grabot

On the general subject of lighting, not sure if this been discussed elsewhere, but there seems to be a bike lights arms race going on at the moment. On a number of occasions I have physically recoiled after being temporarily blinded by an ultra-bright light. It's good to be safe, but when other road users (I'm a cyclist) are put in danger, perhaps not so good. I think that Raul's comment on this thread is very sensible: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/are-cyclists-using-dangerous-bike-lights/

To be fair though, if part of the theme of this thread is extending special courtesies to the elderley. Shouldn't this be extended equally to the Fox? I am correct in assuming he is a mature gentleman? A lot of his post have a "In the good old days, East Dulwich..." theme.

How about, since you are young with your life ahead of your, investing in yourself? Is there anything that you could do, courses and such, that would increase your long term earning potential? From experience, and I am sure that many will beg to differ, if you are considering any kind of change of path, it is easier before the age of 30, when you tend to get more settled.

Yes, I remember listening to his show on one occasion. He was plugging a number of "One Man Bands". The music had to be some of the worst music I had ever heard and my tastes are pretty diverse. It went from being mildly amusing to distinctly frustrating. Dunno, probably should have listened to some more shows, but I was left feeling that he randomly fired out unknown music in the hope of being credited for discovering "the next big thing".

Yes and people are rightly campaigning for Alan Turing to be posthumously pardoned. So, it is correct to re-evaluate these past crimes in the current context.

No, not in favour of witch hunts or anything like that. I just find it bemusing that this guy is effectively canonised. The same man who made comments like this: ?Well, of course, I didn?t ask for ID,? he said. ?All they wanted me to do was to abuse them sexually which, of course I was only too happy to do. ?It was the glamour of the job . . . but frustratingly, American girls of that period ? as they do now, actually ? had this strange notion of virginity as a tangible thing which you surrendered to your husband on your wedding night. ?So they would do anything but s*** you. They?d give you a b*** *** before they?d s*** you.? I have to say I find society baffling at times. Perhaps this is a series of disconnected quotes creating a false impression (and I apologise that it is taken from the Daily Mail). But, even in isolation, I really do not like these comments.

I don't hate him. He seems a pitiful character. Ian Watkins on the other hand... In my mind the first step in dealing with an institutional problem is admitting it exists. This anything goes 'cos they're artists mentality I believe perpetuates the problem.

Fair do's. I am happy to admit to liking the poetry of Ezra Pound despite dissaproving of his facist tendencies. But, I think that in these cases time dissasociates the art from the man. What was Peel's art?

He married a 15 year old girl at the age of 26 and 4 years later had another relationship with a girl of the same age according to Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding it...

Is it just me? Or does anybody else find the fact that Glastonbury still has a John Peel stage disturbing?

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If he was born and bread here he probably said it > was dough in the old days (he said, desperately > trying to get a tedious circular thread lounged). Probably baked using the Chorleywood method: "he said it was never rough ...just a bit dull but pleasant." The middle class sourdough eaters clearly prefer a rougher texture.

We found the Karvol vaporiser plugin highly effective. Correction. Looks like it is currently unavailable, although apparently the Boots equivalent is good.

fl0wer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See what you make of this article that's in the > news today. > http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/16 > /business-case-airport-expansion-wwf Quite depressing really. Airport expansion pushed by the business fraternity. In my 20 odd years experience working in the City, the vast majority of business travel has been superfluous, primarily a status enhancement mechanism for management; for some reason foreign travel is still perceived by many to be an indicator of higher status, although surely that ceased to be true 30 years ago! So, the same people who encourage outsourcing and emphasise processes over people insist that face-to-face contact is absolutely vital in business and keep me awake at night.

Two elements of the current media coverage sadden me: 1. That people: sons, daughters,fathers,mothers, have died. 2. The response of a number of people that this is in some way not a tragedy because of some perceived slight caused by a cyclist at some point. Society truly does worry me at times. How quick we are to wish the worst on each other. I guess this is why bad things have happened throughout humanity`s history. What a vile species we are!

