Huguenot

You talk about foreign money as if it were one binary issue - i.e. it's either here or it's not. It's a silly way to look at it. It's thousands of different individuals from tens of countries all with differing economic conditions and outlooks. It's not either in or out. There isn't going to be some sudden change that makes it all pull out. Not only that, but it's not the only driving market mechanism. Just forget about it, I would have thought that the last 15 years would have taught you one thing: that speculating on property is a matter of luck not judgement, and if you cannot afford to lose then you can't afford to bet. If you want a second or third flat as a long term investment then fine, but if you want to speculate in order to rip off some unsuspecting child of their future to pay for a fast car and overseas holidays then that's not very bright or responsible. You're obsession with making a fortune off houses has not only been discredited, it's been found morally unsound.

It's not that dulwichgirl2, but your constant posting on the subject of house buying, and what great opportunities there are to be had right now, makes me sometimes suspect you're a shill? You often ask 'questions' about seemingly straightforward property issues, and then reveal you already knew the answer. Let's face it, you know the price per square foot of every zone in South London, and then demonstrate this faux naivety to prompt other people to tell what you already know. You know rental yields, the comparative impact and value of renovation works, how to negotiate insurance, stamp duty and find the best builders and get the right yield. So why do you keep on asking these 'questions'?

dulwichgirl2 spends a disproportionate percentage of her presence on the forum lining up estate agency sales pitches masked as 'honest enquiries'. This is a typical example, where she suggests that a surprisingly 'slow' market means there are bargains to be had. In other posts she goes on about how exchange rates make now the perfect opportunity, how other investments are rubbish compared to real estate, how rental returns are amazing. And so on ad nauseam.

Stirrer...

I'm not sure such reactions are instant are they? People can get locked into a habit, and then something can trigger looking at a place afresh. I can see spontaneously amiable people frequently visiting unresponsive establishments and uttering no more than an internal sigh when they are once more let down... Then... Suddenly.. That thought... 'Why the hell do I do this to myself everyday? What actually is it I don't like? Am I alone? And that may all lead to a perfectly well reasoned observation on a popular local forum. A mild search for either affirmation or a different perspective from other punters.

To willingly sink to equal terms with inferiors... 'Let me explain in simple terms you'll understand...'. The only problem is when these inferiors get so uppity regarding your generosity ;-)

I'm okay with it in general, but I'd prefer if you didn't (a) tell me first, or (b) look at me hungrily. Historically it would have been a very unhealthy practice, but I suppose modern hygiene techniques make it less so?

This is such a staple of popular culture and science fiction I'm not even sure the idea is shocking. Ever seen the film 'Alive'?

I thought that seemed like a reasoned and well thought-out critique. I'd want to hear that if I was the boss. I do hope that we don't get nutters on the gravy train who turn this into a flame.

I think he'd have difficulty in proving that the conversation regarding purpose actually took place, and that since the technical specs are written on the outside of the box he was given every opportunity to review them himself. There's also the issue of what planes the hardware would work on. Many current planes have USB power sockets, but not all. If the DVD had a USB socket the assistant may have been right in saying it worked on planes without a battery. We could get a better idea if the OP would tell us the make and model. It always concerns me when people demand companies should be castigated when only half the information is given. It's also concerning when other poorly informed people leap to conclusions. ;-)

I didn't actually start the mummy blog, I just took it over, and anyway Whitstable is nice at that time of year.

There is that :(

Ha ha, are you for real? I made no claim that Carter was a child killer, what I was doing was parodying the idea that shooting burglars was a clean cut issue of petrified homeowners defending themselves from homicidal rapist psychopaths. I was highlighting the very real tragedies that can occur when you make rash assumptions about who it is that's nicking your video and use a gun as the first line of defence. When Jonathan Swift wrote 'A Modest Proposal' he wasn't actually suggesting that the Irish sell their babies as food. Go and look it up on Wikipedia alongside the word 'satire'. I can see in your reaction to criticism a manifestation of all the attitudes that cause concern. If you disagree with me you cannot hang me, shoot me, nor force me to shut up. Instead you have to deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with you, and that they are entitled to their opinion without being forced to submit to yours.

I'm sorry Thomas, but that's completely at odds with everything you've done and said on here. This is the first time you have ever mentioned any interest in obesity, and whilst you've sometimes touched on environmental issues it has never been your primary goal. Foie Gras has nothing to do with either of those issues, and neither does bullshit about tortured circus animals. How many of your talks at the Dulwich Vegan Society have been about obesity? None? How many about animal cruelty? All? People don't take shots at you for getting involved in the community and tackling issues, they take shots at you because you're disingenuous and tell porkies. They take shots at you because you misrepresent issues and practices to further your own goals. They take shots at you because when you can't persuade people to stop eating Foie Gras by open debate you go behind their backs and harass restaurants to try and prevent people gaining access. If you want to win respect stop lying to people, stop trying to manipulate people, and stop trying to force people to do your thing when you can't persuade them.

The differences between legal rights and social responsibilities have been discussed at length on the thread Ren, you can read back. There are lots of things that we have a right to do that we don't do out of respect for other people, particularly if they cause anxiety. Carter brought this upon himself by claiming people who disagree with smoking in pubs should be hung, and burglars should be shot, twice. Neither of those statements are 'responsible', and both could described as so inappropriate to be nuts (as in crazy). Combine those two beliefs with the fact that Carter has a firearm in the house, and you can see where the derision comes from. Incidentally, no statement can be considered libellous here unless Carter gives up his anonymity. If he does that now he would be personally culpable so that wouldn't work either. My advice is to stop boasting about killing people, and start thinking about responsibilities rather than rights. Enjoy!

