Timster

Buddha Jazz near Denmark Hill would be good for a date and it's got better oriental food than anywhere in ED - the pub by the station is pretty good and stays open late for drinks after... And less chance of bumping into EDForumites.

cook VERY slowly in some butter (or flora will do) and just a touch of milk

Uptown Top Ranking - Althea and Donna (with apologies for my disgraceful lack of respect for the rules earlier - it seemed such a simple game)

Golden Skans - Klaxons

Buy some nice rib eye from William Rose, season with salt and pepper, get pan (heavy bottomed non-stick if poss) really hot, little bit of oil with garlic clove and some thyme or rosemary, cook (without moving) for 1 and a half minutes on each side, let it rest for 5 minutes afterwards. Will be perfect medium rare. Eat with a poached egg.

But can all three of them be guilty on anyone's version of events?

What I don't understand is what Guede's version of events is and what he said about Knox and Sollecito. The conviction of Guedo (who I understand confessed) seems to contradict the prosecution case that has now led to the conviction of Knox and Sollecito. Knox is clearly a very odd character and it can hardly be surprising that if you change your story to the police you end up looking guilty in the eyes of a jury. And before we get too carried away with damning the state of Italian justice, there seems to have been more evidence to go on to convict these two than the CPS could ever muster to make a case for Barry George being Jill Dando's murderer.

Barry, Not sure if this is a Southern issue or an Oyster issue but someone seems to have re-set the card readers at London Bridge and Peckham Rye (and presumably other stations) so that once I've gone through two sets of gates with my monthly Oyster, the card no longer works at the gates and a guard has to either let me in or out of the station. This is an issue at London Bridge where I have to (well 'have to' is putting it strongly, but it's by far the shortest route) go through three sets of gates to get out of the station. The guards are obviously familiar with the issue since they're having to let lots of people like me through in the mornings and evenings. This has only started being a problem in the last week or so, having used a monthly Oyster for a few years now on this route. Anything Southern can do to help - or is it an Oyster issue. Thanks,

Thanks Barry, I guessed it wouldn't be quite as simple as all that and I wouldn't under-estimate how difficult it is to make all these services fit together - but if the consistent late running of the 0856 can make it on to the performance issues agenda, then maybe it will become apparent why it is always late. Hi Timster I have a very good friend who works at our main control and I sent your posting to him for his comments, please see below, some of the numbers code etc may baffle you. For example 377, 455, 456 are types of trains, ASC is the signal box, 2N10, 2L88 are unique head codes which each service has. Also I attend a quarterly meeting to discuss performance and will also add this to the agenda along with other isues regarding running times. In the meantime you will see that my friend has also sent an email which he refers to in his last paragraph to the Local Ops Manager at Network Rail which may help the cause! Maybe you could be one of my volunteers (see my previous posting relating to this) and come and have a trip to our control,it would give you an idea of what we are up against and se for yourself what running a railway is actually like. Hope this helps Barry

Barry, I know this probably isn't your area, but you might be able to point me in the direction of who can help. Almost every morning the 0856 from Peckham Rye to London Bridge is 5 minutes late but the 0901 is 5 minutes early. This wouldn't matter except that the 0901 then sits at Peckham Rye for 5 minutes because, I assume, it is timetabled to leave at 0901. This means the 0856 is even later because it has to wait outside the station for the 0901. Not that anyone from Peckham Rye gets on the 0856 because they're all on the 0901. Could the people at Southern in charge of the signals just pretend the 0901 is the 0856 and that the 0856 is the 0901. Then the 0856 (actually the 0901) would be on time and driver of the 0901 (actually the 0856) wouldn't have to worry about running 5 minutes late every morning (I assume there must be some good reason for this since it is almost every morning and that he doesn't just leave 5 minutes late on a point of principle). It is a particular pain because it means there is a gap of 18 minutes from the 0843 and then two trains that leave in quick succession of each other. It is also personally annoying because if I get the 0901 it means I am exactly 5 minutes late for work (although I concede this could also be solved by me getting up 5 minutes earlier to get the 0843....)

