louisiana

No doubt carried out by some bankers facing no bonus for Christmas.

I'm just back from some days at Mammon Towers, where dozens of masters of the universe were this afternoon poring over the entrails of Madoff & Co.... to find that my post didn't sink without a trace and did get some on-subject responses. Nice and thank you for your posts. I have some friends who have believed for a while that peak oil is ultra-imminent and the only thing is to ship out to become self-sufficient. And others who wish to create rural transition-style initiatives... New 12 minute interview with Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency following publication of the first World Energy Outlook ever based on actual oilfield estimates of production: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/dec/15/fatih-birol-george-monbiot Conventional oil will peak worldwide around 2020 he reckons. No time to lose...

Anyone here interested in peak oil issue and/or transition initiatives?

Now if there was a white squirrel in the cashpoint machine, that would be a surprise.

This is completely outrageous. I used to live on Goose Green myself, and have always much appreciated the mural. I'm also a life-long Blake fan. Does anyone know who the original artist was? Is there a William Blake Society? (I'm sure there is) Some jobsworth at the Council... Grr. It makes me so angry that - our - money is being spent on doing *this*. He should be painted blue all over himself.

I've always thought the P stood for 'possibly' or 'possible'.

But who can blame a salesman for selling? These poor dumb beasts. That's all they know.

I have seen inspectors on the 12. If no valid swipe registered, they confiscate your Oyster card. Could be expensive if you have a lot of money on a pay as you go card.

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What are the rules regarding these infernal > devices? Could I, say, pop one on the front of my > house and film the street? I bet they're not > regulated. Rules and complex and hazy at the bottom end, and even the police seem to give wrong advice. Different rules for public spaces, shops/retail, monitoring of employees, private residential property etc. etc. Monitoring of your own property *only* (i.e. not straying onto public space) unregulated afaik, and even residential monitoring of adjacent public space seems hazy. In the workplace, employers have been done for filming employees in toilet cubicles, for example, but this was under employment etc. legislation I believe, not any specific CCTV legislation. In other words, people are often reaching for other rule books (human rights? employment?), perhaps owing to lack of CCTV regulation. Some police forces issue guidelines for residential and/or commercial users but these are not legally binding, just their proposed good practice (and are probably all different). I've yet to see the 'inside' of a residential installation that I would regard as ethical. And it's just plain wierd that people should want to watch - on a large plasma TV in their sitting room - everything that everyone does who walks down their street does. 24/7. Instead of TV. Is this the new 'reality TV'? This is what some people do. (And then they narrowcast it....)

"The images from the camera, including the woman without her clothes on, were shown on a large plasma screen in the council's CCTV control room in November 2004, Liverpool Crown Court heard. Over several hours, she was filmed cuddling her boyfriend before undressing, using the toilet, having a bath and watching television dressed only in a towel..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4609746.stm Don't forget, many modern-day cameras can be redirected remotely by the operator. In any residential street there are many windows. These guys were unlucky you could say, somebody took exception to what they were doing and reported them - but they are hardly likely to be unique amongst the thousands of camera operators across the country. The 4.2m figure quoted earlier was an estimate made by somebody at Sheffield University in 2004. So an out-of-date estimate. Apparently there were around 10,500 cameras operated by the London boroughs themselves in 2007 (excludes London rail, TfL tube and bus - combined estimate around 8,000 - and all he many private cameras - figure completely unknown). Again, these figs likely to be out of date now.

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you are not 'up to anything' what does it > matter, they wont affect you, will they? Presumably you think it would also be 'okay' for the authorities to install cameras in every sitting room occupied by families with children, just to make sure the parents are not beating up their kids? After all, if they are not up to anything, they have nothing to fear, huh? (I'm not a parent.)

slummymum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was in John Barnett on Sat with my two abominably > behaved toddlers. Luckily there were two older > kids - a boy and a girl aged may be 9 and 7 who > were behaving even worse. The boy who had a > scooter seemed to be being vile to the girl who > was shrieking like a two year old. The au pair (I > think) who was foreign (Polish?) seemed to really > struggle with them and they were being rude to > her. The staff at JB had to intervene to stop the > kids fighting. Once out of the shop the older lad > scooted off on his own across the road way way > ahead of the others. > Like I said, my kids aren't exactly angels and I > have also been an unhappy au pair so sorry if this > is a snitchy post but if these were my kids and my > au pair I would want to know what was going on. It's parents who teach their children to treat others with respect. Not teachers. Not au pairs. Not friends of parents. All of these may help to shape how children behave, but only really if that is reinforced in the same direction by parents. If a 10-yr-old girl (approx age) is hitting complete strangers repeatedly - something I recently witnessed - then there's something up in the family, which needs sorting out. That is not the responsibility of part-time helpers.

trinity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst I agree that some au-pairs are not up to > the job of looking after children I also think > that at 9 and 7 the children ought to know how to > behave. If they are acting like this then I would > be reluctant to lay the blame entirely at the feet > of the au-pair who may only have been looking > after them for a few months and may have > "inherited" badly behaved children. > > If at that age they were behaving this badly I > would look towards the parents and wonder why they > had allowed this situation to build up. I have seen parents and their own children in not dissimilar situations in LL shops.

