dc

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plus I don't think any of this is enshrined in law is it[?] Only since 1962 apparently: LRT Byelaws - No 4 is the booze one So it's not new - just enforcement of a law that is already in place. Can't say I've ever thought that I'd give the tube or buses a miss because they're always full of drunks - except during the Christmas season of course when I just might have indulged in the odd sherbet myself. I find people eating malodorous food more of a problem than people drinking but there doesn't seem to be a byelaw to cover that - although 6.2, 6.4, 6.7 and 6.8 between them might just cover it.

Everyone who voted last Thursday knew the situation with regard to Post Offices and which ones were earmarked for closure. It might have been possible to cry 'cynical' if the consultation process and the announcement of the branches due to be closed had been made today - but the fact is that the information was all out there and had been dropped into the middle of the London election campaign. The fact that this thread started on March 30th is testament to that.

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you think Foxtons are running around > replacing other boards with their own? Common practice by the sounds of it Rogue Estate Agents

Sounds like it might be the motorised valve that closes off the supply to heating or water. They're usually in little grey steel boxes (often made by Honeywell) beneath the boiler where all the pipes come out. There is often a little lever that allows you to work them manually - which can work as a temp measure at least. Motorised valves Basically if it's failed and stuck open, when you heat water it will flow into the CH pipes as well.

building the Thames Barrier when Leader of the GLC and then allowing your mum to attend the opening ceremony in your place because she'd always wanted to meet the Queen and you didn't really want to - golden!

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Asset wrote: Indeed. And what is possibly more > concerning is that the BNP canditate came 5th with > 69,000 votes > > I doubt it becoming an earth shattering force in > my lifetime, 69,000 out of eight million is less > than 1% I suspect you will be retiring long before > the bnp scrape in to the top three. > > Asset you will have moved to your retirement farm > in Tuscany and it will have little bearing on the > quality of your life and pizza's. What is concerning - and has become apparent since Asset first mentioned the figures that just related to the Mayoral contest - is that the BNP polled 130,714 votes in the London-wide poll (5.3%) and have secured a place on the Greater London Assembly. For what it's worth (and I think that it provides a sliver of solace) the BNP vote in Lambeth and Southwark (4945) was the third lowest in London (out of 14) and accounted for just 3.8% of their total vote across the Capital. To put it in context, the average constituency vote for the BNP was 9337 votes.

janos777 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am surprised that anyone has a good word for > Southwark.They introduced selective rubbish > collection - we happily separate everything.Black > bin compostable,white bin plastics. Than they > announce change of collection date from Sunday to > Saturday, forgetting to mention it will be a > Saturday 6 (six) weeks later. In my experience those ain't Southwark bins (at least not in East Dulwich) where brown wheely bin=compostable, blue box=plastics & glass and blue bag=paper. Are you sure you don't live in Southwell, Southend or even South Park?

Andyng Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dc Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > benmorg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > It's a very dangerous time to be buying houses > > > > I'm worried now. Might I get stabbed if I put in > > the 'wrong' offer? > > Mr doom and gloom Actually the opposite - I was trying to introduce some sense of proportion through a not very subtle use of irony. It might just be a 'difficult' or 'challenging' time to be buying houses, but 'very dangerous'? I think not.

furryjumpergirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes the Council are good at this stuff - if people > report it! I spoke to them at about half 3 and > they said they'll be out within 4 hours to sort it > out. Rolo Tomasi did say he had reported it to Southwark around midday on Wednesday. I guess the question is whether they have all been reported? And have any/all been removed now?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gits have moved my polling station without > mentioning it to anyone on the estate. > And you try looking on here for where your polling > station is. > > http://www.londonelects.org.uk/ > > You hunt around, find a place to put your postcode > and it takes me to the southwark page. No shit > sherlock!!, not to mention that my new polling > station (having phoned up the electoral services > commission, all a little bit late for my vote > though) appears to be in Lambeth!! The London Elects site is working now for checking polling station locations.

Pongo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > she is a parody. > > is she? Apologies, I'm new to this place and it > just wasn't quite funny enough... Fair enough. I reckon it wasn't funny at all if you didn't clock that it was tongue in cheek - which itself illustrates a fundamental issue with non-verbal communication. But any levity is inappropriate on this thread due to the serious subject matter. Edit - spelling, typos etc

benmorg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a very dangerous time to be buying houses I'm worried now. Might I get stabbed if I put in the 'wrong' offer?

Macroban says it all. I'm hoping that Louisa is trying to be funny but, sadly, I sort of doubt it.

dulwichmum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is Goose Green SE15? No - entirely within SE22. The first roads in SE15 are Ondine and Adys - but only the bit beyond St John's Vicarage. Not sure it helps with the pendant though. Good advice from Asset I'm sure.