surely this is off-topic ;-)

It might help if the Chair could be a bit more specific about why these posts have been deleted. I haven't seen all of them (since some were deleted before I got a chance to read them) but my undeleted post was in response to iaineasy's now deleted one and, whilst I don't agree with his views, and still find his language inappropriate, I didn't feel it went so far as to warrant being removed. And I found the use of the word 'nonce' odd because I had thought it was prison slang - I wouldn't actually expect to see the term used by the Sun who prefer the more straightforward 'paedo'.

daizie Wrote: > Is sleeping with a physically developed 13 yr old > girl the same as molesting a 3 yr old ? Im not so > sure they are the same thing . However, It is all > wrong . Yes, but the legal system has the uncomfortable and unenviable job of deciding which one is worse. Should the person who molests 3 years old face the same sentence as the film director who once slept with a 13 year old? We might not like having to make that distinction but it's one that has to be made by the courts.

Am I the only person slightly perturbed by the use of the term 'nonce' on this forum? It does strike me that as soon as you introduce the word 'paedophile' into the debate then all rational analysis goes out of the window. There are never going to be circumstances where it is acceptable for a middle-aged man to sleep with a 13 year old - and certainly not when he has spiked her drinks. But sleeping with a 13 year old girl does not automatically make you a paedophile even if it does make you a criminal. If the girl had been 16 then he probably wouldn't have been charged with anything - would that have made what he did any more acceptable? What if he'd slept with a 16 year old who looked and acted like she was 13? The circumstances of what happened are nasty and murky but the fact that someone does something so morally reprehensible doesn't always make it a crime. The age of consent is there because you have to draw a line between where a woman is deemed to be able to take responsibility for her actions and where she is deemed too young and should be protected from men like Polanski taking advantage of her. But the reality is that plenty of adult women are taken advantage of by men like Polanksi and that isn't, I'm afraid, a crime. In this case, Polanski did commit a crime - but I suspect things like this happened a lot in the circles he moved in and often there was no chance of a criminal conviction being brought. On balance, I'm inclined to think, having read all this, that he should do the time for his crime - but those people on a moral crusade should bear in mind that half of Hollywood would likely be locked up if we applied the same standards across the board. There are nasty immoral men in the world - lot's of them use power to take advantage of women - but this isn't - perhaps unfortunately - a crime...

I know it doesn't excuse anything but wasn't it the case that Polanski's 8 months pregnant wife had just been gruesomely murdered by Charles Manson at the time? I'm just thinking that whilst I agree with the principles behind what everyone who thinks he should do the time are saying, you do have to bend a bit to the merits of each case. There is no reason to think he is a threat to anyone. The victim has described him as having made a 'mistake' and doesn't want him punished now after all these years. (someone may correct me here but my understanding is he gave the girl alcohol and drugs and then 'took advantage' of her - morally repugnant behaviour (and against the law and he should have gone to prison for it) but I don't think she regards herself as having been raped and that's not what he is going to be sentenced for). He accepts that he can't travel to the US and that has obviously meant he gave up what would have been quite a different life and career in the US. I don't have any sympathy for him but I also don't see that extraditing him and locking him up achieves anything for anyone - victim or society or the US justice system.

The usual reason people get away with anti-social behaviour is that they expect no one to challenge them. If you actually do say something, they almost always back down. The classic examples are the surly adolescents playing music on their mobile phones on buses and trains. Most people let it go, but I don't, and not once has anyone ever refused my polite request - although it's rarely done with good grace. Most young people will respond to adults as having authority and do as they're told - I wish more people would remember that and not assume every kid in South London will knife any adult that so much as looks at him the wrong way. Having said that, you have to judge each situation on its merits - if I thought someone was actually looking for a fight, or was obviously mentally ill, then as long as it was doing no one any real harm, I would be more inclined to let it go. There does seem to me to be a slight excess of testosterone in some of the posts above - if you are going to intervene it should be with the intention of calming the situation down rather than ratcheting up the likelihood of a fight. I have never had to respond to someone being attacked or similar - I hope I would intervene in some way. If someone else is in physical danger and you are able to do something about it then it must be your moral imperative to intervene - I don't think we should ever lose that.

