Domitianus

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank goodness for that. > > They're truly horrible. > > A vile environment to travel in, and take up too > much room at bus stops so you're likely to miss > your bus which is parked up somewhere behind. Vile in what way? Their layout is much the same as other buses except longer. I loved the old Routemasters because of the atmosphere but in terms of comfort they were much more "vile" than the bendys.

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Take the bins and wheel them into the next road > :-) I like this option the best. You could append a little note to them (anonymously, of course) stating that you will continue to do this every time you find the bins obstructing the road. Might get the message across.

It was the "irrelevant" comment that seemed to imply that the new theme of compensation was not appropriate whereas I thought it an interesting new angle. As my edited post reveals I have seen a vast array of compensation claims and am so desensitised that a claim for bloodied hands and knees from tripping on a loose paving stone or kerb strikes me as par for the course.

Would you really, Sean? Maybe I shpould put in a compensation claim for psychological injuries? Was merely makming the point that it seems somewhat contrary to the purpose and spirit of this forum to chastise someone from opening the discussion up a little - particularly as others seemed to have commented on the expanded theme. Anyway, I thought you were Admin.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is compensating an individual for injuries > > sustained due to council negligence not a > "public > > service?" > > If they're unable to work or get on with their > daily life, then yes. If they've got a few cuts > and bruises (not meaning to belittle JoJo's > experience) then no, it isn't! > > At least, that is my opinion. I expect you'll > disagree. > > Anyway, it's irrelevant, as JoJo is only trying to > make sure the pavement gets fixed, in the > interests of public safety. Oh, forgive me for having a discussion on a discussion board! Whatever happens, folks, don't dare expand upon the original limited thrust of anyone's OP (even if the specific nature of the OP is not wholly clear). Having spent a couple of years working in compensation recovery for the government I have seen the details of literally thousands of compensation claims for just about everything under the sun (worst repeat claimants were police officers and taxi drivers). I can tell you that many of them were for injuries/failings much less significant than Jojo's. Worst I remember was a girl suing a beauty salon for bruising she sustained where she had her bikini line waxed.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I basically agree that legal action is not the way > to go. Especially when it comes to > council/government... it diverts resources and > money away from public services. But it could > provide useful leverage to ensure the problem gets > fixed. Is compensating an individual for injuries sustained due to council negligence not a "public service?"

What you do is photograph the evidence, obtain evidence of your injuries and speak to a lawyer about a personal injury claim against the council. Usual course of action, I believe.

why don't we think laterally here? If everyone stood outside Foxtons at night, charging up all their personal electronic appliances with solar panels, then surely much of the so-called "waste" of energy would be offset? I think this is a reasonable compromise.

Amelie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually yes I would ask for the lighting at > Piccadilly Circus to be turned off, if I knew to > whom to write. All lights on buildings and > floodlights attached to buildings should be > switched on only at lighting up time and should be > switched off at 11.00pm. All streetlights should > be fitted with 'blinkers' so that the light they > produce is aimed towards the pavement and not in a > general halo around them, and all orange sodium > bulbs should be replaced with white halogen > bulbs. > > Here endeth the rant. I do hope you compost your own s**t instead off allowing it to be poured into the sea.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think he means on the inside of the door, not > the outside. Exactly, Siduhe! As I would have thought wud have been bleeding obvious to MOST readers!

