Earl Aelfheah

Ok, I know there are umpteen threads on this already, but i. We'd some advice. My 7 month old will not sleep at night. She will cry for hours (up to 9 or 10), with our going in to comfort her every 30 mins or so. She seems incapable of learning to put herself back down. From everyone I've spoken to, the kind of crying down which we've been doing for sometime now, is the last resort when all else fails, so what else is there?

Train to Elephant from Denmark Hill and then Bakerloo Line to Paddington. From their catch a direct train.

Jazz fags and toddlers don't mix. Imagine night garden after a couple of biftas. No, stick to the booze kids.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I looked at the Occupied Times, and it's a none > too impressive. I'm trying not to be too harsh but > touchy-feely pseudo New Age bullshit will not take > anybody any closer to understanding, let alone > dealing with the genuinely complicated issues that > the current economic situation has thrown up. There is no doubt that the Occupy movement is a fairly disparate group. It's a bit incoherent, but for better or worse, it takes something controvercial and inconvenient like the camp to keep the issue live. Prior to their appearance, we were in very real danger of the debate fading from public attention. What has actually changed as a result of the financial crisis in terms of how we regulate markets. Very little indeed. There is nothing to stop the same thing happening again? In fact I see only yesterday that the government are encouraging 95% mortgages again.

There are a number of very dubious practices which need regulating. Closing down so called vulture funds for example. restricting short selling for another. I posted this on another thread, but Professor Robert Frank recently presented a really good lecturer to an audience at the LSE which also outlined some interesting ideas on how one can reduce wasteful activities based on positional competition. The current crisis has exposed some serious faults in the current system. It's not good enough to say it's too difficult a subject to think about so lets carry on as before.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unregulated capitalism? What, as in... no > regulation? > > Surely we do have plenty of regulation. The > discussion we need is about what additional regs > we need to protect our society. Not a load of > cliched vagaries. OK, so you could say inadequately regulated capitalism, it amounts to the same point. Primarilly though the issue is about financial markets which have very little regulation indeed.

> What is this opportunity of which you speak? What > re-engineering are you proposing? What refinements > would work? There is a general feeling that the deregulation of the financial industry has seriously backfired. A consensus that the system needs to change and this could act as a catalyst for change. To suggest regulation of the financial markets has been politically difficult, but the crisis has presented an opportunity. In terms of re-engineering the system, clearly this needs to be looked at very carefully and needs to follow a full, public debate. But, basically, it needs to ensure that markets are more balanced, that they deliver outcomes that are for the benefit of more than a small minority and that they incentivise efficient and value adding activities. > Sitting in a tent near St Pauls doesn't seem to > have achieved very much - except to undermine the > quality of life of Londoners working and > travelling in the area - and sending out the wrong > message to potential tourists. It's created a debate and it's kept some of the issues surrounding the financial crash at the top of the news agenda. It is important that the rightous indignation that followed in the immediate aftermath of the crisis doesn't fade and allow us to return to business as usual IMO. > If people wish to engage in political dialogue - > fine, make a speech, set up a political party, > write an article. Squatting isn't dialogue - as > Ian Hislop has pointed out all the St Pauls camp > has actually achieved is the departure / dismissal > of two or three rather woolly minded clerics. For better or worse, the actions of the camp have actually done more to raise their profile and propogate their grievances than an letter to their MP would ever have done.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But on a wider scale litterally millions and > million globally have been pulled out of poverty > as a result of global capitalism especially and > increased internationalism in trade, especially in > the past 10-15 years. How well markets are designed determines how efficient they are at incentivising value adding activities - the types of activities that help pull people out of poverty in the way you describe. The problem at the moment is that many activities of unregulated, unrestrained capitalism actually destroy value and impoverish society. It's not an question of capitalism vs anticapitalism (whatever that may mean). But of unregulated (too often inefficient and unproductive) forms of captialism vs minimally regulated / structured markets that incentivice value adding activities.

Unregulated capitalism has seriously undermined global well being and democracy. The 'Occupy' movement is attempting to encourage a debate on how we organise our society and economy in light of the global economic crisis. This thread would suggest that they are going someway to achieving this aim. It is hardly fair to criticise them for not providing easy answers. It's easy to label the movement 'anti-capitalist' and snigger at someone buying a coffee, but this seems pretty flippant to me. It is not anti-capitalist to suggest that internaional markets are often unbalanced, irrational and inefficient and that they often lead to undesirable outcomes. We have any opporutnity to reengineer / refine the way that capitalism is currently structured for the better.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't this part of the idea behind the protest > > If, say, 20 years ago you were in the top 5-10% of > world earnings then your standard of livin, even > in London would be sweet > > But as more money becomes concentrated at the very > very top, then the drop off from the top 1% to > those in the next 9% becomes much bigger Some economists may describe this as the outcome of a positional arms race ? a concept which goes someway to explaining why increases in wealth do not always increase well-being by as much as you may think. Professor Robert Frank recently presented a really good lecturer to an audience at the LSE which touches on this. He claims that Darwin could be considered a greater economist than Adam Smith At this particular moment in history we probably have the best opportunity we ever will to push for changes to the system and have something happen. Anger at what has happened as a result of unregulated market corporatism, means that strong politicians may be capable of implementing real change, across borders, whilst bringing people along with them. After all, what is the point in growing GDP in isolation, if it leads to greater inequality, a more divisive society and greater insecurity / poorer mental health? We need to focus on the a strong, sustainable economy, the rewards of which lead to better outcomes for everyone.

Strange things afoot in Heber Road

If you had secured it to a table this would never have happened

Prehaps it was the lampost chained to the table (see the thread on missing lamposts).

I must admit, the fact that it was a 'disco' does imply some sort of inter-dimensional / time travel - if not between ED and Eleysium, then at least between the present day and say, 1976. There was a load of shaving foam sprayed around outside. Prehaps some kind of Gillette / Neutrino cocktail fuels said bendy time bus?

Were you at the Heber 'disco' last night. Clearly not only alcohol being consumed.

It avoiding the dogs.

People are noisilly falling out onto the street p*ssed. Isn't it a primary school?

Pubs are not child friendly. The bar is typically too high for children to comfortably see over and the cigarette machine terribly difficult for little fingers to operate.

Waitrose?

They are open until 2am, 3am on Saturday. In reality however, they can only respond to calls logged before 1/1:30,due to the number of staff available to make site visits. On busy nights they may stop logging calls even earlier.

If it was necessary to cut noise team budget, then how about closing the daytime service rather than the nighttime one? It seems obvious that it is at night that noise disturbances are a greater issue.

Are there any trains that travel through ed without stopping? Maybe there is scope for some additional trains rather than increasing the number serving ed at the expense of other places?

I was told to call them if it was still going on when they reopen at 8.30 tommorrow morning- although presumably there is nothing one can do about loud music during the day?!

There is a massive party going on in the road behind me, which is spilling out into the street. I called the Southwark Noise team and it turns out that they are only open until 3 am, after which they no longer deal with noise issues. In practice this means that any calls logged after 1.30 are very unlikely to be dealt with. They are open during the daytime (from 7.30 most days), but of course they can do little to address noise when it is not keeping people awake, so the daytime service is pretty redundant. Basically, if you want to have an all night party, just ensure that you only really crank it up after 1.30am. @James Barber - any comment?

Is this what you wanted Mr Falkes: http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkEKdsE8eRn8GuhHdT51tu692XcLKI5N4vUhkXAq5yrZWEeu5w