LondonMix

I think you can never blame the victim of a crime no matter what they?ve done. Suggesting that the parents should lose custody of their other children because of what happened seems almost inhumanly callous. If you think the parents were involved with the crime then just say that and be done. However, if that?s not your view, then all of this is rather ghoulish.

I think that theory is right! My male cousin works from home and his wife works in an office. They have the exact opposite dynamic as even though he's not taking care of them during the day (they have a nanny), they see him while he's working in his office :)

Great information edw!

That's very true. Its also the reason why most scientists use the term ethnicity (which is clearly understood to be a social construct). Anyway, I think the OP used the term travellers because it was the lens through which he understood the underlying behaviour. Why would someone try to clear land and appear to be evasive that also displays certain linguistic traits etc. In this case it may have led to the wrong conclusion but I think he felt that the specific type of disruption travellers sometimes pose to neighbours was what needed addressing (vs. some broader anti-traveller agenda). It was short hand for explaining what he was concerned might be going on.

I wondered about that too. The description of the property of derelict by the developer on their website seems a bit of a stretch. However, I do get that for it to be converted from commercial to residential use, the back part of the house would probably need to be knocked down as there is currently no rear garden. Also, the side courtyard with the outbuildings is a ton of space that could have something done with it. Still, I think 9 flats on that plot is going to be a squeeze.

Agree

I'm beginning to think so DJ :). Leaving your non-feral pet cat to drink toilet water and catch and eat rats when you leave for a long weekend seems rather odd. A neighbour or a cat service could so easily put down some food and water.

See the link above from Too Good to Be True. Lightbox are a local development firm. They are knocking down the house and developing 9 flats. The scheme was approved in December.

This really isn't the right way to treat a pet. They need to ask a friend to pop around and provide fresh food and water. You can hire a cat sitter who will come around and do this as well as changing the litter. They only charge 14 quid per visit and so really are not adding loads to the cost of your 3-day weekend get away and if your cats get sick they will take them to the vet. Of course the cats won't die being treated this way but it won't be a nice experience for the pets and isn't really a responsible way to behave. trizza Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks this is really helpful . We have discussed > with our friends. They were a bit defensive but > said they thought there were loads of rodent > birds like owls which their cats could kill so > were essentially comfortable with the "food > position". They also plan to leave the toilet seat > open so the cats have a source of water. It all > sounds ok to us.

The nature of the work is very different but its all public art. Public art in and of itself is not anti-social. I get that the work being done won't be to everyone's taste though.

It will soon be demolished for the new lightbox development. The interior and exterior has been painted by various street artists. This weekend you can go see it before it all gets destroyed!

Public art including sculpture has always been a part of every major city for centuries. This is no different except that you personally don't like it.

God, primary school is SOOO much more interesting than when I was little! I'd like to do that now :)

The type of people and the type of shops in the area have changed (I figured I would start with the obvious)....

Sorry, DJ, my post wasn't against the cuts per se, but reducing the service across London based on call outs (some areas will be but more than others for example).

:) *Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm having all our furniture and possessions > removed from our house asap and put into secure > storage. > > > After all, if we we robbed and any of these things > get taken - we'll only have ourselves to blame.

I wonder why Southwark has so many more incidences than other areas. Perhaps, that's more down to a lack of fire prevention strategies / information. Understanding the underlying reason for the high call out rate should be key to understanding how to deal with it. For me, getting the number of fires down would be the main spending priority but of course until that was achieved you'd need to ensure appropriate service levels.

I have big boobs. There is a difference between having them and displaying them. Being overtly sexual at work isn't really on. I'd feel uncomfortable if the roles were reversed. I'm no prude either. On a night out in days gone by I wore some pretty shocking things but there is a time and a place...

Someone showing cleavage at work is just inappropriate. Breasts are sexual. They have other purposes as well but they are sexual!

