rendelharris

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Ram and Special" is a thing at Young's pubs, I > believe. Half a Special and a bottle of Ramrod. > > Not sure why. From memories of a disreputable youth spent in the catchment area of Youngs' sadly now defunct brewery in Wandsworth, mainly the Green Man up on Putney Heath and the Half Moon down by the river, because it made one very reckless very quickly. Haven't had one for many years, it was reminiscent of Kingsley Amis' proposed beer advert - "Amis beer - makes you drunk."

Jeremy Wrote: > If Dulwich College are offering the money, you'd > think it would be a closed case... Yes that's what I thought, it sounds as though either the documentation provided to the BHC in Nigeria omitted to mention it or someone didn't read it very thoroughly, hopefully with the publicity the decision can be looked at again and quickly reversed.

Jeremy Wrote: > But I am also wondering, as James pointed out, is > it not possible for the bone marrow to be sent > over - if the immigration dept are really so > inflexible? From what I can discover online, Nigeria is building a bone marrow donation centre but it's not finished yet, so donors currently have to go to South Africa, which presumably would have the same cost and visa implications. Hopefully this will be sorted quickly; to those above saying rules is rules, well not really - each case, as the Home Office says, is considered on its individual merits, there's no hard and fast you need X amount of money etc. It appears in this case that the British High Commission official was suspicious of the disparity between Patrick's monthly earnings of ?68 and his having ?1500 to make the trip (and rightly so, there's a recognised racket of gangs providing the travel money upfront then making the recipient work illegally for them in the UK to pay off the debt and (ever ballooning) interest). Hopefully once Patrick provides the evidence of where his airfare is coming from the decision can be changed.

minder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I didn't say it was 'lovely they've been driven > away' but lovely I could now park my car! And you can park your car because they've been driven away, QED.

danielson00 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You have to claim delay repay from Southern if its > from ED. > > Considering for an half hour (up to an hour) delay > they pay 25% of the ticket price, which is around > ?3 on Oyster is it worth it? Financially not so much (though for people on low incomes and/or who face day after day of delays it might be), but if train companies begin to lose out significantly through mass claims for refunds they might consider sorting themselves out. Complaints can (and will) be ignored, if they have to stump up some cash...

No great consolation when standing in the rain, but if you're delayed more than half an hour you can claim back from TfL: https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/replacements-and-refunds/refunds-for-delays?intcmp=16681 though they say they won't pay for strike action - I wonder if they'll try to claim the alleged sick note campaign is strike action?

Well James, we live on one of the closest roads to the station (Copleston) and I see no need for a CPZ at all. As I mentioned on here before, on a normal weekday in the middle of the afternoon I observed forty-three available empty parking spaces on Oglander and Ondine roads alone. I appreciate that over the other side of Grove Vale things might be different, but on this side I believe a CPZ would be making residents shell out to solve a problem which doesn't exist.

Southwark has it down as 13th (http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/36/school_term_and_holiday_dates), so probably the schools with the 20th have miscalculated. Just a guess mind, but in many years of teaching/still being married to a teacher February half term has never, in my experience, started that late.

Exactly 127, except weekends when it'll be 153. As absurd an answer as it is to ask the question which you know I can't answer, not having a feasibility studies and market research department at my immediate disposal. I can say that of the four people I know who swim regularly at Brockwell Lido (i.e. four times a week plus) all have said they would prefer a heated outdoor pool to swimming indoors in winter.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "People are not going to an outdoor pool in the > > Rain . Winter. Heated or not." > > > > I'm not a mad keen swimmer but some of the > times > > I've enjoyed it most have been in the Alps in > > heated pools surrounded by snowbanks - there's > > something about being completely outdoors > > unencumbered by heavy clothing but still warm > > which is rather delightful - I'd actually be > more > > likely to go and use it if there was rain or > snow! > > in the Alps in heated pools surrounded by snow > banks > > in Peckham in heated (or not) pool surrounded by > Heavy Petrol / Diesel spewing traffic. > > Yes.. I can definitely see the similarity > > DulwichFox I didn't say it was going to be as nice - but if heated I would definitely use it in the winter and in the rain and I think many others would too. And as Saffron sagely points out above, we should be doing something about the pollution, not simply ceding our public spaces to the internal combustion engine. If you're going to use that as an excuse for not building something, no outdoor facility of any type should ever be built anywhere in London.

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it the same guy who has spoiled it for the rest > of us down Peckham Delivery Office? I've been > wondering what 'incident' took place there for > months? > > http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn185/idiotboy7 > 7/1B01B71F-55DC-489F-908A-623DE0B26AC6_zpst3v04wpz > .jpg I've been wondering about this every time I've been down recently! Did ask at the counter once but the server was new...I have visions of an armed pitbull on a BMX but don't think that can be right, anyone know the story?

"People are not going to an outdoor pool in the Rain . Winter. Heated or not." I'm not a mad keen swimmer but some of the times I've enjoyed it most have been in the Alps in heated pools surrounded by snowbanks - there's something about being completely outdoors unencumbered by heavy clothing but still warm which is rather delightful - I'd actually be more likely to go and use it if there was rain or snow!

apod Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeey back online! I don't know about you, but we > have been credited ?15 towards the next bill. Any tips how to get this credit? Called them tonight and they said they could only offer us ?2.28 to represent what we were paying for and not receiving!

