DuncanW

Wow - you wen there, you actually went there!! Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's worrying as it smacks of influencing young > minds to be the councils voice. > > Last time I heard of this sort of behaviour was > pre 1939 in Germany where school children were > used to report non conformation to the party line > ... > > Can't wait till the leader of the council > publishes his book "My Fight"

I just read it's for a TV show on Discovery

You've never played Monopoly?

Admin, please feel free to delete my post which I think quotes one the removed posts.

Alex is right. M4 then M5 is normally quickest so that?s the way to go - and I would say: regardless of what Waze says when you are heading off. Parts of the A303 are single-carriageway so if there?s a problem, it?s likely to be a serious one. Early Saturday morning is the best time to go. The start of the M4 is just 11 miles from here so if you beat the traffic, it shouldn?t take more than 45 mins to be on the motorway. The M4 has a 50/60 speed limit currently from Heathrow to Reading - but it?s still the best way to go. Have a great trip.

Thank you Lola for the info Thank you Snowy for the caution - The FPFW site quotes FOI data from the MoJ - are you saying it's false?

The Halfords Apollo range and the character bikes are all stainless steel, although I think their Carrera range is aluminium. There will be other differences between bikes, but this is the critical one that will make such a big difference to his enjoyment of cycling. All the makes that NM mentions are good. I would add that we have a Ridgeback for our daughter and it seems just as good as the Frog that our son has.

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We know that men increasingly ?identify? as women > on arrest in order to enter the women?s prison > estate. > The police are facilitating this. But self ID is > not law in this country (thank God). Genuinely interested if you have data to back that up. I think I have seen that claim refuted by trans activists elsewhere. NB for me, I infer that you are talking about a significant and therefore worrying uplift in the numbers here

Context is all I guess, Thumbs up is an interesting one as it has a completely different meaning if you're scuba diving. NB it's not at all accurate to say that 40% of people equate taking the knee with Marxism or are against it in any way. The majority of football fans support it, or at least respect it. At Wembley, it was a tiny minority who booed - many more cheered, and Millwall is a noteworthy case as it has been the exception in club football - I think maybe there was one other club where it happened, but at the recent end of season matches that had fans in (I was at one) there was no booing at most grounds.

Focusing on the issue of taking the knee and the booing of it, I would say this: The players themselves, and the manager, have made it abundantly clear that this has nothing to do with Marxism and everything to do with taking a stand (or not) against the racism that is sadly prevalent across society and within the world of football and to a large extent, social media. I have read accounts from some of these players that tell of how they are frightened to look at their phones the day after a match because of the vile abuse that will waiting for them as soon as they look at their social media feed; one in particular struck home who detailed how he can't look at his phone (social media) in the presence of his children as he is terrified that they will see some of it. I don't think you can underestimate how desperate they are for this to end. So I believe that the players are showing support for the situation in the US, in protest of the systemic inequalities here in the UK, but also very much for their own collective situation of facing such horrible abuse on such a frequent basis. Taking the knee is how they choose to make this point. So we can debate the issue of whether or not this is the best way, until the cows come home, but the the fundamentals don't change. I can't conceive of how any right-minded, non-racist person could boo their own team for doing this. Are these the same 'fans' (or their lineage) who twenty years ago threw bananas on the pitch and proudly spewed out openly racist chants. I suspect they might be. Those actions would have you ejected, banned and possibly criminally charged nowadays; booing quite rightly would not. So it serves as a cipher for their real intent.

It's not super straightforward but can be done without paying someone. Firstly, put a block on any unsuitable content coming in via your internet service provider. You can phone them and they will do this for you if you're unsure how to. You can also do this with your mobile provider. That will get you 90% there, but won't give you the time limits. This can be done though fairly easily - Microsoft and Google both have family supervision tools. We use Google for our kids' Android devices and the MS one for a Windows PC. Both can restrict use by total time and times of the day, plus ban certain websites or even have it set so they can only access websites you have approved. https://families.google.com/familylink/ https://account.microsoft.com/family/about I'm certain Apple have something similar, but I haven't used their version personally.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aaaah well that won?t go well for Labour.... Apart from elections generally not going that well for them recently, how comes??

I think I?m right in saying, that you would still have trebled your money if you had bought one year ago and sold today, even with the recent downtick in price.

Sorry KK - didn't meant to trigger you. Hope you're okay now. But yes, it genuinely is becuase I can't get my head around it. At least you haven't threatened me this time...

