rendelharris

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Got a Leave leaflet through the post today. Two > massively misleading statement both back and front > (discredited 350m and Turkey immently joining > claims). Also a map of Europe showing the new > countries that are supposedly joining (they're > not) with Iraq and Syria highlighted. Clearly > trying to link remaining and threat of terrorism. > Boris and Chums are wilfully misleading the > public. I don't know what you're on about, I'm going with everything the great Boris says here ;-) https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/boris-johnson-turkey?utm_term=.hlA4OM38#.kuMAWzxL

> This was my seemingly tenuous link to the sign > outside Londis, i.e. : when I asked at reception > did the company deal with landlord/tenant disputes > I was told, we work for the landlord. I am also a > Wandle tenant, but not from Solomon's Passage, at > my wit's end with them. And then spurned by my > local solicitors; and despite Steveo's assumption > that they will work for fiscal reward = ergo, the > sign has to come down - see my logic and > reasoning? Yep and stuff 'em then, I hold no brief for the firm nor their advertisement, and on balance I'd sooner companies were not allowed to plaster the urban environment with hoardings (though perversely I do love the old painted ads on gable ends one still sees here and there). I was just making the more general point that if we don't allow local councils a little discretion and instead expect them to apply the strict letter of the law in every case life would quickly become intolerable.

Thanks for the explanation, didn't know that - but from your previous you say Ashford denies giving approval? All very murky... Kudos for all your hard work on this and for keeping us updated, much appreciated.

buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Londonmix. I agree with you. By the way, just to > be clearer, southwark said in answer to my FoI > 'approval of the scheme' was given by another > council (which denies this) not a private company. > Southwark also said 'certification' after their > (48) site visits was provided by their building > control. Southwark's use of language seems > designed to confuse the layperson. However, their > building control signed it off (their > certification). Why TF were Southwark using another council? It's on their patch, do the work! Thanks buddug for the continual updates on this.

I sort of half agree with you Abe, but sometimes a little discretion has to be exercised - for example there was an article in The Guardian recently reporting how Brighton council had been ordering people to tear down the cycle storage boxes in their front gardens as by law any development beyond the street facing building boundary needs planning permission. If Southwark suddenly decided to follow the same course I think most would agree it was a pointless waste of time and money...there are some laws more honoured in the breach than the observance, as the Danish chap said. How about Glazer Delmar can keep their ad in exchange for some pro bono advice for the Solomon's Passage residents? Just a thought...

Agreed - just wondering if private companies are easier to, ahem, "persuade" to overlook defects...

LondonMix - didn't you say earlier in this thread that some builders can use a private building control service, is it certain that this was signed off by Southwark BC? Either way, as Southwark was agreeing to use the building for social housing they should have monitored more carefully and heads should roll, but I'd be interested to know if one of these private services you mentioned was involved.

Nope don't like tennis either...of course if they must have it on for the cricket or rugby or cycling...no, even then, let's keep outdoors for drinking and smoking, please!

Moby Dog

I don't want to be a misery, lovely Cherry Tree, but your splendid garden has been a welcome refuge on game nights for those of us who aren't interested in the football - can't it be kept as a TV free oasis?

Could anybody kindly help me with an adware problem I have on my iMac (27", 2013, running ElCapitan, all updates installed)? Some days ago I thoughtlessly clicked on what looked like an Adobe update, only to realise too late that it wasn't...as a result I got some irritation called "helperbar" on the computer. What it does is harmless but deeply irritating: it puts links into text to try to make one click on them, and when one opens new pages (in Firefox) it frequently opens an extra page of adverts alongside. I've downloaded Malwarebytes Anti-Malware and it identified and wiped the thing, everything worked fine for a while then it started again. Ran Malwarebytes again, it identified several new names and wiped them. Again, worked fine for a while, then started again. Now at the stage where I have to run Malwarebytes every half hour or so, the same thing always popping up under different names. Does anyone have a solution to this please? If so I'd really, really appreciate knowing it! Many thanks, Rendel

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's be honest, there are those on the leave side > that want to leave for all the racist reasons. But > that doesn't mean for a second that wanting to > leave is automatically racist. You're spot on, Otta. But I can't help feeling (and it is just a feeling, no evidence) that given the way the Brexiters have played the immigration card so frequently and so hard an awful lot of people have come to see this as the deciding issue of the referendum and will vote accordingly. That's as much a fault of the Remainers (of whom I am a fervent member) and their limp-as-a-stick-of-celery campaign as gobshites like Boris and Gove, of course...

Mason, I think you've entirely missed the point of what DF means by social cleansing - it's not meant as a positive!

If the Cool Chile Co are still at Borough market they certainly used to stock it.

kristymac1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cycle this route every day - Forest Hill Road to > Farringdon. I reckon even '20 mins doable for just > about anyone' is a bit optimistic- unless you're > not stopping at the lights...... I agree that it > is a decent route and once the pedestrians get > used to the cycle superhighway it'll be great ;-) Honest to God, I never jump red lights (if you see a vaguely fat fortysomething sitting at the lights annoyingly shouting "red light!" at those who do it'll most likely be me) but thinking about it, seventeen minutes was on a Sunday morning so very few pedestrians using the pelicans, and those who passed me were most likely keen racers...call it half an hour for an average commuter then, still way better than waiting for a ghost train at ED! Yes some pedestrians need to become acclimatised, I've had several people shouting "get back on the road!" recently, though whether that's ignorance of the new paths or an objection to them I haven't stopped to ascertain.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rendelharris ED to Blackfriars Bridge in 10 > minutes by bike? You are Chris Hoy and I claim my > ?5 ;) :-) Well, I was basing that on the fact that last time I did it it took me seventeen minutes and I was overtaken by a substantial number of much younger, fitter and better-biked people who disappeared into the distance pretty quickly. Maybe ten minutes is a bit optimistic, fifteen definitely doable and twenty doable for just about anyone - average speed of 13 mph which is easy to stick to even in traffic, let alone with traffic free cycle paths.

Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Enlighten me. What did I miss. Well, it's like silvery or goldy only made of iron...

Cycle down the Surrey Linear Canal path starting at Peckham Library, across Burgess Park, up the on-pavement cycle lanes of the OKR to Elephant and then you've got a beautiful brand new completely segregated cycleway all the way to Blackfriars Bridge and beyond if desired. No armpits, no delays and no charge! 4.5 miles from East Dulwich station and very few lights, 10-30 minutes depending on fitness and inclination.

The Grove Tavern has plenty of room for an attached brewery...if we win the lottery tonight might look into that...

It was desperately slow last night for us (Copleston) but back to normal this morning.

As all the above, keep it as simple as you can - mine consisted of "I'd like to thank so many friends and family for coming, I'd like to thank Susan for making me so happy and I'd like to give you a toast - to love, and may it last for ever!" Went down OK. Your wedding day's the one day in your life everyone looks after you, just enjoy it and don't worry about trying to put on a show. And the very best of luck!

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Forget the Ramrod and Special. That was for wimps. Ah well, I don't mind being a wimp! I do remember at Christmas one switched to Winter Warmer (5%) and Old Nick (7%) - very merry!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ram rod is only 5% though... strong for an ale, I > suppose... I know, so theoretically adding it to 4.5% Special would only ramp up the alcohol content by .25% a pint, but it seemed to have a much greater effect than Special on its own or Ramrod on its own - same as snakebite always seems stronger than its constituent parts. Maybe it was psychological...or maybe the fact that in those long gone glory days ten pints in a night was perfectly doable!