LondonMix

Its still there. I just tried tiddles link again and it took me straight there.

Agree, the planning application isn't for change of use and only the planning rules regarding how they are extending the site will be considered. The owner, once the lease is up or if there is a break clause, can remove Pretty's if they want to regardless of whether or not they redevelop the premises. If its all down to a family dispute that's rather sad though not that unusual...

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to change the title of this thread to: Crawthew Grove to experience intermittent closures of up to 3 times a day for 15-30 minutes for the next 6 months to facilitate private building work

People who make 250k a year do tend to live in homes that cost circa 1m. Banker's above VP level make more than that though. Also, younger high earning professionals are more happy to spend that 1m on a flat closer to town than an older professional with children who will be looking for an area where that budget can buy them a house.

Yuuna Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that the incidence of placenta placebo > effect likely exists. That's how I tend to view > any perceived/reported benefits of eating > placenta, especially in capsule form. If people > are open to believing these capsules will have a > positive benefit and they do; is that bad? \ Well as long as they understand that it might be harmful to specific groups or under specific circumstances. Doing something for a potential placebo effect without a clear understanding of the potential risks is of course everyone's choice but I can't say that I think its a choice with no potential downside...

I think David Carnell's point is that the occasional scandal makes the case that testing and oversight should be even more rigorous to prevent any such events (rare as they might be) from occurring. It is not an argument against testing the safety and efficacy of medicine (which might be how some people reading the post) nor should it be an argument suggesting that in general tested drugs pose the same risks as untested alternative treatments.

Half-way houses I thought housed people who were insitionalised (uaually prison) and is a reintroduction into everyday life, correct? The way some people are describing it, it sounds more like a hostel. Do they serve emergency housing needs as well?

You are cynical. Did you think the cinema would open in a month? If its going to happen, it will take time like all things do. The discussions around it becoming a cinema weren't idle gossip. It was discussed during a church meeting and with the local councillor. Apparently 3 different cinema groups have approached the church.

You have to register with the agents and get in for the previews. I first bought here many years ago and recently bought a bigger place (still in ED). Most houses are sold on a preview open day that only a select group of clients on an agents books is invited to. When we first bought in ED the process was totally different but now with demand so high, things have changed.

Just to be clear, I'm certainly not suggesting that women shouldn't eat their placentas if that's what they want to do. We are all adults and we can make our own choices with the information we have. I just don't feel comfortable with anyone suggesting the safety and efficacy of doing so has already been scientifically proven. The other thing that concerns me is that there appears to be a trend in thinking that seemingly "Natural" practices automatically equate to something being better/ optimal or safer. Natural (in the broadest sense of its use including evolutionary adaptations, pre-modern behaviours, animals behaviour etc) just means natural, nothing more, nothing less. It could be great but equally could be dangerous in a contemporary context. In the absence of scientific evidence, I worry that the Cult of the Natural that pervades certain social circles and marketing information unduly influences people when weighing up the risks they might be exposing themselves to. That said, in some form or another, our personal belief systems always influence or choices and that's not unique to health matters. Who realistically makes all of their life choices based on a dispassionate weighing up of the available evidence :)?

I think each to their own but I very strongly agree that treatments that have not been tested scientifically should not be presented as if there was scientific proof regarding safety and efficacy. I also tend to agree that some people seem to romanticise what is ?natural? by analogy to what animals do or how humans lived in pre-modern times. I really struggle with this. Something having provided a survival benefit through natural pressures at one point in human history does not immediately equate with it being best or appropriate today in my view. Natural pressures / evolution in and of themselves do not always lead to the best human outcomes. Anything that increases your chances of living to an age when you procreate will become adaptive, even if that adaptation is debilitating and ultimately shortens your overall lifespan. The best example of this is sickle cell anaemia which is a mutation that can occur in any race but is particularly prevalent amongst people of African descent. This is because eventhough sickle cell anaemia is debilitating and often results in a shorter lifespan, it provides protection against malaria because of the mutated shape of suffers? blood cells. In areas of Africa where children died of malaria very young, having sickle cell actually provided an advantage as you had a greater chance of surviving to at least reproductive age (though you would die young all the same). In areas of Africa with malaria, the mutation became very prevalent amongst the population via natural selection. The decedents of Africans living in Europe and the US still suffer from this genetic disorder at a much higher rate than other ethnicities. My point is, nature / what happens naturally, what people did to survive in pre-modern times and what animals do is by no means a rational guide to best practice for modern human health. I am sure there is a lot that modern medicine can learn from some of these abandoned practices and this should be properly researched and explored. However, how so many people automatically assume that if it worked for animals or people in a completely different historical context, it means we should do it now boggles my mind.

I suppose the question is-- if you had the extra income and savings it takes to live in ED, would you live here? If not, what would you do with the extra dosh itself that would bring you more satisfaction? That's always the choice people are making. v_the_gelfling Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Completely agree with KK, people are doing it to > themselves. When I first bought my house my fist > choice was to ED but I couldn't afford it, plain > simple it wasn't an option, so I purchased in > Nunhead. The urge to live in the exact are did not > outweigh the benefits I could get from a longer > term investment in Nunhead in my budget.