It's that claim that his motivation is tackling obesity rates that I find incredulous. It's a bare-faced lie. It's that kind of behaviour that marks Micklewright out as a silly little boy whose parents let him get away with lying so many times he actually thought he was good at it. Hardly a mastermind, more a child that never grew out of the manipulative phase.

I'm sure you said something like it would be another typical British cock up. I shall go trawling! But not tonight, I've got a cold.

To be fair, EP is on here somewhere saying the Olympics would be a disaster too.... :)

I think you've highlighted the problem - one to one sessions with experienced professionals is an incredibly expensive process. If it's 'only' 24 sessions, presumably you're implying that longer may be more appropriate? Throw in that the symptoms are difficult to identify and frequently based on subjective scoring mechanisms, that success is also vaguely defined, if at all, and that treatment may be endless.... It goes out the window. Government sponsored healthcare can't possibly be run on such vague ambition. It's not fit for purpose. The NHS already spends 13% of it's expenditure on mental health, yet campaigners say this only treats 25% of those that need funding - that means they want this spend to increase to the equivalent of 52% of budget (or in practice a 40% increase in the overall NHS budget since nothing else is proposed for cutting). Since the NHS is a quarter of government spending in it's own right, then you're talking massive increases in income tax and VAT to pay for treatment for people we're not sure are ill, not sure they're being treated correctly, and not sure when they have been 'cured'. As with the welfare state and pensions, the NHS was created when contemporary modern challenges had never been dreamed of and never budgeted for, and curing depressed women wasn't far from an era of genital massage. The NHS is NOT there to replace family networks and support, nor provide a fall back from the travails of the modern world. GPs are not there to provide companionship to OAPs deserted by their families. That is a solution we have to find for ourselves, and is an unpaid social responsibility for every one of us. At some point we have to step back and ask ourselves what we're actually prepared to do with these systems, and it's likely to involve cutting the provision, not extending it. Like the welfare state and pensions, it's likely that these systems must become nothing more than a safety net for the very lowest, not a comprehensive service for the nation.

LondonMix, you've nailed it! It's a debate hinging on conflicting meanings of the word 'chain'. At the one end it means two or more connected commercial establishments, at the other it just means 'rubbish'. UDT was famous for this over the subject of 'commercial music'. In his view 'commercial' simply meant terrible. Therefore he could insist with impunity that all commercial music was shit, and if someone identified some quality popular music, he could prove that by definition if it was good it wasn't commercial. You can see that in this confusing context, a debate about whether 'chains' are bad is meaningless. On a similar note I'm impressed by those that argue that the replacement of Iceland by M&S is bringing 'chains' into Lordship Lane. With over 800 stores, Iceland is clearly a world beating chain! In this context 'chain' doesn't even mean 'bad', it simply means 'shops that I don't like', with no attempt at objectivity at all.

Agreed Loz, you can see the content of this group's banners here: http://www.captiveanimals.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/demo1.png They're nothing to do with Zippo's Circus and nothing to do with horses. They're sensationalist depictions of badly abused animals elsewhere (original source unknown). So were the police right to stop this deliberate, offensive campaign of misinformation, misrepresentation and smear? Yeah, I reckon so.

Just to avoid confusion, he posts under more than one name. Here's the other one: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/profile.php?20,21608 I'm sure he'll have a perfectly reasonable argument for why he is trying to avoid a connection to threads where he was exposed for subterfuge, but I have suspicions that are probably closer to the mark!

Soya, just for clarification, Tom M has been around for a long time. Click on his username and you can see his contributions over the years. What you will see is that he's not averse to using misinformation and underhand behaviour to try and get his way. If he can't persuade people through debate and insight, he'll try and limit their freedoms by targeting suppliers. The circus is just another one. The ban on images and placards was no doubt part of this, on long established form the protestors would have intended to use images unrelated to the circus or their animal welfare strategies in order to smear it as a cruel abuser of animals. They would have used shocking images because that's what they do - and as Tom so well knows, the truth can be damned. Tom, bless his cotton socks, is not expressing an opinion, he's revealing an agenda that needs careful oversight to ensure he doesn't overstep the bounds of reasonable society.

The problem here doesn't appear to be whether or not Tony Nicklinson deserved to get his freedom, but more about framing the legislation to allow it without creating a vast catalogue of unintended consequences. The judges were at pains to point out that the problem was with legislation and not the courts, likewise MPs are recognising that 'something needs to be done', but are struggling with the somewhat intractable challenge of detailing vague moral convictions into the blunt instrument of the law books. Regarding the concerns about how we as a society treat mental illness, I can see the point. However, I do think there needs to be a point at which central government has to curtail and account for expenditure. The problem with mental illness is that although many of us can recognise it, it often lacks the quantitative and arithmetic elements that make it practical for a central government approach. Pleas for expenditure to be increased in this area are rarely accompanied by requests for it to be curtailed in another area - and so are just another example of an ideological desire to set yet more power and authority given to the state. I don't agree. Many mental health issues are to do with social cohesion. The reality is that if we are creating broken families and deserted old folks who fall into depression, that is a matter for society not the state.

How is the difference in price calculated?