Timster

It's okay. There were a couple of blokes pottering around in a big hole this morning. They looked like they had it all under a control. I reckon it should be back to normal by June.

jim_the_chin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm going to open a stall on North Cross Lane > selling tin foil hats - I'll do a roaring trade > judging by this thread. > > Is the contention that the manager of Sainburys > contacted the council to get a man to go and try > to put Val out of business by moving her stall > back a few yards off the pavement? > > Would he act alone without the conivance of his > superiors? Is the suggestion that this is a high > level strategy by the owners of Sainsburys? > > Might the risk of discovery of this strategy and > the national negative publicity it would receive > outweigh the need to nick a few spuds and milk off > val? > > Might there be a simpler explanation based around > council jobsworthness and incompetence? > > > For the record, I like Sainsburys, I like Val's, > and I don't like teenage conspiracists. > > > Cue posts telling me to wake up - man. Yes, maybe, probabaly, no and possibly. Of course Sainsburys will be doing their best to maximise their advantage over the competition and this will include lobbying the council to ensure that other traders don't have a competitive advantage over them. I really am completely flummoxed by the posts defending Sainsburys - they really don't need defending! You would have to be very naive to think this sort of thing doesn't happen. And the people at Sainsburys are only doing their job - they put a shop there to make money not to become a part of the community. For the record, I quite like the fact that they've moved there - I buy stuff there that Val's doesn't sell otherwise I use Val's. I suspect it's increasing the footfall on that part of LL so more customers for everyone. But there really is no other likely explanation for some busybody at the council turning up out of the blue (and without consulting the market inspector first it seems) than that the issue was raised by a third party and the most likely culprit is Sainsburys. This is how corporate business works - Sainsburys doesn't make profits by keeping other local traders in business! Wake up and smell the coffee (10p cheaper at Val's as it happens).

I think it is a bit naive to think that this is just a coincidence. Of course it may be! But a similar thing happened to Dulwich Kebab further down LL - just after Bombay Bicycle Club opened next door the council raised issues over the terms of Dulwich Kebabs' licence to trade after 11pm (BBC being open to at least midnight I think) and they were forced to re-apply for their late-opening hours licence (or whatever its technical term is!). The council doesn't trawl the streets of East Dulwich looking for shopfront displays in breach of regulations etc - it will have been prompted to look into this by a third party. I can't think of who that could have been....

beaver14uk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well there were certainly workman there on Friday > as I was in the area. At the end of the day its > an emergency gas leak so sadly you have to put up > with the disruption. If it was an 'emergency', they'd have fixed it by now.

This sounds like nonsense and a jumped up council official likely exceeding his power (possibly prompted by Sainsburys who have been disappointed at how many people are continuing to use the local shops) - it doesn't even sound like they provided any paperwork to back up their request. These sorts of things only usually happen when another trader complains. Agree get James Barber on board.

No I saw some workmen - once in the last 3 weeks. Just a big hole there this morning and the usual hold up to the traffic. Since this technically isn't James's area of responsibility but he does seem to know who to call at the gas company to chase it up could he perhaps post or PM the number to call - then perhaps ED Forumites can make a nuisance of themselves until someone takes steps to get this fixed. As things stand, no one is taking the rap for this and it will likely go on for months.

Mrs Y Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr Barber > > > > Could you please help regarding the roadworks and > temporary traffic lights at the junction of > Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Road. It really is > chaotic, dangerous and adding a good 35 minutes to > journey times down a very short piece of road. At > the very least the temporary lights could be > re-set so the traffic passed through much > quicker. > > Could you find out how much longer this is going > to be in place. I raised this a couple of days ago on this thread but have had no response. I'm not sure if it's out of Mr Barber's ward or simply something that the council can do nothing about. There is a sign with an emergency number to call but no other indication of how long the works are going on for or who to contact about them. As you say, the crossing is dangerous (especially in this weather) and the lights have clearly not been set properly to allow traffic to pass through at a reasonable rate. Does the council have any jurisidction over this sort of thing at all?

All the things that Huguenot has said plus it's over 6 years old which is quite a long time in terms of climate change science. The 'scepticism' it refers to in the scientific community has not been borne out by events since and the work that has been done to counter claims that increases in CO2 emissions cannot of themselves explain global warming. I would be interested to know what the author's views are now. So I am afraid it doesn't represent the current views of a respected scientist substantively undermining the consensus - it's one paper by one guy written 6 years ago suggesting that nuclear power could cause as many problems as non-renewables. Also, to correct Silverfox, it is very much the consensus that CO2 emissions are the key contributory factor that explains why we have seen increases in global temperatures that cannot be explained by natural cycles. All this is dealt with in the Royal Society "Facts and Fictions" paper I linked to earlier.

Well I don't disagree that these issues are being manipulated for political purposes but I entirely disagree that we can't have a sensible debate. The question is who do we belive - the scientific community (which as far as I can tell is of one mind on this) or the Daily Express (see today's front page - the fact that it's snowing means they're having us on about global warming). I don't believe the scientific consensus can be attributed to political convenience or self-interest. The non-doubter's side of the argument is backed up by what, as far as I can tell, is the view of the vast majority of scientists (experts in the field and others). The doubter's views seem to have no basis other than a mistrust of the political establishment. But I really would review my position on this if I could be pointed in the direction of serious scientific studies that seriously undermine the generally accepted postion on global warming being caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

er no. it's unattributed and makes no reference to any scientific studies or evidence to support its thesis and is completely out of context. and, i'm not sure if you've realised this, but its conclusion seems to be that after 1920 global warming was caused by "atmospheric trace gases" (one of which is CO2).

