BrandNewGuy

And stupid estate agents' junk mail addressed to "The Homeowner". They might as well put: "Please put me straight into the recycling."

srisky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course interacting with their peers develops > social skill, plus their peers will have parents > so they will be eating with adults, too. They are > not stuck on a 'kids-only' table. It's nonsense > to suggest that interacting with those of a > similar age leaves their social skills wanting - > what about children at nurseries, school? Maybe > they should come to the work place and eat in the > staff canteen so they know how to behave when they > enter the work force. Better still, send them > down the mines again! Riiight... er, back to what we were talking about, most children these days don't interact with non-family older children (or younger ones when they themselves get older), adults, old people etc. Of course nursery will give a child some social skills, but it's only a small slice of the whole social spectrum. Nursery is mainly a parental convenience - the 'socialisation' (and educational) aspect is often talked about loudly to hide that fact. > I don't understand what your comment about kids in > buggies has to do with social skills. A kid strapped into a buggy does not have a chance to interact properly with others. It's also a parental convenience not a means of the child getting out and about in the world.

srisky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Therefore, to expect > toddlers to sit quietly at a table is unrealistic > and unfair on the child. However, (dare I > suggest) they are a part of society and will > eventually turn into cynical, miserable adults > like the rest of us who can not tolerate anyone > else that does not conform to our version of > 'normal behaviour'. Therefore, allowing them to > partake in and experience some of societies > rituals, such as eating socially, particularly > with their peers, teaches them several social > skills. No, in those countries mentioned previously (Italy and France), the difference is that children don't just eat with their peers - they eat with their family, and often their extended family. Kids in buggies and 'family friendly' play areas are not partaking in society's rituals - they're being partitioned off into either not socialising at all with others or only with those of their own age. Which is why their social skills are and will continue to be wanting.

Groundhog Day "I was in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster, drank pi?a coladas. At sunset, we made love like sea otters. *That* was a pretty good day. Why couldn't I get *that* day over, and over, and over...?"

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As it happens I've often cracked open a can or two > at the Nursery's summer party, christmas party etc > etc, with children present and everyfink. Indeed, a decade and more ago the other half and I went to a Mother Goose Nursery summer party and downed quite a few. We kept the nursery assistants pretty well supplied too and when the 'party' broke up, we decamped with them to The Castle for the evening. Happy days :-)

But why would they not get a licence? The previous pub didn't shut because of objections from local residents... The terms of the licence might be amended, but that's a different matter.

Just seen a small lizard in our back garden (SE22 near Dulwich Hospital). I think it's trying to find some sunshine on our warm(ish) wall. A hopeful sign of summer...

UncleBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thatcher > started privatisation and the con dems continue > it. Yeah, because when Thatcher left office, the Coalition took over...

A quick check on Google Streetview shows it's not marked a bus lane at or just before that point - it's marked with large left-turn arrows. Buses can carry straight on at that point but for all other road users it's a left-turning lane.

The left-hand lane is a clearly marked for a hundred yards or so as a left-turning lane for all traffic. The right-hand lane is straight on. Terrible tragedy.

Dear Lord. This thread makes me want to jump in front of one of those bloody speeding cars. Admin could have a separate area of the forum for any post or thread mentioning cyclists and/or cars. Then I could ignore it completely...

Saw and heard a group of swifts yesterday morning over East Dulwich Grove - first ones of the year - screeching and soaring high up in the sky. They'll have just returned from Africa and be hoping for warmer weather and lots of juicy flies...

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Leaving this thread now so carry on arguing among > yourselves justifying a little girl getting hit at > an island lovely caring people that you are . No need for passive-aggressive flouncing, really. To repeat what DJKQ said, if she'd been driving over the speed limit the girl would almost certainly have been killed. And traffic islands are a nightmare - they are *not* a pedestrian crossing and I've often seen drivers confused as to whether to slow down or not when someone's on the island. Personally, as a pedestrian, I don't expect them to - I see islands as somewhere safe to wait until the other carriageway is clear. And of course drivers should be careful, but they should be careful all the time. And you can't legislate for that, unless it's proposed to spend billions on traffic cops, cameras, court officials etc etc.

