louisiana

I called First Direct yesterday, and spoke to - among others - their fraud department. No, they cannot do a global block on all overseas payments on a card/acount, they told me (in response to my question). If effect, every transaction is treated individually I do travel abroad regularly, but tend to use cash for small local payments, so would prefer all overseas activity to be blocked on this particular account (I have other accounts for business travel). But no can do. Their fraud department says payments are analysed according to 1) 'we know where you are' (but they didn't know I was in The Hague and Nottingham over the last week, for example, so I'm not quite sure how that works. Presumably this can only come into action if there is a suggestion that you are in two places simultaneously) and 2) a list of countries with known problems. They confirmed that Canada is on that list, but also said the do not reveal the last and 'even we don't have that list'. They did confirm that The Netherlands is not on their list, which might suggest that the Netherlands is chip and pin (ie in principle more secure). However, I made two card payments in Amsterdam and The Hague last week and only in one case was a pin required....

I normally go from FH station to E Croydon, then get the Gatwick/Brighton train. This does mean traipsing up and down those long ramps between ptalforms at Croydon. This year we grabbed a taxi from E Croydon to dash home and pick up a forgotten passport (not mine). The drive from E Croydon to ED was interminable. The texi driver said it would be far faster for us to get the train back down to Gatwick than for him to take us in the taxi. We took his advice, and he dropped us back at Forest Hill station. It took us less time for us to get from FH to Gatwick than it had for him to drive us from E Croydon to ED. Also a lot cheaper (the taxi bill on the two hops had been 30 quid).

Kiss, Foreigner, Bon Jovi, Dire Straits, Queen... Zombies, Dawn of the Dead, the lot of 'em. 1988 was the summer of DANCE http://www.clashmusic.com/files/images/kris-needs-map.jpg http://www.clashmusic.com/files/images/kris-needs-map-2.jpg And of course before house, there was Sylvester, the disco queen and his Do You Wanna Funk?

Let's just bypass the mines and the miners and get some canaries in.

'Average for London'? Is that like (the medical term) 'normal for Norfolk?' I'm intrigued as to why the golf club and the woods might be a crime hot-spot.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's true in some cases, Sue. > > But some older people just don't want to try. "I'm > old! I can't be bovvered with all this!" > > My feeling is that if you're capable of memorising > what time every episode of Eastenders, Coronation > Street and Hollyoaks are on, you ought to be able > to manage a four digit number without too many > problems. *Bob* You may care to revisit that statement when you're 80, 90 or older. It is quite easy for older people to remember things that are repeated or reinforced every day for years. My gran has no difficulty remembering the start time of the after-lunch soaps, because they've started at that time for decades, and because she was fairly young (60s) when the pattern was new. But ask her to absorb any *new* thing *now* - such as the street my home was in for several years - and that's when the memory problems come through. And uncertainty, panic, fear, all set in, which doesn't help matters. Older people tend to cover up for memory problems relating to recent information with all kinds of tricks e.g. reformulating your question rather than giving an answer, or giving a non-specific answer, or asking another question, or making a statement that doesn't answer your question. Example: Q: "What was the weather like yesterday?" A: "Why do you want to know?" or A: "The same as the day before." or A: "I remember the summer of '45..." You can't do that with a PIN.

If you're concerned about closures, use your smaller neighbourhood offices, such as the one next to the Plough. There will undoubtedly be more closure rounds in the future, and these may become the next targets.

