Blah Blah

Good points bob. The only issue here is where they choose to ride, but without legal access to some private land or a scrambling track, they are pretty stuffed. I think that anything that engages young people, especially young boys and men is to be welcomed. We just need to find a solution that doesn't endanger anyone else.

Spot on Ratty. I completely agree. Scaremongering at it's worst. And when Corbyn is leader as it certainly looks as though he will be, all the media hype will be shown for the nonsense it really is.

There have always been youths riding bikes where they shouldn't and how they shouldn't. Wheelies seem to be about the limit of their skills though..... When they can do this stuff I'll be impressed :D

Clockworkorange, edevelopment isn't solely about giving space over to private commercial interests. It can also be about council subsidised ammenities. The cinema may just be a cinema but it's affordable tickets open up a cultural avenue to people who would be priced out otherwise. There's a real discussion to be had about redevelopment and plenty of examples even within Southwark where ordinary people have been bulldozed over in favour of corporate profiteering. I think Eileen makes that point eloquently. As for housing, 'affordable' is not the same as social rent. When Southwark stops giving land to companies like Lendlease and handing over properties to housing assiciations that behave more like corporate property developers then we might see a housing strategy that address need.

Redevelopment can include a new cinema though. BUT that's why Southwark Council have to be challenged at every stage, to make sure that redevelopment is the right kind of redevelopment.

To even think we could become Greece shows how little you know about the Greek economy and why they have ended up in the mess they have.

I don't see anyone driving at 20mphr on clear main roads. All that money wasted on signs and road paint!

I would take a step back and say that the road is not mine. I would also say that I live in a big crowded city and accept that there are people and vehicles etc etc. A polite word with the neighbours about closing doors quietly etc should sort out unnecessary noise. They can't do anything about starting the engine though. I have engines starting outside my home from 5am too. It's obviously people going to work. What do you want us to say?

Someone parks a vehicle necessary for the job they do outside their home and that's an issue?

It's not jsut social media, it's the comments pages of press articles too. You only have to look in those to see how removed from reality a lot of people now are.

Not practical in terms of enforcement, unless it's the carriage next to the driver. It's not a controversial idea at all. It's only a media bias that is making it into something because they are determined to terrify the electorate as much as possible about a Corbyn leadership.

I wonder if the women only carriage idea was more to do with creating an environment that some women would feel safer travelling in, esp late at night? Whilst it's probably not a practical idea (which might explain it not being pursued), it's not a silly idea either when thought of in those terms. Someone somewhere considered there to be a need to think about addressing. Totally agree though on the hypocracy of who likes an idea!

Indeed Bawdy-nan. They have moved from a system that accounted for the diversity in employment status to one that tries to make one size fit all. They do this consciously. There is plenty of evidence now (and data, that the DWP refuses to publish, even when ordered to do so by the ICO) that their 'reforms' are causing great hardship and destitution. And now they are going after people who are working and low paid too. And yet we have to wait four years to see the living wage that is recommended NOW. Who knows what the recommendation will be in four years and that's if there are any more low paid workers or unemployed living in London.

What no Kanye West in there? I thought he was the greatest rock star ever? Seems the yoof of today beg to differ :D

They don't have to cancel several benefits though. The DWP inform HB and CT if there is a change of circumstances. And the reason for seperate applications has always been that some beneifts are independent of others and/or means tested. The form will still ask all the questions that three forms before asked. The other thing is that LAs directly took care of HB for claimants. This is important because the level of delay and incompetance experienced by many trying to deal with the DWP is not experienced with LAs in processing HB. UC might make bureacratic sense but there are downsides to it. People in part time work and in receipt of any kind of benefit will be treated like the fully unemployed. They will have to prove they are looking for more work (a job of up to 35 hours per week), attend interviews etc or risk losing their benefits. This is going to affect a lot of working single parents for example, who work part time to fit around their children. There are issues to this beyond just money management and rent payment.

