Green Goose

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Chief, > Yes all commercial businesses are required to have > commercial waste contracts. James, Surprisingly this even includes barbers and hair dressers. My barber quit his premises because of this. He was over a barrel as he had to sign a contract with a private refuse collector and this was prohibitively expensive. All this for one small bin bag off hair clippings each week. He now goes round to cater to his loyal clients by visiting them at their homes. It was difficult at first but it has built into a bit of a social event because a client will get all the family members done in one visit. Plus some of the neighbours come round for a clip too. His old premises are still vacant after 2 years and so the Council has missed out on rates etc just because this ruling about waste collection is complete overkill. Can something be done about this?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Nepal+donate+blankets+

Sure this post will run and run. These locations should be reported to Southwark Council Environment section.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose, a higher percentage of immigrants > work than UK nationals and PAY TAX. They can do > what they like with their disposable income just > as you can do with yours. > I didn't say anything about %ages working or whether they paid tax or not. I highlighted the fact that massive amounts of capital gets externalised and that this this is a negative factor associated with immigration. Now please let me have a quantifiable positive contribution. GG

Henry_17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose, > > What are the benefits of immigration? > economic??? On the economic side, we have seen a massive spread of "Western Union" outlets where our immigrants externalise the money they have derived from wages/benefits etc to their relatives overseas. This drains money out of the UK economy.Great economic benefit, eh? mobility of labour?? No big thing! Mobility of capital??? Sure! They export capital from the UK which has a negative effect on the UK but ends up building mansions and businesses in Lahore, Ibadan, Kinshasa, Gdansk, Jakarta, Kassala etc etc. Just what we need , eh? You omitted to mention other contributions like religious extremism, crime, suburban ghettos, cultural isolationism, corruption, unwillingness to assimilate etc etc Tell me more about it please.

Listening to a metro-lefty Labour type banging on about the benefits of multiculturalism without actually being able to identify or quantify these benefits.

Credit again is due to ???? who, in his post (Today, 08:27PM) gave the most accurate, concise and insightful assessment of the situation. Quids, are you studying politics by any chance?? Keep it coming, please. GG

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The truth is that the Tories played to fears about > immigration, Correct, fully justified and widely held belief. > to the perception that the financial > crash was down to Labour overspending, Correct, fully justified and widely held belief. > and to some people's suspicion that their are people living > lavish lifestyles paid for by benefits. Correct, fully justified and widely held belief. Recent case of one benefits bludger who flew his bride and both their families out to the Caribbean for the wedding. > This doesn't wash with those living in metropolitan > areas, because they can see the benefits of > immigration What in Heaven's name are the benefits from immigration. Hearing Yoruba or Arabic spoken? Being surrounded by burqua wearers? Rahrahrah, you revel in this multiculturalism thing and you appear out of touch with ordinary working people's views.

strawberryheart Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmmmm dprodonnell I'm sure that's the surname of > the lady that owns that cleaning company?!! Well spotted! There is a Mr D. O'Donnell who is spouse of Mrs J. O'Donnell who runs the business.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > You can't keep cutting. BB. You uhit on a crucial point. Govt has to keep cutting expenditure until the budget balances. Otherwise the UK has to borrow money. That money has to be paid back PLUS interest in future. The national debt increased hugely under the last Labour Govt (as it always does) and is only just barely sustainable because gilt interest rates are at an all time low. An analogy can be made with household income ie it is suicidal to support current/regular expenses out of borrowed money - one just gets deeper and deeper in debt. By all means use borrowing to fund an investment in an infrastructure project that will bring a return or increased productivity as it make sense. But to increase debt to fund more benefits and public services etc is fiscal irresponsibility. The "Welfare State" with all its benefits was intended to be a safety net for the disadvantaged the sick the disabled and the unemployed. We have to trim the costs to a level so that it can be met from a balanced budget and stop it being a life-style choice for the feckless and work-shy. GG

Every credit to Quids. He seems to be the only one who has analysed the election outcome objectively and with a commendable degree of insight and expertise. Blah Blah, Moon and some others just keep on spouting bigoted left wing tosh. Many seem to assess the outcome based largely on what Miliband, Cameron, Cleg and Farage said was in their manifesto. This type of analysis is the default for younger voters - one reason Labour/LibDems want to lower the voting age. Those of us, of a certain age, know that one should take all that is said with a bit of salt. Judge them not on what they say but on what they have done in the past. Each Labour administration has always over-borrowed and created massive increases in public sector headcount and expenditure. Each Labour Govt. since 1964 therefor has resulted in either a Sterling devaluation or fiscal crisis. They have been ant--business and have always raised taxes. The Tories then get in and have to clear up the mess - which makes them really unpopular and so the cycle keeps on repeating itself. That's why older people, who have seen it all before, tend to vote Conservative of UKIP. Edited for misspellings