Are there any parents out there who can explain why they drive their kids to school? And is it right to say that St Antony's takes children from outside of the area? There must be some EDF posters with kids at St Antony's who could offer some enlightenment on this. Also, I'm quite up for a debate on what place religion has in schools, but I really don't think this is the right thread for it - Drawing Room anyone?

There is nothing to understand about it LuLu Too, it's just nasty and offensive. I don't want to take part in the debate any more if it's sunk to this sort of level.

I had thought this thread was dead but since I've been directly challenged. The point, as I think subsequent posts made clear, is that you have no evidence to suggest that absenteeism in the NHS (where it undoubtedly is a problem to some extent)is any worse than with any other employer. Your anecdotal evidence - which still seems very vague and non-specific - only demonstrates your experience of the NHS. I am sure you could find someone who has visited every council office or call centre or insurance company in the land to say they are all full of lazy people who couldn't get a job anywhere else. Oh, and my wife also works full time for the NHS, for what that's worth. Your point about consultants neglecting NHS patients is, with respect, a completely different issue and I don't see how it is relevant to this thread. It is also a very serious accusation which again you have thrown out there without much evidence to back it up.

I have no inclination to defend Mayor Boris but my understanding is that the bendy buses are leased on a fixed term contract and BJ has decided not to renew that contract. So they're not being scrapped as such. I agree it seems to be a point of principle for BJ which is not entirely backed up by evidence.

Page is married to the English actor James Thornton and lives in East Dulwich. ?I absolutely love it. I'm starting to know the people in the shops and discover the local parks. It's got a lovely community feel so I don't feel so anonymous.? From ThisIsLondon - I think she wants to make friends! Go for it. But where exactly do you think it will end? You could get invited round for dinner then what will your husband do? And there always has to be at least one celeb you drop your cool London persona for - I would lose it if I met either Mark E Smith or the Beeny in ED.

Might it be rash to suggest that being able to string a sentence together and a degree of intellectual rigour are also necessary in most jobs which A-levels and degrees are supposed to prepare you for?

I bet that made you popular!

As LuLu Too says, it wasn't the assertion there are some bad apples in the NHS I was objecting too, it was the suggestion that the NHS provides a career for people who would be unemployable anywhere else. Every workplace has its share of incompetent and lazy staff, and I'm sure we've all worked with people whose ability to hold down any job is a mystery. I don't agree with SteveT's claim that the NHS provides an easy ride for these people or can be distinguished from any other employer - private or public sector - in this respect.

I have been involved in my firm's graduate recruitment process recently and, whilst I have seen some very able candidates, there are others who are much less able. This is particular marked when we test them on their ability to produce written work under pressure. What bothers me is that there is no distinction between the A-level results (traditionally law firms look more to A-level than degree results to distinguish candidates because pretty much every applicant that wants to be taken seriously will have to have a 2.1 from a decent university) of those who perform well against those who are, basically, rubbish - at least in terms of the skills they would need for a career in law. That may be because A levels are easier now and so don't enable you to distinguish between very good candidates and fairly average candidates who have put the hours in. Or it may be because there is less focus on testing candidates to produce written work under pressure. My point is that, if applicants are less able to distinguish themselves by their A-level results, candidates have to impress by other means. This can mean that students with a state school education, who have achieved what they think are great exam results which will open doors for them, are overlooked for candidates from a public/private school background with the same A-level results but whose CV and contacts appear more impressive and/or open more doors for them. I have to say we see a lot of jolly nice chaps with good A-level results but not much upstairs. And there is no doubt that some recruiters in law firms are still taken in by interviewees who sound more polished and confident just because of their background and education. So, ironically, if we are lowering the standards of A-levels so that more pupils from modest backgrounds get the results they need to get into university, we are building into the system a new hurdle for those same students to overcome when they leave education because their impressive A-level results will count for much less with employers than they once did.