louisiana

BTW, Rebellion polypins are a great way to take real ale to festivals :) A polypin box fits nicely only a the bottom of a trolley, under your tent stuff. (Not many festies do real ale, and you don't want to be drinking that lager piss all weekend.)

In the winter, Young's Winter Warmer. Only available in very selected pubs, mostly in south London. And only in winter. For bottled, Young's Double Chocolate. For a general run-around beer that's widely available, London Pride. For a cheap beer you can take home in quantity (polypins and larger) for a right royal piss-up, visit Rebellion Brewery in Marlow and stock up. Even better, join their club and get free access to their regular all-night free beer event for four people. Plus a discount on all beer. You can een stand around 'sampling' the different beers all day any day. Rebellion is owned by its workers, who are a lovely bunch of lads and very much into their beer.

Yup, the great public debt crisis - how easily it moved from private to public, eh? - is still to come. Debt, jobs, services...

In the last year I have installed an efficient combi-condensing boiler (replacing a clapped out one), renovated over a dozen big window frames to remove gaps etc., and installed draught-proofing throughout, among other things. These are all things everyone can do. What with changing all bulbs, and switching off everything I don't need to have on, I think I've achieved around 30% energy use reduction around the house. I also installed a water meter, which has cut my water and sewerage bills by more than 50%. Some friends have just incorporated a heat pump system, but that's only really feasible for new build (which theirs is). Many of the carbon footprint calculators online do not seem to include many of life's activities. e.g. shopping for stuff (and all the energy embodied in all that stuff).

Best thread of the week.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/09/24/snooping.software.efootrprint/

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to set the record straight, CofE are not > allowed to be charities. Uh, the Church of England is an exempt institution/exempt charity. And its component parts too. That means a) it has full charitable status, gets all the benefits, just like any other charity and b) it cannot register with the Charity Commissioners (but would it want to? It's just more work). The same applies to quite a few churches, plus housing associations, plus universities etc etc.

Speak for yerself, BBW :( I'm here slaving away all day, with a deadline, a meeting after the deadline... plus lots of unpaid stuff on a campaign... This forum provides occasional light relief when I achieve certain things, get to particular stages.

Never have I agreed with you more, MM :))

Paul effing McCartney. Mull of Kintyre. I rest my case.

Woodwarde, Dovercourt - nearer the Village Mostly semi, not detached. But you're going to be hard pressed to find parking for two cars at that price. South side of Mount Adon Park mostly have double garages at the road level, but they don't often come up for sale and some - I have heard - suffer from subsidence. Quite a few at eastern end of Court Lane have plenty of parking off-road, but houses/properties not so nice in my view.

iaineasy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > how > much council tax etc do they pay? I am no expert > on these things but I think its likely to be very > little. They pay a maximum 20% of business rates, minimum of 0%. Most pay the minimum i.e. nothing. There's the same discount on water too I understand: i.e. 80% discount. Mr Louisiana is so impressed with the tax benefits of charitable status (which are legion!) that he is seriously considering setting up his own religious charity. He's even found a suitable god (one that will be of particular interest to computer geeks :) ).

Bizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understand it would be easy to find fault with a > Church if you were a non-believer. I also > understand that a lot of people don't know what a > Church does or what a Church can do for its local > community (i.e. opens once a week for trade?? > :-S). > > There are many Church's that run on seriously > tight budgets. There are also many Churches that > run on comfortable budgets. When you say a Church > is "too rich, therefore I don't like them", you > are in effect taking a personal view on the Church > in question. No Bizzy, it's a question of law and regulation. The Charity Commission has clear operating guidelines about how charities should conduct themselves, and clear reasoning behind these positions which makes eminent good sense.

Keef Wrote: > > My simple point is that I believe that many people > are against this just because it is "a church", > without really having read up on it. Believe me Keef, I have done a lot of reading. I have a stack several inches high! If it were a > catholic church, would people still be AS against > it? Well, as someone from a Catholic background from two countries, I also have my issues with Catholics.... :-/ People should be free to believe what they want, but I have issues around taxpayers subsidising the practice and propagation of bizarre belief systems, of whatever kind. I feel there are other priorities for our hard-earned cash.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keef Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'd like a cinema, but I just believe that most > of > > the people against this application are against > it > > more because they don't want a church there, > than > > the fact they'd be regular visitors to the > cinema. > > For that reason, I hope the church wins. > > Keef - I am one of the people who wants it to fail > because its a church. The reason for this is that > churches have money from donations, they build a > church to have a presence in a society whether > there is a real demand for that church or not. > They do not have to have significant attendees to > survive as the wider based church donations pay > for its upkeep. Don't forget Mick Mac that a religious charity will also get *substantial* income from a whole panoply of tax breaks. In other words, quite a bit of the money comes from the taxpayer, rather than just from donations. We are all paying for these organisations. And at a time of cuts etc., I don't think cuts here will be on the agenda. > > The cinema is a business - if there is no demand > it will fail. But it is likely to be of use to > more people in society. > The church will lie empty 95% of the week and > contribute little to society, but take up a prime > space. > > We don't need more churches, demand for them is > falling dramatically. > > Its not a case of people objecting just because > its a church, there is usually some logic, and a > more attractive alternative is being offered. Absolutely. Evening footfall is really important in the Triangle area, and I'd also suggest a 'safe haven' at night on this stretch is really important for women in particular.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As am I, and I take exception of you suggesting > that my "usual quality of arguement" is similar to > a toddler's temper tantrum. I'd be interested to > see you back that up. I've gotten angry once or > twice on here, usually because I feel that a group > of people need defending. If a group of people need defending, I'd tend to defend the L&G community in CP, rather than a pastor and church that actively supports discrimination against the L&G community, and protests to the government about being forced to treat people equally. (Where's the charity there, eh?)

