ianr

Hiate

Why is this being routed though jaydenrivers.com/likes/LG_BD550_Blu_Ray_Player ? What's in it for you? What has this to do with East Dulwich.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is this Rocca 3? That'll be the one in the basement of Rocca 2.

i am not rong.

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dont like censorship,people have to face up to what has gone before not ban things or deny people > Knowledge no matter how unacceptable it may be. Is there nowhere we can read Mockney's 440 missing posts?

drupe

Laird

The Adventure of Two Dutch Dolls and a 'Golliwogg' by Bertha Upton. The actual text is only 1,800 words. The HTML download includes all the pictures - total ~ 3.4MB.

[Removed]

Algal

>Since we have already learned that 'dully' is a barefaced liar with a taste for trolling I've looked through some of dully's previous posts, and that description seems to me extreme and not what I'd have previously inferred. I'd be inclined just to wait for her response. I don't know her personally.

> You can't have AV when there's only two choices. Of course you can; it's a universal algorithm. Round 1:More than 50% of votes for any one candidate -> yes -> selected.

> Southwark residents voted 53% for YES. Camden, Haringey, Hackney, Islington, and Lambeth being the only other London boroughs with more than 50% for Yes. http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.co.uk/en/all-local-voting-areas-by-region.aspx?id=LO

westdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If, for sake of argument, 10,000 people vote as follows: > 4,100 vote Party A as their first preference, with 800 voting Party B and 3,300 voting Party C as their second preference > 3,000 vote Party B as their first preference, with 1,500 voting Party A and 1,500 voting Party C as their second preference > 2,900 vote Party C as their first preference, with 800 voting Party A and 2,100 voting Party B as their second preference > > Have I understood this correctly? Party A has the most first preference votes Party C is the party that most would be prefer, if > their first choice was eliminated. Under FPTP, Party A is the winner, with 41% of votes cast. Under AV, Party B is the winner, with 51% of votes > cast (after Party C is eliminated and its votes distributed). I'm not keen on arguments based on single what-if snapshots. If one's going to compare systems, one really needs to look at all possible comparisons. Some simulations such as this or this I've found helpful. I did however take this example seriously. Finally, I think my objection to it is that it's very unlikely to be a representative sample of actual voting behaviour. If you look at, for example , the relative proportions (ex 100) of persons preferring A or C, the values you've chosen for the set of people who voted for C first are inconsistent with the other two. A first A:C 55:45 B first A:C 50:50 C first A:C 21:79 I suppose it's possible to imagine a scenario in which such a discrepancy could occur, though I wonder how credible it would be. If, on the contrary, one assumes a more likely A:C ratio for the C-first voters of, say, 42:58 (1600 for A as second, 2100 for C as first), one ends up with a round two victory for A. I don't think anyone with half a mathematical gene will think AV the best of systems; nor, for that matter, FTFP. Nevertheless, once you've adapted to the idea that there are potentially better measures of overall satisfaction than a single choice majority, I think it's worth trying the experiment. Whatever one thinks of it, it's undeniable that it's introducing more information into the decision process than a single choice can. Decisions made on a sole criterion, such as availability of school place or amount of insurance premium depending on one's postcode, can be fairer if more factors are brought into consideration. So too for preferences for candidates.

Just keep the noise down.

>Hi sue, >some streets are comingled and some are NOT comingled yet. >Please don't make generalisations as Southwark and East Dulwich espeically is patchwork of different recyclnig options. It's a very understandable generalisation though, given that any switch to togetherness hasn't always been publicised. In fact I made it myself, having only learned about the commingling on the forum, here. Even then it's still only an inference on my part, partly confirmed by the unexplained disappearance of a bin divider and the lack of complaints about illicit commingling, but still gainsaid by the Southwark web page, which would have us all still using blue box dividers. Is the tendency to leave the blue box lids lying around, rather than back on the box, a universal one? And to leave the green bins on the path rather than in their usual place? It's a very useful way of indicating to potential burglars that an occupier's away or inactive. One more thing, like letters stuck in the door, for careful neighbours to look out for. PS "All recycling and waste services will operate as normal, as will our call centre" on the Bank Holidays. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/302/easter_and_may_bank_holiday_opening_hours PPS And why, earlier today, did I read the title as Fun with a bluestocking? That would have been interesting.

> And are we not taking bread from the mouths of publicists? The sometime journo Paul McMullan who happened upon, snapped and gave a lift to Hugh Grant when his car broke down, got ?3,000 from the Daily Mail for the pics and story. Grant subsequently had a covertly recorded interview with McMullan at the latter's pub, which made for a well-worth-reading New Statesman article on phone hacking. Meanwhile there was another Daily Mail article cobbled together, just on HG's visit to the pub. All paid for by the Mail's advertisers and interested public. So, no more I-spy reports here. Keep your cameras with you at all times. Have some leading questions always in mind, a notebook or recorder at hand, the relevant news desk phone numbers already in your mobile, and profitably keep this pap where it really belongs, in the national tabloid press.

I'm not a producer myself, alas, but I've been wondering about the logistics. I don't know what quantities or timings are involved, but I'm wondering if something like one (?or more) occasional retail popup stall/shop/garden-sale, with contributors having preferential claim to some of the produce, would be practicable and worthwhile.

This Flickr photostream is probably where the poster picture came from. One of the pics has the photographer's comment "A typical school board reaction to teachers teaching biology."

And this is what the council say they will do. The EPA 1990 provision does apply to noise emitted from any vehicle in a street.

This SLP article pertains.

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,22968,185,00.htm

> I get full marks for happiness by proof reading my posts for typos before I submit them. I get nul points from having to read (incidentally, badly) copied/transcribed (incidentally, copyright) articles (such as this), presumably presented as discussion fodder. OK, un point - for its not being from the Daily Mail.

What is a 'representative' result? What would it be representative of?

boosboss wrote: > The council in it's wisdom and realising they were unable to police the bylaw effectively, simply amended the sinage within the park to > 'please cycle responsibly'. The bylaw has never been changed. So if you do cycle in Peckham Rye don't think it's your right, it's not!" I can't imagine many courts convicting once given evidence of the existence of an official "Please cycle responsibly" sign in a relevant place. In any case, if you look at Southwark's "Byelaws for pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces", approved 21 November 2008 and available here, there's no sign of any prohibition of cycling in Peckham Rye Park or Common.