Dogkennelhillbilly

I had 2 eggs this morning. Yesterday I had 1. If this trend keeps up, I'll be eating more than 3 million eggs a day by next May!!! (For the less perceptive: a comment on how to look at numbers).

I was robbed at knifepoint in Dulwich Park 20 years ago. Two kids took my friend's bike and cut my tyre with a Stanley knife to stop me chasing. Things are much better, not much worse, than they used to be. Mandatory sentences do very little to stop weapon carrying because - you'll be surprised to hear - the kind of people who carry weapons don't spend a lot of time reading legislation or the court reports in the local paper. They're a great way of locking up kids at huge expense, though.

I hope the repairer has enough money to cover the loss or a remarkably clear contract that absolves them from liability...

Yes.

Mm-hmmm...

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > > > No, moving traffic offences are the likes of > > blocking stopboxes, making illegal turns, > driving > > the wrong way up one way streets etc, speeding > > offences are separate and the revenue goes to > the > > treasury. > > I see - my bad, then. > > Do councils still somehow get the money back, i.e. > is that money reallocated back to road safety, > etc, or can the government use it for whatever it > wants? In other words, do councils really have no > financial incentives whatsoever in speeding > tickets? I hope you'll forgive my scepticism :) Sorry - we are talking about Southwark here. It sold off a tenth of central London and managed to lose money. Do you really think they're capable of pulling off some intricate multistage revenue generation scheme?

All my political choices are bad and all my predictions are wrong. The time I voted Lib dem was the time they went into coalition. I will never vote Tory. I should probably have my vote taken away from me. "appalling waste and their paranoid fear of being sued that leads to arse covering, over prescribing, doling out unnecessary antibiotics etc, and about undeserving, demanding, insulting, violent 'patients'" None of that gets better with privatisation - it gets worse.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > they've denied anyone at the Perryvale was > responsible for the Tweet and have informed the > Police. What-everrrr

Corbyn is avoiding the potential embarrassment of parachuting his son into a Labour safe seat by destroying the concept of a Labour safe seat...

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Motorists burning more fuel in low gears Oh god not this rubbish again

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I too have some doubts over Farron due to his > > potentially odd beliefs, and would welcome a > bit > > of clarity. > > > For the record, I couldn't give a shit if he > thinks gay sex is a sin or not, I think it's > completely irrelevent so long as he fights for > equality. But he doesn't: he abstained on the last and crucial Equal Marriage vote because of his religious objections. He wants to have it both ways: to say his religion doesn't affect his politics, and then makes political decisions on the basis of his religious views. Lib Dem zealots (word used intentionally) have a blind spot on this. May has the opposite tack: profess religion but don't evidence it in any appreciable political sense.

But the Lib Dems entered an alliance with the Tories last time they got any votes, and look how that turned out. If you vote Lib Dem in Dulwich, you're likely to inadvertently usher in a Tory MP. This is a Tory v Labour seat. James Barber is a big figure on the forum but his last candidature led to a 17% drop in the Lib Dem vote. He is not popular in real life (politically, I mean - I am sure he's a very nice person individually).

Sade (the singer, not the whole group) at Gail's.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > red devil Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > a separate electric combi boiler for one > bathroom > > does seem a bit OTT... > > It wouldn't be a "combi boiler", it would be a > simple instantaneous inline water heater.. a > couple of hundred quid, and simple to fit. Yes, sorry; that's what I meant (at least).

Interesting - I'm in v similar position. We have a second floor guest bathroom that no-one ever uses, plus perfectly good gas boiler. Plumber and builder both suggested they (separately) install a megaflo system - architect and I think an electric combo boiler for the top floor would be fine. I don't want to spend ?3000 so my two annual visitors can shower under a pressure washer!

I am surprised to find myself agreeing with Trump's action.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Lordship 516 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > ...displacing the Ken Livingstone story..! > > > > Eh? > > Politicians always have a kite in their back > pocket to fly when they want to displace an issue > that is causing them problems - Corbyn likely let > this one fly to diminish the Livingstone issue... That's a level of political sophistication Corbyn has not shown on any other issue.

There are commonly used double deckers that are the same width and length as the P4. Tulse Hill rail bridge is very low and I don't believe any double deckers go under there - which would explain the P13 problem. Maybe the P4 and the P23 have to share a fleet? Btw you should all get the free "Bus Times" app; its amazing.

The landlord has to bring the property up to a certain level (fixtures and fittings) and then it's up to the tenant to install moveable bits and pieces (e.g. Fridges). At least, that's how I have seen it done in the past, I don't know about here, obviously.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes it is illegal- but if they are not English > they may not know the law. All builders etc would > do it if it was allowed- it obviously saves a lot > of money in proper waste disposal. I've had > run-ins with builders before and the foremen in > question were English and when spoken to about > infringements they used the general builders'lack > of English as an excuse. I don't actually believe any of this happened, but in any case the building company will take more care to explain the law to the workers after they get whacked with a fine.

Oh no - how upsetting. I'm sorry to hear that.

"So, informed or unbiased? Which is better?" Informed, otherwise you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

The two sides are not loyalists and republicans. The two sides are oppressors and the oppressed. Of course Tony Blair and Martin McGuinness can find common ground. They have so much in common!

"do think that as those who were responsible for the worst of the atrocities (which includes members of the British government at the time) pass, it is a good opportunity to move on / find some closure, in the sense that there is little point in recriminations against those who weren't directly involved" The individuals might be dead or alive. The state they served exists still and often continues to act in the same way.

"I remember when we went from "no blacks no Irish" in the mid 1980s to the "this is great" No, you don't. That's an absolute invention. "WHEN THE first Race Relations Act was passed 50 years ago in December 1965, I saw an immediate difference on the streets of Britain. Straight away the act got rid of the racist ?No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs' signs that were so common in the windows of houses with rooms to rent," says former mayor of Southwark, Sam King." http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/bring-back-no-blacks-no-irish-no-dogs