clive3300

Many thanks for following up. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Clive, > Council officers have told me that they've change > the cleaning regime of Goose Green park to visit > much earlier - please feedback if this is working > at ensuring the playground is safe for your and > other kids to ply. > Wardens have visited in the evenings but so far no > encountered anyone present to highlight the > problem they're causing and actions that could be > taken against them. >

Since you raised it, myself and my children binned a bottle's worth or so before realising the glass was covering a wide area. Removing the large pieces is one thing but the tiny shards are everywhere and can go through shoes. It is not a small job.

James - can you help with trying to stop the anti-social behaviour continually occurring in the Goose Green children's play area each Saturday night as most Sundays, the park is trashed? This Sunday morning with my children, I discovered that some lovely people had smashed something like 6 wine bottles amongst the equipment. It was done apparently methodically - 1 smashed on the merry go round, two smashed on top of the metal climbing frames and others around the ground. It was a complete minefield of shards of glass and ridiculously dangerous for small children (though amazingly did not stop several parents letting their kids play around it). A few weeks ago, the bins had been torn out of the ground (suggesting people with adult strength had been involved) and the contents emptied all over the ground. This is now beyond just kids being kids or whatever and appears to be escalating. Can you please liaise with the police to come past several times each weekend night and move these people on? If I complain directly to the police I am fairly sure that either (1) nothing will be done at all bar sending me some sort of letter or (2) they'll pop past once only and that will be the end of it. Ideally they will commit to coming past enough to make these "people" move their party spot someplace else. Many thanks clive3300

>:D< about the spider ! i havent heard the self cleaning toilet one - pray tell!

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fear of slugs - I'm rooted to the spot in fear if > I see one, it's like time freezes and I can't move You stay frozen while it moves out of sight? You must spend a lot of time in the garden!

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The image I always get is that I will be walking > into a lift and as I?m on the threshold the lift > will fall, splitting me in half longways. This actually happened at the NBS HQ (a local bank) in downtown Durban in the mid-90s or so. It was noted at the time with some glee that their advertising jingle was "come on down to the NBS and get your slice*" * Their logo was a sliced golden banana.... C'mon - it was africa.

One word: Why?

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No one has the right to vandalise cars true, but > then again, no one has the right to clog the > streets and make our lives harder, fill the air > with exhaust fumes and make crossing the road an > infintitely more dangerous experience. Not sure which laws you think are in force in this country but I am pretty sure we ARE legally entitled to own and drive cars in the UK.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe a certain amount of scientific research > has gone into this one Clive, and the results > concluded that drunk, overconfident and sweaty men > were prone to making errors of judgement, but > eventually - if they pestered enough women - would > probably find one drunk and sweaty enough to have > sex with them anyway. Bob, FYI this approach is strictly amateur and extremely time and effort wasteful. It is far more likely to get one beaten up by a boyfriend (or by one of Brendan's South African women). Far better is to observe the reaction of those surrounding and choose where to "charm". Anyway, back to topic.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I feel my point is being missed and now it's just > just getting lost in a load of guff I'm not > saying. > Bob, your point was quite clearly made and made sense! I think no matter what you (as in any poster) say on this forum, a self-appointed politically correct team of people will become furious by what you say. I look forward to the outrage from this very post :)-D.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is true, gay men are better looking, more > insightful and open minded, have better fashion > sense etc. but straight men are straight. That?s > why we get da ladies. > > Oh yeah. > > Booyah! > > *Flicks collar up and get a bit of a swagger on* > *Rolls up sleeves and flexes ?the guns?* Quite right! I have always found it odd that much of popular culture suggets that *most* women are generally after a educated, intelligent, cultured - even sensitive man who has good conversation. My experience is entirely the opposite. Growing up, I quickly learned to always do any cultural activities on the quiet for fear of scaring away women. With almost no exceptions (in my experience), women hated anything to do with art unless it was an accessory they could wear. I spent university years in the gym to beef up a lot and found that (to my amazement) wearing a cheezy muscle shirt, loudly drinking beer and generally behaving like an oik (all acted of course!) had a phenomenal effect. Women overwelmingly DID want a drunk, sweaty, overconfident idiot chatting them up. As you say Brendan, dumb attitude and the "guns"...