bea1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have been eating organic food for near on 40 > years now. I used to cycle to farms outside London > as a teenager as not much was available in the > shops. Eating organic is a personal choice - you > do your research and you make a decision . Anyone > who eats it because it is fashionable is always > going to be fickle on this subject,and the press > are forever trying to divide people in this > country with issues such as this. I am not > fanatical about organic food but do have a major > concern over large food producers who have profits > rather than our health as their main concern. For > me it has always been about the chemicals - not so > much about taste or nutritional value and I fail > to understand why this is always the issue when > this research is conducted. Its not rocket science > to understand you will be healthier WITHOUT the > chemicals. If the producer is good then it will > always be fresh and THAT is the key to taste and > nutritional value. Organic food brought in from > overseas will never pass the taste and nutrition > tests. There are also many non organic producers > who produce very good quality food. I buy my food > from producers I trust , sometimes it does cost a > bit more but that is my decision and no amount of > research will change my mind on this. The statement "no amount of research will change my mind on this" comes across as "I don't care what the facts are, I have my dogma." The point I was making about the SA's position is that the chemical or no chemical distinction that the SA approved or organic label once appeared to convey is no longer valid. The 'chemical are bad for you' refrain has always been BS in my opinion. EVERYTHING has chemicals in it! It is impossible for something to even EXIST without it containing chemicals. Even pure water is H2O - in other words it is a combination of chemicals! The bandying about of the claim "but that's got chemicals in it" is simply a sign of wooly thinking and a lack of understanding of the facts. If you can show me something that does not contain chemicals I will eat my hat! The s**t that even the most organic small-holder shovels on his/her allotment contains chemicals! The question that the issue really seems to redound to is whether the "chemicals" in question are harmful or not, NOT whether organic/non-organic foods actually CONTAIN chemicals - clearly they ALL do!!! There are those who take a default, dogmatic position that anything that is produced in a laboratory or through intensive farming is intrinsically unhealthy but that anything that occurs in nature (as if human-directed activities are separate from nature, as if we in all our activities are not PART of nature!) is intrinsically healthy. Such a position is untenable. Foxglove, arsenic etc are naturally occurring products - they are infinitely more unhealthy than any laboratory produced fertiliser. What about the many highly poisonous mushrooms that populate our countryside? They are naturally occurring yet highly damaging to human health. It has been pointed out on another thread on this forum that some Ayurvedic remedies (traditional, natural, organic, steeped in lore etc) actually contain dangerous levels of toxic metals, so the fact that something is associated with traditional practice does not mean it is necessarily healthy. So when you state that "Its not rocket science to understand you will be healthier WITHOUT the chemicals" the logical question has to be WHICH CHEMICALS??? The ones that actually CONSTITUTE the food itself? The chemicals contained in the good ol' horse manure that has been used to grow your organic food? The nasty, evil ones that intensive farmers use? The list of ones that would be decried as being the vomit of Satan himself if they were promoted by intensive farmers or (worse still!) global companies like Monsanto but which are suddenly deemed as being 'acceptable' if they are on the Soil Association of 'nice' chemicals? The only way to make such determinations about the safety of chemicals is to firstly accept that EVERY SINGLE THING we put in our mouths, breathe in, rub on our skins etc etc is made up of and contains chemicals WITHOUT EXCEPTION! Secondly, we must recognise that our bodies do not distinguish between chemicals that occur in the final form they are ingested through natural growth in the wild, and those that are produced through laboratory processes or so-called 'artificial' means. Our bodies are solely interested in the effects that the ingested substances have upon our systems, NOT their provenance. Having recognised those two points we can stop lumping ALL 'chemicals' together as being universally 'bad' and study each individual chemical whether 'naturally occurring' or 'artificially added' to see whether it harms, heals or is neutral in its effects (having regard of course for the effects of individual chemicals in combination). The best process for doing this is through appropriate, impartial scientific research. Such research is only going to be worthwhile, however, if we are prepared to be guided by its discoveries rather than declaring that no matter how compelling the research may be we have already made up our minds and won't be influenced by it!

