Blah Blah

Trying out views you may not hold? Useful to know.

Dbrskh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow, what a shitty forum this can be. Agreed. But it is the nature of online forums. Some people are just incapable of civil conversation.

Agreed Louisa. Rude for two reasons. Those of us with kids can makes that weekend a 'stay with grandma' weekend for our kids AND we can party with everyone else.

Adblock Plus is free and works with most browsers including IE. http://download.cnet.com/Adblock-Plus-for-Internet-Explorer/3000-12512_4-75938563.html

I suspect it was a backdoor popup which presented itself while you were watching a youtube video. They are fairly common, usually claiming you have a virus to get you to go to their site and download software that is then malware. Using an adblocker will stop those. What browser do you use Pipsky?

Plus youtube is notorious for popups. Using a browser ad blocker usually sorts that problem out. Most browsers offer free ad blockers than can be downloaded for that particular browser.

Sometimes it is productive. It depends on the individual and the nature of the mental health issue.

A virus scan from your antivirus software won't always find browser hijackers or malware. Popups usually are some kind of backdoor malware. Some free software that I recommend are; - Spybot search and destroy - Iobit Advanced Systemcare (extremely good for system health) - Malwarebytes All of these are good at tooting out malware stuff and cleaning out cookies etc Another great piece of software for repairing windows OS is; - Tweaking.com This little gem will fix any problems or infractions on the OS by malware, as well as fix problems that try to rewrite access to your antivirus, or just regular file corruption on the OS. Once again, all of those things are free (or have fully functioning free versions). Hope that helps.

But aggressively shouting drunken abuse at people at a bus stop IS impacting on others in a way that could be perceived as harmful. It is something he could be arrested for under several laws that relate to breach of the peace and intimidation, drunken behaviour etc. Not all alcoholics can be helped with their addiction (true of any addiction), so the question always remains of what to do with those people. This is shaping the core of the discussion here. One question that no-one seems to be asking, is how he gets access to alcohol? Who facilitates that?

There is a difference between someone using alcohol as an escape (or as self medication) and alcoholism. The former can usually be treated if circumstances are changed, the latter often does not change irregardless of the circumstances.

The harsh truth is that he is an alcoholic, and won't compromise that addiction for help from formal organisations. That makes helping him pretty much impossible until he changes his approach to that addiction.

Just to try and bring some equilibrium back to this discussion. There are a lot of complex aspects to this and criticism doesn't help anyone. The system of getting rough sleepers into housing is flawed and it is especially flawed for those with other problems like alcohol and drug addictions. At the same time, living in a highly flammable makeshift shelter with gas burning stoves and candles is a disaster waiting to happen too. I am just wondering if something like a tent would help this guy for now. Even a basic popup tent would help keep him and his belongings dry and warm. There are no end of places locally he could pitch that. And as someone above says, hopefully he will change his mind on accepting help from other organisations in the future.

There are also hives and beekeepers in the sensory garden in Peckham Rye Park. Might be worth getting in touch with them for advice.

The problem is sweetgirl that this man, from the sound of things, has problems with alcohol and possibly other mental health problems. He also needs to use a wheelchair. So it is not simply a case of giving him a room. He needs other support services and it is a lot for any individual or family to take on (especially if their home is not adapted for a wheelchair user). There are agencies that would prioritise him because of his disabilities and from posts above, it sounds as though he is known to them, but for some reason he is either rejecting the help they offer, or they are unable to help him.

The bubble is already there and comercial developers won't build in London unless they can build high end, high profit apartments. This is why it is completely crazy that councils can not invest in building homes themselves, in the same way that HAs are allowed to do. It is a no brainer. Only organisations genuinely interested in providing social and affordable housing, are going to actually build what we need. And that sadly, no longer applys to HA's in the main.

Pot calling the kettle black. What if the pot is purple, or silver, or copper, or any number of colours that pots seem to be.

I also would be interested to see viability assessements for the space. Councillor John did say two years ago that those assessments would no longer be kept secret! The council could redevelop the space purely as a retail park themselves. Councils can borrow money to do that. What councils can not do, is borrow money to build homes. This is why they end up in these immoral deals with corporations like Lendlease and HA's are becoming more and more like property deveopers and less like HAs too. We might even see some of the bigger ones sell off their social housing stock and deregister as HAs in the years to come.

It is the only way to fix it unless we want to requisition privately owned empty property, stop foreign ownership, stop ownership of more than one home, control rents in the private sector, end right to buy and a whole raft of other levels of interference that would be unpopular, and build on the green belt. We have to be sensible about the problem and the solutions. One tower block in that location is hardly going to bring the world crashing down.

Keano. You are aware of what is involved in trade deals are you not? That the smaller market always has to conceed more to the bigger market to get access to it? This fallacy you have that we are somehow hard done by because we have to agree to things in order to trade with the EU, as though such conditions don't exist in trade deals elsewhere is a certain sign of someone who knows nothing about trade deals. What you don't seem to understand is the most of our agreements with the EU relate to trade and issues around trade. Of all UK legislative Acts, EU directives only impact on 13% of them. The 13% they do impact on, relate almost entirely to business, trade and labour. We are not going to get as favourable a deal on trade with the EU outside of the single market as within it. That is just a fact. So what is at risk here? Our top 37% of exports to the EU are in things that the USA, China and India don't need from us. So where are the equivalent markets to the EU we can export to instead? You might want to pretend there is no such thing as a global economy but you are wrong. And we are beholden to it just like every other Western economy is. The days of the West profitting off the backs of everyone else are long gone. And the isolationsism you stand for won't change that. You really should listen to that interview of James Dyson with Andrew Marr, and ask yourself if that is really what you voted for!!!!

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A second referendum will only settle matters if the leavers win it again. > If remainers win it things will be more divided than ever. It would be 1-1 so to speak so we'd need a third and final referendum. Brenda from Bristol would be at the end of her tether. Yes this would be the risk. The referendum was flawed and anything but a definitive swing in one direction of the other will change nothing in terms of the divide. I agree with you.

That woud make sense. Cars are expensive to own in London. We spend far less on the occasions we hire one than when we owned one.

I think providing much needed affordable housing is more important than one tower block and the view. Franks and the Bussey are not the owners of London's skyline and it is ridiculous to give them such preference. Personally, I think one tower would be fine. Two or three, not. And it does not have to be 20 storeys high. It can be 15 etc. The whole development can at least match the height of nearby buildings, most of which are at 3 storeys. More important is that the tower meets fair targets on the homes the area needs, not the homes the developer can profit most from. We are in a capital city, which is growing and building up is going to be the only solution if we are going to be able to house the workers we need.

But referendums are not finite. They can be and often are repeated. What we have is a referendum so won by the skin of the teeth that the victors are terrified of losing a second one and are desperately clinging on tooth and nail. It has nothing to do with democratic will. Democracy allows us to change our minds.

UG finally admits the referendum campaign was flawed and people could not vote on the real considerations, over their own anecdotal bubbles. Are we finally getting somewhere? So by your own admission UG, surely it is folly to continue with a process decided by flawed logic? How about a second referendum fought on truth, and detailed discussion of just what is at stake (good and bad) and what leaving actually entails, both short and long term? At least then people will be voting on the level of risk they are prepared to take, and not on an irrational hatred of things that don't actually define our economy.