Every sympathy for bar workers (or anyone else) who have to contend with people who are blatantly not complying with the mask-wearing regs. The government guidance seems to be pretty clear though that there are some medical exceptions. So I can't get my head round why anyone, whatever their own personal experience, would feel the need to interrogate any other individual about their difficulty in wearing a face-covering.

Wow, that's horrific. Looks like she's a locally based contributor. It's not great optics for sure, but I have no doubt the BBC will sever all ties with her. Not sure what more they could do in these circumstances.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mr whyte Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Droid - better make sure you check your slogans > > with the thought police on this forum first. > Make > > sure your not using offensive words like > "matter" > > or "all"... ;) > > > No matter how hard you try, and how genuine your > intentions, someone on here will find a way to > extrapolate what you have specified in your poster > as either racist, sexist, anti-environmental, or > drugs related! YAWN... it doesn't normally take much to bring the old "I'm not racist, but..." gang out to play - in this case absolutely no-one made any comment of this nature whatsoever, but still here we are. It's worth remembering that the Dulwich Alliance were themselves quick to recognise that their BLM appropriating posters did cause offence and quite rightly removed them.

Are you sure these are enforcement cameras anyway? I thought you had to have signage warning of enforcement cameras, plus they had to be highly visible as such, like the boxy yellow cameras for speeding fines. Is that not the case anymore?

San Diego is strict on ID in my experience. I went there from LA and forgot to take my passport. Found it very difficult to get served or even gain entry into any bars. I did however have my paper driving license on me and a passport style photo which I stuck on the license. Amazingly that worked in a couple of places...

Although you may have found it with the school your kids attend, is it true that schools outside of London have smaller class sizes? I'm sure schools in a suburban or rural setting have more outdoor space, but what do you mean by resources and learning? What benefit do you perceive to gain from staying in the same school with the same cohort for 14 years? Outdoor space is needed for many sports, but most of the schools round here do have extensive and varied sporting and PE programmes. And most of the schools with limited space on premise do have access to playing fields nearby. London schools outperform national averages on all of the following: % of pupils achieving 5 or more A-C grades at GCSE (old money) Fewer schools falling below the floor standard or rated Needing Improvement or Inadequate by Ofsted Pupils on free school meals perform better The schools local to East Dulwich tend to further outperform London averages and there are currently no schools in any part of Dulwich that fall below Ofsted's Good rating. So we will be staying here for the forseeable - there's my input.

Nice idea. Many will know this already, but the residential development on the corner of Crystal Palace Road and Upland Road was previously a police station that housed a notorious elite police squad who were involved in some serious Line of Duty style police corruption in the 1990s. A total of five officers operating as part of the subsequently disbanded South East Regional Crime Squad were jailed for selling drugs seized from dealers and traffickers to rival gangs. One of them was also linked to corruption around the Stephen Lawrence case, and the murder of Daniel Morgan, a private detective who was said to be close to exposing police corruption.

Genuine question: if a suburban park like Peckham Rye or Dulwich Park is a natural habitat for rats, and they do no harm in being there, why does the council have traps out for them?

You really believe all of that? Although it's true that one diesel powered bus emits more pollutants than one diesel powered car, try comparing how that looks when you compare emissions per mile travelled per person. You mention trains - trains have significantly lower emissions per mile travelled per person than buses or cars. Are you aware that LEZ (ULEZ for lorries) came in to force in 2008? Have you seen any of the Hybrid, Electric or Hydrogen Fuel Cell buses in London? Those three types make up just under half the TFL bus fleet. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Stop driving = Save lives > > Although around half of the pollutants generated > in London (although much pollution in London comes > from outside London) come from vehicles - this is > primarily diesel vehicles (NOx) - so significantly > public and commercial transport, not domestic > vehicles (the most polluting of which are being > excluded by tariffs on them). > > It is domestic vehicles which are the targets of > LTNs however, as are all the main actions of > Southwark. If you are to quote the 9000 deaths > associated with pollution these are not (mainly) > to be laid at the doors of private vehicle owners > - but rather those running diesel buses, trains > and commercial vehicles - which achieve the most > significant daily mileage (many private vehicles > kept in ED are mainly weekend use, or for very > short trips, generally, in my experience).

Jakido, that's a big ol' document there, is there a summary of key points?

Brixtwich, that doesn?t tally with anything I have seen or read. I don?t suppose you have any data to back that up, or is it just your own personal view?