Blah Blah

That's a very good point too Loz.

I don't know enough about it to know if those things are true Mick. Aren't local authorities tied into a decent homes scheme of improvements? Or am I wrong about that?

I think Brand did ok on Question Time Holloway. He tried to keep the focus on the inequality of the ecomony (and rightly so), whilst others wanted to distract with immigration draining resources being the reason there's no money to go around ordinary people. He is a lone voice though in that repsect. No major party is giving any policy designed to get employment and wages up. They may flirt with it, as Miliband has done in recent days, but there's no mention of how it's going to be achieved.

Yes I wonder if that's more the case. I think part of the appeal of Farage is his direct no nonsense way of speaking. And the focus on immigration has also been used as a damocles sword against him, when actually his reason for success in garnering support may actually be his way of communicating. Perhaps the focus on his messages on immigration is a red herring there. Westminster have missed the point of Farage, to their detriment?

Wow that's an interesting map david. Do you think perhaps those are also areas where the economy is flat lining most and that immigants have always been the first line of attack in those circumstances? What I also notice from the map is that it covers urban areas that have been in economic decline for decades and perhaps a disillusion with mainstream parties to represent them is also at play?

That may be so, but it's not a solution. They are in fact helping to keep prices going up. The only way to bring prices down is for people to be realistic and not buy if they can't comfortably afford to do so. A shortage of first time buyers will being prices down. It always does.

Thank you Becca for acknowledging your mistake. To be fair, I think there's a big difference between an anonymous collection bag dropping through your door and a local well established business doing something for charity? Anyway, I think lesson learned and hopefully if any good can come out of it, more people will go there to buy their tree. Admittedly I didn't know about them until you posted Becca, so that's one extra sale for them thanks to your mistake. All's well that ends well :)

If he has mental health issues, he will be on a radar somewhere. You could find out if the property is owned and who by through the Land registry. I think this is something that the Police can help with too. They will visit properties causing a noise disturbance in anti-social hours. And Sue's advice is good too. Yes the process is drawn out with noise abuse and Southwark, but they have to have evidence before they can act.

Maybe so Otta, but ex council flats are leasehold, come with services charges and potential maintenance costs. So you have to factor in whether you can afford that when buying. It comes back to my point that people are overextending themselves to buy property. They have to take responsibility for that. Complaining about a system, that has been in place since the right to buy scheme was dreamt up, is a red herring in my opinion.

Well there ya go. The OP recalled the email address wrong. Typical EDF nonsense. People not checking their facts before they post and others assuming the OP must be telling the truth.

And you know Otta, did the OP think of double checking with the vendor before almost accusing them of dishonesty on a local forum? What is wrong with you people? Give them a break. They are just a small business trying to do something for charity. Let's applaud that and support them instead, ffs.

Jeez give it a rest Otta. Well said Intexas. I will be buying my tree there today with two very excited kids.

I disagreed with the snobbery he was implying. I never said we should get rid of anything. But if you can find anywhere where I've said that there is a dumb proletariat to whom we should deny certain forms of entertainment, then go ahead. I didn't even post anything before that comment from bob :D

No, take a look again at what that comment was made in reply to. It was to bob's suggestion that because something has an audience it's snobbery to criticise it. In that context my statement is not saying what you think it does.

I never understand why people moan about the conditions of bying a local authority flat. Most tenants using right to buy get a massive discount on the market price. Everyone knows there are service charges and potential works charges attached. That is something to be factored when deciding to buy. People are breaking their backs to only just be able to afford to buy a property. What happens when interest rates go up (as they will sooner or later), or taxes go up, duty etc? People give themselves no leeway.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course it is utter snobbery to quality control, > in the sense of the Sun and Jeremy Kyle. Fine to > stop them doing anything illegal, but to say to a > section of society that likes reading/watch such > stuff "I'm sorry, but people in the middle > chattering classes just think this is not of > sufficient quality for this likes of you" could > only ever be seen as complete snobbery. Hmm, but I didn't say this did I? I didn't say anyone should be denied access to any kind of programming. All I said is that it is mindless dross that adds nothing positive to life. I just don't accept that programme makers can't come up with better programming to appeal to that same audience. Is Jeremy Kyle the only way to engage some people? Is Benefits Street the only way to get noticed as a programme maker? That's what I trying to say really. And I'm not of middle-chattering class either btw ;) There are plenty of working class people with brains that engage too! Assigning any view different to your own as a class issue seems to be a theme with you Loz :D

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely you mean both these things add nothing to > quality of 'your' life, which isn't quite the same > thing. Some people - quite a lot of people - enjoy > them, no matter how much you wag your finger and > tell them they shouldn't. No I mean what I say. I defy anyone to give an example of how Jeremy Kyle and his show does anything to enhance the world for the better. There is universal crap.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It's for their own good. We know better. They are > only The Dumb Proletariat. That's a bit unfair. I think people would be better off without the Sun and Jeremy Kyle, as both things add absolutely nothing to the quality of life. To argue that we should permit everything, because it's snobbery to quality control, isn't a good argument in my opinion. Look at the shameful behaviour of the News of the World for example. Lives and reputations were wilfully destroyed by some journalists at that paper. It's more than ok to criticise the people behind these things, because the media has a huge power to shape opinion, to both make and break people. It's right that we ask programme makers to act responsibly.

Yes Pecan are the main local food bank. And recipients have to be referred to them so any donations go directly to those who need them most.

When I cycled down there last night, only a small section south side of Bournemouth Road junction was blocked off. It was kind of nice to experience half of Rye Lane without traffic and made me think that pedestrianising south of Bournmouth Road, and re-routing buses down Bournemouth and back round to meet Peckham Rye could work. Would be a great spot for a proper market too.

I agree with you completely Rosie. We all have to take more repsonsibility for the part we all play in enabling this destructive system we live within. I'll be honest and say I don't hold out much hope of any great change. People are on the whole deeply flawed.

Hmm Rosie. Yes soy production does result in deforestation, along with all the other cash drops that Latin America is turning to. The majority of soy grown however, is used to feed animals, like poultry, cattle and even farmed fish. Deforestation is the result of economic need, combined with global demand etc. Wrong in the harm being done to the envoronment yes, but right if you have a nation of people to feed and no help coming from anywhere else. It goes back to the premise that huge amounts of resources are required to produce all that beef that feeds burgers to nations. We eat too much. We are completely disconnected from how our food is produced, so yes, we don't make connections between cattle feed and deforestation (unless we look into it). The truth is that a producing a beaf burger is a messy business, and has impacts beyond just the cow itself.

And I suggest you allow people to take any view of your OP they like, which includes disagreeing with your persective on that article. It's a public forum, not YOUR soap box.

Yes Haruki. The eco system needs balance and that is something we humans are destroying. All life is a part of that eco system, and has taken millions of years to evolve. We are destroying it in just a couple of centuries. Pretty good evidence for why we perhaps should not rate humans as highly as some of us do.

Why not care about both equally?