Penguin68

They shouldn't have a dog then. For many people (particularly the lonely elderly) a pet can provide real therapeutic benefits. However these can be provided by a ferret (domestic, not a pole cat) just as much as they can be by a dog. Ferrets will rush to greet their owners and are the only pet, I believe, which will actually stroke their owner. They need less exercise, are less costly to feed, and their excreta are far less bulky and noisome (male ferrets do have a particular smell, associated with scent glands, so female ferrets are a better option). If you require a pet, particularly in the city, perhaps you should look for something more city-living friendly.

Sally Eva - (1) I didn't check other cars - as mine was off road I didn't much want to go into others' properties to nose round their cars - certainly no street parked cars seemed to have such a notice (2) The car is used several times a week, but was parked up last week as I was away on holiday. Thanks about the Trading Standards suggestion. Amended to add - nobody is answering any phone - Southwark Trading Standards off loads their problems to Citizens Advice (in Leeds!) - 101 plays telephone tag and then says it has no operators available. An issue such as this is left hanging in the wind. And, of course, it may not even be an issue, just a suspicion.

I found, last night, a carefully prepared note (in a plastic folder) on the windscreen of my (off street parked) car, offering to buy it and suggesting that ?the law? about uninsured cars had recently changed. The note implied that my car was uninsured. I knew that it wasn?t, and checked this morning on the government site to ensure that this wasn?t carrying false information (it wasn?t). I?m not sure I understand whether this is a scam, or if it is, what sort of scam it is, but is suspect it?s an attempt to scare people into parting with their cars at (what I would guess would be) well below market rates. Just a heads up in case anyone else receives such a note, or can shed any light on what this may be about. The ?illustrations? on the note showed low loaders taking away cars ? perhaps to suggest official seizure? I don't think there is sufficient here to alert authorities, after all the note doesn't exactly say my car is uninsured, just suggests it through inference, and there is a contact number and name given which could presumably be traced, but I believe it's sufficiently strange to share on the forum.

Please do remember that 'gentrification' of an area also frequently involves maintenance and repair of underlying good housing stock - there are many areas both in e.g. Brixton and Peckham where sound housing stock has been brought back into use with new roofs and other repairs. The cost of maintaining old stock back to good quality is often far cheaper (and in many views better looking) then tearing down and re-building with current much lower housing space requirements. When you see skips and scaffolding you may think 'gentrification' - I tend to think - another 30-40 years of beneficial use. During which time another social or ethnic change may take place. And has been pointed out elsewhere, London areas are constantly changing their social and ethnic mix - at times of transition this certainly can make people uneasy (as does all change) - but it really does carry no moral burden. Places and people do change.

- posted into wrong section - apologies

3 out of 4 of those examples are explainable but the 2014 / 15 one is very weird! It will have been based on actual reported thefts. It is possible that the 2015 bike has better internal security systems - meaning that stealing it requires more time to 'break in' - perhaps disabling the security is safer if it's done in a garage when you are less likely to be disturbed - or maybe people don't put on the full locking system when its in a garage - either way, this will have been based on actual reports - for whatever reason more of the 2015 bikes have been stolen from garages than from the road-side. And more 2014 bikes from the roadside than from garages (perhaps people are more likely to keep newer bikes in garages). There may be no actual logic to the thing - as I have said they base their risk analysis on history, without necessarily interpreting the history fully. They don't know why more 2015 bikes are stolen from garages than the road, they just know that it's so. Next year the figures may change, and 2015 bikes appear 'safer' in garages. I do know that people are statistically more likely to have an accident when they change a vehicle - however good a driver they are and however similar the new vehicle is to the old one. And insurers change price daily as new accident and theft figures come in. Their algorithms are dynamic (but still can only be backward looking). I had an anomaly once when 3rd party fire and theft turned out (same driver/ same car) to be more expensive than comprehensive, probably based on the fact that with drivers of a particular age, with vehicles of a particle type and age, more claims were being made on 3rd party, fire and theft than comprehensive. Which may just mean there were more drivers with this type of cover to make claims. But insurers use bad news to drive their calculations, not good news.

