Domitianus

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Deciding not to have kids may well be a simple > lifestyle choice, but I think for most people > deciding to have them, and the experience of > raising a family, is a little bit more significant > than that. > > Agreed that there are a lot of kids in ED, but > that's because it's a nice place to have kids. I > don't think that family size is any bigger here > than elsewhere, or that living here causes people > to have kids who otherwise wouldn't. > > Dom, we all know already that you don't like kids > - whyy don't you just leave it at that? Good one, Dave, appointing yourself as editor and arbiter of what people are entitled to discuss. Re your 'knowledge' that don't like kids, you are completely wrong - I love kids but I just don't want them under my feet at every moment of the day. This thread is related to environmental issues and I have drawn to people's attention a matter that has received newspaper comment recently but that doesn't seem to have been drawn into the environmental debate, namely that having children has an environmental impact that many people don't seem to want to consider, despite the fact that they are prepared to criticise every minute environmental infringement perpetrated by others. It is a valid subject for discussion and that is what a discussion board is about. It would see, however, from your comments that there are certain subjects that are just too uncomfortable for you to want to have to look at. An example of the cognitive dissonance I mentioned previously? Looks like it. Tell you what Dave, if you don't want to consider an Inconvenient Truth (oh, the irony!) then just put on your rose-tinted glasses, skip this thread - whyy [sic] don't you just leave it at that?

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is quite gross Domitanius! I was reflecting in an objective manner on an incident from my own past which was quite distressing to all involved at the time. It was most unpleasant indeed - but then again so is the subject of this thread so I don't quite know why one is edited and the other not.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it worse than your phobia about children (and, > I seem to remember, your morbid fear of > breast-feeding women)? Almost as bad as your apparent phobia about anyone who has an opinion outside your own narrow, uncritical, unimaginative, 'hand-me-down', PC agenda, and almost as bad as your apparent fear of anything that might suggest ED is not the Pleasantville/Stepford idyll that you seem to need to believe it to be. Does that answer your question?

This morning I saw a smiling (well, half smile/half grimace) Foxton's bod walking up LL giving out Foxton's branded helium balloons to children and their parents. If we are to heckle and flog adults carrying Foxton's plastic bags what punishment is appropriate for the 'little darlings' who allow a balloon to be tied to their wrist?

I have a phobia about spiral staircases!

I think what we should do next is start to object to all those pubs, bars and eateries that have signs in the windows saying 'No working clothes'. After all, it is atrocious to discriminate against decent, honest labouring types. I mean, My God, if proprietors have the right to determine who to admit to their establishments whatever next? It's worse than Communism! Who is with me?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dom, I think you'll find the instinct/desire to > have kids extends beyond ED and has been around > for a while. If somebody decides not to have > kids, that's up to them, but not having any > because of a desire to thereby save the world > strikes me as a bit odd. > > No dissonance in my house - just kids. Kids who consume and thereby use up the world's resources. Kids who weren't there until a decision (or, occasionally, an accident) brought them into being. I was merely pointing out a newspaper article reporting that many people who run around trying to be environmentally friendly don't seem to realise that having children may be one of the most environmentally damaging decisions they could make. I have already pointed out that it is a personal decision but am just curious as to whether people who deeply ponder the environmental implications every time they break wind or buy a potato ever stop and apply the same reasoning to their decision to raise a family. Of course people outside ED have children as well but I don't think I am the first person to notice that ED seems to be a veritable breeding ground this last few years. The percentage of expectant mothers and/or pram-pushing parents moving up and down LL on any given day must be un-rivalled in any other part of the UK!

EllaBelle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're on a roll! We walked out on Tuesday > afternoon after having been asked quite rudely to > move off the upholstered chairs in case we make > stains on them. See post from last night on > previous Chandelier thread... > > Basically not baby/child-friendly. BIG mistake in > ED. Or perhaps a marvellous, indeed triumphant stroke of genius! Creating an oasis for those who prefer to relax and dine in the presence of those above four years of age. As I said on the other thread, EB, I think you should stick to your principles and ensure that neither you nor your child-rearing comrades weaken even for an instant in your commendable determination never to set foot in Le Chandelier again. Yessssss!!!!

