Senor Chevalier

Am probably going nowhere exciting this year personally as my own DINK stage draws to a close. If it is a villa you are after then worth a look on this site: http://www.themodernhouse.net/tmh/holiday And if you want something different that will keep you occupied and give you a boost and have plenty of DINK cash to throw ar the matter then you could try this: http://www.wildfitness.com/ (though I gather that Scot's and booze free holidays don't mix either ;-)).

Bobby P you are spot on. For any street to get a CPZ you would need to count not only the votes of the residents in that street but also to consider the vote of those on neighbouring streets, perhaps weighting the neighbouring streets' votes lower if you like in reducing concentric circles. The only positive support for CPZ has been found by looking on a very granular basis at specific streets and ignoring wider views. Perhaps we should consider that we are currently all in one big unregulated free CPZ. The solution is perhaps to allow those that want the CPZ to have a mini 1 car CPZ on their doorstep for their car (and their car only) and for the whole community to have the power to enforce fines against them parking on any piece of public road outside their specified CPZ place, i.e. opt in to CPZ and you are opting out of community parking - you can't have it both ways. I wonder what the questionairre response would have been if this was the option that was on the table...?

Oh really. How utterly tedious. This basically means a disproportionate effort is required to make majority views abundantly clear so their position is untenable and the right outcome is upheld. A massive hassle for everyone.

1) Southwark will review and adjust the format of bins and / or collection schedule 2) The Waitrose debate will break the 40 page barrier with not a store in sight 3) A new group of blame figures will emerge (bankers, politicians, press) - 2012, the year of the stevedores? 4) Sainsburys will revise its parking policies incurring the ire of ED mothers 5) A new scandal will envelop a high profile (or high frequency) forum poster 6) East Dulwich will develop its very own cheese to be sold at exorbitant cost on LL 7) I will become a dad and write increasingly obtuse posts due to sleep deprivation

This is a case of needing to balance the needs of the individual (the few residents on a particular street wanting a CPZ) with the needs of the community. Looking at the narrow results in a particular street and using them to justify a CPZ in that street only constitutes antisocial behaviour. Each CPZ has a knock on effect on the neighbouring streets so these CPZ's have knock on effects and end up spreading in waves. Therefore the bar should be set high, i.e. there would need to be an absolutely overwhelmingly clear case to introduce ANY CPZ. Here the situation is the opposite. I shouldn't worry too much. Whilst I agree it seems there may appear to be a latent desire by Southwark to bring on the CPZ, any decision to introduce it will be demonstrably indefensible and given the heat this issue has generated there would be a clear backlash. Not something any Councillors would want on their record. Edited for clarity - the latent desire I refer to was "of Southwark" rather than of people generally who are clearly opposed.

As one of 3 matching houses in the row, something will be lost if it is knocked down. The plans appear to allude to the neighbouring houses from the EDG elevation, but the gable end on Elsie road will be different. In any case these things are all in the execution and the cramming of flats suggests the profit motive so it is hard to be confident that this will be a beautiful property. No matter how knackered the existing house, nothing is irrepairable and if restored to former glory as a family house then you have a prime property worth ?1m or so. Scope to make the neighbours happy and turn a profit I would think. I don't know how long it has been owned by the current owner. If he has held it a while and let it fall into disrepair as alluded to by some of the objection letters then allowing this would only encourage the strategy of letting things fall into disrepair... If it has been bought more recently once aready deemed "beyond repair" then I have more sympathy. Not a planning issue per se, but should be part of the consideration I feel. ETA: Frankly I'd rather they turned it into a Waitrose :)

Quick googling - this is the closest I could find. I reckon they are made to order. www.cable-railing.co.uk www.fhbrundle.co.uk

Fence does sound ace - any chance of a pic?

Delia ruined my bone in sirloin Christmas joint last year. Her rare is my well done apparantly. Will consult Gord going forward.

Now I know Cheetarah was always hot, but WOW!

Yep - I was just nitpicking your very last post as I find the numerical arguments and cause/correlation issue actually more interesting than the topic at hand it being rather obvious (but oddly does not go without saying on here) that marriage does not a stable partnership make.

binary_star I think your contention is that the failure rate of civil partnerships is lower than marriage. I think civil partnerships are in ramp up and have not reached a steady state yet so I don't think it is a fair comparison. I think there may be a bias in that presumably those that have taken the plunge on CP are the early adopters who may be less likely to fail than once it is more mainstream. I think if you also stratified the data by duration you'd get a different result. So how many marriages that took place in 2010 failed in 2011 and how does this compare with CPs? Same question for 2009. i.e. plot failure rate by duration. I reckon you'd get a different result. Well maybe. Quite happy for M and CP to coexist, but far less happy with shaky stats being used in this Drawing Room on either side of the argument (and to be perfectly clear I am not saying that yours are the shakiest on here...)