But it is not fair for the car owner whose lives on that stretch of the road and therefore park their car there and as a consequence have to suffer a bit more no-fault accident through no fault of his/her own. What would be fairer is to share this kind of risk amongst all policyholders. The same could be said of people who buy expensive cars that are more likely to be stolen - why should they pay more as a consequence of having to suffer thefts through no fault of their own (or do you believe that people who have things worth stealing deserve to have them stolen?) It is possible to argue that insurers base their policy levels on the past (what has happened) rather than any future (what will happen) - so we are asked to pay based on history not future events, and yet it is future events (not the past) that we are insuring against. Insurers argue the past is a good predictor of the future - though clearly that is true only up to a point. Anybody investing, or basing foreign policy, just on past events, would be making severe mistakes. A couple of years ago my daughter's insurance went up because her car was classed into a riskier insurance bracket, based on a lot of them in the previous year having been stolen. Her's hadn't been. But should my insurance have gone up because people were judged, based on past events, to be more likely to steal her car? Or should yours have gone up? In the end what you suggest would end up in there being insurance premiums based only on the insured drivers past history of accidents and claims. Which means some people would definitely be winners, and some losers. If I live in the countryside, with no theft to speak of and no traffic levels to speak of, should I pay as much as someone who lives in high accident and high theft areas - even where these things haven't yet happened to them. I would say that their risks (of needing to make a claim) are higher than mine and that that increased risk should be reflected in the premium they pay. You clearly don't think this. But both views can be held by reasonable people.

Apparently it's the second time cars have been hit on that stretch, which is a little surprising given it's meant to be 20 mph and a straight bit of road but there you go. As I said, above, areas where there are bad drivers are areas where there are bad drivers. Insurance companies have the statistics to show this. Until speed bumps were put into my residential road there were a number of parked cars hit (and one young pedestrian) within 100 yards of my house - actually since the speed bumps no accidents. I am glad nobody was hurt and you are being well handled by your insurer.

Out of curiosity, have you ever dealt with mid-sized to big data at all? Do you know what spurious correlations are? Yes, have and do. I have been involved in 'big data' for a long time - including (at the time) some of the biggest data analyses then being run outside government (as I worked then for one of the major utilities with, at one time, close to 20 million individual customer records generating billions of event records weekly these were genuinely large numbers). At one time, for data gathering and analysis, including bespoke market research, I was handling budgets in the ?10s of millions. And I am statistically trained. Insurance companies keep (and share) records of events. The probability of one event happening if another has happened is quite well tested (and Bayes theorem allows us to understand how the probability of assessing a probability can be derived), and where the base is common (an accident or theft happening to a customer to whom an accident or theft has already happened) quite sound. The logic even is sound. If you park in areas where there are bad drivers (and most people do regularly park in the same sort of areas, as they are near their homes, places of work or places where they go for entertainment or shopping - most people's habits are pretty clear) - then you are more likely to be in a no-fault accident, possibly more than once. If you live or regularly park where there are car break-ins likewise. Areas with bad drivers or break-ins are defined by areas where these are being reported and/ or claimed on. Your making such a claim (or reporting such an incident without making a claim) places you in those areas. And you say you don't have comprehensive insurance. So if someone was in your parked car when it was hit, and they were injured, they would have a claim (as a third party) against your insurance (actually, I assume you probably have 3rd party, fire and theft, so if you car was hit and then burst into flames you would also be able to claim). Insurance companies apply specific rules, and they apply them at the first even handedly. I have, over the last few years, always been able to negotiate the price of my annual insurance down. I don't have access to the various accident statistics available to insurance actuaries. However, I have no reason to suppose that insurance companies are acting as a cartel to manipulate pricing using spurious statistics. That would be illegal (the cartel element certainly). Various bodies (Which, the motoring organisations) would, I suspect, be considering this possibility - if you believe that such a cartel is in operation you should contact these, or the Competition Authorities. Once again - on an individual basis 'it's just not fair' - Yes. But insurers operate on group not individual risks. As they can never afford to drill down deep enough to assess people except as belonging to cohorts.

Please do remember that the part of the insurance pricing algorithm that first kicks in (after, for driving, personal details are taken into account, such as age, driving experience and past driving record - claims and convictions) is address. Some addresses are 'riskier' than others. So, already, we do not expect someone in an area where car crime and accidents are low to cross-subsidise someone who chooses (or indeed is forced) to live in an area with high accident and car-crime rates. That also may well be 'unfair' - but it reflects the risk the insurer will have to pay out on the insurance. If you take precautions (have a car alarm) your insurance will be lower, and yet car theft is a no fault crime! Of course general statistics when applied to an individual may not 'be fair' Of course regulation could change this. Young women drivers are statistically far less likely to have an accident than young male drivers - but anti-discrimination legislation forced ensurers not to take sex into account in future in determining premiums - charges went up for (blameless and less risky) women drivers - although I didn't actually hear of them falling for men, I must admit. But the underlying model for insurance of any kind is to balance out risk. Regulation may ensure that some risks must be removed from the calculation, of course, but the effect of this will be to increase costs to the insured, in the main. Governments are allowed to redistribute wealth, but I am less happy with them doing that through regulation of the insurance market. Particularly as that redistribution may not match social needs. If 'no fault, no increase' is your watchword then the High Net Worth Individual not at fault becomes subsidised by the state pensioner who had made no claim. Is that what you want?

