Jeremy

I'd go ever further than that, and say he is a fuck fuck.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the wife-beating thing is what makes him a @#$%& in my book. Quite. I don't understand why everyone is choosing to ignore this, painting him as some sort of loveable rogue, or harmless hedonist. He's not. He's a fucking prick.

cab, your mugging must have been a terrible experience, but come on... "an oasis surrounded by areas of deprivation"? Surely you're exaggerating the difference between ED and its neighbours somewhat. And let's not kid ourselves that muggers and burglars cannot possibly live in Dulwich.

Platoon and Wall Street. And bit-parts in Ferris Bueller and Being John Malkovich (Yo, Malkatraz!). That's pretty much all his output worth watching. > So the guy likes to drink, snort and fcuk. What's wrong with that? Good luck to him. It's more his history of beating up women which is the problem.

I think we should be very careful about sensationalising this situation.

Haye in talks with the Klitschkos' manager. Again. They seem to have had so many false starts, I'm not sure what to think. Perhaps they have just been trying to gain publicity, and now finally, this is it? Or maybe talks will fall apart again, and Haye will end up fighting Evander Holyfield or something.

Poor chap, hope he's OK.

Sean, if someone owns a rental property, it's probably a simple choice of continuing to let to their existing tenants, or booting them out to profit from the Olympics. The former is the right thing to do, but it doesn't help the problem any more than the latter. Renting a room out - yes you could rent a room out for the regular going rate, but as Clare says... if you have a spare room and are willing to have a lodger, why wouldn't you be doing it already?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so if you don't happen to be well off, bugger off, the Olympics aren't for you? I understand what you're saying from an ideological point of view, but I don't understand it from a practical perspective. You're not going to help the situation by simply *not* renting out your house. And nobody is going to specifically vacate their home for a few hundred quid. So... what's the solution?

Doesn't make sense. Why would you specifically vacate your house during the Olympics, just so you can make "normal" rent on it? You'd give up your home just so sports fans could enjoy the games? And if you own a rental property anyway... surely you own it with the specific inention of making money? Try as I might, I just don't see the gig ticket analogy. It's not like you've got something going spare that you don't need any more.

pinkhalf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One of my other neighbours said she > got rid of her place for ?400,000 and described > her buyer "as a mug". What a charming lady.

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > have you not heard that expression? I have now.

Don't you need to be dead to have a grave?

Well, you can spontaneously decide to travel somewhere without worrying about whether there is a car available nearby. And you can return home whenever you want, without watching the clock. Also, car club cars are mainly quite small, not suitable for large amounts of luggage. (before anyone jumps down my throat, of course car-clubs have numerous advantages too)

Oh dear. Somebody better lock this thread...

It's all South London. Peckham, Dulwich, Camberwell, Sydenham, etc, all have nice bits and not-so-nice bits. And even in the nice bits, you'll always find people up to no good. The postcode borders are irrelevant to this discussion.

Just found this: http://captainhowdy.com/media/subliminal-images/

jumpinjackflash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this face that used to flash every so often really scared the bejeezus out of me Fricking awesome. I'm going to buy the DVD now.

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > didn't the group Tortoise once play the Horniman Museum? Great band, but now a shell of their former selves.

A guy I used to work with bought two tortoises for his kids. One was carried away by a bird (probably crow or gull), the other was also attacked by a bird and had his tail nipped off. I guess the moral of the story is not to leave them uncovered in the garden.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Succesful countries never have and never will "live within their means" True, in as much as everyone needs to borrow sometimes. But although the current govt possibly exaggerate the situation to fit their ideology, current borrowing is not really sustainable. It should be possible to have the public debt running at something like half the current amount. So Labour over-spend... and the Tories give us a sound balance sheet, but with higher unemployment and no investment on infrasctructure/services. Neither are desirable, but at least we get to alternate between them now and again. Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what would happen if the country just defaulted on the debt? As others have said, we will always need to borrow for various reasons, so to default is unimaginable. It's analagous to skipping your loan/credit card/mortgage repayments - see what happens next time you need to borrow cash for repairs to your home, or to send kids to uni!

minder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You wouldn't be saying "so be it" if you were on the Council's waiting list. Maybe not. But if you were living in the estate, you might appreciate the refurb. I think it's made a huge difference the the environment in the estate. Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that some of the new flats on Pytchley Road are earmarked for council tennants. Besides, there are obvious advantages to mixing private and council housing together.

????, wasn't trying to deflect the blame at all... of course it wasn't the victim's fault and I do have a lot of sympathy. It's a horrible thing to happen. But you have to be realistic, accept that these scumbags exist, and do what you can to minimise the risk to yourself and your property. It was meant as constructive advice, if you want to twist it into "wet liberal tosh" then that's your problem.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we all now need two phones - cheap one for talking > on in public and our iPhone for functionality at home. No, I would suggest not talking on your phone when you're on your own, in a quiet road, in the middle of the night. If for some reason you feel that this is too restrictive, then I would suggest getting a cheap phone, and using your computer at home for browsing the internet and playing games. At the end of the day, this is London, and everybody should take sensible precautions.

Freddy1929 - I believe that the huge refurb programme is being partially funded by the sale of flats on the estate. I don't like the idea of selling off council flats either, but if that's the only way they could fund the (badly needed) work, then so be it. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This would require any purchaser to have around ?19,000 cash deposit and a ?57,000 pa salary. No, more like a 38K deposit and a 38K salary.