expat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil > Association, admitted that he was disappointed by > the conclusions but said that he was confident > that consumers would make their own minds up. > > ?The FSA has always sated there was no scientific > evidence to show organic food was better for > health than conventional food. But it has not > stopped the growth of the market. Some 8 per cent > of shoppers are regular users of organic food and > they do so for a variety of reasons. As far as FSA > advice is concerned people tend to use their own > common sense.? > > He was adamant that five-year research work funded > by the European Commission and due to be published > next year would show that organic food was > beneficial to health. > > He also challenged the conclusion by the > researchers that the nutritional differences found > in organic and conventional foods were not > important. > > ?Consumers will decide for themselves,? he said. Policy Director of the Soil Association? Vested interest perhaps? My personal view is that "common sense" is not common at all - is in fact as rare as hen's teeth. My opinion of the Soil Association went into terminal decline when I saw its President Jonathan Dimbleby attempt to justify the fact that the SA actually has a list of chemicals that it approves of being used whilst still being happy to approve the produce grown as a result of such chemical use. In an instant the clear blue water between organic, SA approved produce and the evils of chemical-riven, non-organic farming evaporated and the vista became that of a scientific debate as to which chemicals are safe and which potentially harmful. Such a debate can be readily had within mainstream scientific discussion - indeed it is the very place for such a debate, not the fringes occupied by special interest groups with dubious boundaries.

What is your definition of "quality" if it doesn't include things like nutritional value?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. I have seen a number of properly blinded taste tests between 'organic' and non-organic foods that have shown those who claimed this remarkable power of discernment not to be anywhere near as discerning as they thought. Same with bottled water blind tasting. I have read studies that showed the tasters voted the nicest tasting water to be the plain old tap water they were offered that was a tiny fraction of the price of the branded bottled alternatives.

After extensive media coverage last week of new research challenging the supposed benefits of 'organic' food, I wonder will we still see the massive queues this morning outside William Rose?

Must hve missed it.

I was sitting in the Bishop the other day and I found an empty shell in the corner. It was Nasty Nigel from the 185.

could we have cat chipping as well? Anything to put an end to these endless threads about Felix/Diddums/Whiskers/Shadow etc etc going missing.

Green and Blue, Black Cherry and EDT also have free wi-fi. Problem with the library is actually getting a machine and as noted by another poster they seriously limit your time.

KoolBananas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, if I was a bus driver, I'd dread and > possibly even go so far as to say hate the pick up > through ED. I always thought it must be horrid > going through areas like Brixton, Herne Hill, > Streatham or anywhere on a main school bus route > but WOW and OMG! if I had to go through ED :-S Quite so. I mean ED with the appalling traffc jams, the violent and abusive pssengers with their offensive smiles and "pleases" and "thank-you"'s. Gve me a trip through Brixton any time - with screeching children being slapped in their prams by angry teenage mothers; surly youths chomping on smelly fried chicken, playing their music loudly and giving dirty looks at anyone who looks remotely irked; gags of teens with their jeans round their knees, effing and blinding and disrespecting each other; mad housewives with their shopping trolleys cursing at the driver etc etc. Compared with such civilised districts I am sure ED must be a descent into Hell!

Horsebox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And harder working too. They don't spend all their > time posting on message boards, unlike those lazy > buggers from East Thames. Sweet as..... >:D<

I am certainly starting to have serious doubts that beaver14uk is who he says he is.

You haven't answered my question and you have directly contradicted yourself within ten words. You stated that you object to the fact that they charge at all and then immediately say you WOULDN'T object if they charged a fair rate! So I am a little confused. Do you object to them charging or don't you? If you DO object, are you actually suggesting that private landlords should provide free housing to the council? I really can't see any of them agreeing to that somehow and if private landlords didn't provide the councils with paid for accomodation I think we have to assume that these asylum seekers would be living on the streets. Landlords have a right to charge for theior services as they are in the 'for profit' sector - i.e. they have a living to make. If the council don't like their rates then they can go elsewhere. I won't be able to check this thread again until tomorrow but I look forward to hearing your views on this.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only thing that annoys me about places like this, > is that often, the landlords will be charging > councils a lot of money for each person, it's a > gold mine for them, and shouldn't be allowed, but > councils are held over a barrel. Why should it not be allowed for landlords to charge for the provision of services to local councils?

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Domitianus Wrote: > > > > I will NOT be going on account of a matter > of > > > > personal principle. > > > > > > > Ladymuck wrote: > Oh DO tell all!;-) > > > Domitianus wrote: > > Hey, it's personal. > > > > > Fair enough. Okay, I'll let you into the secret. I have a moral objection to the sale of foodstuffs from public premises.