It would be perfectly conceivable for a country to decide that motorists should not be penalised for no-fault accidents, and to enforce this And the result would be that all motorists would see a rise in their premiums, even where they choose to park or drive in safe(er) areas! This is not 'penalising' motorists (though you can interpret the effect as that) but applying a better risk analysis to them.

At the risk of this thread getting lounged (but it must be close anyway) - you are rather wanting to change the capitalist rather than the legal system. Whilst private companies can apply probability algorithms to set insurance risks and thus costs this is what will happen. The owner of a car which is struck (whilst parked) is more likely to continue to park in ares of such risk than an owner who hasn't had their parked car struck. That is what accident and claim statistics suggest, and that is where the algorithm takes them. It's not 'fair' but is is, apparently, true. In the same way the insurance class of vehicles can change if they become an increasing target of theft. Nothing to do with the insured person/ vehicle, but a sad fact. And your insurance will increase if you change cars, even to a vehicle in a lower (less risky) class because people are more likely to have an accident in a new (to them) car! A state insurance system (one not motivated by profit) might choose to apply different 'rules' - but the rules are those applying to capitalist economies, not a legal system.

A call-out for as much as ?120 is an issue, it's quite high - as is their failure to remedy - since there was a problem which was remedied by someone I would refuse to pay the call-out - or demand re-payment and threaten the small- claims court. It is legitimate to charge a call-out fee (though ?120 is steep) but if there was no remedial work then undertaken but which was actually needed this is trading under false pretences. If the charge is being made through your agent then they should remedy the situation. Also - if the cause of the problem was an action of your tenants (for instance a blockage caused by wipes or other things disposed of which shouldn't have been put into a sewer) then they (not you) should pay for remedial work. However, if you call someone out and the problem is not within their purview (or couldn't be found by anyone) then it is normal to pay a call-out - although at ?120 this is anyway a high charge. [As an example, calling out an electrician for a plumbing problem with central heating would be a legitimate charge, as, even if a problem did exist, it would not sit in the electrician's purview]

Many household insurance policies will cover thefts of e.g. portable valuables away from home (all risks cover) = it's worth checking to see if you are covered - of course you will have needed to report this theft to the police and be given a crime number for the insurance. The trade-off of course between claiming and any additional future insurance costs is worth considering - as is the actual cost of replacement glasses - these can be quite cheap from some outlets, particularly on-line if you have your prescription. Off-the-shelf reading glasses (if that's what you need, and assuming you don't have e.g. astigmatism or very different left and right eye needs) are also very reasonably priced. But such a theft (effectively stealing from the disabled, as that's what corrective lenses are addressing) is wholly disgusting (and, if the glasses compensate for complex needs) pretty pointless. Maybe it's kleptomania kicking in, rather than a theft for gain? Amended to add - sorry, hadn't seen the 'where to replace them' thread elsewhere

BT are not universal across East Dulwich SE22 area To clarify, James, I think you mean that the roll-out of BT Fibre - i.e. the Infinity service is not universal across SE22 - I can assure you that BT phone and ADSL broadband services are. The fibre is run from racks in the exchanges to street-side cabinets ? which means that there must be capacity on the racks and in the cabinets (and in the ducts which connect these) before service can be offered. The local network is provided by BT Openreach, who are required to act at arm?s length from BT Retail services and serve all customers (i.e. other network services) with an even hand. A particular close local BT exchange may not be the one supplying the fibre capability - hence the apparent anomaly that someone close to 'an exchange' can't get BT Infinity services. It's not like the twisted pair (voice) phone service where you will be supplied normally from your closest exchange. [Although it's worth saying that London, being a hugely long-lived and developed network area may well have two contiguous houses supplied from different exchanges, just based on local capacity at the time, when historically on one exchange group (i.e. numbers starting 020 8299) there will only be 10,000 numbers (from 0000-9999). Old exchanges (in London and various other metropolitan cities) were built with a 10,000 line capacity - and new equipment (another 10,000 line 'Director' Exchange) would have to be added to extend this, in the same or a new building.] So it is possible for, e.g. Sky to be being supplied with (BT Openreach) fibre network where BT Retail isn?t, just based on available capacity. Indeed only the cable TV company known as Virgin (which used to be NTL) has competing network, and they aren?t obliged to open their services to third parties.

If you are to judge reliability or ?effectiveness? (in terms of charity shops) then there must be two key criteria, surely. (1) ? how effective are they at turning in-kind donations into income (which would include fully using Gift Aid tax concessions)? And (2) ? how effective are they at deploying income directly to the benefit of their stated aim ? what %age of their income is not lost in administrative cost of the charity itself, including its shops (admin costs for e.g. running a hospice are clearly an appropriate use of funds)? This thread has been (understandably) focused on (1) alone. And it should be recalled that for the two classes of gift which are least liked (books and textiles) there is a market for these to be processed and recovered even where they are not sold as, well, books and clothes. So it could be argued that charities which are not set-up to handle paper and textiles for recycling where they cannot be sold as-is are less efficient than those which can. And charities which don?t welcome any particular donation, and which are poor at handling the Gift Aid element, are less effective than those that are. As to ?deserving? ? this surely is purely subjective? I give to charities which focus on people rather than animals, in the main, but I don?t think my choice is ?better? than another. And how would you judge between charities which focus on health issues (i.e. cancer etc.) as opposed to those that focus on poverty or deprivation? Or on UK or non-UK beneficiaries?