Just for the record, it was a little joke about barring Pongo. I now realise that it was in very poor taste and I too am very sorry that jaw has lost her pendant. :(

clive3300 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my experience suburban bars mostly make awful > cocktails (not just Liquorish). Fortunately, East Dulwich is now 'urban' rather than 'suburban' as was unanimously agreed by Southwark Council. Will this help?

Pongo Wrote: > what the f**k is that even supposed to mean? Is > this a piss take? Careful Pongo - you might get barred (and rightly so) if you're rude to DM. I see however, (admittedly according to Wiki) that Dalmatians 'have very sensitive natures but respond favorably to calm assertive leadership by the pack leader'.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "We tend to do well against Ipswich in the > playoffs" > > Everybody does well against us in the playoffs Good 'cos I'm a Watford fan and we've done pretty well in the playoffs - only to crash straight back down with a record low points score of course (although Derby may secure a permanent slot in the Guinness Book of Records for that after this season). Can't see it this year though - our form of late has been so poor. I reckon Hull will go up via the playoffs with West Brom and Stoke taking the automatic slots. At the bottom? Southampton to beat Sheff U at home to stay up thereby condemning Leicester to the drop when they lose away to Stoke. My wife's from Hull and I can tell you they'll be much fish slapping on Hessle Road (or 'Ezel Rurd' as they would have it) if City get up to the top flight for the first time ever.

Ant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brendan, they may be counted but I'm still not > sure that they're ever reported. > > I can't see a mention of them in the results of > the last general election, for instance: > http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/templates/search/document.cfm/13893 > > (Link is to an excel spreadsheet from the > electoral commission.) Erm, you don't get a second choice vote in a General Election, which is why you won't find them in those results. Everything you could ever need to know about the London election including how to vote and results from last time (with second choice vote tallies and spoiled ballots) is on this site: London Elects Basically you get a first and second choice vote for Mayor. Then one constituency vote for a candidate (first past the post) and then one London-wide vote to select candidates from party lists to make it all more proportional. There are three, colour coded, ballot papers - one for each section. If you're not sure on the day, staff at the polling stations will help.

Snorky's correct. John Major was not educated up to Uni level (nor was Jim Callaghan). It's an interesting fact - although I imagine it only holds for the modern era? EDIT FOR FACT CHECK - Actually there have been three non Oxbridge PM's who went to Uni - Earl Russell (Edinburgh), Neville Chamberlain (Birmingham) and Gordy (Edinburgh) see: PM's and their Universities 11 PM's did not go to Uni. Edited to add: Delete delete delete - how do I just pretend I never posted in the first place? It's just so lame next to DM's. I too now love Gordon Brown although out of loyalty to ED I'd prefer to think of his fingers as William Rose sausages rather than Tesco's - finest or otherwise.

*Bob* Wrote: > Have to say I find clamour for tactical voting > these days a real bore. > > I had someone tugging at my elbow not long back > about voting this or that way to keep the BNP out. No tactical voting is required on this issue - as I pointed out above. Just vote for whoever you want to support and so long as it isn't actually a vote for the BNP it will help to keep them out. They get a GLA member if they can crawl above a 5% share on the London-wide vote. Just bothering to vote at all is what really matters. I think many Londoners would find it slightly more inconvenient than 'a bore' if the BNP were to gain representation on the GLA.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As for the vast majority of the time, and on most > lines, tube trains travel underground in complete > darkness, what is the point in them having > windows? > > The announcer tells you which station you are at > so you don't need them for that either. Sorry to be a sad git but only 42% (sorry that was from memory - it's actually 45%) of London Underground track is actually, erm, underground. Possibly an answer you never knew the question to? Edit to correct figure

If it's Thomas you're after try these: Days out with Thomas You get to meet the Fat Controller and everything!

dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm a bit disappointed in the lack of good > resources (like the factcheck.org which keeps a > track of US Presidential races) to allow the > undecideds (like me) to make their minds up. I hesitate to flag this up (in case you all try it and decide that BJ is actually your soulmate - I'm supporting Ken) but this is meant to help you make your mind up: Votematch London '08 Do also be aware that, if the BNP get over 5% of the vote they get a GLA Member, so do at least bother to vote in the London-wide section and be part of the 95.0000000001% required to keep them out by voting for any other party. (Well almost any - some of the others look well dodgy too).

Blinder 999 - I'm not sure you're comparing the same figures there. I think you refer to 5 A*-C including Maths and English which is now the government's preferred benchmark. When comparing with older stats we have to use the straight 5 A*-C measure as that is all that's available from past data sets. In that case the figure in 1995 was 43.5% and is now (2007) 63.3%. So the school on the site that is now The Charter has gone from achieving at a level of about 25% of the national average to about 96% and Kingsdale has gone from 14% of the national average to 93%. So, Moos, you raised a fair point but it does actually appear that these schools have, to coin a phrase, 'pulled themselves up by their bootstraps' - at least statistically speaking.