indiepanda

One of my friends had an intruder while she was home - he had rung the bell and when he didn't get a reply he came in the front door. Fortunately he left when he heard they were home. It had one of those yale type locks which if not double locked take all of about two seconds to get past - as I know from when I shut my front door without having my keys with me - locksmith took no time at all with a piece of plastic to open it. I wouldn't rely on one of those locks - use a mortice bolt also and we tend to lock ours even if we are home.

DulwichFox Wrote: > A Farmers' Market sells locally produced goods to > local people. > > Where are there any Locally Produced goods in/near > East Dulwich. > 120 years ago Dulwich had many farms. > > Today don't see many local farms. For goodness sake, that is so restrictive. Even FARMA (National Farmers Retail and Markets association) who certify farmers markets interpret local as follows:- Local is a defined as a radius from the market. A definition of 30 miles is ideal, up to 50 miles is acceptable for larger cities and coastal or remote towns and villages. And they suggest further could be allowable if there isn't a producer in that radius. I reckon there will be plenty of farms in Kent, Surrey and Essex that would fall within a 50 mile radius of East Dulwich. http://www.farmersmarkets.net/certification2.htm

I would love it if it was open on Sunday as a farmers market. Would it be possible to close North Cross Road between Felbrigg Rd and Lordship Lane? That would give quite a bit of space for stalls.

I would quite like a little M&S, for those times I am feeling too lazy to cook but don't want to get a takeaway - want to get something nice with healthier options. But what I'd really like to see is a weekly farmers market in the area. Once a month in Dulwich isn't enough to really make using it part of your regular shop. And I agree with the comments about wanting to keep the lane much as it is - I like the lack of chain stores - gives it individual character. If M&S were to be the start of a big change I'd rather survive without.

Full detail of what is running here from p 21 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/festive-leaflet.pdf If running, free between 23.45 and 04.30

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd still rather the pilot made the attempt to > land (as so many do) - rather than be accused of > smug for even trying Reckon the people on board that plane that managed to land on the Hudson river after the engines were taken out by geese would agree with you!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As all realists know - sell the car, don't buy > ANYTHING that's air freighted and never fly again > and save energy for all but neccessities, so for > eg stopp p1ssing about online but in the meantime > recycling old bags and turning the lights off once > a year for an hour can delude the deluded That seems a bit of a black and white interpretation - either you are green or you aren't. I see it as a sliding scale - I know I could go further than I do in my green attempts, but I figure (to quote one of my least favourite retailers) every little helps. Perhaps I am deluded, but I reckon if everyone like me gave up trying it would make a difference.

I think they should follow suit and ban single use carrier bags here - would save shops from having to justify themselves. I've got quite used to places like Holland and Barratt not having plastic bags and if I've forgotton to bring one of mine I quite cheerfully pay up for a paper one. Reminds me to be more careful next time.

I've made a similar mistake - parking there in the minutes before the bus lane restriction was lifted on the morning at the weekend. I had assumed the absence of a morning rush hour at weekends would mean the bus lane applied Mon-Fri, and others were already parked there which seemed to give credence to the theory. But I was wrong and a traffic warden was waiting for me when I came out. Much to my shame I was a bit rude to him, though it has to be said he did seem to be enjoying writing the ticket just a little bit too much. Anyway, I don't risk parking there at any time any day of the week now just to be on safe side. Teach me to be lazy, I should walk there really!

Inflation only follows if consumers continue to spend. As someone has already pointed out it's more luxuries than essentials (with the exception of tampons) that are subject to VAT - if prices go up more than we think is acceptable we always have the choice of not buying.

If the only thing the McCann's are guilty of is leaving their child unattended* then I can only imagine the fact they have chosen the publicity route is at least partly related to feelings of guilt at having left her in a position to be kidnapped / worse. They are not stupid people - they would realise that comments are going to be made about them given the circumstances around Maddie's disappearance, but they made the call it's better than doing nothing. And that means taking the rough with the smooth. Whether they have given enough consideration to the impact this has on their other children I don't know - am not convinced it's healthy for them. But then none of us know the full picture, only what we see in the media. And too often to me, the media likes a black and white view of the world. The McCanns left their child, therefore they must be all bad. *Don't get me wrong I was apppalled by that - surely they could have afforded a babysitter? And if they couldn't get one... don't go out. My parents would never have put their social life ahead of my safety.

I moved to London in an attempt to shake up my dull single life living out in suburban Hampshire. I started out living in Southfields in SW London which was ok, but hard to meet people. When looking around for other places to live, I fell in love with East Dulwich based on the look of Lordship Lane, bustling and full of independant shops. I rented somewhere the first day I came here and then went home and read up on the area and found the forum. I went to my first forum drinks the day after I moved in and through going to drinks sessions I've made friends locally. As a result of having friends locally I was out in a local pub for New Year last year rather than off staying with old friends out of town, and met my the guy I have been with for the last year. So, I've gone from being single and bored outside of London to busy and happy in love since moving here. Maybe it could have happened anywhere.... but am not convinced, which is why I am now trying to buy a house here and intending to stay for a long while.

http://www.bview.co.uk/listing/1835632/Royal-Mail On site above found this number: 020 86931395

Found this on a web site called www.mylocalservices.co.uk 55 Silvester Rd Dulwich London SE22 9PA Tel: 0844 474 0395

I flew with the beginnings of a cold once and ended up with excruiciating ear pain and got off the plane looking very green around the gills having spent much of the flight feeling dizzy and like I wanted to throw up. Ended up with badly blocked ears and taking a couple of days of work. I really wouldn't risk flying with ear problems. Having said that, I think the perforated ear drum on it's own wouldn't be a problem, but if the other ear is still blocked flying could be the final straw and lead that one to be perforated too. NHS web site says: "It?s not advisable to fly if you have an ear, nose or sinus infection, as the swelling can cause pain, bleeding or a perforated eardrum. If you have to fly, then ask your GP or pharmacist about decongestants to help reduce the swelling in your ears. Is it safe to fly with a perforated eardrum? Yes. In fact, flying with a perforated eardrum should actually cause you less discomfort than if your eardrum is intact"

Yes.... am glad I have my laptop home and can work from here tomorrow if the comments about Southwalk running out of salt are right.