I'm kinda surprised certain establishments continue to have any customers left... Or at least any customers that continue to pay with plastic. [NB I believe Somerfields has a policy now of not accepting personal cheques -I seem to recall a notice pinned inside the store sometime last year.]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm going to regret saying this - and I'm > touching wood as I do - but am I the only one to > have not been cloned yet? > > I've used all of the local cashpoints and used the > card in most bars and restuarants, + SMBS, Val's > grocers etc I am not yet a cloning victim either Sean I only use Sainburys or Somrfield once in a blue moon, and certainly not in the last six months. I can't remember the last time I used a card in there. I don't buy petrol. I have usd the HSBC cash machines, but not since the week before Glastonbury (so not since 16 July or so). Locally I mostly use that debit card in places like Green & Blue, SMBS, East Dulwich Deli and similar. In other words, the local shops. But I also use cash quite a lot in the newsagent, Val's and so on. On the card I use for cash and personal shopping, First Direct are now texting me my transactions every day and balance every week.

pros Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Honaloochie, no, we're artists. > > The name to the website is a reference to > 'People's republic of Judea' or 'Judean people's > republic' - there is a great number of good things > going on in Southwark, a lot of small or largeish > groups of people are trying to do good things Perhaps you could have called it 'Romans in Southwark' ('What have the Romans ever done for us?' etc. etc.) > (from reducing the use of plastic bags to > improving cycling facilities etc), some of them > have websites, some of them don't - People's > Republic of Southwark is the place where they can > all talk about it, share experiences, get help > with things if they need it etc.

You want edgy? You could always try Deptford. Moss Side. Or some of the lovely Glasgow housing estates. I lived in 'edgy' for a number of years, but I do prefer having a night's sleep to being woken by yet another all-night blues club in the house next door, with machete-wielding macho idiots occupying the pavement space outside. There are only so many 999 calls to fire and ambulance one should be expected to make in a lifetime.

Coming back to ED this afternoon, I noticed that the DVR estate agents) branch near the Plough seems to have shut down. Nothing at all in the shop/office any more (desks, chairs, window display etc. all gone), and a strange notice on the door along the lines of 'if you find the office empty owing to all our pressing engagements...' kinda thing.

Alucidnation - Ambushed It's the second track listed on his MySpace page And yes, the sample is Kate B.

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes I do agree. A few years ago the "business" > was manufacturing boy and girl bands right left > and centre. They were easy to spot; you could see > them coming and get out of the way. Right now > there are so many manufactured (to my mind) indie > bands. One band is interchangeable with another. > Instantly forgettable. AKA landfill indie

I never watch live TV any more; I just forward through the ads if there are any. I really couldn't say what the big TV advertising campaigns of 2008, 2007, 2006... were. Mt favourite is BBC4, with odd sprinklings from other channels. Film 4 has a Bergman season on at the mo'. Foe example http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/

AcedOut Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The concept of a greed tax I'm finding hilarious. We have quite a few of them already..... congestion charging... annual hike in fuel duty...

ClareC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This thread certainly seems to have some strong > feelings and a rather pro communism stance. This is a bonkers statement. Communism concerns the common ownership of the means of production, normally involving collectivisation. I don't think anything on this thread has advocated any form of collectivisation of anything. ClareC (anybody...): would you like to provide an *anti-Communist* assessment of the impact of the Town & Country Planning Act 1947? (And its successors.) (Perhaps you are an ultra-libertarian, in favour of the abolition of all forms of regulation of land? Who knows. There are many of that view.) Could you also point to a town or city anywhere in the UK where anybody is at liberty to construct whatever they like? (In other words, where a free market exists in the supply of houses and flats.) In other words, that falls outside the Act. Because that would be the only place where any kind of free market existed... And all this pseudo-economics presupposes a free market, perfect information, and all the rest... And if you don't have a free market (the freedom to supply more when there is clear demand, by building more houses), all that micro-economic theory falls flat on its face.

When I went into Green & Blue, in mid-July, they were still asking for the vouchers/flyers (whatever they were - I never got one) in exchange for a bag...

There are many things wrong with Labour. GB is just one of them. His legacy at the Treasury not good: pensions issues, tax credits ludicrous complexity (whatever happened to KISS?)... But many people made up their mind about Labour before TB left office.

Do any of the local bank branches have a cash machine inside the bank? I walked past HSBC today and decided not to withdraw from the outside machines - which I'd normally do. (I don't shop at Sainsbury's so can't do cash-back.)

jrussel is fast becoming the 21st century's answer to Mary Whitehouse. One nanny (the state) is quite enough.

