reeko

There is no point in this. Assigning emotions to me like bitterness and hatred on such scant corespondence demonstrates that you are responding from an emotional rather than rational place, so debate is useless. This is the last from me on this thread, and as I am rational, I mean it. I have stated clearly I believe social housing should be there to protect the needy. You choose to ignore this. I have stated that I disagree with the bedroom tax and in partular how it has been implemented in a way that penalises the most needy. You choose to ignore this. You have highlighted the plight of the disabled or those who have lost their jobs, but have not explained how this results in extra bedrooms. You have not explained how retention of space after children have left home is sustainable with the current demand for housing. There are questions to be asked about how the system works and ignoring them will make things better for no-one.

Social housing or no, we are all faced with the realities of changing family needs. I was fortunate enough to be able to buy my one bed flat ten years ago when it was just about affordable for me. Since then my family has grown and my flat is now uncomfortably cramped. I can't afford a bigger place in my community, if I need more space, I will have to move, away from my friends and family and amazing support network. It makes me sad (hence me clinging on) but that is life. With the exception of the vulnerable, I don't see why those in social housing should be immune from these pressures.

We seem to be arguing different bits of the argument. You rightly highlight how cruel the bedroom tax and its indiscriminate implementation has been to the disabled and vulnerbale. But losing your job, or becoming disbaled does not result in spare rooms. My point is if, as a society, we subsidise housing for the needy, as we absolutely should, then those families with spare rooms should be expected to move, within reason (i.e not to a shit hole in Birmingham), to make room for families who need more space. With the huge increases in life expectancy, I cannot see how a social housing system could be sustainable if families get to retain space, even after children have left home. BTW: Not illiterate, still have no idea what you were trying to say about the thread and your subsequent explanation only muddied the waters further. As an editor, perhaps even you could see it is not your best work. "What I meant is you may not have intended to get James's thread back on track, but the upshot was it would have" Grammar red alert.

You didn't edit enough as I don't understand the first two sentences of your second paragraph. As I said I don't support the bedroom tax and how it has been implemented is just cruel. However, if you you are on social housing and have one or more spare rooms (for whatever reason) and and a reasonable alternative can be found, then it is not unreasonable for the expectation to be that you should make room for others who need more space. As you will undoubtedly point out there is a major qualifier in that sentence, a qualifier that the coalition government have shamelessly overlooked.

I offer no-one a get out, I am just not as blinkered as you buddug and I am capable of recognising the good that James does alongside the things I disagree with. I despise the bedroom tax, it is unfair and damaging to the most vulnerable. I do however agree with James, that it is not sustainable or fair to have people on social housing with spare bedrooms when there is overcrowding elsewhere. I just think how the coalition government have chosen to go about rectifying this stinks.

James Barber going to ask council trading standards to investigate.

Hi James. I don't know if you are aware, but there is a company collecting on the street around east Dulwich station. They are called save the kids. There is a thread on the main page. They are not a registered company or charity, from the met website, they do not appear to have a collection permit. They have no web presence apart from a recent Twitter account. Is there anything else you can do to check if they are legit. I work for a charity and they are sending up a number of red flags. Would hate for people's charitable spirit to be abused.

Have to agree. No information on who they are or what they do. What exactly is a "charity based" organisation. No online presence outside Twitter. No way to track them down should they run off with the donations they seem to be working very hard to solicit. if this lot are legit, they are doing a really good job of appearing not to be.

Since working for a charity, I now ask alot more questions of the charities I donate to. I only donate to registered charities, otherwise the risk of abuse is too big I only donate if they have a well defined strategy with clear goals and can demonstrate the impact they have had in the past. Without these there is a real risk that donations will be wasted. I only give to causes that are people focussed (no donkey sanctuary for me!) Having seen what it takes to run a charity well, I am less concerned about pay of senior executives. I think employing only those executives willing to work for considerably less pay then they could be getting elsewhere is a false economy. It is a competitive market place and you get what you pay for. I would be more concerned that the charity has a strong governing council that can hold any chief exec to account. I suppose in summary I am careful about only giving to charities that are professional at what they do, and work for a cause I care about.

