, than at any single time in our history. All of this to be undertaken by an unelected PM. Way to take back control / regain sovereignty.

It's crazy, the bus is all good and well, but in rush hour it's barely quicker than walking into town. Not really good enough.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we'll have a PM that hasn't been elected either > by the Tory membership or the country as a whole. > Brilliant!... It's called 'taking back control'

Fair point, but I guess it will take some time for any changes to the train service to feed through into house prices.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > None of these options apart from the bus should > take more than 40 minutes 40 minutes to get to Shaftesbury Avenue sound pretty optimistic to me. More likely an hour.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The way it's going with Southern trains more > people will be selling up and moving north of > London to get a reliable and regular commuting > home for London. > > Louisa. I dunno, the poor transport in ED is already factored in / the reason it's not more expensive. If there were a tube, the prices would be more like those in SW London. Although it's expensive here, it's still 'relatively' cheap for zone 2.

I rarely use the train as I'm aware how poor the service is, but I was still surprised to find that there is only 1 train an hour now. Surely they must be in breach of contract? Why do they still have the franchise?

1 train an hour this morning. 7:30, 8:30 and 9:30.

Both are terrible imo. Whoever wins, we need a general election soon, in order to give them a mandate. We are getting not just a new PM, but effectively a completely different manifesto. It can't be chosen by a couple of hundred MPs and then around 100,000 party members. Taking back control eh? Whoever gets in has the opportunity to completely rewrite our legal and regulatory system.

Rook Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shaunag there is no perfect answer Im afraid when > it comes to the relative value of GBP. There are > always people on either side of the market. > If its expensive for importers/ its cheap for > exporters etc Except as a country we import far more than we export.

TwoScoops Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the uk has a great negotiating position *facepalm*

It's so unacceptable, and yet we accept it.

Hunt has just announced his intention to impose the junior drs contracts from October.

The Executive Summary makes interesting reading: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/246416/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry_executive-summary.pdf

Just seen the summary. It certainly doesn't come across as a whitewash.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe it's simpler to say this > > If you knew before what you know now > > That the substantial claims to redirect funds to > the NHS were false > > That the two campaigns to leave were actually > 'one' > > That the PM, Johnson, Farrage would walk > > That the game was mostly a power struggle within > the Tory party > > That Farrage and his claims were right-wing fear > mongering > > That no-one from leave had a plan, or even a > sketch of what might be ahead > > That the voters would vote the same? All 17 > million odd I'm not convinced that a second referendum today would get a wildly different result. People weren't voting for something, they were voting against something. Many don't like the EU (or what they think the EU is). Many don't like immigration (or what they think immigration means). They weren't asked to think about an alternative, they were given a binary choice. For or against. Asked the same question, many (regrettably) would answer 'against'. It should never have gone to a referendum in the first place imo, but again, it's kind of a moot point now.

Everyone gets a vote regardless or how informed they may or may not be, however smart / stupid they might be, prejudiced or not etc. etc. It's democracy and the vote is for us to leave. Now we need to work out how what we're going to do having 'flipped the bird' to the worlds second largest economy, think about rebuilding bridges and exploring new opportunities elsewhere. I think the whole exercise has been incredibly destructive and foolish, but the decision has been made and we now need to start taking action to stem the damage.

My guess (we'll soon see), is that Blair believed Saddam posed a general (if not imminent) threat and it was clear to him that Bush was going in regardless. On balance, he took the view that we were better to back the US than stand on the sidelines and that he might be able to get bush to be alittle more consensual - look to obtain a second security council resolution. In the end it all ran away from him and he found it impossible to back out. I think he was pretty cavalier about things and suffered a good deal of self deception / confirmation bias. I don't think he 'lied' as such. Certainly looked for evidence to justify (as much to himself) the road he was already committed to. It's all very sad, but I don't think he's a war criminal.