Earl Aelfheah

Rather quick to anger there Ridgley. Feeling a bit smacky?

Actually, just found this: http://www.mynproperties.com/index.php/263-lordship-lane Looks like they're intending on keeping the original building and extending it to create flats.

Anyone know what's happening with the property on the corner of Heber / LL ? A 'Myn Properties, future development' board has gone up. Hope they're not intending in demolishing another big Victorian house for more new build flats.

One eye said to the other eye: " between you and me, something smells"

Buses are pretty important for most of us getting to and from work.

If they're a full on preposterous hipster you could try this : http://www.henrytibbs.com/captain-fawcett-and-ricki-hall-s-booze-baccy-beard-oil-moustache-wax-set.html?gclid=CMGQmJmC6MkCFSHmwgodjy4F7A

I'm with Saffron

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There nothing wrong in smacking your child when it > is appropriate, I was lucky with my daughter my > look was enough. There is always something wrong with striking another person. If they're a child, it's even worse.

Personally I've not had this problem from the postie, but do always get flyers left sticking out. This is doubly annoying because it's just junk and it also makes it obvious when no one is in.

You could be right JohnL, although it's hard to see how TFL can ignore the transport needs of SE London indefinitely.

To be clear, the 'luxury' flats which get put up around new stations, have their value significantly increased by the huge public investment in that new infrastructure. A small amount of that increased value is levied against the cost of the infrastructure and it's spun as property development subsidising new transport links. This is backward logic. What is really happening here is that huge amounts of public money are being used to subsidise these developments. The question you need to ask is, would this station be put here without the new development? If not, then it is the station serving the development, not the development serving the station. Existing communities and taxpayers are largely ignored when it comes to transport investment, whilst developers interests are central. The flats of course, are mostly marketed to overseas investors.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jah Lush Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Glad I'm away from all that shite. Office > parties, > > once a year drinkers and vomitarians. The > streets > > of the city will be awash with it tomorrow > night. > > Recently seen people queueing up single file at > the bar > (more than one pub too). What's that about ? Not seen this, but it sounds very civilised.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not > > addictive? I think you're mistaken about this. > > Not at all - read this. > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicot > ine-all-bad/ > > There are many people who use nicotine > (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. Nicotine clearly is an extremely addictive substance and there is plenty of evidence for this. The fact that many e-cigarette manufacturers have been pushing the idea that it's not, is another reason to be wary about this new industry. Here's what the NHS says on it: http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2278.aspx?CategoryID=53

So a quick Google, threw up this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review Seems to back up the view that 'vaping' is relatively benign, so perhaps I'm wrong on this. Can't help feeling however, that there is a future scandal waiting to break here. Whilst vaping may be better for you than smoking cigarettes (and that's not really a high bar), I still think that such an addictive product should be more cautiously marketed.

I just looked at that link. ASH claim that use of e-cigs amongst 'never smokers' is 'negligible'. They citation on this simply says "Calculations are by ASH. This was done by applying the proportions of e-cigarette use by smoking status in the 2014 YouGov survey to the most recent available ONS mid-year GB population estimates (2012)". This seems rather vague and I certainly don't see how you get your 1% figure from this. I imagine however, that the overall numbers are relatively small. That said, I would not be surprised given the way these things are being marketed, if we saw the number of people taking up 'vaping' who have never smoked previously, increasing as time goes on. Which is kind of the point re the inappropriateness of the marketing.

@lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not addictive? I think you're mistaken about this.

Nearest is the Flying Pig

This is an interesting discussion on 'vaping': http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/behind-the-vapor/

Nicotine is still a highly addictive substance though, plus they have all sorts of other additives and are completely unregulated. Let's face it, they're unlikely to be good for you. I'm amazed at how they're being marketed as 'cool'. There are vape cafes springing up now and they're being marketed quite independently of being just a cigarette replacement. The almost inevitable future 'scandal' isn't hard to see coming IMO.

That's a rather outlandish position.

clearly not Speedo Pizza.

Sheesh, that's really sad. Apparently there is a spike in attempted suicides at this time of year. Hope he's OK and there are people around to offer support.

Sounds like a grievance waiting to happen

Roll on Police Academy 8

The Charlie Hebdo cartoons weren't particularly clever or funny. The problem with freedom of speech however is that you sometimes have to defend the crap as vehemently as the worthwhile stuff.