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Staight men tend to appreciate a couple of > "lipstick lesbians" kissing in front of them be > that in a Gay or Straight venue, but if two men > were doing the same most would be disgusted. Just > an observation. > > Louisa. This is quite true for most straight guys. No idea why.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm better off too - tho' like a number on this > thread I see that primarily as a function of my > work and effort. > Surely that all competent government should do is create a stable base on which people can work toward their own prosperity - I think they have done this. It sounds simple, but few other governments seem to be able to do this. US: constant under and manic overreactions to events, both political and economic France: always takes the easiest option to keep the mob off the street Italy: cant stay in power for more than a few months. seems pretty corrupt South Africa: forgot to pay the cops or the power company. politics wrangling trumps all else Russia: Boom and bust, totally dependent on energy. new Tsar wannabe And these arent even the really wierdo countries out there...

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure, I seem to remember someone called Simon > van der Stel who I think was a General in WW1 and > a bloke called Shaka who was the Governor of the > Cape Colony. Our school was more traditional: Great Trek all the way. Every year. Every subject too I think.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think most countries are the same to be honest. > Unless you actually have an interest in finding > things out yourself you are pretty much just going > to learn the history that a bunch of bureaucrats > in the Department/Ministry/office of Education > feel will foster a national image which in most > expedient to their political ends. > > Well that is if, like me, you are perpetually > distrusting and paranoid. It could just be that > you can only fit so much history into so many > years of schooling. You mean there was more to South African history than the Great Trek?

That US military map is a bit silly really. Most countries in Africa are shown to have American troops. What, on holiday? or a single military attache at the local consulate? There is nothing remotely like an occupying force anywhere on the continent. The whole of Australia and China are shown in dark red. All of India and Russia is shown light red (this maybe 50m sq km). However the reality is that in these countries, beyond a few hundred acres in small bases or the odd island, they have no presence, limited influence and certainly no control. Quite different from direct imperial rule where the natives getting out of hand would result in an expeditionary force or a friendly visit from the RN!

I still dont see how trees get in the way of London's growth/densification. Trees are scattered around Southwark, not in dense pockets - even if you chopped every last one of them down, dont see how this would provide significantly more density than just building high over the vast amount of semi industrial / light commercial / council areas to the south of SE1 (and similar areas). I see a lot of inappropriately low-density buildings, not giant nasty clumps of trees. Satellite photo of SE1

Alan Dale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who proposed that London become Tokyo? jrussel's desire to its ultimate limit - more density, more people, no trees. EDOldie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, just to pose a hypothetical problem, if its a > choice between desperately needed social housing > and an inappropriately planted tree the tree wins? Its an interesting question, but the obvious answer is © build new accomodation on the vast number of brownfield sites over London. There are hundreds of sq km of underutilized / semi derelict land in London. There are also large amounts of poor quality low density houses in areas that should be high density - e.g. 2 storey houses a couple hundred metres south of the Thames in SE1. These should be high rise.

London is already far denser than most new world "Houston" style cities - I dont see it needs to be much denser than it already is. Even so, I cannot see how cutting trees will aid this aim! If we want to increase density (e.g. around public transport and business nodes), this is already happening with increased apartment building. I mean there is no more open space for more houses, further development can really only be apartments. There are few trees holding up this sort of development. They should encourage more midrange in inner areas, and high-rise where appropriate. There is no reason why much of docklands shouldnt be 30+ storeys, large areas of SE1 (and similar inner city suburbs) 15-20 storeys. A few hundred / thousand blocks in these semi-brownfield sorts of areas will provide an efficient suitably urban environment with adequate services for those who want it, while easily allowing people to walk to work, as well as sucking up forseeable population growth. Part of the great things about London IMO is how villagey and country it can feel just a couple of miles from the centre. Id hate it to become Tokyo. http://www4.tsl.uu.se/~pomp/pictures/ND2001%20-%20Tsukuba/in%20tokyo/24%20-%20view%20from%20tokyo%20twin%20tower%203%20-%20tokyo%20.JPG

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if he (clive3300) disagrees with me as much, he may well > be casting me in the role of "baddy" Not "baddy", "master of all that is evil" ;-) I dont take personally at all - its good having my thoughts critically reviewed by my fellow forumers who will surely pick out inconsistencies I might not have noticed. I have definitely reconsidered some opinions based on yours and other posts! :)-D