I thought Justin was a sports masseuse? I had hoped to generate some sensible comments from the climate change doubters - references to credible articles or scientists that dispute the substance of the consensus opinion that man-made CO2 is responsible for what all the evidence points to is an unprecedented rise in temperatures over the last 100 years. All I got was - "well they don't know if it will snow in February, how can know what the climate will be like in 50 years" - childish nonsense rather than reasoned debate. I really think this issue should be debated because it has been assumed by the government that everyone accepts man-made climate change is a fact when reasonable people want to see the evidence. But there doesn't seem to be anyone on the doubters' side that can construct a reasoned argument against the consensus opinion - and I really would love to see one. Not just conspiracy theories and deluded rants.

Mr Barber, You may have seen another thread about the roadworks and temporary traffic lights at the junction of East Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye. It really is chaotic, dangerous and adding a good 15 minutes to journey times down a very short stretch of road. I have not seen any information about who is responsible for digging the road up, the temporary lights or how long it will last. Do you know who is responsible for this sort of thing? At the very least the temporary lights could be re-set so the traffic passed through quicker. Thanks.

well more to the point, what did the study mean by 'smack'? of course, it's been quite a while since it was legal for schools to cane or slipper pupils..

It's always worth reading to the end of these articles.. "The results were less clear for a separate group of teenagers who had been smacked until they were slightly older ? aged seven to 11. They fared slightly worse on negative behaviour scores ? they reported being involved in more fights, for example ? but were also likely to be more academically successful than those who had not been smacked. Teenagers who were still being smacked, however, scored significantly worse than every group on all the measures." It's only one study and at best it's inconclusive. The children who were smacked between the ages of 2 and 6 performed "slightly better" which could well be within the margin of error on studies like this. And it would be worth investigating what other characteristics the groups that performed better academically etc had in common. Studies like this are of very limited value (if any) and the article could easily have been headed "smacking children leads to bad behaviour" and still been a fair reflection of its conclusions. And if the best conclusions that can be drawn from this are that children who are smacked perform no worse in terms of behavour and academic results than children who aren't smacked, then that means children who aren't smacked perform just as well. So....why smack children if it makes no difference.....

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This rthread's about climate change, not the > Chinese. > > I take it you're joking Timster - any state that > authorises either the death penalty or warfare is > by your definition murderous including our own. > Check out the expenses claims before you start > tossing accusations of corruption about. > I know this is straying back off-topic but I really did want to correct this. I was NOT joking and to compare the fate of the thousands of Chinese citizens who are locked up or executed for expressing views that are contrary to their government to British MPs lying about their expenses is, frankly, insulting. The irony is that the one thing that might have saved Akmal Shaikh is if he had been accused of a political crime. Political criminals are put on death row and kept there until they repent of their ways. Does no one remember Tianmen Square? Very little has changed. Back to the subject of the day, I don't know if Copenhagen and the fate of Akmal Shaikh are linked but it's perfectly feasible that China wanted to make a diplomatic point to the UK. But this has nothing to do with whether climate change is mad-made or what we should do about it. This is the Royal Society's page on climate change controversies - http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/ - as a non-scientist it explains how a consensus has been reached and why the arguments against man-made climate change are far less convincing than those in favour. Can anyone identify any credible scientists (not Johnny Ball! or Jeremy Paxman! or that Quentin bloke from the Mail!) in the UK who have raised substantive arguments against the contents of this document? Or is the entire UK scientific community, as represented by the Royal Society, in cahoots.

they had police directing traffic by 9am this morning rather than rely on the lights - this meant that more than 3 cars got through at a time so speeded things up a bit but the junction is pretty much un-useable unless you don't mind a 15 minute delay to your journey and if you're on foot it is danagerous since as Huggers says it's not clear when it's safe to cross does anyone know who is in charge of this sort of thing? - i've not seen any information about how long the roadworks will be going on for (the optimistic bit of me thought they started before christmas so they could get the work done during the holiday period.....) and I'm sure the police have better things to do than direct traffic

Northern Europeans have been getting drunk to have a good time for hundreds of years (check Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare, Chaucer etc) and English men have been getting drunk and having a fight on a Friday night as a matter of course since time immemorial. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's unlikely to change in the near future and it's nothing to do with opening hours etc. I have an Albanian friend who speaks fondly of his time in a provincial English town when, after he'd been clubbing on a Friday night, him and his mate would sit on the steps in the town square to watch some drunken fights. He regarded it all as a quaint English ritual. And I am sure one of the reasons that English people drink more than the French, Italians etc is we work longer hours and need a bit more of a wind down on a Friday night. Who's for a alcohol free New Year's Eve?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It's a convenient (and racist) was of sustaining > the stereotype of the Chinese as both corrupt and > murderous. > > Er, the Chinese government is corrupt and murderous.

Anyone else find this post a bit presumptious?

hmm. looking at the photo again the dairy seems to be in the middle of a row of terraced houses - not on a corner.

I'm intrigued that he specified which pub it happened in - was that necessary for the joke or just local colour? - I'm assuming her majesty isn't familiar with the East Dulwich Tavern..

thanks - although I must have missed it when it was there! not many years ago at all it seems

so the PS3 graphics are no better on a hi def tv than the Xbox's? sounds like the xbox has it if only because it's at least as good a console, has more games and is cheaper?

I've just bought an old photo of Goodrich Road with a horse and cart outside Castle Dairies - presumably not far from where the Castle pub now is. Anyone know for certain where on Goodrich Road the old diary was?

So.......if I asked the people on this thread whether, as someone maybe returning to computer games after a 10 year break, I should buy a PS3 or an XBox..what would happen?