PokerTime

Quite right Minkey. And people are killing themselves over it. There are quite a few cases, from Stephanie Botrill throwing herself under a lorry on the M6, to another person hanging himself on the day of his eviction. In addition, around 1300 people a year are dying within weeks of being failed by ATOS, mostly from their underlying health conditions but some sadly from suicide. I can't think of any other walk of live where we'd tolerate that level of wrong decision making and death. There would be an inquiry! And at the end of it all, the welfare bill is still rising, mainly due the to growing numbers of people over 65, low wages and rising rents. We are looking for the answers in the wrong places. Our economy is not inbalanced because of the drain of the unemployed, it's inbalanced because we have lost a grasp of reality between the cost of living and wages. Job insecurity, low wages, loss of skilled jobs, are making it hard for increasing numbers of the workforce to have any quality of life. And we just don't have enough people in work to support the changing demographics of our labour market and retired population. Add to that, 10% of our national spending goes on arms and war, it's frustrating. But the poor are easy to kick aren't they.

No fazer, it hasn't. Most people affected by bedroom tax are not living in three bed houses, they are living in two bed flats. Even where disability isn't an issue, local authorities just do not have the one bedroomed properties needed to move people into. In my brothers borough for example, it would take the LA 15 years to rehouse all the single people in two beds flats because there are NO one bed flats to move them to. Moving them to a private rented sector flat would cost the tax payer double what it costs to keep them in the two bedroomed social housing flat! It's completely a false economy on a local level. Several Housing Associations have published reports on the impact of bedroom Tax and they makes for uncomfortable reading. LA's and HA's have been put in impossible situations, unable to rehouse people, and unable to collect the full rent due. No one would disagree about single occupancy of three bedroom houses, but it's a myth that these are the core of the problem. On a local level it's a disaster because it makes no account of localised availablity. The result is many people now having no choice but to pay ?14 a week from the ?71 they receive towards rent. These people are the worst affected. And in areas of high unemployment, and yes there really are places in the country where the unemployed outnumber available jobs 10-1, there is NO solution that will save the tax payer any money whatsoever. What frustrates me about this debate is that everyone focusses on the minority extremes, like Bob Crowe on a ?100,000 salary and still living in a council house. But the bedroom tax is only going after those in receipt of housing benefit. The main reason for depleted social housing stock is right to buy. 40% of all the council properties bought under right to buy (since the scheme began) are now in the ownership of private landlords. The main expense to the housing benefit bill is the payments made to private landlords who charge anything up to three times as much as social housing. We have a million people in full time work needing housing benefit and tax credits to make ends me and that is growing. Tax payers are subsidising low wages, employers, corporations (in huge grants and tax relief) as well as pivate landlords. Let's talk about that shall we? Instead of making the lot of poorest more miserable than is already is for too many of them. We really have forgotton why social housing came about in the first place. Only an idit would want to see us go back there. Uncleglen, if you don't pay your rent you are taken to court. If the magistrate doesn't evict you, you are given a suspended possesion order with a payment plan. If you fail to keep up with those repayments, the council do not need to go back to court to evict you, that can just serve notice. Having children does not exclude anyone. Your are writing nonsense. Roundabout, rent is not used for capital building because the rules don't allow for it to be used for such. Housing Associations are the favoured option by government for capital building grants. There is far too much ignorance around the issue of social housing. Yet a simple bit of research is all it requires to get the facts right.

I agree on sinusoidal humps. Vans can speed through them without even knowing they are there and then there's the maintenaince as the corners get chipped off (as you would expect them to) by vehicles regularly drving over them. Complete waste of money.

Why would affluence lead to an expectation of better manners? Often affluence can only be maintained through self interest. It never suprises me to find a better off person being more self interested than anyone else. Go to any public school and you'll see ruthlessness in abundance. It might just be that the go-get mindset is being mistaken for poor manners. What I would also say though is that London is more aggressive anyway than most towns and cities. The pace of life is fast, the stresses are big, and dog eat dog plays itself in every corner. It's not something I've ever experienced elsewhere in the UK. It's worth making that distinction.

I have friends of all classes, backgrounds and ethnicity and they are my friends because they are lovely, intelligent and compassionate people. I equally know of some people of all classes, backgrounds and ethnicity, who are self-interested, rude and destructive. That's people. But to have this idea that affluence alone defines a person just makes no sense Louisa. What if I said to you that I hate working class people. They moan about everything and drop litter and sponge off other people's taxes. You would be absolutely right in arguing that to be a false assumption and that working class people are not all the same. So why can't you grasp that idea when people say the same to you about your entrenched hatred of the middle classes? It's not rocket science.

