rendelharris

Living just four hundred yards from East Dulwich station we're also only a third of a mile from the "toastrack" streets, so I'm grateful for the headsup and will make sure we don't leave anything valuable in the car. Criminals are not, on the whole, great respecters of geographical boundaries.

Has it ever been suggested that the section of Bellenden Road from the mini roundabout at Highshore Road to the junction with Holly Grove be made two way for cyclists, instead of no entry when coming from the north? That system (one way for cars, two way for cyclists) works brilliantly in Paris and would save cyclists having to mix it with cars round the Highshore/Lyndhurst/Holly Grove diversion, and would cost nothing more than a new "except cyclists" sign.

Doesn't (or didn't) pay minimum wage and keeps all the service charge while charging ?212 for the set menu... https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/15/michel-roux-jr-restaurant-staff-no-share-service-charge-le-gavroche

Can we stop with the cheese related puns? I Camembert them.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Molly, yes fair enough, that traffic can be > bad. I don't think the whole section from the > Sydenham Hill intersection down to the interestion > with the old pub is well thought out at all. Bus > lanes, no right turns, no pedestrian crossings. > Seems to needlessly cause a backlog of traffic. There's a two stage pelican crossing right in the middle of that stretch you mention...and if it has a backlog now, how much worse would it be if cars were stopping and waiting to turn right, then blocking the oncoming traffic to make the turn?

In my very limited experience (two restaurants) many years ago all tips went into a communal jar and then were divvied up equally with the serving and kitchen staff, but I don't know if that's a common practice. It seemed fair to me, after all however charming the server is they're not going to get much of a tip if the meal's lousy.

Depends entirely on the restaurant, some do share it, some don't. I have even known a place where a friend worked where the staff were instructed to say it was split between them but it actually wasn't. I prefer to ask for the service charge to be removed and leave the equivalent (or more) in cash for the server. The only trouble is that often means the chefs and bottlewashers don't get a cut...another reason I wish the tiresome business of tipping could be done away with, I'd sooner pay 10% extra as part of the meal at a restaurant that advised they paid at least the London living wage and discouraged tips.

It wasn't the OP's child or nanny, she was just reporting what she'd been told.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IF there was no actual abduction attempt then the > nanny was probably right not to immediately > involve the police, but to discuss this with the > parents (assuming this is what happened) and the > parents right to report what might have been (but > apparently actually wasn't) a worrying incident. > Everybody thus seems to have acted sensibly and in > proportion. Except perhaps for some posters here. What, you mean the ones who said something didn't sound right and that it didn't sound as though there was an attempted abduction?

No but obviously expect more overcrowding...

I'm sure you know the old joke - a sailor and a soldier are standing next to each other at the urinals. Sailor finishes up and goes to leave without washing his hands. The soldier says, "Hey pal, in the army they teach us to wash our hands after we've used the bogs!" "Yeah?" says the sailor, "in the navy they teach us not to piss on our hands."

Most sensible post on here Otta.

I think, Alan, it's because I have the temerity not to agree with his/her opinions. A bit sad that rather than just ignore things I say - or use rational argument against them - s/he feels the need for personal petty spite, here and elsewhere, but rest assured it bothers me not one iota.

Just seen Dylan Hartley's cheapest of cheap shots against Sean O'Brien Northampton/Leinster tonight. Calculated thuggery, I really think he shouldn't remain as England captain - for God's sake, he's spent more than a year of his career suspended!

Phlox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most soya milk is genetically modified. It's also > an endocrine/hormone disrupter for men and women. Have you ever checked out the hormones, antibiotics and steroids with which dairy cows are injected? 80% of the average daily intake of oestrogen in the normal person's diet comes from cows' milk, how's that for a hormone disrupter?

