Jeremy

Walking along East Dulwich Road the other day, it occurred to me that this is the first time I can recall when all the shops have been occupied. That has to be a good thing. Let's not forget that the population of ED covers a wide range of ages and incomes, there's clearly a market for fast food, even if it doesn't appeal to the average EDF poster.

Our little brown kitchen bin and blue box went missing a while ago. Southwark were far from "brilliant" and haven't replaced them, so now we are forced to put stuff in our neighbours bins!

Huguenot, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realise that insulting people is not an effective way to get your point across. So why do you do it? Anyway, extreme rules to limit car ownership may work in Singapore - a smaller, wealthier city with modern and efficient public transport. London, with it's Victorian infrastructure, crumbling transport network, and sprawling suburbs is a rather different kettle of fish. You have to give people an alternative before banning cars. Luckily no government with such policies would ever be elected (another problem I guess you don't have in Singapore!)

Plug-in hybrids are the way forward - i.e. fuel efficient hybrid cars, which can be ran purely on batteries for shorter journeys.

Agreed about desserts - I never understand why the bog-standard places do such terrible desserts. Although checking the Ganapati website, it looks like they've taken gulab jamun off the menu for some reason!!

For me, taxis and hire cars would probably work out cheaper than car ownership, but it simply would not be as convenient. Improving the train service is a noble aim, but I don't think many people use their cars for travelling to central London, so this wouldn't persuade anyone to ditch their car. In fact, it might actually result in increased commuter parking.

Chessboxing Exercise for the body and mind.

The Ganapati backlash begins! Not been there in a while, but my experience tallies with yours - quite a lot of money for OK, rustic home-cooking style food. I think it's popular because of the promise of authenticity, which in turn allows them to charge high prices.

Come on, stop being so silly. What on earth is wrong with spending ?2 on a pot of soup? Even if you think it tastes bad (I would disagree), if the alternative is to spend an hour of my time making a soup from scratch, give me the Waitrose verion any day!

To be fair the OP does say "it doesn't matter which junction to hit", some people seem to have taken this literally...

buddug - we all know by now that you have a beef with James, I think this has gone far enough.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How does London become a predominantly cycling > city? > What about those folk - older or those whose > health predisposes them against cycling, etc etc Or how about the taxis, buses, trucks, vans, etc which I suspect make up the majority of London traffic! Anyway, surely dangerous roads are a bigger barrier to potential cyclists than poor signage.

Dulwich Medical Centre? Crystal Palace Road or Chadwick Road?

So the new management have started? Do they have a kitchen up and running already?

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems to me to be a spot where a truly great aspiring Michelin > style place would do well. Why not? No reason at all why it couldn't, I'm sure it could do very well. I think Beauberry House had fine-dining aspirations a few years ago, they had an expensive menu featuring wagyu beef, foie gras, etc. But the food and the interior just weren't up to scratch.

Why not just call the number now, and see if you get an option to change the registration?

I'm assuming the pub will stay downstairs? If so, it could be a really positive move, and it might even get new management and some half-decent grub. The hotel would probably do well, as there is no decent hotel for miles around.

Hugo - totally agree that perspective and proportion need to be applied when it comes to sentencing. It wasn't my intention to suggest that all offenders should be locked up for life, or have their hands cut off. But I would find it hard to defend non-custodial sentences for convicted burglars.

What's the difference between a 'church' and a church? What makes one set of rituals, superstition and mythology better than another (apart from than the age of the building it takes place in?) Anyway, if somebody believes they'll be granted eternal life by driving from Catford to East Dulwich every Sunday, you're going to have to come up with something better than "this isn't a car park" if you want them to stop.

I agree, Brixton has changed a lot, and I don't think it has anything to do with M&S.

I find all this coffee snoberry rather silly (since when was a student with a saturday job called a 'barista'?), but I do find it intriguing why so many people seem to prefer coffee chains to independent cafes. Nero and Starbucks are by no means the most pleasant places to relax in Dulwich... is it that people are lazy, so stick with the familiar rather than trying somewhere new?

Rim World

I agree that a max of 14 years, with a min of 3 years for repeat offenders sounds about right. But I think the OP is talking about the ones who receive much shorter sentences.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the only person who could start > with 'too short a sentence' for burglary would be > someone who's never been in prison. Perhaps the only person who could defend short sentences for burglary would be someone who doesn't know what it's like to have your home broken into, and precious possessions stolen.