We seem to be heading into problems with milk - Europe and UK-wise...

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I lived next door to a tannery in cork so I hope > so!! > > As for the denomination of the church I think it > does matter. As evangelical churches continue to > split and multiply because they can't all agree on > quite how much they hate sex and homosexuals, Or how much they love money? must > we provide a space for every man-jack last one of > them?? > > A lot o mainstream Christians have problems with > th teachings of many evangelical churches so it's > not just us damned unbelievers One of the prosperity gospel outfits was effectively chucked out by the UK Evangelical Alliance (Morris Cerullo World Evangelism). "Members of the Evangelical Alliance council were alarmed by his fundraising methods, particularly when he allegedly linked the level of donors? contributions to his own ministry with the extent of God?s blessing on the donors? lives. The concern was about ?the suggestion of so automatic an equation between material offering and divine favour?."

Keef, if there already eight churches and rising within a stone's throw, and the only building that can ever be a cinema in this zone, which *is* an art deco cinema already, and not a church, is about to become another church... If this was some multiplex, I for one would definitely not be in favour. I was not in favour of the previous Park multiplex proposal at all. I am only convinced because of the style of cinema proposed, which I think is a significant community contribution, and the building involved, which is an art deco cinema, in good nick to boot. A Ritzy-style cinema would do so much for that area, make it much more of a destination for all in the neighbourhood, and would work well for local traders (and I confess an interest here, I do know one of the local traders who would benefit). So for me it's not just any cinema. And it's not just any church. And the imbalance in numbers is also there, in spades. And it makes me sad that all the local authorities converging on this site just don't give a fig about something that is right on the edge of their radars (due to an accident of local administration). And it makes me happy that there are people who are concerned about their neighbourhood and want to improve it for all.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sean if it was a tannery I suspect people wouldn't > be against it in quite such a passionate way, Keef, tanneries produce fairly noxious substances. I wouldn't *want* to live next to one (just as I'd rather not live next to a car-spray workshop, which I have done).

As you say Sean, there are already seven or eight regular churches in the immediate area, plus of course there are in addition the churches that operate services more informally out of other premises in the locality, such as at the Queen's Hotel in the same road. *If* people have a problem with the church at all - and most just say they want just one cinema kept as a cinema, they want an *independent* cinema, and they already have umpteen churches in the neighbourhood - I would suggest this is not because it is a church per se, but because of the particular *type* of organisation it is, business-wise. In the US, prosperity gospel churches are also known as 'gospel of greed' (amongst other not very complimentary terms), and have a fairly poor reputation amongst even evangelical churches. I think the private jets and $23,000 toilet http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/42538 and $16,000 dog don't really help the case. Most of the prosperity gospel pastors being investigated by the Senate Finance Committee still refuse to hand over any financial information to the Senators, almost two years on. But on a positive note: in the UK, the Charity Commission has recently specifically stated - as part of its Public Benefit material - that purchasing private jets for church staff and preachers is not viewed as an appropriate way to spend charity money here. Which I think is a step in the right direction.

The change of use application for the art deco cinema in Crystal Palace Triangle (Church Road) is now with the council, and you have until 1 October to send in your views. If you care about keeping the cinema in Crystal Palace as a cinema - and don't forget, Cityscreen would like to open a Ritzy-style cinema there - please make your views known to Bromley Council. The application is to turn it into a church. Anyone can send in their views - it doesn't matter that you don't live in London Borough of Bromley. The planning application documents are here: http://212.85.26.243/WAM/pas/externalCasefile.do?councilName=LondonBoroughofBromley&appNumber=09/02202/FULL1 Guidance on making an objection here: http://www.campaign.picture-palace.org/?p=810#more-810 and sample letters here: http://www.campaign.picture-palace.org/?page_id=24 (But it's better to draft your own if you can.) The pro-cinema campaign now has added celebrity sparkle, as Spike Jonze has come out in support - there's even a picture of him sporting the campaign tee-shirt - as have VV Brown and Pixie Lott. http://www.campaign.picture-palace.org/?p=735 Plenty more discussion on Virtual Norwood, and all kinds of info and guidance on the Picture Palace campaign website. http://www.campaign.picture-palace.org/

I had a neighbour die at 40, from a blood clot on the lung, in her sleep. Clean-living woman. And I have had three near-death experiences myself (20, 30, and 39). Seems too many for one person. It does change you. Once you get beyond the huge immediate physical and psychological impact (emergency operations, PTSD), you do live your life in a different way. Long-term planning takes on a very different meaning.

MY experience is that we lose water altogether around 3-4 times a year. It makes sense to have a store of water somewhere in your home (which if, like me, you have a new-style boiler with no water tanks anywhere, means actually storing some).

Okay, I should have said they've not been such a warfaring nation in more recent years, like now, which is when the comment was made, compared to some others we could mention. Since various debacles in foreign climes, including their former colonies. (A cousin was a the Legion on one of those escapades, pour soul, and got court martial for hitting an officer to defend another soldier, so I have personal testimony of their ass-dom there.) That is of course not at all to say they haven't been in big, big wars in the past. But the characterisation was a now-characterisation (based on current behaviour and responses to current events), not a historical one. Sorry, I should have made it clearer what I meant. But that was a throwaway remark in a list in brackets in a light-hearted email; not a statement of government policy ;-) Hiding, Mockney? This was, you know, being the Lounge, meant to be a light-hearted attempt at generating some inventive and fun ideas. But I reckon you lot are really not up to it.