How intimidating and frightening would a group of men need to be before you actually rang the police in fear... Without know all the facts, turning this into a discussion on the victimisation of white working class men is odd. I'm with DaveR on this.

Oh wow, I didn't know that. That's crazy and definitely needs addressing. No wonder foreign buyers are so keen to acquire off-plan at a discount.

Because its against the rules to tax a primary residence if you live in it. The tax rules already tax capital gains on 2nd homes and homes you rent for profit....

For works covered by the Party Wall Act, reasonable access is granted by law to carry out the work. People have already highlighted the relevant sections of the Act concerning this. Planning permission and building regs have nothing to do with access. Only the Party Wall Act... Read Sidhue's post where the section is quoted.

Ah, yes you are right and that is surprising. Although I suppose it's hard to generalise about two schools.

That's not surprising regarding schools. London schools are the best in the country by a significant margin. That's one of the reasons more families are staying in London instead of moving to the home counties which of course only exacerbates the housing shortage in the capitol.

See point 6 though point 5 is rather shocking as well Otta. http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2012/may/02/tenants-housing-benefit-private-landlords Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I am sure it?s not much consolation but a lot > of > > the times it?s not the landlords but rather the > > banks. I have friends who have buy to let > > mortgages and it?s an explicit provision within > > their mortgage docs that they cannot let to > DSS- > > which surprised them. I'm not sure how the > banks > > can legally do this (seems discriminatory). > > > > GinaG3 Wrote: > > > > > Sick of finding a flat, just within our > > > price range or slightly above but works for > us > > and > > > then the bottom of the ad displays NO DSS. > > > > > > > > > How odd. I've always thought it was stupid to deny > DSS applicants. Surely you know you're going to > get your rent money paid.

I agree with you 100% Cyclemonkey. Moreover, I think everyone realises squeezing the middle earners out of London will utlimately be bad not just socially but economically for the city. The good thing, is that I think everyone agrees on that. The bad thing is there are no fast or easy solutions. There is clearly a need for more housing. We need a lot more housing being developed in London just to keep pace with demand. As people live longer, the demographic pressures are only going to increase. It really is a crisis.

I think your point about stability is a well recognized one and the social benefits that acrrue with stable communities is behind many countries' policies trying to increase the rate of home ownership in their populations. Not saying that's appropriate but just agreeing with you.

I'm not sure I follow.... Overall inflation is 2.7%. I think the government is insituting gradual stealth cuts by not increasing spending in line with inflation but I'm not sure I see the link between house price growth (which really is only significant in London / SE) and the government debt. Can you explain a bit more what your thinking is? I'm not being sarcastic, I'd like to know!

I am sure it?s not much consolation but a lot of the times it?s not the landlords but rather the banks. I have friends who have buy to let mortgages and it?s an explicit provision within their mortgage docs that they cannot let to DSS- which surprised them. I'm not sure how the banks can legally do this (seems discriminatory). GinaG3 Wrote: > Sick of finding a flat, just within our > price range or slightly above but works for us and > then the bottom of the ad displays NO DSS. > >

These ratios are better than I would have anticipated actually. It really just says that to afford a family home in London you need two working parents. When demand outstrips supply everything you do (including housing benefit) has consequences. I personally would never want to see social housing eliminated from London. However, I recognize that the consequence of this is that the overall cost in the private sector ends up like-for-like more expensive. In a simplfied model of London's housing market, there are 20 families who want to live in the capital but there are only 10 houses. Without any intervention, the result would be that the 10 richest families would end up living in the city with the rest forced to live else where. If we allocated 30% of housing for social housing for example based on need, what we end up with is the 3 poorest families living in London along with the 7 richest families. The price the 7 richest families on average pay for the housing will be competed up based on the reduced private sector housing available. The middle 10 families are pushed out of the city. An alternative would of course be that we go for a lottery or a list in which all 20 families sign up for housing and we allocate who gets it based on some system we agree on, though if that is a better long term solution for allocating housing is questionable. Until more housing is developed and/or less people want to live in London every decision we make on housing policy is going to involve these types of trade-offs. Too much demand is concentrated in London. Some of this is foreign demand but at the heart of it is that London generates jobs and people from all over the UK move here to get on in life. Regional growth and development throughout the UK is therefore a key part in solving the London housing crisis. That, and of course building more houses. bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark did some analysis recently (2012) about > what income would be required to afford market > rents. Based on the government's suggestion that > you spend 25% of gross income on rent in order to > rent a 3 bed property at 80% of market rate (ie > lower than market rate) you'd need to earn ?62631 > pa. This is LOWER than many other nearby postcodes > in southwark including SE1, SE5, SE11, SE15, SE16, > SE17 and SE21. (For a 2 bed you'd need to be > earning over 50k). > > > Average income in 2012 was around 26k. >

I wouldn't exactly call your example people who would be "hurt" by an increase in interest rates. Sounds like they would just make less money being landlords....