KidKruger

what's an unauthorised installation ? unauthorised by whom ? have you tried asking the tenants above to not use (if they've an alternative) toilet in their flat ?

I think I saw Jenny working in M&S, so I'm glad she's found a position somewhere.

What Willard said. Whole thing's a sham.

I'm not defending anyone, I'm clearly calling out gross and ill-informed assumptions, so patently innacurate that they are crying out for correction. I am not saying anyone who disagrees with me is wrong but a different opinion doesn't automatically make someone right. Well the 'bloke in the park' seems to be your point of reference ? Good luck with that, I'm bailing as there's no rational conversation to be had here !

The Japanese had agreed to surrender, but the Americans insisted the emperor had to stand-down as well. They knew the Japanese would never be agree to their emperor being stood down (him being a god-like figure for the Japanese). But no, the Americans, had to crush the the Japanese culturally by deposing the emperor and made that an additional condition besides the surrender. There lay the excuse to experiment on a foreign population with nuclear bombs. If the bombs had to be used due to unstable cores, they could have been dropped somewhere with a minimal civilian population toll - there's no valid reason for what happened.

google the make / model of your boiler and get the manual. then look at the section for adjusting pressure - it's as per described above by various posters. no more dofficult than bleeding radiators if it's a modern-type boiler. I wouldn't just experiment with different valves (because one of them may cut-off your gas and then you'll be having to re-ignite it) !

Jaywalker: "The war was stopped by nuclear strikes on two Japanese cities by the USA" In essence, yes. The Japanese mainly stopped fighting after the big bombs. But the bombs were not necessary to end the war. By dropping the bombs on civilian populations, and with each bomb being of a different type, the Americans got the opportunity to complete the ultimate experiment. Twice. Thereby validating their deadly technology. They could have attacked a military base, dockyard, remote island, or unpopulated region. But no, they chose to kill as many civilians as they could, as well as simultaneously kicking-off the cold war (funny how the Russians were somehow automatically the baddies !). All in one fell swoop. My God that cold war cost the West a lot of money didn't it ? All those trillions in armaments. Proper earner that one. So the scary stuff for me is the same major power, with yet more nutters at the helm, is once again in a position to threaten huge populations' future with their disjointed, corrupt and twisted thinking.

Sorry stringvest: "It is far from ingrained - dogs that are used for hunting need to learn how to attack and often have to be trained up specially" No. Many dogs will go for a fox without ANY training, same goes also go for rabbits, cats, squirrels. Some will not know what to do when they corner/catch it, others will just attack (in the same way they know how to fight other dogs WITHOUT being trained), others will get attacked themselves for their efforts and will retreat or fight back. "no-one to my knowledge has reported anything like that in the life of this forum. This indicates exactly how abnormal this behaviour is and what a risk these dogs pose to other creatures around". No. Gross assumption, the forum isn't the benchmark for what's happening in the area - how can you seriously posture that one !? Somethings get on the forum some don't, but your proposition is too black/white to be realistic. Delainie: "I don't care what anyone says about nature for certain breeds to chase and attack, any dog can be trained it's sheer laziness on owners behalf or it just makes the dog owners feel big to have a dog that kills." No. You clearly do not have first-hand knowledge regarding what you're suggesting around training of dogs and their instinct., Your position is just phrased to meet your personal preferences and not based on reality I'm afraid. You're clearly making massive assumptions. Whippets and many other breeds have the instinct, training may prevent or it may not, but to claim an owner would feel big if their dog attacked ANY other animal is as lazy a statement as the 'lazy' owners to whom you assign such blame in your post, above. Utter drivel. The posts I'm seeing are so ill-informed, generalistic and frankly cringeworthy that I'm just thankful it's not a thread about another culture. Where DO you get these 'facts' from ? A fortune cookie ?!

Yes, had it last weekend on pavement outside my house and it had been walked (by passers by) all the way to the end of the block - in different colours, suggesting different dogs' poos. Had to stop our kids walking on that pavement for the week to ensure it didn't ended up in our house. I don't see many dogs without owners on our street so it must be dogs with owners I'd assume, so they need to keep their eyes peeled. There's one guy near me who's Jack Russell is walked during evenings and I do find poos on same stretch (and I pick em up when I see them), who's nose I'll be rubbing in it if I find he's knowingly allowing it to happen. It takes seconds to use a doggy bag. I find (generalising I know) some older owners tend to have not moved over to the 'pick-up' brigade yet.

