Huguenot

Long pigs I've not encountered, are they in Franklin's?

Come on kids, back down a bit. No harm intended, no real harm done. Plenty of ambition, and a predictable amount of frustration from someone who works hard to support healthcare. No rules broken etc. Please support our supporters.

Oh I wouldn't go if I were you, it's very worthy and ethically sound, but essentially dull. That's not to say that there isn't a good bar there, but it would be unfair to class it as a 24 hour party city. After all, if you did, based on a technicality, what have you got left to describe those places that are really fun? :-)

Quite right Jeremy, there is no source that specifically excludes vegetarianism from gastronomy, much as there is no map of the world that excludes Luxembourg. Doesn't make Luxembourg the world though. I'm not saying that vegetables aren't a subset of gastronomy, I just think they're getting above their station if they claim to be gastronomy. I can't think of a greater superlative in the food world than gastronomy, it seems inappropriate to use it in description of only a subset of food.

Well I guess that's okay if everyone wants to redefine gastronomy. Doesn't that mean we need to find another word to describe a complete over indulgence and immersion in food as a sensory and cultural experience? We're going to run out of superlatives if we keep using them to describe lesser events ;-) *hands on hips* We'll have an Iceland 'gastronomic' range of frozen spam before we know what's hit us (and of course, Louisa, why shouldn't we?)!

I often find it helps to break down these questions into smaller fragments - in this case before deciding what makes us 'human', you have to decide what 'human' is. This isn't as simple as it sounds. It's difficult to define what 'human' is in any consistent way. For example we could argue that humans have two arms and two legs, but we're all agreed that losing a limb in an accident doesn't make us less than human. Likewise we're familiar with anatomically perfect people being described as 'inhuman', so apparently defining a 'human' must somehow revolve around a set of values - not a physical form. We're into the realm of many great philosophers here, particularly concerning whether these values can be defined or expressed in particular actions, or whether the thoughts themselves are what defines our humanity. In other words, if we think nice thoughts but are unable to put them into action then are we still nice? More pointedly if we think nasty thoughts but do good deeds are we then good? For most people, a person thinking nasty thoughts but doing good deeds would be described in unpleasant terms - for example 'two faced'. So possibly we could conclude the generally accepted definition of 'human' lies within thoughts and beliefs, not in actions or appearances. Those thoughts and beliefs considered most 'humane' are generally altruistic ones - a process which requires abstract reasoning, an understanding of cause and effect, and collaboration for the greater good. In other words what makes us human is the ability to do things such as watching the wildlife, drawing insights and parallels, and using these to inform our decisions about the future on both a moral plane and a physical one.

An over indulged gastro gnome after an extended Sunday lunch at Franklin's... http://www.victoria-dove.com/Pics/FairiesAndGnomes/GnomeSleepy2.jpg I agree on religions and whatnot, it's not just a problem for vegtarianism. I don't think you can be a gastro gnome if you don't eat pork or beef either.

Hmmm. If it really had your life in it then your address was probably in there along with your keys. I'd be looking to change the barrel on your locks.

Well that probably means that you can't be a true gourmet I'm afraid. Ever seen 'The Cook, The Thief, his Wife and her Lover'?

I had a bit of a look around on this one. Very interesting subject. It revolves around how we define 'gastronomy'. Most seem to see it as more than just great food, but an immersion of food within culture - an exploration of way in which food transcends taste and becomes an experience, an indulgence. The problem with assessing vegetarianism in this light is that it's quite the opposite of indulgence. In fact it's an ascetic pursuit, it involves abstaining from certain experiences. If the abstinence or deliberate constraints were based on heightening the experience, much like bondage and sex I guess, then you could argue it was actually about indulgence. However most vegetarians I know didn't take it up because of an improved experience, but for rational and usually moral reasons. Hence in this light, vegetarianism really couldn't be a gastronomic experience, but not for reasons involving the flavour.