Snowing again now... quite light but has thinly covered some previously bare patches (where cars were parked on Saturday and not now).

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A bit bruised today and ribs more tender than a > SMG kettle barbecue. Hal's right. I was fortunate. > I'm just really kicking myself I didn't do better So sorry to hear about this, hope the physical injuries improve soon. Do give yourself a break and stop mentally kicking yourself though, it's bad enough being mugged without making yourself feel guilty about it. I've walked back down that road when a bit the worse for wear plenty of times, and I doubt if I'd come across them the fact I am not a smoker would have saved me. I can't believe how bold they are to do it so close to the police station, but I guess the tiny number of police we see out on the beat gives them confidence they'll get away with it.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > University eductation should be free, but with > fewer courses and places. Degrees should be in > academic subjects, for the brightest n%. > > I don't agree with students having to pay 9k a > year tuition fees, but neither do I agree in > paying for students who are just there for the > ride. Couldn't agree more. Even when I trotted off to university some 20 years ago, I can recall meeting a guy down my local the summer before I went away who had just finished his first year at uni having got 2 Es in his A levels. He said the first year of the course was all about redoing what they should have learned while they were doing their A levels and he spent most of his time drinking, just scraping through the end of term exams. Not convinced the average non graduate would really see it as fair to have spent money funding that (or many graduates come to that!). As someone from a working class background who benefitted hugely from the step up university gave me, I'd hate to see academically able people from poorer backgrounds being put off due to the fees. But I can't see how we can have so many young people going to university without them needing to pay more of the cost.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s funny how all this vitriol about Lib Dem > ?betrayal? comes almost exclusively from Labour > supporters. > > If you remember they first tried to negotiate a > power sharing deal with Labour but the Labour > party refused to compromise on anything. Cynically > in my opinion, and I?m pretty sure on the advice > of that Mandleson character, because Labour had no > interest in winning this election. It was a ?good > one to loose? as the next few years were going to > make any party in power deeply unpopular. I couldn't agree more. We can argue about how big cuts should be and how quickly we need to reduce the debt, but no one could have seriously suggested we didn't make some cuts, and if I were in Labour (not that they'd have me given my politics) I certainly wouldn't want to be one to have to implement them. Their chances of being elected in 2015 seem much higher being the opposition party now than the one in power.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brucie. Mr Saturday Night. It's like he's been > there forever presiding over an endless array of > crap. Oh yes. It feels like he's got worse... or perhaps I just didn't notice how bad the jokes were when I was a little kid. Strictly is the only thing of his I've watched as an adult, and that's definitely despite rather than because he presents. I wouldn't put Paul McCartney out to pasture though - saw him at the Isle of Wight festival this year and he put on a better performance than I've seen from some people less than half his age. If you've still got a decent voice and you've a decent back catalogue I can't see a problem with carrying on. It's when the voice goes like Frank Sinatra's did that it's embarassing.

Well, Scott only scored two more points than Gavin who was in the bottom two with Ann so I don't think it's THAT which is the main indication the public don't vote based on ability. Taking ten weeks to get rid of Ann... now THAT is an indication people aren't voting on ability. As for Scott, I think he's gone off the boil lately, and am getting a bit tired of his complaining he is tired working on east enders at the same time. He's not the only one doing two jobs - think Matt's been doing Countryfile the whole time.

louisiana Wrote: > The point is not that these policies exist. They > do (at a cost). > > The point is that self-employed people have to pay > for them, because they get zero state benefits. > With the consequent point that self-employed > people will have all sorts of expenses that the > employed do not. I think you are going off on a > tangent from this issue. Well, perhaps I misunderstood, but you also seemed to be making a point that having paid for them the insurance companies would rarely pay out anyway, which I would disagree with having seen the claim stats. Wouldn't want self employed people to assume it wasn't worth investigating insurance when it can actually help if you go to the right company and get the right advice. As for the IFAs.... hmmm, I've met some good ones... suspect they are the exception though. Any that a) seem to know what you mean when you say you are an actuary and b) then don't look nervous you are going to catch them out seem to be alright. Returning to the point, I think the tax saved by most self employed is trivial compared to the insecurity of the income. My other half is a plasterer and his work goes from being too much at 6 days a week to nothing overnight. The Philip Greens of this world are pretty rare.

Jeremy Kyle!

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only way around this is to take out very > expensive private insurance for income protection > against sickness etc., on top of equally expensive > insurance against professional negligence, > insurance of business assets etc. Each of these > come to several thousand pounds a year, even if > you can get them (most insurance companies won't > sell income protection to the self employed; and > the cases where they actually pay out on this are > negligible). > Actually that's not entirely true, I used to work for a company that sold long term income protection and we were quite happy to insure self employed people for income protection provided their work wasn't excessively risky - but the nature of the work mattered just as much if you were employed. However, if you are conned into taking out payment protection insurance (also know as accident sickness and unemployment) which some dodgy people sell calling income protection - where you don't get underwritten till you claim, you will find it very hard to claim because they won't cover all types of sickness and exclude all pre-existing conditions and it is generally expensive because banks get paid a small fortune for selling the stuff. I am the first to admit there are some sharp practices in the insurance market, but there are decent products out there that you can find if you get good advice from a decent IFA.