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK sorry, I don't understand Unix humour so I > don't get the joke but I have a general sense of > humour failure around all things Nazi/Goodwin's > Law. Unix humour is fun. For example, in answer to your earlier response to my comment. I wonder what the following regular expression yields on this thread? ^I.*!

It's become a little odd, this forum. A person makes a comment about something happening in the area, then a cohort of people who have left the area, and now profess varying degrees of dislike for East Dulwich, jump on the post and mock and pillory the poster. The mockery comes across as a little creepy, obsessive and stalker-ish. I will state that I am ambivalent about the original post though...

Broadstairs is easily accessible from Whitstable by train for a day out too, a nice place with a sandy beach. Also, consider Margate for a day out, superficially a bit of a dump, but the art gallery does some good activities for kids and it has a small historic shopping area nearby which is quite nice.

I wonder what the child's perspective is. I remember not enjoying school for periods of time and liking it even less when over-indulged uber-children scooted off for glamorous trips to Tanzania etc, while I remained in class enduring the tedium of Geography classes, with little more than a week in a caravan during the summer holidays to look forward to. To add insult to injury we would often be exposed to a classroom level presentation of their experience when they returned. Still I guess it was good preparation for adult life in which the unglamorous world of knuckling down and getting on with things seemingly pales into insignificance relative to posting "interesting" things on Facebook.

It's an interesting thread this one. The OP, possibly wound up, makes a somewhat rash posting challenging the legality of this exercise. Posts are made under a number of newly created logins attacking the OP. The echoes start. Such is the nature of internet forums. However, what about the original contention. This enterprise is creating noise outside the OPs property. How loud is it? How constant is it? Beyond a certain level I would assume that it would become intolerable for almost anyone. Oh, but if you live in London you should tolerate anything, so long as it's not illegal: a concept which is in itself somewhat gray, I have seen public order laws enforced for all sorts of petty reasons. My angle for what it's worth is that a car washing business will probably involve some sort of device with a compressor. Compressors can be very loud and very persistent. However, we lack facts to make a proper judgement.

It get easier as the kids get older. Scenarios play out multiple times without any catastrophic consequences. You steadily make more connections who make you realise that most of us get it wrong most of the time, but kids are resilient. As they get older their capacity for self-determination increases and you start to trust in their decisions. I suspect that anxious parents produce anxious children and while anxiety has its drawbacks it does tend to shield one from catastrophic decision making; generally pessimists live longer!

Yeh, happy with the 7.7 million saving. I think that the investment potential is debatable, there seems to be a lot of office space going up in London right now, not sure who's going to take it, and if you believe the hype Europe is moribund: I, incidentally don't subscribe to that idea. Still, with the savings, potential for capital gains is a bonus rather than a necessity.

OK, so the 7.7 million figure annual rental figure is exclusive to this property? It is all quite confusing. Earlier posts stated that the rental on the building was around 2, from this I implied that the later figure of 1.5 referred to this building and 7.7 referred to [headquarters: plural] this and other buildings. I agree with the above. The effective yield of 4.5% is very good, based on capital expenditure of 170 million to negate rent of 7.7 per annum. I caveat all of this by admitting that the best I ever achieved in maths was a C at GCSE...

Once again, trying to get some basic understanding. In recent years commercial property companies have traded on a price to book value below 1, on the assumption that commercial property values will decline. I believe that this is still true, of, for example, British Land. If the share price is lagging some wider market shift in which commercial property is unlikely to depricate, I guess the market is wrong. Looks like a one way bet :-)

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence. I was genuinely interested in how these things are valued.

This is interesting. I can't say that I understand commercial property, but in crude terms if the building is bought for ?170m to yield a saving of ?1.5m per year, that represents a multiple of 113. That seems enormous. With stock markets trading at multiples closer to 10, wouldn't it be better for the council to allocate the cash elsewhere?