EllaBelle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just wanted to inform you of my latest > experience at Chandelier. I have been a couple of > times with other new mum friends and had a lovely > time, but the last time has put me off going there > for good. > > After arriving to an empty tea shop, we sat down > at one of the many free tables. The owner lady > sat at the back then called the manageress who > approached us and asked us in a rude manner to > move tables as we were "not allowed to sit on the > upholstered chairs in case we made stains on > them"!! Considering I had a baby (asleep), my > friend had a 1 year old (well behaved and not > eating, drinking or actually doing anything > sinister), third adult had no children, plus all > of us are not of boisterous natures, we were > outraged. We were not planning a food fight. > > If their chairs are so precious, why do they put > them out for everyone to sit on? Have they not > heard about stain guard spray, or god forbid - > covering them??? Not only that, but I shudder to > think how much money mums on maternity leave have > spent there during the day time. To find out this > way that our money is not welcome there, has left > a bitter taste in my mouth. > > Suffice to say that we promptly left said > establishment, and I will not return to be > insulted again. EllaBelle, I fully understand your outrage and decision to boycott this establishment. In fact, I would encourage all other parents with babies and children to do the same. Let me repeat that, I would wholly and enthusiastically endorse the decision of you and your child-rearing friends not to take your children into Le Chandelier - under any circumstances - no matter what - even if tired and desperate for somewhere to put up your feet and have a cuppa. Stick to your principles girl. You show 'em!

edited as there's no need - The Administrator

Well, perhaps it is one of those customers who had their card cloned (allegedly) in a local commercial establishment and found the response of HSBC a little less than energetic! It would be one way to get their money back. (For legal purposes, let me make it absolutely clear that I have no doubt that HSBC behaved in response to such complaints in a completely legal, appropriate and professional manner - it just didn't always seem so to those who had several grand pinched from their accounts by someone buying a carpet in an Egyptian bazarr using their credit card and who found HSBC staff less emotionally engaged in it than they were. Is that ok, Administrator? Don't want to add to the impressive list of libel threats you have received)

They should be. From the recent popular media having a big one is a worse crime than robbing a bank. As long as they made off on foot rather than in a Chelsea tractor I think they will be ok!

Don't know if this has already been posted but the front of HSBC on LL has been taped-off by the police and there are detectives taking statements from various bods. In the middle of all this was a rather lonely looking security van. I understand that some security guard had his case full of money pinched again. This happened not too long ago in the same bank, I believe. Has the culprit been taking lessons from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?

Remarkable! By simply introducing the possibility of people making lifestyle choices regarding the environment that may mean a bit more sacrifice than simply giving up the second car, we suddenly have an apocalyptic, eugenic, euthenistic world-view painted for us! I was simply thinking in terms of people who are considering whether or not to have children giving some thought to what it will mean to their own carbon footprint if they choose to add several more carbon footprints to the world. No draconian options, forced contraception, euthenasia or Mengele-like solutions were even hinted at by me, merely that if people are serious about 'saving the environment' then they should consider the impact of ALL their actions upon it, not just those sacrifices that are fairly easy and comparatively comfortable to make. I was not suggesting that it should be anything more than a factor that might be weighed in the balance of each individual's decision process surrounding raising a family. Still, I guess my original post was spot on when I said this was something that can scarcely be mentioned without being almost accused of harbouring Ultra Right Wing, Neo-Nazi sentiments. Hilarious! I think here we have a case of cognitive dissonance - the conflicting demands of two beliefs that are difficult to reconcile (ie. the ED passion with for having kids in droves and the other ED passion for protecting the environment). Only way out of the dissonance is to attack the person who drew it to one's attention in the first place - wonderful! I shall watch this tread with interest - it should be amusing. Or maybe I will go and watch paint dry instead, not quite sure. On the original point, I think Monica's championing of the SNUB campaign is highly commendable and I for one now have a couple of nice, cloth recyclable bags in which to carry around my copies of Mein Kampf and Galton's eugenic classic. Well done Monica. Keep up the good work.