There was a rather lively EDF-style debate on this matter some time ago between people informed to varying degrees providing their 2 pennies worth alongside lashings of hearsay and conjecture. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,549067,page=1 Can't say I read all of it.

Twirly - not sure what can be done to prevent more such thefts. Not quite the same, but my next door neighbour's motorbike was pinched last night from the front doorstep - heavy lock cut through. I didn't hear a thing. Can everyone be more vigilant and not hold back from asking people who they are and what they are doing when they see something suspicious please. And when you hear a car / house alarm in your street for goodness sake check it out.

Happier pictures:

I'm absolutely disgusted by this. Incensensed. Last time I walked through the park there was a little girl with curly blonde hair sat in it looking delighted about life...and now some tossers are melting it down. What a loss. There is no way this got out without someone seeing something - especially given the CCTV world we live in.

Yeah but for people living on benefits with the sense and awareness of their financial limitations not to spend it in the pub, wouldn't it piss them off to have to go the pub for it? Smell all the nice beer and then not drink any... Seems a bit fecking harsh to me. It's one thing not being able to afford a pint, but making them trot through the pub "look but don't touch" seems beyond the pale. I know there are rural villages where there is a kind of pub, grocer, newsagent type one stop shop that becomes the hub of the community and presumably it is these sorts of plces that would be used for benefits. I can't see the Palmerston suddenly setting this up. On a similar but different note, I gather that the legislation restricting (banning) the sale of alcohol at motorway service areas is to be lifted and they will be allowed to apply for alcohol licenses to the local authorities. Another slow clap...

Having looked at the link (Thanks ianr) this does sound very good. I retract my pooh pooh...

Nicely dropped!

...and addiction to strange internet forums (fora?). Go on though be honest, will you be testing participants and their responses for your researc or is this purely altruistic? ;)

I have the wind up one and I would point out that it does protrude forward rather unattractively and has a tendency to droop.

UDT, but the first point in your latest instalment of the Swedish saga you are basically saying that the increased tax in Sweden isn't really extra tax as the government spends it on good stuff rather than frittering it on shite. Oh I see, so when someone asks you which country has the highest tax rate, you don't respond with the country in which the largest quantity of your hard earned sequestered by the government. Instead your response is based on a complex and multi variate analysis of quality of life. People who have the best quality of life / joy per pound spent by your definition have the lowest tax rate. You are quite the philosopher. What is the meaning of tax anyway?

So Taper. You are not necessarily disagreeing with the principle that there is a problem with the public sector pay / pensions. All you are saying is that anyone who thinks the unions will roll over and accept a new deal in the interests of fairness rather than resist it kicking and screaming is smoking something. Therefore we all agree. The End.

Well it is obviously very inefficient not to recognise regional differences. Public sector workers in the North East (for example) are highly paid relative to their local private sector peers (if any). A private company run efficiently sets wage at the level needed to attract suficient employees of suitable quality. Whereas without regional differentiiation we end up with those who land a public sector job in a deprived / cheap area as relative lottery winners. They get to buy "taste the difference" (assuming stocked locally) whereas someone doing the same job in an area of higher living cost has to make do with the "essentials" range to make ends meet. That said, we remove the incentivise and nobody would live up norf at all... :)

Now I like a good pissing contest as much as the next man, but putting that to one side for a moment... Pugwash - Clearly I don't know the full detail of your pension arrangements, but what would you say to the Private Sector worker that works your hours and has a similar lunchtime routine with no final salary pension to look forward to. They only have a contributory pension (if at all) which like your additional contributions have been decimated by the fall in the value of their invested pension pot. What's your message to them? Should they support you in your strike? Should they work the extra years at the end of their working life to support your earlier (than them) retirement? Do you really expect sympathy from them? Honestly? If so, on what basis? Are Public Sector jobs more important so you deserve a better deal? Looks like we are back to the same old problem that things always boil down to. People get habituated to a certain arrangement and then feel a sense of entitlemment. Less of a good thing is perceived as a bad thing. It's 9dare I say it) mother and baby parking spaces in Sainsburys all over again.