"No other peer had ever had so many wives." Clearly a peer without peer.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > swift reply Mr pounds > > I made no claims for the efficacy of British Gas. > I just pointed out the disparity between profits > and consumers. Where I buy cd's, books, beer, > gambling chips is my choice. Heat/energy wise I > have ostensible "choice" - but no control Where is the choice? It is an oligopoly. Do they all meet at White's and fix the price over a large port? It hardly matters. They might as well.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sean, > > The problem is there are endless heart string > situations out there - pharmaceutical companies, > food companies, travel companies, clothing > companies. Creating special cases skews the market > - ensuring everyone has a fair living wage > doesn't. Most libertarians would argue that this also skews the market. Albeit a different market. > > Lower tax thresholds and taxes - it > disproportionately benefits the less well off. For > me a ?500.00 a year reduction in tax would be nice > but in % terms not a lot, for a single mum > currently paying ?1200 tax on a ?10,000 year > income it would make a big difference - almost > halving her tax bill and increasing her take home > pay by about 6%, or twice any pay rise she can > expect from an employer this year. Sounds like an excellent argument for a progressive tax regime. (i.e. higher tax rates for higher earners) Perhaps not what you intended, Marmora Man?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I agree with you on this for the most part. Where > I differ is that I don't see the supply of > utilities as a business. Turning it into a > business model can be done and was done... but I'm > not sure it's the right thing > > > It sure would - but at a relatively permanent > large cost to the treasury - why give everyone a > tax break for this one need > > > I agree with this too - but funnily enough finding > a way of ensuring everyone has a "reasonable" > income requires a hell of a lot more work - in > fact over the last few decades it's being going > the other way. When a government trys to impose a > pittance of a minimum wage, companies are up in > arms about how it's going to put them all out of > business (it didn't did it?) > > The fact is some old people are going to die this > winter because they can't afford to put the heater > on - they will be found in several layers of > clothes, and in their beds - but dead they will > be. What the government is proposing is a very > clumsy and inefficient way of trying to stop at > least some of those deaths. And I can see why, > even discounting the fact that it might be playing > to the public. I agree there must be a better way > of doing this - but if you have your hand on ALL > of the levers you have to find a balance - that's > the reality > > http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/E6904EA890 > 784AD6A1948DC77B832216.asp > > Basically MM I agree with you - but find the > analysis a touch (and forgive me for this!) cold, > when the problem is more pressing. If people are > dying of cold when the fuel companies are paying > out large dividends and profits then it's a fairly > simple equation . +1 Yes, let's have reasonable incomes, but they are not there now. My gran's state pension is 2x my mum's. Both live together, in Spain (north, cold), but my gran's pension is Spanish, while my mum's pension is UK. (And my mum actually worked for far more years than my gran.) My gran would have no problem paying utility bills and most other things. My mum would. If my gran (in her 90s) died tomorrow, there would be a gaping hole in the household economy. Sure, she could turn down the heating a bit (my gran is largely immobile following various stokes etc.) but... The UK penion system does not match up to those in much of the rest of N Europe (and even some parts of S Europe it seems!) You could well ask: Are all those pensions sustainable? And that would be a very good question... But at the end of the day we have to be in a position where most old people can afford to put on the heating in the winter to stop themselves freezing, and we have to find a way of getting to that position.

I'm also a patient there, and strongly object. If I call - which is rarely - it's from a mobile. Costly indeed, when you have to listen to all the rubbish they put on first, before you can get through to a human being who can actually make an appointment.

Hum, but what types of crimes? (restricted)

What a name. Makes it sound like some low rent strip joint. (Maybe it is.)

Ah, I always like a good 'incident'. But I popped down the hill at 1.30...

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i need a holiday, stat. (is that the word? I've > been watching a lot of ER) > > having quit my job a couple of weeks ago, visited > friends and family and generally watched too much > daytime tv, I now need to go on holiday before the > money runs out and I have to get a job (I've got > two weeks max) > > I need a week in the sun on my own because all my > friends are seemingly otherwise gainfully > employed. I'm too tired for strenuous activity, > but I don't want to end up in a resort where a > nice couple invite me to dine with them because > I'm Shirley Valentine in the corner (although a > resort where I get it on with Tom Conti wouldn't > go amiss) > > mostly I want to lie down, read books and eat nice > food > > any suggestions? Your money will go a fair way in Crete too. Lots of cheap deals around a the moment.

Quizteam Aguillera Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ..it would be Keane, or Kooks or The Fratelli's: > white, uninspiring and banal, but likes to think > of itself as independently-minded,grown-up, cool, > articulate and a little bit edgy. Actually Stereophonics springs to (my) mind. Maybe because a lot of these - new - mums and dads actually listen to that stuff.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Funny then how none of those bands get a look in > on the music threads. . Landfill indie

Not all bad. We had some very decent Islay malt (Lagavulin) in there on Saturday night (yes, it was open) for a very nice price. Look like they have some okay ales on too. Not sure about the decor though.