For my tuppence worth, I do feel they're a bit of a waste of resources. I actually applied to join them when they first came on the scene, having totally misapprehended their purpose (I am very much not copper material) - I imagined that they would be some sort of community wardens going round reassuring the old folk and so on. Worryingly they seemed very interested, possibly fortunately a serious illness intervened so I never followed up... The trouble is they have no power of arrest (above and beyond any citizen's power to make a citizen's arrest) and don't really have any purpose beyond providing a superficially reassuring uniformed presence on the street. As far as I'm concerned they're a misguided attempt to do policing on the cheap. Anecdotally, about the time I put in an application I helped my local newsagent fend off an attempted robbery by a gang of little scrotes - basically by pushing them out the door and bolting it, not much heroism! - and when the coppers turned up Mrs.H mentioned I was thinking of PCSO, the sergeant said "Don't do that mate, we know they ain't proper police and so do the scum." No disrespect to those who do it but each one costs more than half of a fully trained and warranted officer, which I think are far more useful. Could be wrong though, often am!

OK, I realise I'm on a sticky wicket here and actually I should not have used the phrase "crying wolf" in my previous, that was ill-judged, inappropriate and I apologise. However, I stand by saying I think that it's extraordinary that this was not reported to police for hours. Let's assume there was no misunderstanding, this was a genuine attempt at child abduction. Had it been reported at once the police would definitely have sent cars to investigate and either caught the bugger or at least scared him away. What if he'd made a successful attempt on another child half an hour later because nobody knew he was in the area? If I, or anyone else, came on here and said "I saw an attempted child abduction this afternoon but as it was foiled I didn't report it" I would be quite rightly severely castigated, it seems incredible that someone whose job it is to care for children didn't see it the same way. If that's harsh then I'm harsh, so be it.

I have heard tell of these here magic telephones which can be used for the internet...

Friend of a friend said she had to buy a 4x4 to protect her children against...so many other 4x4s on the road.

Well done, virtue well and truly signalled. ETA and smallminded Poirot I may be (though I'd prefer to be a smallminded Sherlock Holmes), you really don't see anything odd in a nanny, a childcare professional, seeing an attempted abduction of one of her charges and not only not informing the police but not informing her employers for several hours? Well I do.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > While I agree that there are other plausible > explanations, to suggest that the nanny's story is > either inaccurate or untrue is, IMO, a bit out of > order... Well, apologies if so. But why haven't the police or local press issued any warnings then?

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Assination attempt on trump - later discovered to be "false flag" incident set up by Trump to distract from the fact that he's continued to run his business while president and has been accused of sexual harassment by multiple White house interns...

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and I believe that checking immigration status > actually goes a way to protect the vulnerable, > that have been exploited - and helping them. > It's not just about identifying people whose visa > has expired. That's really a very superficial way > of looking at it. Good job I don't look at it that way then, and I don't think I've said that I do. I have no problem with proper checks being made and I agree they can be a powerful way of stopping the abuse of unauthorized migrants. However, as per the report I linked to and quoted above, Immigration Enforcement have too often broken the law themselves in undertaking raids without due cause etc. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who might not like an immigrant business in their community (or indeed other immigrants who want to drive out rivals) who will allege to IE that said business is using unauthorised immigrants: it seems from the report that IE have adopted a gung-ho approach to such tipoffs which has carried them too often beyond the boundaries of their remit and indeed the law.

Certain organisations (such as Associated Press) which have ceased using "illegal immigrant" still refer to "illegal immigration" as that refers to the activity, not the person. It is, as I said, a matter of fine distinction. It's against the law to build an extension on the front of your house without planning permission, and officials might well talk of a need to crack down on "illegal extensions" but not "illegal householders," as it's not the householders who are illegal but their behaviour. Immigrants are the only ones I can think of who are referred to individually or en masse as illegal human beings, rather than perpetrators of an illegal action.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The whole thing just doesn't sound right. I was hesitant to say this but (cravenly, now you've broached the subject) I agree - the nanny "shouted him off"? The fact that three days later this doesn't appear to have surfaced in any local or national press and the police haven't issued any warnings would seem to indicate they don't take it as a serious threat. Parents and carers need to remain vigilant at all times, of course, but this seems likely either to have been a case of misapprehension (as Otta said above, perhaps, ironically, the driver thought the child was in danger) or crying wolf for some other reason - it seems very odd that a nanny would witness the attempted abduction of one her charges and not call the police or even tell the parents until they got home from work.