Jeremy

Maybe big enough to build 3 houses or 6 flats? I would think there's still money to be made.

That site cannot possibly be 0.6 acres. My guess it's a typo for 0.06 acres.

pipsky2008 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What happens to tinned paint when it is taken to a recycling centre, can anyone say? If in good condition it can be re-used via a scheme such as community repaint. Or it can be "re-manufactured", i.e. filtered and recycled into new paint.

I'm sure last time this subject was raised, someone suggested it was the council's fault for not building a proper track for them to use...

I wouldn't even consider getting a bus to the station. Would rather walk for 25 mins. Thoroughly unpredictable journey time, and a generally miserable start to your day.

In this case the language was nasty and malicious, so surely it was a no-brainer. Posting something deliberately offensive (maybe upsetting to some) to spark debate is pretty stupid. And incidentally, the debate itself only has any merit if you're struggling to distinguish between fiction/drama and real life.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is the point of enhancing the station > frontage when the whole of Rye Lane especially the > South end > is in such a depressed state. ? I agree Rye Lane is certainly scruffy. Surely that's a good argument FOR improvements? No?

I'd argue that freedom of speech with caveats is not freedom of speech. Not saying that the caveats aren't needed.. but at the same time I'm not sure it's worth trying protect something which IMO we don't have.

But we don't have freedom of speech in the UK... we have hate speech laws...

Think you misunderstood the post, Ruffler...

I used to get the 7:33am from Peckham Rye until recently, now I get the 8:13 or 8:23. It's never so crowded that you can't get on. But you'd be lucky to get a seat. Reliability on the return journey is a problem though.

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you dont consider the rear of the station > scruffy, unpleasant and dirty. Scruffy in places, yes. But they're private businesses set back from the street. You're not forced to walk right through it.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > do you feel that there are no circumstances whatsoever in which it would have been acceptable? Pretty much, yep. I can't think of any. Homophobic or racist characters in drama are one thing. Internet forums are not works of fiction.. we take what we read at face value. In your case, it was impossible to interpret it as anything other than nasty and spiteful.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The whole space from the station to Bellenden road > should be razed and developed for the use of all. > > You could even have a Dutch style cycle park for > comuters instead of row upon row of car repair > units and a scrap yard. People do need their cars serviced/repaired, you know! Do you really mean "for the use of all", because it sounds like you just want something that would suit some people. Saying that, I support the new station square, the area in front of the station at the moment is scruffy, unpleasant and dirty. And judging by the frequent stink of piss, some toilet facilities would also be welcome.

Your original post was pretty offensive.. IMO would have been decent grounds for banning. I've never seen "Ashes to Ashes", but I imagine that this Gene Hunt character is known for being a bit of an arse hat, and that the audience is not expected to sympathise with him. i.e. they laugh at him and not with him.

Not much details in the article itself. And the link within it (to planbuild.southwark.gov.uk) doesn't seem to work. But apart from that - yeah, great.

Ben - I'm not a dog owner (or walker) but nevertheless I sympathise, and I think your complaint is entirely reasonable. Some people here making themselves look quite stupid IMO. Views on breeding is surely a seperate discussion.

What a load of crap. Pull the other one.

Yeah very sad state of affairs - but IMO it's a bit of a leap to just assume that someone who steals has been effectively forced to do so by govt policy.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They committed themselves to "balancing the books" > (with Labour's backing). They can't/won't cut > pensions. They can't/won't cut child benefit. > Meanwhile (pensions, baby boomers etc.) the > welfare bill keeps on increasing. Not many places > they can find the mythical ?12bn. Rock and a hard place. I think the problem for a lot of people is that they have a hard time reconciling cuts to welfare with Cameron/Osbourne's commitment to cut taxes. Surely if the priority is to balance the defecit, then we should all be doing our bit... but clearly this is not the case. The whole "austerity" line is essentially a tool they're using to push through their ideology of low tax, low welfare, small government. With a credible opposition, this could have been their "poll tax" moment!

I used to have an annoying habit of saying "yeah?" at the end of sentences. Sort of like a lobotomised Eastenders character. "I'm just popping out to the shop, yeah?", etc. I made a conscious effort to stop doing it, but unfortunately not before my wife had picked up the same bad habit. She now tells off our daughter by saying to her "No, yeah?".

Saying something which is (arguably) factually correct doesn't necessarily make it OK, when it's nevertheless insensitive and potentially hurtful. Saying that, I don't think trying to silence differing opinions is at all constructive.

LM - yep that's the big difference. Deliveroo take care of the delivery - mainly for restaurants where "eating in" is the core business, rather than takeaway/delivery. One good tactic is to use JustEat to browse the restuaurants and menus... then phone directly and place your order.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Amazon ultimately who were defrauded. They decide > not to pursue these cases, even were they have all > the information necessary to catch the > perpetrators, which I disapprove of. Credit card companies also don't usually bother pursuing fraud cases. Police won't get involved unless the card company initiates it. You can see why it's tempting to pull this type of scam, when the chances are nobody will even bother looking for the perpetrator! But for these types of company, it's a simple cost/benefit decision..

"Self-reflection"? Patronising jerk.