Yes I am telling you that Louisa, because the data says that. And what I said was below average wage (which defines working class) not below the poverty line (which defines hardship). Reading only what you want to again?

Hmmm, someone should develop an app....call it 'weave wars'....a game where you have to avoid tumbleweaves and litter and take out yummies with buggies! Could put Rye Lane on the map, and might just be the perfect stressbuster for Louisa :D

This is really good news and shows the shift away from terrestrial production, as internet broadcasting becomes the norm. The poor ratings were imo a combination of the wrong scheduling time and also the flaws in which ratings are collated. Whilst many of us now use any number of platforms to watch programmes as catch up, ratings are still collected from a small selected pool of people provided with equipment to record what they watch, as it is broadcast. It is such an outdated mode of measuring viewing figures. Also, add to that, that no licence is needed if you only watch catch up services and not live broadcasts. It's a pretty good incentive for many people to not bother with live television at all. The BBC needs to change it's model, and fast - or it will get left behind.

Louisa....in an area where according to the last census, the overwhelming majority of people are on below average incomes, your comments are just ludicrous.

A lot of the problems are to do with welfare reforms and bedroom tax (which party in is control of those?) with 60% of tenants affected by bedroom tax finding themselves in arrears in Southwark (compared to 28% before the reforms). Add to that that most of those affected are disabled and use the spare room for equipment and or carers it really highlights the stupidity of this coalition policy. And it is having the same impact on every social landlord across the country. Southwark is pretty robust in dealing with rent arrears but often people get into arrears through no fault of their own and if they are vulnerable people, the council has welfare officers to help those people with payment plans. What those figures don't tell you either is how much of those arrears are on payment plans already and will in time be paid. You really need to think why people are in arrears before blaming anyone. I'm happy to have a discussion those about the reasons and just who is to blame for that though.

Louisa, when I was a child I had a bicycle, a scooter, a space hopper. I lost count of the number of times I went home to have wounds dressed from falling off those things. I even one time slid down a plank only to stop halfway because a rusty nail that was sticking out had lodged itself in my bottom lol. I didn't feel it, but I sure felt the tetness injection I had as a result. Children climb, explore and yes they fall over too. This idea that kids should be molly coddled and not let out of site is a new thing. Let kids be kids.

Here we go again! Rudeness is to be found amongst all classes and walks of life. It has nothing to do with age or class. And as for kids playing, really? Lighten up! There are plenty of really important things that we should be iritated by, but younsters playing isn't one of them.

Mayor Boris announced work to thirty most dangerous roundabouts and junctions in London today, to make them safer for cyclists. Elephant and Castle roundabout is in there. The spend will be ?300 million. That has to be a good thing.

The money awarded from the CGS was ?2500. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=4410 A pot of around ?250k is available from the CGS each year. Any individual or community group within Southwark can apply for funding for any project that falls within the remit of the scheme. There's a lot of imformation about the scheme on Southwark's website.

I don't disagree with any of those points. What I would say though is this. Why does a cyclist need to hop onto a pavement, as opposed to getting off their cycle and walking across a junction? I absolutely agree that many junctions and indeed roundabouts are not cyclist friendly and we've all been suddenly forced onto pavements to avoid being hit by vehicles. That is not really what prompted this thread. Hopping onto a pavement to avoid a vehicle squeeze is different to using the pavement instead of the road. Cycle paths, feeder lanes and boxes all help, and pressure should be kept up to improve the provision of those things and I entirely agree regardng Rye Lane. The highway code though clearly instructs drivers to give cyclists as much room as they would when overtaking a car. In practise that never happens. So I would argue that the highway code does make for safe roads in principle, but that the reality of navigating narrow roads within a congested capital city makes the highway code impractical. In many ways, cycling can't win. There is as much a difference in size, weight, speed etc from pedestrian to cycle as there is from cycle to vehicle. That does make cycles unique as road users imo. But even with all the protected cycle lanes/ routes that could be desired, there'd still be some cyclists who would vent frustration at slower cyclists getting in their way and soem drivers who would show no awareness when crossing those routes. So I think psychology is something that merits dicussion within all aspects of road design and planning.