Well I can see your point. I just think that 'using medical records in this way' is overplaying it a bit. I think I'd consider misuse of medical records as telling one's neighbours one has the clap, rather than sending a letter asking if I'd care to contribute to the new brain scanner appeal (or whatever). Besides, there's no reason to consider that a hospital only has medical records, I'm sure they have administrative records also.

I think the OP was after info related to living in ED, and you've just listed cime elsewhere ;-) Sebastian, the Metropolitan Police deliver crime figures for London that haven't be derived from sensationalist tabloid press. Whilst you can argue that they don't cover all crime, they offer a very good comparative picture of areas inside London, and show ED to have lower than average crime rates. That should answer your question for you. Have a look on their website? As SeanMcG says, just about everything you need is here. There's a huge Sainsbury that by the sound of it is 5 mins walk from your proposed flat. The thing no stats will tell you is that ED's a bustling, friendly, compact community. The fact that it's not on the tube is a positive bonus, and certainly no handicap. London Bridge is 11mins away on trains that run on average every 10 mins at rush hour, and every 15/20 outside of that.

Well gosh, it's not unreasonable that KCH thinks that those most likely to support them are those that have made recent use of their services!! There seems to be an underlying and unnecessarily cynical assumption that KCG have been up to no good. I think you'll probably find that they are fully aware of the data protection act, and whilst your mum's been weirded out, you do seem to agree that this is a pretty unusual response? This letter is in a good cause and entirely well meant. I can't understand what people expect to gain from this attack? It could only be a reduction in support for Kings, and an NHS that is walking on eggshells every time they want to do something constructive to improve their services. This type of bullying from the public can only damage the appeal of the NHS and lower the calibre of employees, resulting in a consequent downgrading of NHS services. I can't believe that you want to burn up NHS funds that should be spent on treating people on defending such an essentially innocuous and harmless request to support their charity? People do complain about the NHS spending on bureaucracy, and then we've got demands like this being made. Doesn't make any sense.

Do some of you guys not think you're going a bit overboard with this? The NHS and Kings are clearly funded through tax payer revenues - which isn't a bottomless pit. I've no doubt that they subdivide those things that they can do into three or more priorities: perhaps those which are critical, those which are important, and those which are simply 'nice to have' for example. Both the government we elect, and the leaders of the KCH Trust will be making daily well informed decisions on how to allocate and wisely spend their 200m annual budget. As a result there are always going to be projects that don't quite make the cut. It doesn't seem unreasonable that these caring, enthusiastic institutions should appeal to the goodwill of the public to help them achieve these projects. They're not threatening anyone, but undoubtedly these projects won't happen without private funding and they'd like to see if anyone else wants to help out. I guess you are quite within your rights to decline to respond to the appeal because you haven't got available funds, or simply that you don't agree with their priorities. There's absolutely nothing to get 'offended' about. Regarding the source of your address, I recall filling in a zillion forms when I last visited a hospital. It's not unlikely that one of these might have had a box on saying 'tick if you don't want to receive correspondance from KCH' In fact I kinda feel that it is a wee bit unreasonable to assume that the hospitals are committing a crime in appealling for funds, that the managers are all bastards, to launch personal attacks on the CEO, and then tie up hospital administration and NHS funds in responding to unhelpful demands for unnecessary information and possibly vexatious litigation.... isn't it? Only teasing, like :)

You'd probably catch an awful chill living under your shed. There's also the opposable thumbs thing. ;-)

Could it be that the way they're folded in the drawer means that area is exposed and to the front?

If we would be amused, jrussell, by this thread on this other forum then why don't you post a link instead of being tiresome? My understanding of Section 28 of the Copyright Act is that a journalist would be perfectly free to quote any of our ramblings on the forum under the umbrella of 'criticism and review'. This allows the quoting of other work providing that... The work has been made available to the public. The source of the material is acknowledged. The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification). The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review. Hence it doesn't make much difference if the forum is 'private', because the delivery of the content is such that it is publically available. And it doesn't really matter whether or not people give 'permission' to a journalist. Ironically, if jrussel actually were a journalist and wanted to, s/he could actually quote this particular thread to show how hoity toity people get ;-) It would probably be more embarrassing than anything we might have said in respose to such inane propositions as 'too many trees' Conversely, those two websites half-inching content ARE in breach of copyright. jrussell is undoubtedly guilty of appalling bad manners, and anyone who thinks that it's okay to 'experiment' on other people is sufferring from mental health problems whatever his/her flimsy justification. For my two-penneth I think it's just another troll from a rather sad individual.