Countrlass22 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Reporting if given advice is not within council > remit for advertising. Can't see what you are getting at. Please explain.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Complete and utter tosh to blame all the > woes of the 70's on unions. The truth is that the > 70's were the decade of decline. The wake up call > from the post war boom, as the eastern economies > rose. Unions did what they always do, in trying to > protect jobs and livelihoods. What Louisa said was not tosh. I'm not sure what vintage you are Blah Blah, but I started my career in the late 60's in the vehicle manufacturing sector. The 70's were an appalling period of union militancy- repeated strikes, disruption,absenteeism, and even deliberate sabotage. Shades of the Luddites!. Workers sleeping on the night shift etc etc. The result was abysmally low productivity, delayed deliveries which led to losses with resultant inability to re-invest in model development and more modern production facilities. UK manufacturing could not compete with the French, German and Japanese manufacturers - not on price, quality or design. We had the infamous Red Robbo who was worse than Fred Scargill at the miners. The unions never learned from this and so British Leyland went bankrupt and Longbridge closed. So did many other good businesses. I know about it at first hand- I was made redundant. Thankfully, the law was changed also to make it much more difficult to call wild-cat strikes. > By the 80's some unions had learned > from this, which is why we always talk about the > miners Wrong. They didn't learn from this. But the law was changed to make it much more difficult to call wild-cat strikes. This was the key to the whole problem. > > Without unions, millions of workers would have NO > access to employment rights and the legal system > in taking on unscrupulous employers. > Absolute tosh. If there are any unscrupulous employers they are a very rare breed because they would never last long. You weren't a shop steward in the 70's were you by any chance???

Good analysis Penguin. The LibDems were certainly the Piggy in the Middle. They lacked conviction. A wishy-washy compromise in effect.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Of course most people vote out of self interest > and that's why all parties set policies to > 'reward' groups of people for voting for them. You are correct. > Labours success in London is not down to people on > benefits, it's down to a whole mix of people, from > Judges and the well educated, to the small > business owner. Here you contradict your earlier statement.

ali2007 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > just wanted to echo what a few other people have > said here - I voted Lib Dem solely for James > Barber who definitely deserved to win! One might vote for a particular candidate because he/she appeals to you ona personal level but, in the end, you are going to get his/her party. I also think JB is a decent bloke but his party lives in an ivory tower of idealism far detached from the real world.

northdulmum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just Google Simon hughess and Peter tatchell 1983 Made worse by the fact that Hughes, himself, was outed in 2006. Further evidence that it is the LibDems that's the nasty party. Like Danny Alexander presenting his own "budget" to parliament on the day after budget day.

northdulmum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I voted Lib Dem. First time ever (always been a > labour supporter) and firmly in the champagne > socialist camp. However I see nothing wrong with > that. I personally wanted a Lab-Lib government to > initiate a transfer of wealth that is long > overdue. > Now where's my tin hat? Very admirable, but as the rising tide of national wealth floats more peoples boats further up the wealth scale, these same people don't want their hard-earned grabbed by the state only to be handed it out in the form of excessive benefits to many who don't need it. State benefits were originally intended to be a safety net for the unemployed, disabled and disadvantaged - not a lifestyle option for the feckless and work-shy. It has got to the stage now where some receive more in benefits, totally free of tax, than the national average wage gross. There was a case recently where of one such recipient treated himself, his bride and family to a wedding reception in the Caribbean. Safety nets , yes. Lifestyle choices, no. Wealth distribution is so so Old Socialism. GG puts tin hat on!

Surely any party that doesn't tidy up its own rubbish isn't worth your vote next time round? On a similar vein, anyone who puts a party political poster in their front window has got to be a real dork. GG

Tony2014, It is an increasingly prevalent and abhorrent practice called "Fly Boarding". It is designed to direct inquiries to that agent who will then offer them an alternative property. The fact that your neighbour took it down herself is very commendable. We just wish more residents would do this and also of course report it to Southwark Council. GG

"The Wild Geese". Just send a PM. GG

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a house on Friern Road (top end evens > side) with a forest of EA boards outside it. It > might well be on the market with multiple agencies > but as I understand it only one can have a board > up. Checked it. Only one board is allowed . It has five. Here is the appropriate section from the regs. 1. The regulations for estate agent boards........................................ Property owners or their agents have a right to display ?for sale? and ?to let? boards. The restrictions that apply to such boards are: Not more than one advertisement, consisting of a single board or two joined boards, is permitted; and where more than one advertisement is displayed, the first to be displayed shall be taken to be the one permitted. ........................................................ http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi/Signs_zpsqgvgpvaw.jpg Not nice

Southwark council says it receives around 100 complaints about graffiti every month. On its website it also advises that removing graffiti costs the UK over ?1 billion a year. That's Council money that could have been spent on better services for the community. Out of interest, the council will pay up to ?1,000 for info about repeat offenders.

If you have seen these advertising bikes chained up elsewhere around South London, please post the locations here.

Cora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And I noticed someone has sprayed over > it......really harsh! Cora, This is a large operation with bikes parked outside stations all the way fro Balham to Blackheath! It might look like a nice mumsy advert but behind it is a very determined large scale enterprise. GG