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was a broadsheet newspaper article recently > (I cut it out but have mislaid it) that addressed > the unspoken (and, dare I say it, unspeakable!) > notion that the most environmentally friendly act > most people could engage in is choosing not to > have any children. Any thoughts? Or is the > concept, as I have suggested, unspeakable? That is not to say, of course, that the other actions that Monica et al suggest are not important - rather that there is an elephant in the room that many people seem not to wish to acknowledge.

There was a broadsheet newspaper article recently (I cut it out but have mislaid it) that addressed the unspoken (and, dare I say it, unspeakable!) notion that the most environmentally friendly act most people could engage in is choosing not to have any children. Any thoughts? Or is the concept, as I have suggested, unspeakable?

We shall see how the Estate Agents manage to fare. Did anyone see this morning's TImes? Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, which had previously predicted at least three percent increase in London's house prices next year (same as Nationwide), has now reviewed its forecast to reveal NO INCREASE AT ALL and a one in ten chance of a 1990's-like crash! Also the property website, Right-move, has shown a fall in London property prices last month of 2.5%. Crumbs!

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think comparatively ED IS overpriced but I can > see why it is more expensive than other areas > within a short distance and it has nothing to do > with the price of bricks and mortar > > "ultra capitalists" may struggle with the concept > but there is an intangible difference to the area > - a buzz, an atmosphere, a (with apologies to The > Castle movie) "vibe" > > The shops and bars are a result of that, not the > cause of it > > This forum is another example of it - surrounding > areas have similar forums but they don't seem to > have the same ooomph > > That is why I like living here despite my cramped > conditions... If the shops and bars are a consequence not a cause of the ED "buzz" then what actually initiated that "buzz" or "vibe" in the first place. Reason I ask is that a couple of people who have lived in ED for over thirty years tell me that it used to be a quite, leafy retirement home. ANy thoughts on what has caused it to become what it is today? Cheap house-prices in a picturesque area, leading to an influx of youthful breeding types, leading to a buzz that attracted more youthful breeding types who were drawn by the buzz even though the house prices aren't cheap any more? Just speculating, I don't really know myself. Back to economics though, I think dippy Darling has done the worst possible thing he could by stepping in to the Northern Rock affair. I suspect we may be seeing the beginning of a bubble bursting and there is no real way to have that happen easily and comfortably. NR is a victim (however unwitting) of the sub-prime f**k up which was a result of utterly reckless lending by institutions that should have known better. Unfortunately such institutions need to feel the pain of their irresponsibility otherwise there is no incentive to behave more carefully in future. This is not merely my view, I obtained it fro a number of commentators recently and I happen to agree. Mervyn King at the B of E has quite rightly stood back and decided to let people reap what they have sown, unlike some other central banks. I get the impression the Treasury is now twisting his arm so they don't get egg on their faces by presiding over a financial meltdown after so many years of crafting the illusion of financial competence. Interesting but not surprising to see Greenspan agreeing with what a whole raft of people are now saying - the UK housing market is unsustainable at current prices. Those who wish to believe differently may, of course, take solace from the fact that that economic guru Grant Bovey believes differently.

The comment about the two types of Chancellor is not mine - I merely repeat it as it is often cited and I think it applies maybe more to Brown than others as he has been heralded as a miracle worker much more than others - wrongly in the view of many. On the house-price front - I don't know if anyone saw today's Observer which quoted Nationwide's Chief Economist as predicting house price inflation next year as being around 3%! There are those who think that is optomistic. Since house prices have been driven to an extent by demand from those who see them as an investment (ie. buy it and flip it in a year or two when its value has shot up - guaranteed!) such meagre inflation may well diminish the demand that has kept the market buoyant. I mean a 3% increase in a year is less than you get in a decent bank account where you at least get a degree of security and don't have all the b***dy hassle and the conveyancing fees, stamp duty etc. Northern Rock has shown us how irrationally people react to perceptions of bad news even when their cash is pretty secure. How would people react to even a minor downturn in house prices? Especially those who are geared to the hilt and relying on house price appreciation to cover their backs? How might this affect ED economy? Hard to tell but I think it is worth considering that many of the new businesses in the area are at the luxury end of things - pretty but useless decor, over-priced kitcheware that will never get used, gyms etc. These are exactly the type of retailers who usually suffer during an economic downturn.