Still here! Midnight on a Friday over in Singers. One of Mrs Mockney Piers' chums over for a few days - been drinking on the verandah. ;-) Sorry I disappeared. Bumbalina's been pushing the Sav Blanc like a desperate Peckham ne'er do well. *humbled*

Splitters ;-)

In case anyone thinks that my observations lacked foundation... I complained about the Fake IDs to Facebook. Since then both of the accounts I cited have been removed. It's simply implausible that this could possibly have happened if the IDs were true. This means either Facebook discovered them to be fraudulent and removed them, or the person that manufactured these IDs has removed them. I stand vindicated - any 'libel' case would have failed to make court, simply on the defence of truth.

Many thanks for your support guys, I owe you an explanation. I need to do this by putting it in context. An illustration is worthwhile: The thing to remember with a guy like HAL9000 is that he's already confessed to watching beheadings in Saudi Arabia because he finds it interesting. Have a look here. Whilst I find it morally repugnant, HAL9000 doesn't, because other people are a figment of his imagination. He's prepared to overlook even the most outrageous crimes because for him it's an experiment. He wants to see if their mouth moves after the head has fallen. Fake IDs, spam and data theft are another experiment for HAL9000. He's prepared to persuade other people to push for legal action against the forum to defend spam, fake IDs and data theft because he cares nothing for the victims or the criminals. He doesn't care if it destroys the forum, he's on thirty others. For HAL9000, it's just an experiment to see what happens. I don't care about HAL9000, his pathetic narcissitic existence has no interest for me. I've left the forum because the majority of posters have reached the point where they feel it is my comments that are worthy of debate or exclusion, rather than his childish solipsistic wrecking. That means the majority of posters have lost the plot. They're fiddling whilst Rome burns. For me, that is significant. What is the point of sharing my views? So I won't bother. HAL9000 probably will, because his convictions are sociopathic. When the forum is undermined by his activities he will watch momentarily, like a minor with his finger up his nose barbecuing live worms, and then in moments will turn his head to another target. This is the hair shirt you've knitted for yourselves. You've pushed away those that love you the most in favour of those that mean you nothing but evil.

Despite HAL9000's convictions I wish you every success with your venture jennse23. As you may have worked out, I have no axe to grind with you or your business - and have no desire to destroy you or your business reputation. I have very strong views about spam, about fake IDs, about online data theft and about taking advantage of vulnerable people because of their goodwill. I don't think these should be entered into casually. I appreciate this may not have been your intention, and take you at your word. Best of luck!

I notice the whistleblowing thread about Orca Local has disappeared. I appreciate that this may be perceived as convenient, but for me it would mark the point when the EDF jumped the shark. I notice they have a sponsored link. The fact is that anyone who makes up fake IDs is a confidence trickster, if we can no longer make this observation in a public forum, then what, frankly, is the point? Three points to quality media - inform, inspire, entertain. I think you just boshed them, along with a moral responsibility to protect the vulnerable. This may well be my last post on the forum, so I'd like you to know that I love you all.

quite right eater81, aren't people awful?

I remember being completely outfoxed by our friendly stationery Nazi once (wouldn't a stationary Nazi have been more intriguing?). I was trying to buy a pen, and I asked if I could check it was working before I made the purchase. He said no, I had to buy it first. Somewhat taken aback, I asked him if he was taking the piss. He was more concerned about my choice of language than the fact that he was taking the piss. This tactical red herring left me so confused that I left the shop without the pen, feeling that it was me that had made the fatal transgression.