robbin

Really John? Is that what you glean from the fact that the defendants were openly joking and giggling in the Crown Court throughout their sentencing hearing (as the Court was played video of several of their robberies including one where a woman's earring was ripped out)? That's a good sign? I'm afraid in the real world its a sign that they are hardened to the Courts and don't give a monkey's, or have any respect for the Judge and are not afraid of going to prison. I suspect if you worked in the legal system and regularly witnessed the attitude of quite a number of those convicted of robberies like this, you would not be quite so naive. They didn't just start committing crimes just this last year, obviously!

Not sure how you draw those conclusions from the website you linked to, which says - "There has been more than two and a half times the number of laboratory confirmed notifications of influenza reported to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) this year when compared with the same period last year. An earlier season onset and introduction of rapid testing have contributed, in part, to this increase." 2.5 times the number of cases from last year appears to me statistically to be significantly different from last year, even taking account of improved testing (which elsewhere is reported to have made only a relatively small difference to the overall numbers).

Ha ha ha ha!

No. Have you paid your bill?

Interesting - as a point of principle (not related to these marchers about which I know almost nothing and care just as much) am I right in thinking the prevailing EDF view on protest marches is: student grants = march away - the more the better. mass murder of civilians by terrorists = pointless, stupid even? Interesting value system, but then it is the EDF I suppose. Or is this analysis (based on comments of just a few of the usual suspects) off the mark?

But you are right - A(H3N2)was the main type.

There was also an unusually prevalent B strain circulating in Oz.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Robbin, did the chemist advise you to have the > quad vaccine. Was the tri vaccine also beinv > administered, I'm curious to know if there is a > different criteria for the triple one other than > the price. The quad is ?14 on this link. > > https://www.well.co.uk/our-health-services/wellbei > ng-services/flu-jab-service/ It was a private medical centre that specialises in a drop-in flu-jab service at this time of year. They didn't give me any advice - they just leave it to you to read their website and decide, I think. The fourth strain is a second B strain - I have no idea whether it will in fact give more protection against this year's strains - logically I suppose it should do as there's one more strain covered, but so much is down to pot luck and the experts guessing the main strain correctly (and it not mutating too much). For an extra tenner I thought I'd go for it this year, given the Australian B strain is reported to have been quite widespread. It could, of course be a tenner wasted, but I'll never know, or care.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?35?? I think my local chemist does it for a > tenner. I know, but it was conveniently close to work (not local) and it was a bit more for the Quadrivalent (4 strain, rather than the usual 3 strain) jab. I think Boots do the basic one for ?12.99.

Just got back from my jab - ?35 quid is a small price to pay compared to the cost of being off work for a week or two if you get full scale proper flu, not to mention being very ill!

Incredibly unpopular.

Quite - I noticed that.

Ha ha - you are a wind-up! I get it now.

What a bizarre thread to post that on!! It's a thread about some perv in the bushes at the park!

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the union flag numpties.... > > > > ...Ignore the union flag, as I am just being pompous. So it seemed - as well as being wrong... This from The Flag Institute, the UK's national flag charity... (yes, there really is such an organisation!!) "It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that ?the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag?.

Selclene Southeast Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >That's possibly the silliest argument I've seen > in a while. > > Silly? maybe...But it does get under your skin > don't it? When you actually think about it. > > Grammar aside, I'm not sure you should be proud of advancing such a daft argument that the abject silliness of it gets under someone's skin! When I 'actually think about it' the 'argument' just appears even weirder and more abysmal!

Selclene Southeast Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All I am saying that the London Bus is as iconic > as the Union Jack, the Beefeater, the Crown and as > British as the Lion and the Unicorn. You wouldn't > adorn any of those with images of violence would > you? - NO. Eh?!! Is that really what you were saying? That's a bit odd, and no, I don't suppose I would adorn the Union Jack or a kindly Beefeater with a violent image. Not quite sure of the basis upon which you think anyone could or even would want to do that though!