Thanks for the info Alec From the info on the Met police site they appear to have no licence http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Street-collection-permits-issued/1400012686207/1400012686207 I work for a large charity and I know that these licenses are tightly controlled, as they should be, to ensure all collectors are bone fide and that donors don't get too peed off with being constantly hassled. It is very irksome that other organisaitons calling themselves charities collect in this way without going through the proper channels - gives us all a bad name.

No law broken uness they don't have a permit. This should be issued by the council. For central london, only registered charities get permits, don't know about the boroughs

If you are a higher income bracket tax payer and you donate through direct debit, you might want to consider swapping to "giving as you earn". This means that even more money goes to your chosen charity. I swapped my direct debit and my charity got an extra ?7 per month. Please see www.workplacegiving.co.uk for more details. Also the more people who do this the less likely the government is to take it away Grrrrrr.

Many charities pay street fundraisers - it is such a horrible job people wouldn't do it on a volunteer basis. The main issue is that this is not a registered Charity. As a result there are no checks and balances on what they do with the money given to them and this is massively open to abuse. I also think it is out of order to have a name so similar to Save the Children, a thoroughly reputable charity. DON'T GIVE THEM ANY CASH FOLKS.

Completely agree - this is a thread that can be safely filed under the 'more hassle than its worth' category. See admin - I do agree with you most times.

I had a similar situation with neighbours downstairs. They thought nothing of having live mcing at 2 am on a Tuesday full blast. she was also very aggressive. Her partner was more reasonable, but as I owned the flat I had to stay put. it went on for three years until they moved out. I contacted the landlord, she didn't give a stuff, I tried to reason with them, it would work for a while but things would soon get worse, I got the council involved, they weren't that helpful. I don't think I got a good night's sleep in three years. It all ended very badly, with social services intervening as there was a child in the flat and it was a complete dump. If you live beside unreasonable people, your situation will only substantially improve if you move out or they do. It's not fair, unless she is a council tenant, you have no way of putting pressure on her.

I hope it moves somewhere a bit bigger - that was the only thing wrong with it - not enough space. They do the best scrambled egg and smoked salmon brunch ever.

I think it has become standard practise now that references on paper only tend to confirm facts such as so and so worked here from this date to that date, they had X sick days and didn't brun the building down. This is because anyone has the right to request to see their references, making them not worth the paper they are written on.

I have to say I have limited sympathy with people who do not take responsibility for their own safety. Anyone can have an accident, but the behaviour as described sound pretty wreckless to me. I feel the same way about cyclist with ear phones in. Only today a cyclist overtook me on a corner, which was bad enough, she had ear phones in and couldn't hear the rubbish truck coming the other way around the corner. She was forced into my path and I had to take evasive action. In this case, had she been injured by the lorry, my symapthy for her would absolutley have been limited due to her wrecklessness. Why should I have concern for people who show limited concern for themselves and others?

Be careful, often the location is not very accurate. Is it possible the phone is in your house and on silent. Have done this many a time myself.

Sorry Louisa but I do think through the content of your posts have left yourself open to accusations of trolling. For example, you assert that people who eat smoked salmon for breakfast are snobs. IMO, and in the opinion of most of the posters on here, this is a pretty ridiculous assertion. So, is this you trying to be humourous, or is this you adoting an extreme stance to be provocative - what could be considered trolling? I really can't tell either way from your posts. I might give you the benefit of the doubt based on your overall posting record, but in the context of this thread alone, I don't think Dopamine is out of order.

Well maybe, but if this is a joke Jeremy it is way too plausible to be funny.

Yes indeed lucky Lisa, she would do well to remember that a man capable of abandoning partner and children once is more than capable of doing so again.

Lou, What if it is a fillet steak that has been minced, shaped into a patty, placed between two bread related products, with a nice slice of mature cheddar and a slice of tomato, and perhaps some fried onions?

Oh dogman, so selfless of you to 'give up' your current partner and children. I am sure they will be thrilled with your public declaration.

The Dolphin was a terrible chippy and the guy who ran it was a miserable so and so, either theres a severe case of collective amnesia on here or I was unfortunate enough to catch it on a bad day...