BrandNewGuy

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Er, irony alert. And I stick by my assertion that > speculation in advance of knowledge in this area > is silly. Remember how surprised we all were when > the Islamic bombers in Glasgow airport turned out > to be doctors from stable middle class British > born backgrounds, as were the London bombers > (British born at least). But this is 'cause-related' terrorism/violence, rather than the violence of the streets, which is very different. In fact, research into the sociology of 'terrorism' has for a long while suggested a significant link between political violence and higher than average levels of education. In that respect, many 'Muslim terrorists' are little different from the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Red Army Faction and a host of non-Muslim groups who've resorted to political violence to further their 'causes'.

There's a review in the Express of a book about Boris Karloff which namechecks East Dulwich. The book sounds pretty good...

Museum?! Good things don't end in '-eum' - they end in '-mania'... or '-teria' Homer Simpson

EDdownunder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love curry too, just finished one at my desk > actually but do we need to rival brick lane. I > personally find it cringeworthy that a visitor to > the area would refer to LL as the curry street, > I'm afraid I didn't see it as something to be > proud of. I similary find it a bit of an overkill > to have more estate agents on LL. > > Sue I would prefer to have a variety of > restaurants that reflects the diverse backgrounds > of our society and not have any one food-culture > dominate. > > If there was a post for another curry house would > you say "yes please"? I did say "Yes, please" when the South Indian veggie "Indian Mischief" was announced. Not all "curry houses" are the same. And anyone who calls Lordship Lane "curry street" is living in a different reality.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today's South London Press newspaper have a free > offer for a Fusion weekend pass. > SLP costs 50p. > > Seems like brilliant value to get a weekend of > swimming etc at the new Dulwich leiscure centre > pool. And you can download it for free (legitimately) here, but it doesn't look like Dulwich is one of the eligible centres...

.. and it's a belated 'No' from me.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > No thank you. Militaristic flag-waving is more > > offensive than the irritation of the Royal > Family. > > Not half as offensive as i find this statement > though BrandNewGuy. > Being able to separate politics from the bravery > of troops putting themselves in harms way, i feel, > (if we can actually afford a street party of any > kind,) that this is a fine idea... Well count me out. Warmongering politicians rely on people making that separation to continue their wars. Back to the point of the thread, I don't see why a street party has to have any other purpose than just getting neighbours together to enjoy each other's company and have a good time. I wouldn't expect people who come round for Christmas drinks to have to subscribe to the Christian faith, so why should a street party be any different?

julieju Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > would rather see a street party arranged for our > brave troops No thank you. Militaristic flag-waving is more offensive than the irritation of the Royal Family.

ironjawcannon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NO, I don't want one. There is far too much of > our money wasted on the outdated royals as it is. What's that got to do with having a p*ss-up?

Anywhere other than a residential street would be a pain to organise... why not just have your own party in your own street or small group of streets? Much more fun than a big 'official' impersonal event. C'mon Southwark, waive the charges for shutting a street! And it needn't have much to do with the Royal Wedding - non-believers 'celebrate' Christmas, so I don't see why republicans can't have a p*ss-up on a Royal-related public holiday ;-)

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi BrandNewGuy, > I'm sorry about your experience in 2002. > Council officers under the Lib Dems were directed > to find a way of not charging for street party > street closures and persauded local papers to > provide a very low rate for the legally required > advertising of the street closure. If you ask > residents of Upland Road they've been having great > street parties for a number of years and it is now > much cheaper than your describe or when they > orignally started. > > I'm sure the Labour led administratino would be > equally supportive of street parties. > If anyone finds problems with the councils support > please get in touch with me straight away to try > and smooth things. James, you misunderstand. The main reason we had one in 2002 was because the Council waived the cost: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2011010.stm If we could have that again this year (or for next year's Diamond Jubilee), I'm sure people would be more willing to hold street parties. As I said, you don't have to worship the royals to enjoy the party ;-)

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BUT if anyone is thinking of holding a street > party you'll need to get cracking as the noticing > etc of closing a road and getting police, fire, > ambulance agreement takes 6-8 weeks and the that > bank holiday is only 14 weeks away. And Southwark Council charges hundreds for the privilege... For the Queen's golden jubilee (2002), councils were requested not to charge people for closing residential roads for street parties. We had a fine one on Trossachs Road with much food, booze, music and bouncy castling - and there wasn't any flag-waving, just a great chance for neighbours to get together and have a good time.

So that's Wikileaks consigned to the bin. Great. I wonder what's on telly...?

Hill Dweller Wrote: > Oh accept my apologies ;-) > Your post was addressed to me ao I took your > obsequious quoting from Wiki to have been for my > assistance. Enough with the annoying emoticons. And I suggest you look up the word 'obsequious'. Oh, and I don't have a messiah. And now I see you've added "megalomaniac" and "spoiled brat" to your ad hominem list. Yawn.

Hill Dweller Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Hey, has the messiah expressed ANY concern for the > imprisoned mole that his crass careless 'work' > exposed? Any answer to that is utterly irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of what Wikileaks has done: is there a public interest in publishing these cables? Have any laws been broken by doing so? Has anyone's life been put at risk because of it? Question of Assange's sexual conduct and his manner seem to me to have nothing to do with answering these questions.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It means someone is trying to come across as > clever. I put the meaning in my post, and I can't help it if someone hasn't read it.

It wasn't just the interview - which I've seen. You've been making ad hominem remarks throughout this thread. And wikipedia happens to be right in this case. And you can't assume that everyone knows what ad hominem means.

Hill Dweller: "vain"... "wannabe messiah"... "really isn't better than those that disagree with him"... "made me cringe"... "WTH does he think he is?" Wikipedia: Ad hominem abuse: Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

"Wolfen" - creepy shape-shifting chiller set in New York... "Re-Animator" and "From Beyond" - two tongue-in-cheek but scary Lovecraft tales.

The late Clement Freud's favourite joke (best imagined with him saying it): This is a story about a man. His wife has told him that if he ever comes home drunk she will leave him. Nonetheless he goes out. He drinks a lot and throws up all over himself. He turns to his friend and asks what he can do. His friend is helpful. ?Go home,? he says. ?Tell your wife someone threw up on you. And put a twenty pound note inside your jacket pocket. Show her the money and tell her the other man gave it to you for the dry cleaning bill.? So this he does. His wife is at first angry. But he explains. He tells her about the drunk man who threw up on him. He shows her the twenty pounds. She looks. ?But why have you got two ?20 notes?? she asks. ?Oh,? he says. ?The other one is from the man who shat in my pants.?

07.57 to LB fine, 08.04 slightly delayed.

Brilliant - thanks s_d (tu)

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > New East Dulwich trees. > We're about to order 30 new East Dulwich ward > street trees. If you want to see the details - > please see attached. Very disappointing that there's not one native tree among them. I had a conversation with Southwark's head of Trees Strategy who expressed enthusiasm for planting native trees whenever possible. It's not narow nationalism to ask for this but a concern for London's wildlife - most non-native's are effectively sterile of insect life (apart from nectar-gathering) and this has a knock-on effect on bird life, possibly including our dwindling house sparrow populations.

Laura Norder?

Weegee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Barry > > Can you tell us why the 0845 from East Dulwich to > London Bridge has been delayed for over 10 minutes > for the past 2 days...and when the train does turn > up....there are only 4 carriages! > > Surely if theres a backlog of people waiting for a > delayed train, it makes sense to put on a Train > with a full set of carriages! ... and the 08.27 is more often than not delayed and only has four carriages, with the knock-on effect that the subsequent (delayed) 08.33 is fit to bursting. This morning was a right old squeeze.