legalbeagle

BTW there is a cash point in Dulwich Village - it's in the newsagents. I think you have to pay for withdrawals tho.

Sad to see people generally didn't like this shop. Every time I went in there I found nice things, not too expensive, and with really lovely helpful staff (lots of whom were volunteers). Always a shame when someone tries to do something well meaning and different and it doesn't work out. Hope they have luck with whatever their next venture is.

These cuts weren't in the manifesto, but worse, in the run up to the election Cameron expressly stated that they would not happen. Bleating now about fairness and the constitution seems a tad hypocritical. The argument "We are elected, it is our will and thus the will of the people" is a little dodgy when you lied to the people to get into power. Good on them, I say. At least someone kept the government to a promise...

LadyNorwood I'm so sorry to hear what happened to you, you must have been really upset. Awful, and really frightening.

I'd think about: Loan to value ratio (if you are about to significantly improve that go for a shorter term so that as soon as you can take advantage of improved L/V ratio you can) Your income - if it's unreliable or at risk or dependent on tax credits or other similar things then go longer if you can for greater certainty Your attitude to risk - do you really need to nail down where you are for the next five years on can you afford to gamble a little?

Man buns tho...

I think it is the case that they had planned a row of houses with underground parking. Certainly there were lots of protests covered by the press from local schools that the amount of heavy machinery required to dig out basements would be unsafe. Not sure what happened in the end tho.

I might be you know. Tempted, that is.

Ooooh I really like Tandoori Nights *Tempted Face*

Penge = East Dulwich a decade ago. Get in while you can. Victorian housing stock, changing high street that's not too over gentrified, big parks. Penge West is on the London Overground making travel to East London or Docklands very simple (basically you are on the tube), plus the train goes into London Bridge. Penge East goes into Victoria and Blackfriars. Basically the travel from there is really easy. 176 bus to Lordship Lane if you miss it, no parking restrictions. For some reason Norwood has always had the potential to change but hasn't. Don't know why. (*disclaimer - I live in Penge so am biased. But Time Out this week agrees with me...)

This groovy tune

Nothing useful to add - except huge respect for the women brave enough to report this, and a sincere hope that he's caught before his already very upsetting behaviour gets worse.

I thinks lots of people do not realise how much rent now is on the Lane.

I agree Otta - and I've mentioned both those things. No blaggers, hence suggestion about registration, and if you are terrified then I'm sure cabin staff can make suitable arrangements so that you aren't next to one.

I feel a bit sad when I read threads like this. Basically, if someone really gets genuine help from something like a dog, what harm is there is a bit of live and let live? I mean, unless you are terrified or allergic, why is one persons inconvenience or dislike of something more important than someone else's comfort or happiness? You might think it's excessive or daft or indulgent, but it's not exactly hurting anyone, is it? Yes, register, have some sensible framework, and so on. But if you cope much better with life when you are accompanied by a dog/enormous hat/music in your ears/only wearing yellow, then what the heck. Do your thing. I'm struggling to see either what the problem is, or frankly why it's any of my business.

GONE Beautiful Wooden Buddha

Vintage Rocking Chair

Klove Random Stuff The Chapel of Rest Unlawful Eviction

Otta - I'd agree. Unchecked and untrained it's open to abuse and also might be of dubious help. But registered/organised/recognised properly seems acceptable? Which is what that particular organisation seems to want too (I haven't looked at others).

I think that might rather depend on the level of need? Pampered pooch in a handbag is really not the same as a person whose life is considerably enriched by a support dog, or who is enabled to do things that they might otherwise not be able to? And the affect on others similarly needs to be measured - for example I don't much care if you think they are unhygienic or you don't like them if they are doing measurable good, but I would be far more sympathetic to someone who has a bad allergy or asthma. Perhaps a definition of exactly what we are talking about would be helpful? By way of example, if there was a sensible way of registering these dogs so that the system is not abused, I would support a person recovering from depression using this method: http://dogsfordepression.org.uk/how-dogs-help-us.html

If there's a genuine need for an emotional support dog I'd personally have no issue with it.

"Do you really think that the sentence for a violent coercive rape of a child should be the same for a non-violent, non-coercive rape where factual consent is clear?" No I do not. That is why I made very clear in my example that the hypothetical child in question was forced to have sex, but suffered no physical harm. Where physical harm is also done, then a higher sentence is and should be imposed. That is because you are punishing both the rape and the physical harm. Much the same as there is a distinction drawn between say, robbery and aggravated robbery. If you beat someone as well as rape them you are punished for beating them as well as raping them. It is not the rape that is worse. It is the addition of the beating that attracts the higher sentence. The right question is - do I think that the coercive rape of a child should carry the same sentence as the non-coercive rape of a child. And yes, I do. By which I mean, in the scenario I originally set out, no leniency should be accorded JUST BECAUSE the child consented. They are a child. You cannot have sex with a child. Their consent means nothing in terms of mitigating either the rapists behaviour or his sentence.