Quite - and back in the day (1970s) every weekend there were still WW2 war films on the telly and we watched those. Still never bought and carried an illegal shooter or stabbing blade as a consequence of that. Methinks you need to look at other far more important factors contributing to the recent rise in armed violence. If you are seriously thinking it's about adverts on buses, or plastic toy guns, I fear you are, well... deluded.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > ...and once again I do not have Preferences for cheap > chicken and meat. > >Oh? From an earlier posting... Tandoori Mixed Grill. Tandoori Chicken..Lamb Chops.. Chicken Tikka.. Lamb Tikka.. King Prawn.. & Sheek Kebab. Served with Large Salad and a Whole Nann bread. Mixed Grill 001 Mixed Grill 002 Mixed Grill 003 This is a Sizzler dish. ?9.95 all in. Foxy

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm as guilty as the next man by eating chicken > and meat that may not of been reared in perfect > conditions. > > BUT. big BUT I do not get all High and Mighty > about only eating FREE Range produce when it is > clear we are ALL > being conned by the term Free Range and what it > actually. > > If we eat out, NONE of us can be sure what we are > eating. > > Foxy You can't be conned by the term free range if (like me) you don't eat meat or factory farmed animal products such as eggs. If you choose to eat killed animals then I suppose you have to make a judgment call on what is truly free range (if that's your preference). Given your distinct and oft repeated preference for very cheap meat dishes, it is clear that you are not concerned about the farming practices that facilitate such cheap meat. I'm not judging you - it's your personal choice which you are entitled to make, but suggesting people are fools for getting conned by free range produce (while claiming to be concerned about animal welfare) might to some people seem a bit bold in the circumstances.

What's with all the random capitals mid-sentence?

Selclene Southeast Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have over the years, recieved hundreds, if not > thousands of leaflets through my letter box > advertising everything from fast food to fast > selling, all which find thier way into the rubbish > bin without reading. > > On occasion, I do find leaflets strewn accross the > street and they are an eyesore and a nuisance to > say the least, and what bothers me is that we, > 'the tax payers' fork out thousands in tax for > keeping our streets clean. > > I propose a 'Leaflet Fine' on leafletters - > Period. > > If you find a leaflet on the street, cluttering > the communal area of a flat, or even > unceremoniously dumped behind the bins (they > usually are) the company whose leaflet it is, > should be fined per leaflet. > > I'm sure this would make a great proposal-any body > else think this is a good idea. > > > www.selclenesoutheast.co.uk/ Maybe make the first move and stop leafleting yourself? Posted by Selclene Southeast July 10, 11:53AM I am currently looking for a reliable leaflet deliver person to deliver leaflets around the East Dulwich, West Dulwich and Camberwell areas- Good rates of pay- Please call me on 020 8698 6953 or email me at danny@selclenesoutheast.co.uk for a chat.

Seriously?

Anyone who by choice elects to eat battery farmed chicken or eggs, plainly does not care about animal welfare.

As with pretty much any market, unless you are obliged to act in the short term (because of your investment strategy or your circumstances), I think you are much better off looking at things long term - trying to guess the short term movements of the housing (or any) market up or down (and more importantly the precise timing of such events) is extremely imprecise and risky for lay people and experts alike. As this is a purchase of a home, you will hopefully be in it for the long term, so as Rendel suggests, it is better looked at as a home rather than an investment (or at least a short term investment). That said, you obviously don't want to ignore the realities of the market and don't want to pay over the odds if you can help it (or miss out on further increases, which will also leave you paying more). In my opinion (for what that is worth) there are two real fundamental considerations - the first and most important one is that you need to factor in a safety margin in terms of affordability. In other words, calculate what you can afford if interest rates rise substantially and if possible get a mortgage which allows a bit of flexibility in repayments if things became desperate (e.g. some mortgages allow you to overpay and then to take a later payment break if necessary). It is crucial (I think) to avoid getting into the position where if interest rates rise it leaves you unable to afford the higher payments - if that happens you risk losing control and having to sell in a market which may be falling (or it may already have fallen) and then you are going to lose out - possibly substantially. In that way you are forced into being a short term investor, when it may be the worst possible position to be in. If you are going to sell your house, you want to be in a position where you are able to choose the timing of any sale and not be forced by some avaricious bank, to sell on their terms and timetable. If you have left a good margin of safety in terms of affordability then you are not going to be forced to take short term decisions and in such a case you need be less concerned about market falls, if in the long term there will be price inflation. The other fundamental consideration is that house prices rise and fall with demand comparative to supply. Demand may drop due to confidence issues (Brexit may or may not be one such factor). Then there is the financial affordability - at the higher end of the market there may be more of an adverse Brexit effect if it turns out that employment of higher paid city types takes a hit, but at the other points of the market, this is less likely. The fundamental long term position in London (although not necessarily so out of London) is that there is presently an acute shortage of housing and land for new housing. In other words there is restricted supply (unusual for markets generally) which will tend to keep prices higher than they would be in a 'normal' market. That is unlikely to change dramatically in the short to medium term, so a large drop that is not later recovered in the long term may not be all that likely. Just a few thoughts. When push comes to shove - who knows what will happen, but you can protect yourself as much as possible by at least being reasonably prudent. There is always going to be some risk, I'm afraid.