robbin

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 [email protected] 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.

and don't you mean #flounced out?

In your (#humble) opinion.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Posted by natty01295 Today, 06:52PM > > > Q: Where can I meet people? > So I don't feel so lonely > > > siousxiesue Wrote: > > > http://www.bereavementuk.co.uk/ > > > > These people do meet ups, the website has > photos > > of a group of people in a pub. Get in touch > with > > them Natty x > > How did you get on trying them? Natty - did you try clicking on the link that siousxiesue posted for you? As she said in her post, they do meet ups but they also have a forum and live chat facility for making contact over the internet. It is not a professional counselling service.

peggoula Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...He is blocking the road, off street > parking... It is illegal to block the road for on street parking as well. It is a public highway and for the public at large to use - it is not lawful for any one anti-social resident to claim a space as 'theirs'. Unfortunately, there will always be a handful of anti-social neighbours who will do this without any consideration for their community/neighbours.

Posted by natty01295 Today, 06:52PM Q: Where can I meet people? So I don't feel so lonely > siousxiesue Wrote: > http://www.bereavementuk.co.uk/ > > These people do meet ups, the website has photos > of a group of people in a pub. Get in touch with > them Natty x How did you get on trying them?

You honestly spent about 2 hours just in Lidl, Peckham?!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I notice - returning to my original point on this > thread - that today May has intimated there will > be no vote on foxhunting either. Good, say I and > many others, I've no doubt, but again, how many > votes in rural areas were swayed (or more likely > how many who don't usually vote were persuaded to > turn out) by a promise which has proved completely > false? Honestly, I would have though almost none. What's more it was a ridiculous potential net vote loser of a policy. a massive 84% of the UK population are reported to still be in favour of the fox hunting ban. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-hunting-boxing-day-poll-opposition-all-time-high-theresa-may-hunting-ban-act-vote-a7495336.html The policy would have put way more people off voting Conservative than would have been swayed into voting for them under false pretences hoping there would be a (pointless and bound to fail) free vote on repealing the ban. I also think that of the very few people that actively yearn for the reinstatement of fox hunting (as opposed to those who might support it but don't really give a toss) most of them probably would have voted Tory anyway, whether or not there would have been a free vote. I think they would recognise from the polls that there is no way parliament would have legalised fox hunting even if there had been a vote - therefore it was all a bit academic. Actually, pretty bizarre May should think it a live issue anymore. Shows just how stupid she is.

She's just awkward around people (always has been) and completely out of her depth (just as she was as Home Secretary, but the buck didn't stop with her then, so she could try to keep under the radar).

No, I'm not - I just misread your post, for which I apologise - my mistake.

Ha ha - actually, my name is derived from the first thread I ever posted on - about people robbing from bins outside houses - hence rob-bin.

kbabes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anybody else had any experience of theft > around East Dulwich recently... > > For example; Car wheels stolen from cars parked in > the streets, bikes stolen from outside pubs etc, > etc? No.

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... as a cyclist knocked me > over on the pavement outside the Flying Fish. > Just walked back from Rosie's chip shop and was > almost knocked down by a bike on the pavement. Make your mind up! Were you "knocked over" or only "almost" knocked down?

You're welcome.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Alan Medic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > ...and you haven't answered my question in > the > > > Brexit thread. > > > > Probably because it was a stupid question? > > If you don't know what the question was why do you > assume it was stupid robbin? Now, that is a stupid question! What on earth makes you think I don't know what the question was? Obviously I've read the other thread - otherwise I wouldn't have commented. Seems on the other thread you took an overly sensitive position and as a consequence asked a daft question.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and you haven't answered my question in the > Brexit thread. Probably because it was a stupid question?

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it now the case that people on this forum can > just say anything they like about other named > individuals as if there were no laws of libel? I > have made this point to Admin tonight. > > (To be honest, if I do not get a reply to this I > will certainly be leaving this forum). Are you for real? You think it might be libel to point out someone who speaks out strongly against private education but sends her own children to one of the poshest most expensive private school in the UK?

You never know, she may have spent all her spare cash on her Dulwich College tuition fees.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- He clearly sympathised with them or he would never > have contemplated putting them where they are > (although obviously passing over your ex-mistress > could, I appreciate, be a bit difficult). > Sorry Rendel, just to be clear - I was not suggesting Diane Abbott is your ex-mistress. I could never be that mean.