AcedOut Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So are we saying we should only ever buy things we > NEED!? How ridiculous is that! All the bars and > restaurants down Lordship Lane will have to close > up and we'll fall into a recession for sure. Ok, > so buying a second home/house is not analogous to > eating out, but the principle is the same. If > someone has worked hard and they can afford it, > then why not!? It's not about need, it's about > life-style choices and potentially investing for > the future of either one's self or family. Sure, > there are possible eco-reasons to not leave a > property unoccupied, but I have no issue with > someone owning n number of houses if that's what > they want to do. > Fine. Just let them be taxed on their investment/opportunism (not on their 'home' - they've already got one of those). Shelter is a basic human requirement, and there's a limited amount of it in a densely populated country with aggressive planning laws that distort the market. > And who said we all have a right to own our homes > anyway? A first time buyer still doesn't own > their home until the mortgage is paid in full > anyway, so is there really such a big difference > between paying an interest only mortgage and > renting!? If there was no property price > inflation, then we'd all rent wouldn't we!? Um, no. There was very little increase in property prices for a long, long time. Until the '47 Act or so. > > I'll try to remember only to live to survive from > now on. I shan't bother working hard, since > luxuries are no longer allowed! Holiday > cancelled! Prams, toys.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Because it's greedy?" > > Really? You have a good job or a successful > company, and decide that rather than blowing your > cash on champagne and cocaine you want to buy a > nice place in the country where you and the kids > can go at the weekends, or alternatively that > rather than stick your cash in the bank (so they > can lend it to property developers) you'll dabble > in the landlord business yourself? What do you > suggest SMG, give it all away? Maybe we're all > greedy. Since when has that been a basis for > taxation, anyway. > > Because housing is a limited resource and yet is > something we consider an essential human > requirement? > > Like food, or clothes, which we are happy to leave > to the market to provide efficiently. Unless > you're talking about specific types of housing in > particular geographical areas, in which case > slightly more specific and targeted measures may > be more effective. > > Because it distorts the market and leaves millions > with no opportunity to own a home and yet ensures > rents rise? > > How is the market distorted when a person buys a > house at the price a vendor is willing to sell > for, regardless of whether they intend to live in > it or rent it out? DaveR, I suggest you go and read through a pile of planning legislation and regulation, kicking off with the Town & Country Planning Act 1947. This Act introduced the idea of planning permission, which has been a feature of the UK landscape ever since. Planning permission is, even by a cursory assessment, a great distorter of the UK market (in the US it's much easier to build what you want, where you want, but they have a lot of space and we don't.). On the one hand, it has given us many lovely green landscapes. On the other, it stops anybody from building anything much at all (even people who depend on the land for their livelihood) across most of that rural landscape. In some respects this is no bad things: the Barratts of this world are also hooked by it, largely (though not always; major developers are able to apply pressure for years to councils, who then give in). The rich just get around it by buying whatever little there is at whatever the price being demanded, regardless of that price. If someone asks 300k or more for an old 2-up, 2-down terraced agricultural cottage, many city workers can pay that kind of price but local workers (including agricultural workers) cannot. In essence, UK planning laws have to a degree protected our countryside but at the expense of allowing affordable housing in rural areas. I would call that a distortion of the market. If I stopped all chair manufacture, I don't think you'd claim there was a free market in chairs, or that the market was not distorted. The reason rents in London > have been broadly rising is because, despite > increasing supply, demand has been even higher. > Why? Because people want to live here, because > there are jobs here etc. And everyone comes to the city from the country as they can't afford to live in the sticks (where the contrast between wages and house prices is generally greater and there are few if any bedsits, hostels etc.). Quite.

Huguenot Wrote: > > This thread was started by Strawbs who I seems to > recall (probably incorrectly) being antipodean. I have been told by a New Zealander that the Australians still left in Australia are all about to bail out to their eastern neighbours, owing to expected climate changes.

Looks like airport check-in kiosks may become another popular target: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080723.wrcreditcards23/BNStory/National