ianr

Seems ok now. I suspect the server was going through a Zen phase.

You are responsible for your own defamatory statements.

So from "preparing medication" you derive "lacing food with Prozac." So be it.

Pearson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As i've already mentioned on another thread, the > real problem is that it run by Pikies. > And the problem with Pikies aside from them rudely > trying to flog kitchen towels and clothes pegs > door to door. > Is that they are also liars as proved by our > friends above... How would you cope if you were put in the position of having to prove that allegation yourself?

>That and the Prozac their food is being laced with. I trust that's not meant seriously.

The spirit of the Four Tops clearly lives on. Next time, sing it them. http://www.mp3lyrics.org/f/four-tops/reach-out-ill-be-there/

>I remember seeing a thread on EDF saying where this was Probably this one: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,169188,171881

>It stars Aiden Gillen (The Wire), Tom Fisher and Riann Steele. Never mind them. Who played the eponymous Treacle? Was it a local cat?

There's a slug in my blue box, dear forum, dear forum

Welcome to the forum, AliPali. I doubt it was a feral dog, and I doubt it was a pit bull. But if it was a real attack by a dog on a human being, I'd phone 999 immediately. Unless it truly was a feral dog (of whatever breed) a criminal offence has probably occurred and the police have real power to act in such circumstances. You'd also be potentially helping any others who, or whose pets, might in the future be attacked by the dog. Do you happen to remember which day it was?

> *slaps Narnia around with a big wet trout* Don't do it. No-one's wurf a wet trout. A soggy rolled up Sunday Telegraph will do.

When similar happened to me, it was a dead mouse, thankfully easily found once I twigged. The flies themselves had fairly small brains and, more or less in batches, made for and largely stayed on a large bright window. From there it was easy to deal with them.

>Ianr and Jeremy my window locks were Yale Window Bolts, see attached. Oh, very similar to mine, with a Wickes brand. That's an eye-opener. I wouldn't have thought it insecure. There's a 12mm metal barrel casing goes into the outer window, and the bolt itself can penetrate by a full 20mm when fully screwed in. But then I see that there's a couple of millimetres play between the bolt and the outer barrel, which might allow some kind of hammer effect if someone is able to exert sharp vertical force on the window, and maybe also some helpful torque. And if the barrel is located near the top edge of the outer frame, and the wood isn't too strong ... I can see why they recommend fitting them in pairs. I've searched on YouTube for videos of breaking open locked sash windows, but so far, unlike those on door locks, where many exploits are non-destructive, nothing found. Do you happen to know if the force was applied to the top or the bottom window? Thank you for the information, and commiserations to those who've sufferered break-ins. It's an upsetting experience.

Sorry to persist, but what sort of secure window lock was it?

If you want to see the history of the planning applications, go to http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/lewis-xslpagesdc/acolnetcgi.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.pgesearch, enter 59 Ladywell Road in the Location field, and Search. In fact there were repeated demolition refusals from 2003 to 2006, then permission granted, conditional on redevelopment, etc, in 2007, with further applications right up to this year. The latest ones are still stated to be pending. Whether this is a case of the records not being up-to-date, or of someone having jumped a gun, I've no idea. You're right about flats.

The following is from the St Mary's conservation area supplementary planning document adopted by Lewisham Council on 12 December 2006. http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/615672DD-8DB1-466B-B7C7-6A5D68CAA9DE/0/StMarysSupplementaryPlanningDocument.pdf (PDF 319k) "Former Adhesives Specialities Ltd, 59 Ladywell Road. Locally listed. This building was built in the 1930s as Neuk Laundry in a simple ?Moderne? style by a local builder, Mr Howkins. It was altered in 1988-9 by another local firm, Rainey and Rainey, which added metal windows and a clock and heightened the parapets, giving the building a more Art Deco style. This is a building type that is uncommon in the conservation area as well as across the borough and it is a popular local landmark. It relates well to the scale of buildings in the area and is a focal point at the beginning of the bridge. For these reasons, it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation. Any development on this site should therefore retain the main body of the Art Deco building, although development may be possible to the remainder of the site." There's also an Excel document (53k) containing the ?related public consultation comments http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EA81DC84-3252-4B64-9E01-17EA19F60744/0/Item8appendix429November2006.xls, which contains these responses by the council: "For a building to be listed [by English Heritage], it must be "of special architectural or historic interest" on a national scale. For a building to be included in a conservation area, it needs only to be considered to contribute to the character or appearance of the conservation area. In this case, the building is cherished, is locally listed, and makes a positive contribution to the character of the area; therefore it is considered that it does merit inclusion in conservation area." and "Outside conservation areas, demolition does not require planning permission, so at present the Adhesives building can be demolished without any consent. However, once in the conservation area, conservation area consent is needed for demolition. A planning application has been made for redevelopment of this building which will be determined under policy at the time of the decision. If the building is subsequently included in the conservation area, consent will then be needed for demolition."

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are asking for a lot of info there...so I've > simply left a code for you to crack. > > > xx-oo-ooo-xxxxxx-OOOO-xxxxxx-ooo-oo-xx/nude > lipstick/oooooo-xxxxxx-oooooo/nidd A beard!?

Katie, once the photo file's on or can be accessed by your computer's file system, press 'Attach a file or photo', then 'Browse' to select the file. 'Attach' then uploads it to the forum site and links it to your post. If it's more convenient to upload the photo to another web site, you can do that instead, and then just include its URL within your message.

You can take an axe to a gorgonzola but you can't make it blink.

>I can't prove it That's where a record of the frame's serial number comes in handy.

If you get the 14 or 44 train from East Dulwich to Peckham Rye, you can be at Victoria in 24 minutes.

Not all brands contain the same weight of tea.

No need to cower, with one of our Mark 3 suburban Safe Rooms. One of our representatives will be in your area in the near future.

353

Afterthoughts. It seems to get even more anomalous. The _only_ ?2.60 NR fare I've seen on the NR journey planner is with the walk. The one via Streatham Common has to be split into two NR tickets for a total ?4.70, for reasons I don't understand. That makes me half doubt that a peak Oyster via the same route would still be ?2.20, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be, as the standard zones 2-4 Oyster NR peak fare. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/14414.aspx The same journey planner seems unwilling to even suggest using a train from Battersea Park to Clapham Junction for your journey. I think they must want you to do the walk. Enough. Now even I have better things to do.