Although house prices are only one facet of economic performance and stability they have enormous perceptual value as a house is prolly the largest purchase most people will make. Drops in house prices or higher mortgage payments can easily engender a panic reaction with people radically cutting back on other expenditure. We only have to look at the queues to withdraw money from Northern Rock despite its underlying solidity to see how irrationally people can react when they see their assets threatened. I have noted a number of times on this board over the past few months that there are significant signs of threat to the house price boom. A friend in the City notified me yesterday that in Northern Ireland (which has experienced similar price inflation as London house prices, although not to the same dizzy heights) there has just been an 8% drop in house prices IN ONE MONTH!!!! Also, despite Marmoraman saying there has been no impact in London as yet, it was only last month or the month before that houses in Tower Hamlets dropped by an average of ?30,000. There are also respected commentators speculating on significant redundancies and reductions of bonuses in the City. Depending on how much of the ED population are vulnerable to such City exposure, the impact there could be significant. I suspect the Labour 'Economic Miracle' may soon be seen to have been the smoke and mirrors that many have felt it to be for quite some time. There is an old saying that there are two types of Chancellor of the Exchequer - those who fail and those who get out in time. Brown may have got out of Number 11 in time but he is so closely associated with Labour's economic performance that a move into Number 10 ain't far enough to spare him the association if things start to go down the plughole.

Can I suggest that the victims of these scams take action against the companies involved? If you have been given a definitive quotation then I believe that is legally binding and for them to add extra charges is breach of contract. A possible, inexpensive route where you can represent yourselves would be the Small Claims Court. Sue them for the outstanding sum and also an hourly rate for your time spent pursuing the matter and any other incidental expenses incurred due to their failure to honour the contract. It may be a bit nerve-wracking at the hearing but it is designed to be user-friendly and the judges are usually very sympathetic and patient with people they know are not professional advocates. I have been to the Small Claims in Northern Ireland three times (twice as a claimant and once as a respondent) and I won each time and found the process sympathetic, user-friendly and effective. Only thing is (unless it's all changed) the court only decides liability, it does not collect awards so if your debtor plays silly b****s you may need to pursue the actual award with the Enforcement of Judgements Office. All a bit of a hassle, perhaps, but revenge is a dish best eaten cold and there is little as satisfying as seeing the opposition who ripped you off sitting sweating in the waiting room and then trying to explain themselves to a shrewd judge. Hit them where it hurts - their pocket. They did it to you,

I was once arrested for assault, GBH and criminal damage. The copper who wrestled me to the ground bruised my elbow, broke one of my false nails and scratched my watch. Same thing surely!

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hath Sean been bestowed with the power to cast > that which is errant of topic into the lounge? Interesting question, but in this case I agree with him. I must say I do like his term "yakkery", however, and I think I will add it to my lexicon.

-- moved topic --

lozzyloz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seeking recomendations on somewhere that is less > child friendly seems a fairly reasonable request. > > However the behavioural problem is not a class > issue but more a cultural one. It seems in this > country we seem to lean towards separating > children from adults rather than encouraging more > integration as we see on Continental Europe. It's > absolutely normal to see families in restaurants > well into the evening, especially in Spain and > Italy. Perhaps if we integrated our children into > more aspects of our lives instead of this > Victorian "seen but not heard attitude" we'd > suffer far less from some of the cultural problems > the UK seems to lead the way on (teen alcoholics, > teen single mothers, drug abuse etc, etc). I often > see people looking uncomfortable around kids, > scared to show emotions like smiling back, playing > or even telling them off because they're afraid > someone will think they're a paedo. There is a lot of truth there Lozzy. I guess it doesn't help interaction though when people have experiences like the earlier poster who appears to have been threatened by making a reasonable request for children to be calmed down a bit. I know that prolly isn't typical but there does seem to be a particularly British thing about reposnding hostilely to criticism of our own children even when it is justified.