Actually, if they are going through the green bins, rather than the blue, then they are not looking to 'steal' ID information etc. So they are probably looking for non recyclable materials which have been discarded. Which I really wouldn't be worried about.

If you choose the Infinity option it seems stable and reliable. And gives (for me) acceptable speeds. Fine to support TV delivery, a PC and laptop (sometimes 2) 4 tablets and up to 4 phones without any real losses or cycling. Not the cheapest (try Plusnet which is BT's budget offering) but does what it says on the tin. Always a good idea to power-down/ re-start things (such as your equipment and routers etc. on occasion) to clear caches and clean things up. But that's just good housekeeping. Haven't had to re-boot my modem/router in 6 months or so.

Agreed kford - as it stands (literally) in the picture it is clearly undamaged and un-compromised and poses no risk - but if it were to be broken or stamped on in such an exposed position there is a chance that fibres might be released. It is the size of the (tiny) particles when inhaled which cause health problems, asbestos as such is not actually poisonous (and is excellent for insulation and fire inhibition). I hope it was left there for only a short period before collection and disposal. What you must not do is saw or drill asbestos.

Numbers of domesticated animals form perfectly acceptable partnerships with humans - such as sheep dogs, huskies etc. The ones now showing in the circus belong to this group of animals, who have been (broadly) bred to work with us. It is not in the circus' best interests to work their animals to injury - the cost of their training is not worth it. And the animals they use are (now) 'designed' to work with us. This is very different from the wild animal shows of the past. Or the 'dancing' chicken acts (most animals will 'dance' if on a heated tin floor).

HOWEVER - be that as it may - it is entirely ridiculous that it will take 6 months for this work - I recall watching a (large) six storey office block be entirely demolished and an 8 storey block erected in its place (the plot covering a rather larger footprint than the road space in question) in about the same time 20 years ago in the City. The level of disruption to local traffic, the amount of pollution pumped out from queuing vehicles (adjacent to a school!) is frankly ridiculous, and indeed shameful. That it is the wrong scheme seems likely, that it is being delivered over the wrong timescale is absolutely certain.

Depending on the weather there are either a couple of ponds or a couple of very boggy areas - either way a hazard that needs to be watched out for with younger children - probably a call-out for wellingtons! But on a crisp autumn day (not raining) with autumn colour around you it could be glorious. There are 'ruins' in the woods, which can be fun to find, and a quite wide variety of habitat for such a small area.

I am assuming that the low value shown for sales (outwith issues of strange deductions) is being provided for use in tax returns for Charitable Donations. Which suggests that St Christopher's may not be being punctilious in recording sales made for donations linked to Gift Aid. Which suggests that they are not claiming the 20% government bung which would accompany such donations. Which does suggest some levels of inefficiency. [Alternatively they may be recording such sales (for Gift Aid) but allocating them to the wrong accounts]. If they were being allocated in error e.g. to the account of a Higher Rate tax payer (who can claim additional tax relief on the back of it) that would be unfortunate.

[net of commission and VAT] Charities do not pay VAT on the sale of donated second hand goods:- http://www.afvs.org.uk/publications/blogs/charity-shops-and-vat 'So, what are the VAT implications? The good news is that the sale of donated goods is zero rated for VAT. This means that the shop-operating company can register for VAT, and can recover VAT on its overheads, such as utility costs, etc. Some shops also sell new items, which will generally be standard rated for VAT. It is recommended that there is a simple way of identifying such sales, e.g: different button on the till. (There is a specific anti-avoidance rule which prevents items donated to the charity for use by the charity from subsequently being zero rated when sold.) Some shops sell goods which are ?owned? by a private donor, who then donates the income to the charity, so that Gift Aid can be claimed. In this situation, the zero rating rules do not apply, as the income is a donation. VAT registration would not be appropriate if this arrangement applies to the whole shop income. A different arrangement applies to goods sold at a fund-raising event. Such sales are VAT-exempt, subject to specific conditions being met. In this case, VAT cannot be recovered in relation to the event. ' What 'commission' are they paying? As a disclaimer this is very confusing and quite concerning.

There is a very large overlap between travellers and fairground folk. In terms of lifestyle as well as people. I think the same may also be true of circus folk - particularly those not actually performing.