That's a great film Millhaven. Hmm I think a classic cinema afternoon would be a great asset.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/25/cctv-footage-released-of-moment-asperger-sufferer-was-killed-with-a-single-punch-4320000/ There are rules, one of which is cyclists should not use pavements. Yes road safety needs to be improved, and particularly of the risks taken by some drivers (risks that endanger other drivers as well as cyclists). No amount of signs, fines and lights are going to re-educate all those that fail to see the point of why those rules exist in the first place, which is why we end up with humps and pinch points etc. Mos of the problems stem from human behaviour, not road management or design. And dealing with that is the challenge. How to stop a speeding motorist is as difficult a question as how to stop a cyclist running a red light. Using this stat or that stat on road deaths is neither here nor there. If all road users followed the highway code, there would be no need for this discussion in the first place. 'Always avoid an accident if you can' - it's on the first pages of the highway code - THAT's what needs to be drummed into the heads of ALL road users. Ah if only it were that easy. There is a parallel between the law breaking cyclist and the law breaking driver and it's this. The desire and absolute right to get from A-B as quickly as possible. Having to slow down or stop for anything or anybody is the equal inconvenience they both share. I think a discussion of that psychology is far more useful than point scoring over what has been an obsessive debate over what qualifies as useable stats. Yesterday I left a friends house. I was on my cycle in a quiet street and couldn't find a cycle wide gap between parked cars to get onto the road. So I cycled on the pavement to look for a gap in which I could do this. A woman approaching on the pavevemnt stopped to let me pass her (as the pavement wasn't wide enough for both of us). I was cycling at walking pace but I stopped and said 'no, I shouldn't be on the pavement, you pass first'. She replied with 'thank you' and then I thought about this thread. The point is this. A pedestrian on a pavement, most of the time feels they have to give way to a cycle on a pavement, because a cycle if it hits them, can hurt them. THAT's why the highway code says what it does. Yes, as road users, we can all work towards a consensus of what will work best. But using that to break the law and claim use of the pavements is imo, wrong.

That's a great question Ms Blueberry. If it were opening today, I's ask for '20 feet from Stardom' to be on the bill. But in a years time, what's out there and current will be different. What I would like to see, apart from the money spinners (needed to keep the business open of course) is a commitment to independent documentary and UK filmmaking. I can think of many films that would find an audience in ED, without major distribution. This part of London is full of film makers and a fair few big players in the film industry too. I can't think of a better comapny than Picture House to embrace that.

Sadly, whilst we are kept seperated from where our food comes from and how it gets here, people will not care enough to force the corporations to put people before profit. I totally agree with regards to buying fairtrade, but with wholsesale food prices going up I can't see the situation improving any time soon. Capitalist free market economics depends on the subjegation of labour, which amounts to wage slavery for many more people on the planet than those protected by minimum wage legislation. The same could be said about land grabbing...a growing problem by corporations in Africa or the demand for ivory having seen the elephant population in one part of Africa demise from 60,000 in the 70's to just 2,000 today. Imagine a world without elephants! Well it may well just happen. The demand for ivory from China is bigger than all of the elephants on the planet. None of it is pleasant, but for anything to change, there has to be a fundamental shift in thinking on the value of people, labour, resources, wildlife (I could go on) none of which will happen whilst the masters of the universe are ruthless profiteers.

All sounds great Vic.

I think the Pekham Multiplex shows a good range of films and agree on the price but I've had to regularly tell people to turn off their phones or stop talking at Peckham. So I think ED could attract an audience that Peckham doesn't.

Why not help the Rye to investigate it bigtony2 ? They don't want to employ anyone who may be capable of theft (attempted or otherwise). I think you have lost support because you posted a serious allegation about possibly a member of staff at a local business, and when the manager of that business expresses concern and asks for details so that he can address what might be a serious allegation for the reputation of his business, you just dismiss his efforts with a 'I'm not that bothered'. You were though obviously bothered enough to make a public declaration, which as someone posted above was unfair before speaking to the business itself first. I think the Rye Pub have shown themselves to be anything but a fraudulant business.

Or Western leaders of economies in decline needing to secure oil supplies are w ankers?

And there was I thinking we were finally beginning to get somewhere lol....... I don't think I really have anything more to add. Obviously I agree regarding litter but don't know what the demise of the working class means. Demise technically means the death of. But why then is the level of poverty, and those earning less than the average wage rising? Hmm I think planet Louisa will have to stay just that. I've enjoyed debating though :)

To be fair to Louisa, I think the issue for her is more about culture and class. Having said said that though, in this area, ethnicity and culture are strongly linked. And any prejudice based on culture or class is just as bad as any form of xenophobia or racism imo. It's still a mantra of us vs them and is completely divisive.