The worry is that vulnerable tenants will not pay the rent. But it all gets complicated when things like bedroom tax are factored in and what happens too if a claimant is sanctioned? In that situation the only money they'll be receiving is the HB payment, and it's not hard to see why people with no money to live on will use the rent money instead. 63% of those sanctioned btw have mental health conditions. They are often people in the Work Related Action Group of ESA, so there is an acknowledgement that they have problems and yet the same harsh rules that apply to JSA recipients apply. The latest figures show the number of ESA claimants is up. Government policy is making already vulnerable people more ill and at the same time the resources to treat people are stagnating and being cut in many areas. There is so much denial from the DWP. A while back IDS stated that people who refused therapy would lose their benefits. Does IDS even know that NHS waiting lists for psychotherapy are around a year long? And that those sessions are rationed and in many cases are not over a long enough period to effectively treat patients? I just despair sometimes at ignorance of government.

More info here on how HSCIC use information. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/dataregister

Ok this a bit complicated but I'll try and explain as simply as possible how data is shared accross the NHS. Since 2013, GPs are required to take reasonable steps to inform patients of how their data will or can be used by the NHS and other companies. Failure to do so (and offering an opt out) can result in prosecution under the Data Protection Act. Why this came about is because practises started using a data extraction system run by the HSCIC (Health and Social Care Information Centre). The General Practice Extraction Service is the name of the service used. So what that means is that patient data can be cross referenced within the NHS to improve patient information and therefore lead to better care, which is a good thing. On the dowside, it also potentially opens the door to purchase by researchers or private companies for use outside the NHS. That is what you should be able to opt out from. My advice skedoodlelou, if you are concerned, would be to to ask your GP to make sure you are opted out from the personal data extraction scheme. I think it highly unlikely that your cold call was linked to your GP, but at the same time, data that changes many hands is always at risk. It just takes one unscrupulous individual. Hope that helps.

That sounds like your car was deliberately targetted to me.

Raising the pension age won't make any difference to whether people stay well enough to work, so they'll be in receipt of income support or ESA before they even get to 70 most likely. Just on healthcare though, as it's the field I work in and know something about. A lot of money could be saved in the longer term with better preventative care. Take something as simple as diabetes for example. The links with obesity and innactivity are undeniable. Other things such as heart disease and cholesterol issues are also preventable. Regulation of the food industry could save the NHS billions over the longer term. I'd favour taxes on foods that are unquestionably contributary to those things, whilst subsidising prices on healthier foods. Deep fried chicken and chips should be an occasional thing, not a staple diet. When I see overweight/obese children, I get rather angry, because in most cases, the only thing to blame is poor diet and lack of activity. I can't stress enough how bad it is for children to develop fat cells. They stay with that person for life and make weight control difficult to maintain. The same can also be said for dental care. Increasing numbers of children and having teeth removed because of totally unnecessary decay. Again it's another huge cost that could be significantly reduced.

Yes it's always money for a cab but most people would ring a friend for help, or speak to a neighbour that knows them if genuine.

I think all of Europe has the same demographic issues. Some are better prepared than others but it's going to be a challenge for everyone. Even Malthus argued that population growth had to be kept in check whereas free market economists think the opposite. Free marketeers want competition and cheap labour, whereas opponents argue that increasing the numbers of working age people to pay for pensions, is a self fullfilling ponzi pyramid, because with each generation you need more and more people to prop up the newly retired generation. And that only works if most of those of working age are working. THAT is a growing problem as well. Not enough employment there either.

Usually get that one in hospital car parks! My reply to that would be 'I'm a doctor, let me come and take a look at your wife for you'.

That has a lot to so with the style of economics advocated and being taught in Universities. I saw in the news yesterday that those ringfenced pensioner payments might have to be unringfenced too. Seems Ian Duncan Smith is turning his attentions there, unable perhaps to find 12bn more pounds of savings from the disabled and under 25s. Looks likely that winter fuel allowance may be reduced with things like free travel and TV licence becoming means tested to start with. At the meoment we are all focussed on the Labour leadership and a Corbyn era when the more interesting battles are surely going to be Europe (a regular mark of Tory implosion), efforts by IDS to remove anything from all those pensioners that put them into power and bill by bill battles over extended right to buy, human rights legislation etc etc. The sooner Labour get this damned leadership contest out of the way, and we can get down to the politics of reality, the better.

There's little that can be done to uncrowd a crowded city. People have to take responsibility for their own behaviour. What I see here is an excellent idea to bring an unused strip of land into public use. Just because some people can not 'manage' their own behaviour shouldn't be a reason for denying what could be a pleasant resource for everyone else.