No Virgin internet in Copleston Road, at least at our address. Last time I managed to get on the Virgin website it was saying estimated fix 20.30 but clearly that's gone for a burton...first problem since moving in January, hope it's not a sign of things to come.

As far as I understand it you will actually be able travel for more than an hour with the second journey free, provided the transfer is made within an hour of the start of your original journey, so board a bus at 18.00, the next one will be free provided you board it before 18.59, then you can ride your second bus to the end of the route, if desired. By 2018(ish) apparently there's going to be an as many buses as you want in a hour ticket, but machinery upgrades mean it'll just be the one free transfer for now. Still a big thing, especially for lower paid Londoners, and well done Khan - Johnson told the Greens in 2009 that it was far too complex and costly and he wouldn't introduce it, SK's got it sorted within a couple of weeks of taking office!

Well, pollution levels are lower at hill summits as windflow disperses them, so DKH has that in its favour. Also, most DKH pupils (I assume) will make all or part of their journey to school along some of the most polluted roads in Europe during the rush hour, so it would be highly surprising if they experienced the same levels in the playground at midday. However, they might be exposed to the higher pollution levels for half an hour a day going to and from school, but then they are exposed to what, 70% of those levels for seven hours at school? So ultimately the levels experienced during their school day will be more harmful. Both from the same source anyway and both need to be dealt with if there's any hope of protecting them from harm.

I'm not actually angry about aircraft noise at all - doesn't bother me - just finding this an interesting discussion. There's some interesting information here: http://www.nats.aero/environment/aircraft-noise/ in which you can see that, for example, an Airbus A320 descending at 4,100 feet can be heard on the ground as 59.2DB, whereas one descending at 3,700 feet will be heard on the ground as 64.7DB - given that the decibel system works to base 10 (i.e. 20 decibels is 100 times more powerful as 10 decibels(though not 100 times as noisy)) it would appear that quite a small drop in approach altitude can have a significant effect on ground noise. Roughly speaking that 5 decibel difference would manifest to the human ear as a 50% increase in loudness.

I agree perception is part of it Bob, but it's worth noting that Sunday and Monday and the early part of Tuesday were relatively fine days, then it's been cloudy mainly; sound waves do reflect off clouds, amplifying the original sounds, so maybe that is a factor. Also, I don't know if this is the case but it would make sense if it is, doesn't air traffic control route planes lower when there's cloud cover? Of course also on sunny days we're all in better moods and so less likely to find things irritating!

Tigres Pride Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is the point of a Low Emission Zone when car > manufacturers can and do find ways around > "muddying" the true figures? Recent and on-going > events have shown that to-date the only benefit of > testing cars was to the Manufacturers, who > increased the cost of cars, and to the testers, > who increased the price of the MOT tests. > For every scheme that local or national government > comes up with, someone always finds a way around > it and the only losers are, as usual, the > public!!! That's true generally but we have to take some responsibility ourselves - we all know, however much the manufacturers fiddle the figures, that larger cars than we need are almost always worse for the environment, yet we persist in buying them, we certainly now know that diesel cars are one of the worst sources of air pollution, yet people are still buying them, we know that we should try to walk or cycle more and stop using cars for short trips, yet we still do it...legislation is certainly necessary, and the mayor's plans for pollution charging will be very useful in this respect, but a change of mindset is needed which no amount of legislation can effect, it has to come from within (self included!) if we really want to have clean air for our children to breathe.

It's not really overpopulation so much as overexpectation, we expect to be allowed to use cars all the time and scream about the war on the motorist if it's ever suggested restrictions on their size and use be imposed, we expect the supermarkets to be packed with everything we could possibly need and much more, we expect to be able to take cheap flights to the continent whenever we feel like a weekend away...all these things drive pollution, against which we all complain whilst contributing to it. I'm sure some parents will be desperately anxious about the pollution around their children's schools, so much so that they'll worry about it the whole way as they drive them there in the 4x4. We're all guilty, we either have to accept that our lifestyles are killing others or try to do something about it.

poppet27 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Guys, I just found it at 8pm we didn't get it. So > never mind! > But thank you, now I know for future. > And hooray, I don't have to move to East London > anymore. All for the best, funny buggers they be out there! Good luck for the future - we moved in January, having had two other places fall through, one through a bad survey and one through a broken chain, and the place we've ended up in is far better than the other two, our dream flat in fact, so these things have a way of working themselves out. All the best, Rendel

You mean solid oak planks? Of course they would take way longer to install - engineered wood flooring is a different thing entirely and far easier to work with, you can cut detailing on engineered wood flooring with a jigsaw, solid planks you need a table saw and considerably more skill/experience.

"But if we're talking hallway, double reception and kitchen. With hardboard underlay. Then any necessary under-cutting/beading. If you find a guy who can do this in two days, please pass on his details!" If you look around, most firms quote as a rule of thumb an experienced professional fitter being able to lay 40-50m2 of engineered wood flooring per day; as the OP has 55m2 to cover two days is perfectly feasible. Ikea do stone worktops, by the way.