Yes, I agree, if you can afford to you should go for it! I have no issue with people throwing a big party with loads of food and booze and great music. I think sometimes there can be an idea of "showing off" that people don't like. However, if you really keep it to peole who know you then its unlikely they will take it that way! However, the marriage is what's important. Amongst my friends, we've all bought our flats / houses before getting married as from a financial perspective that was the more important thing to us at least.

Hmm, a marquee can be expensive when you add in all the extras (including hiring toilets). If you can stretch to it, I would just pick a venue that can do both the ceremony and the wedding that is naturally very beautiful. That way you can save on decor without it feeling drab. I think the Horniman museum is a great example of that. http://www.horniman.ac.uk/media/_file/TheHornimanConservatorySlideshowJuly2012.pdf Other tip is really to only invite people you really care about. If you haven't seen someone for eons, you probably aren't really that close anymore. One popular solution is to have just close family and friends at the ceremony and dinner but then have lots more people over for the party. You can negotiate with some places to bring your own booze for a corkage fee (and then buy in bulk discounts whenever you see an offer). Lean on friends (aspiring DJ's, aspiring photographers) to pitch in! Also, I think you can rent your wedding dress (a friend mentioned this to me recently which sounds like a great idea if you want a posh frock for the evening but aren't sentimental about keeping a gown you'll never wear again in your closet). Like others said, they longer the day, the more expensive it gets. My wedding went from 2pm until 4am which is what I wanted but it really adds to the food and drink bill :) If its not important to you then have a short wedding!

It's great way to raise awareness. Credit unions are a much better option than these dreadful places like Wonga.

It's mostly the food,and head count that swing the costs of a 24k wedding that high. Also the entertainment. You can easily (if you want to) spend 100 a head on food and drink throughout the day if you have an open bar, dinner, snacks to keep people going until the wee hours of the night etc. 150 guests and there is the majority of your costs right there... Everything else is pretty standard unless you do something very flashy with flowers. A live band can cost a lot though as can the outfits... I know one woman who spent 1.5k just on her veil! Your budget is mostly down to how many people you invite, how much you feed them, and if you give them all the booze they want. I agree though that the weddings I have enjoyed the most weren't the most expnesive ones. Its the people who attend that make a wedding fun or not (like any party really)!

Those saying this is how London develops are way off base. London is the most socially mixed major city I've ever been in. The policy that every area has to have social housing ensures that not even the poshest parts of London become anything like Paris. Nottinghill's housing stock for example is still 38% socially rented-- http://www.mouseprice.com/area-guide/housing-stock/w11 Areas change in London without the total cleansing you see in other big cities. This is one of the most admirable things about the city. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah, I'm not blaming artists for social > apartheid, far from it. I'm suggesting that this > process of regeneration followed by an art > movement followed by inflated property prices is > what always happens when gentrification has taken > hold. It's a process which has been seen in > Notting Hill, Islington, Hackney, Clapham, > Battersea, Chelsea, more recently Shoreditch and > Hoxton. All solidly working class neighbourhoods > which have been 'gentrified' and are now not > socially mixed any longer and unaffordable to > large numbers of people. > > Louisa.

That's such an outrageous lie! Nicholas Spears Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had ADT round to my house a few months ago - and > had quite a pleasant chat until I saw in the > salesman's printed brochure the claim that 'One in > 20 homes is burgled every day'. > > When I said that was impossible, because if it was > true then the streets would be full of sprinting > yobs carrying flat-screen TVs and i-pads, he > persisted, saying it was 'Home Office figures'. > > Only a complaint to ADT head office, pointing out > that the figures would mean there were around 365 > million burglaries a year in Britain, secured the > truth. > > The true figure, a boss said, was that 'One in 20 > homes is burgled every year'. He claimed it was a > clerical error, and not a cynical attempt at > scaremongering. The brochure would be changed, he > said. > > I then suggested they replace the original figure > with one saying 'One in 7,300 homes is burgled > every day' they did not reply. > > Or do they still use the 'one in 20 is burgled > every day' figure? Do tell.