DaveR - I certainly wouldn't blame low conviction rates "primarily on bad law or bad judges" and I don't think I've ever said that. There are multiple and complex reasons why rape conviction rates are so low. Of course a jury convicts and not a judge. However a jury is very swayed by a judges summing up and directions (hence the right to appeal certain convictions based on a material misdirection from a judge.) Equally importantly, the comments that a judge makes in sentencing (which is what all of the examples I gave came from) set the tone for how we view these offences. And so although the judge may not convict, what he or she can do is put an unfair context around the offence, colouring how we view the behaviour of perpetrators and victims, and perpetuating certain myths. That feeds back into the cycle of it being harder for a person not to be blamed for being raped, and to bring forward a complaint in the first place. A good example would be my first one - yes it was a rape but she let herself down by getting drunk and taking drugs. In the particular case of the 12 year old and your commment: "This is not evidence of confusion, but of the fact that a 12 year old girl is legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity but is factually capable, even if that factual consent may be less informed/more susceptible to persuasion than an adult, or an older child. As a result, after conviction consent is still capable of being a live factual issue that is relevant to sentencing, unlike in a case where factual lack of consent is proved by the guilty verdict." My thoughts would be: If a 12 year old child is consenting to sex with you, there is something wrong. We should not hold that child responsible for their rape in any way, including in the giving of a lenient sentence. I'm sorry, but they are a twelve year old child. They may be physically capable of saying yes, and meaning it, but they cannot possibly know, on an emotional level, what they are doing. Adults are supposed to protect children, not have sex with them. The law is supposed to uphold that right to protection. If, at 12, you want to have sex then you need help and education readjusting to what is appropriate behaviour for a child your age. What you do not need, and should not experience, is a man having sex with you. No adult should have sex with a child, however willing, and if they do they should bear full responsibility for it. Her willingness should in no way have affected the sentence, in my view. Are we really saying that a child of 12 is not mature enough to vote, drink, leave school, or be left alone at home unattended, but they CAN be judged partly responsible for a sexual encounter with an adult? When I say the judge was confused, frankly I was being polite. What I actually think is that the judge was confused, woefully misguided, and incapable of properly protecting children. To test that theory, look at it the other way around, in this hypothetical situation. Suppose it was this: She was 12, he was an adult, he forced her into sex, although he physically harmed her in no way. He is convicted. He is a rapist, he is a pedophile, and he deserves a long sentence. I think we can probably all agree on that. Now go back, and take away the force part. She wanted the sex. All the other facts remain the same. Here is what the judge implied: You are an adult. You had sex with a child. You are a pedophile and a rapist. But since the child in question appears not to have minded, well, that's not so bad. We don't really mind if kids have sex when they want to. Even if they are only 12. Even if you are a grown adult. Even if we have no way of knowing what lead someone so young to display that kind of behaviour. I mean, technically we now have to do something, because that's the law, but you know, it wasn't so bad. I exaggerate to make the point but nonetheless. That is not a judge with which I am happy.

JohnL - I haven't caught up with that one today. It's difficult to make sense of individual cases sometimes and I don't know the details of that one. I don't know what the judge meant by grooming. In the teacher/pupil scenario, I guess my general opinion would be that we should hold the teachers to a high standard, because it is the only way of protecting those who are most vulnerable, from those in positions of trust and power.

To the extent I was unclear earlier, I hope what I meant is clearer now. DaveR, Re courts, yes I really mean judges. To expand - treatment of the issue of consent in court has been confusing, contradictory and misunderstood. For example: 2012, Caernarfon crown court, a 49-year-old man was convicted of raping a teenage girl. Jailing the rapist, the judge said: ?She let herself down badly. She consumed far too much alcohol and took drugs." So no she didn't actually consent, but she was partly responsible, and so his sentence was lenient. The judge conflates consent and victim blaming which is not just vile but confusing. Either it's a rape, or it isn't. Once a lack of consent is established, her behaviour is irrelevant. August 2013, Neil Wilson, 41, was given a suspended prison sentence for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Judge Nigel Peters accused Wilson?s victim of ?egging him on?. Even the prosecution lawyer, Robert Colover, called her ?predatory?. So technically no consent since she was a minor, but it was still partly her fault. Even the lawyers on her side said so. Same point as above. March 2014, 19-year-old Adam Hulin pleaded guilty to the oral rape and sexual assault by penetration of a 12-year-old girl. He was sentenced to 100 hours of community service, a ?60 victim surcharge and the requirement to attend six community reintegration sessions. George Lawson-Rogers QC (the judge): ?I certainly wouldn?t want to do anything which would prejudice his future career,? also said he was reluctant to ?dismiss the contention that what happened was not by mutual consent?. Well she either consented, or she didn't. She was a minor, so she couldn't. What IS he talking about? That's what I mean by misunderstanding consent. It gets conflated with victims behaviour in a totally inappropriate way by some judges, even now. These cases are in some ways easier to be appalled at because two involve minors. They also prevented the judges from dealing head on with the issue of consent since a minor cannot consent anyway. Take away the ages, and what would you have had? No conviction on the basis that it was the women's fault? No way of telling. But the judges comments are unforgivable.