Thanks for clarifying SV. Sounds unsettling to witness what happened. Although nasty to witness, some of the comments from posters above are naive or generalistic regarding how dogs 'should' behave towards foxes. What I mean is that the 'should' comments seem to stem from personal taste and don't account for or acknowledge the inherent behaviours towards foxes of some breeds. We'd all prefer to not see a fox being torn-up by terriers, obviously. But to expect 'dogs' (as a catch-all) to not chase foxes (or cats) comes across a little 'City' to me and expects too much from all of our 4-legged canine friends. Cats also "shouldn't" chase mice and birds fish garden ponds ? Training will get you so far, but I think once specific breeds have contact with a recognised prey then something ingrained kicks-in. One could argue therefore that some breeds that should not be allowed, breeds that under all other circumstances are usually no concern in a public situation (I'll use Jack Russells as an example, however there will always be exceptions - so pls spare me), but that's not down to owners and to label a dog following instinct as 'out of control' is surely innacurate and lazy. However distasteful the outcomes of various different animals being thrown together, through no fault of their own, due to the way humans operate, there will inevitably be instances where conflict occurs - to expect this never to happen and apportion blame to justify that view just seems unrealistic. I'm not diminishing how upsetting it must be to see this activity, but I am surprised that people seriously expect this to never happen in a population where dogs are very popular, in a City location literally crawling with foxes. Regarding lady with pram / baby - which of the posters above believes she should have left the child alone while she went climbing through gardens to try and retrieve her dogs from the fight ? Balance needed.

Was the fox killed or not ? What is this thread intended for ?

Virgin acknowledged a couple of weeks ago to me there is an issue locally.

the judge / magistrate knows the plight of individuals versus councils and organisations, he/she won't expect you to be a court expert and will guide you through the procedure. Just make sure your story is straight and the opponent can't prove their allegations.

Does sound very predatory doesn't it ! Being punished for no even being liable. First action should be to call the insurer and ask why this increase is deemed applicable ? What does the insurer say ?

I'm sure the judge has seen it all before and you may well find that it never gets to court and council are using heavy-handed tactics. Council will know it can't stand-up in court without evidence, which by your information they cannot possibly have ie. proof of having requested access and been denied. Yours will not be the only case like this I suspect.

I don't think so. but if they're messing-up the service you've a right to leave - make mucho noise and say you can't take it any more, whatever it takes to get them to genuinely consider that you're leaving.

interestingly when I called-up saying I wanted to leave, besides upgrading me from 20Mb to 70Mb Virgin said they'd 'make a coupe of tweaks' to ensure I don't get intermittent service from now on. For the first time in several months I've had a week of uninterrupted broadband - which is actually feeling like a novelty. So perhaps it's worth asking to be put through to the team to go through the wanting to leave routine, they seem to ask why what's up and try to fix it, maybe it's possible for your area too ? Just a suggestion

about 300 seconds from CP to ED ? My that's very good going indeed.

I think the prototypes and first runs/editions work OK (financial suicide otherwise), then the supplier of part/material changes or costs have to be cut for cheaper inputs or there are (for various reasons) failures in quality control and weak products get through to the customer. It could well be that at a later time (under different circumstances) the same product may well be fine again. But some time after that may again be compromised. An example for me was Halfords inflatable double beds for camping. Bought one, it deflated in early hours of morning in a tent, pumped it up next day and that night it deflated again. Took it back and asked for a replacement. Same thing happened again. I started questioning myself and why I can't even inflate a simple double airbed successfully. Took it back and got a refund. Couple of years later (last summer) bought exactly same product when caught short on a camping trip and no other option available (knowing I could at least get a refund if it fails - which I expected, a few hours sleep being better than none). So far it's remained sturdy and has lasted months since at our holiday home without needing pumping up.

Yeah I agree mmills, I've always wondered why buses between the areas haven't run directly. I think 176 is closest you'll get but you'll have to cross the park or get another bus which may not be an option at night for some.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder if this might mark a watershed in the > fortune of Lordship Lane (visions of the Threshers > site I fear). ED used to be quite a poor part of > London: there is no guarantee it will not return > to that if both central and local government are > not more careful with their policies. Threshers has remained empty for a long time because the owner only wants to lease it to an off license - there is a thread somewhere on EDF. Saying East Dulwich was a poor part of London is misleading: certainly it was primarily working / lower middle class, developed with office clerks working in the centre of London in mind. While mainly residents may not have had a lot of money, the area was not "poor" in the sense of "deprived". ETA I read a couple of days ago that one of the reasons Dulwich Estate gave over land to form Dulwich Park was to form a barrier against the newly emerging East Dulwich and keep the hoi polloi out of Dulwich Village. =================== nxjen - I think that's why Jaywalker used the expression "QUITE a poor area" !! By London standards it was never slums, but 25yrs ago it was a million miles from where it is today.

"ED used to be quite a poor part of London: there is no guarantee it will not return to that..." any such change would hit London in general I expect - which is a horrible prospect.

"There has long ceased to be any justification for the Secretary of State?s ?hands off? approach..." I don't think there EVER was a justification, the whole argument for privatisation was better choice and service for the fare-paying passenger Paradox being so many get rich while so many more stand on platforms wondering how to get to work, month after month. ETA: "We need to ensure that in the future, passenger representation is written into this franchise.." That it wasn't in the first place shows where the focus was, getting provision of the service OUT of Govt hands so they could be rid once and for all (and make any promises necessary along the way).

This, of all complaints one can get, is the Devil's own concoction. So so painful !!

Bear in mind the 'end of March' story is just that, something which may or may not occur - and 'fix' comes in many flavours, the most obvious being 'partial', 'temporary' or 'tactical'.