As others have said, it would be tedious to 'Fisk' all of Steve North's diatribe, but one aspect of the 'Thatcher legacy' mishmash of the last week that needs nailing is the idea that Thatcher engineered or at least used the Falklands War to go from being 'the most unpopular PM in history' to winning a landslide in 1983. Hey, if the saintly Glenda can say, 'I had to speak out to stop history being re-written,' then so can I... Here's some detailed polling information from 1976 to 1987: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2449 The key points about what happened between 1981 and 1983 would seem to be: 1. Labour were not miles ahead in the polls before the Falklands War broke out in April '82. In early '81, at the depths of the recession, Labour was at least 10% ahead in the polls, but by Dec '81-Feb '82 (two months before the War started), the lead was down to between 0 and 3% and their average poll rating was 31% - barely 3% more than their showing in the '83 general election and less than the 33-36% they were polling from October '82 to Feb '83. 2. The revisionist reading completely ignores the huge impact of the SDP / Alliance on the years from '81 to '83. Between November '81 and the outbreak of the war, the combined Alliance polling was between 30 and 44%, but after this honeymoon period it was the Tories who benefited from a decline in Alliance support rather than Labour. There's no evidence that this had anything to do with Falklands. 3. The economy (in GDP terms) was picking up from the depth of the '80-'81 recession and by early '83 was showing strong growth. Despite their best intentions, many people vote with their wallets and Thatcher benefited from this in '83. 4. Labour did not put up a credible platform for voters outside their core constituencies, without which they couldn't hope to win power. [For what it's worth, I'm not a Tory, I've never voted Tory and in the 80s I was a Labour Party member, campaigned on the doorstep for the party, held collecting tins for miners' families and was active in CND.] [edited for sp.]

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But BNG the downside is you get to be patronised > by John Cleese > ..... :-) Oh well, back to net-curtain twitching and polishing the Jag...

Established middle class - so I get to patronise Ronnie Corbett, right...?

kanecarter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The recent oil price > collapse from $150 a barrel to $50 a barrel didn't > help matters as the current generation of business > investors now know they can easily loose their > shirts if they are betting on high oil prices, the > same thing happened in 1986 when oil prices > collapsed to $12 a barrel and it took from then > till now for a generation of managers oblivious to > oil price collapses before major investments > occurred and now we'll probably have to wait > another 30 years. Eh? The price of oil has been over $100 a barrel for two years now. Apart from the 2008-2009 dip (due to the massive contraction in economic activity post-credit crash), the price of oil has been rising steadily for over ten years.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure why the state should be funding a > lifestyle choice anyway. A mother (or father) with a working partner who wants to go out to work is also making a 'lifestyle choice'. S/he might say, "I have to go out to work," and that might be for reasons such as career advancement or wanting more money, but it's still a choice. A choice doesn't have to be an easy one...

neilson99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I want kids. I want to stay at home. I want to do > more studying. Maybe even re train. I want all > this now, I'm not prepared to prioritise and make > choices and sacrficices, so I expect everyone else > to pay for it. I want more money by getting a job. I want someone to look after my child so I can do it. And I want someone else to pay for it... Cuts both ways.

:-) I said "not unlike" rather than "same as". I meant in terms of it being a completely unlifelike situation. I've just been Googling (in vain) to find out the last time there was a checkmate in a major tournament... I bet it was, er, a long time ago.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > on tv, when people are 'playing' poker and they > always say 'I see your five quid and raise you > xxxx'. This is a string bet and totally illegal in > poker your raise would be disqualified and you > would be held to a 'see' Not unlike TV chess, when one player triumphantly moves a piece and declares, "Checkmate!" If the other player didn't know he was one move away from mate (and therefore would have resigned), he's a pretty poor player and barely worth beating...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Improved dramatically the lot of the poor to > electorate success, wether this will last in the > long term will be the ultimate test...my suspicion > is it was all on the credit card, but oil wealth > has been spent far less fairly and unpleasantly in > other oil rich places. So the binary view looks > simplistic. Shade of the Perons for me. He onnly improved the lot of the poor by doling out oil money and nationalised industry cash. Not a good idea in the long term. Kudos to him for sticking up two fingers to the corrupt pro-USA oligarchs that preceded him, but thumbs down for the support for dictators elsewhere and the inability to see that the long-term prosperity of Venezuela must rely on a thriving local private sector - which is not the same as the hated Yankee corporations. Venezuela's economy is now embarrassingly mediocre given its oil wealth and I fear the Peron analogy will come to be seen as close to the truth.

Alex K Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A complaint to the council might > lead to felling of a tree. Don't hold your breath - in our experience they won't lift a finger. Our insurance company's been asking them for two years... According to our assessor, Southwark Council is notorious for not removing or dealing with trees that cause cracking / subsidence.

Er, well maybe reading the thread will help you find out how they're connected. Sheesh...

Yeah, of course...