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An educated friend tells me this is following the > K?bler-Ross model. So paraphrased: Denial: Example - "It will be fine, the house will sell easily" Anger: Example - "Why me? Why couldnt the crunch have happened a few months later!" Bargaining: Example - "Just let the market hold long enough for it to sell at the right time" Depression: Example - "OMG I am going to lose so much that I didnt have to" Acceptance: Example - "Oh sod it, lets sell at any price"

MadWorld74 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And why do you think they CHOOSE not to, > Clive3300?.....just out of interest... Because they are lazy, obviously? Why else would an otherwise capable person sit in a crappy situation? Because to study for years at school, get good results, put yourself through university, get a difficult job, pay your way the whole way isnt so easy is it? Especially if all your mates and your family are on the social, why bother eh? If people are GENUINELY incapable of work because of disability (whether physical, mental or psychological) of course the state SHOULD provide long term support - its the moral and civilised thing to do. However I believe its far too easy to claim you cannot work or contribute in some way to society - e.g. at least do volunteer work, self study surely. I wonder how many of these 'underprivileged' make any effort to really contribute to society. Please reread the last para a couple times if necessary before flaming me.

lozzyloz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > clive3300 do you live in the real world? > > It's very easy to reel off the privileges > available to all and sundry but it's really not > that simple. there are intelligent people from > poor backgrounds who don't make it in life despite > the abundance of privileges. Have you ever been > raised by an alcoholic, heroin addicted prostitute > of a mother? Beaten daily to the point of limbs > being broken by a verbally and physically abusive > father? Stripped of any self esteem from the > people that are meant to raise you? Overlooked > because of the colour of your skin, your accent or > place of origin? Taken into care and abused by the > carers? Housed in a ghetto? etc etc > > There are endless reasons why some of the > 'underprivileged' don't always make it from the > bottom of the pile. The ones that do are > exceptional people. The ones that don't are > stereotyped as MacDonalds eating SS scroungers. I dont live in fluffy bunny land if thats what you mean - I didnt have a big chunk of those privs and have had to fight for many years to get where I am. You are using the "Louisa" stereotype of anyone comfortable MUST have a private education and adoring wealthy parents. No one ever really does it themselves. There are millions of people on benefits in the UK. You telling me they all have this horror story? You cannot use an absolute worst case to explain them all. Of course there are geniune cases where the welfare state SHOULD support. The reality is most of these people could do more to better their lot but CHOOSE not to.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And his argument is illogical: > > Social problems do have a huge influence in some > situations ---> These social problems are caused > by individuals -----> These inidividuals suffer > from social problems ------> These social problems > are caused by individuals ad infinitum You are deliberately misunderstanding his argument. You are making out that individuals have no control whatsoever, nor any ability to break this chain. It is perfectly possible for someone born into a relatively bad situation to get themselves out of it with a little / lot of effort. Unless you are actually disabled, there is IMO no excuse for not getting getting out there and improving your lot In the UK the "underprivileged" have the following privileges that are not shared by the vast majority of the worlds population: - they are born speaking (by far) the most important language in the world for business or culture - reasonable accomodation is guaranteed and there is no threat of starvation. The water is clean - medical care is universal and free - they are born into a stable democracy that has had no wars or serious strife in decades - the electricity works, the rubbish is picked up - the FREE school system at its worst can still give a proper education and a qualification recognised throughout the world, providing you try - libraries are free, good and everywhere. the internet is available there - reasonable results at school opens up hundreds of colleges and universities that are essentially free and whose qualifications are universally recognised - when finish studying you have at your feet the 4th largest economy in the world, the financial centre of the world at the end of 12 years of continuous boom and labour shortages. The currency is strong and convertible. Banks are stable. Inflation is very low - you will have no restrictions on what work you do, or on opening a business - if you dont like it here, you can work anywhere in the EU - the worlds largest economic block; as well as many other countries - if you strike a rough patch, a myriad of council and national organisations exist to help you find homes, work, further education at no cost to yourself I repeat - these are privileges not shared by the vast majority of the worlds population - what more do you want? And yet many people can do is whine that they are underprivileged and need to eat McDonalds 10x a day. I know some REALLY underprivileged people who have been born into exactly ZERO of the above advantages and today run companies. They are the salt of the earth in comparison.

FACT - saying FACT all the time is annoying