Penguin68

No running water, no trains, I'm sorry but now in East Dulwich we are having third world problems!

The map does not show the extent of the impact, which includes parts of Underhill and Woodvale. I was told that operatives had been dispatched but had not yet arrived, and that a tanker had also been dispatched to re-charge the main if necessary. I suspect that the map shown may refer to an earlier leak this week, which did not impact Underhill or Woodvale.

...and of course Labour is wholly sympathetic to the commuters' plight... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3740047/Labour-leader-Jeremy-Corbyn-backs-strikes-Southern-Rail-Eurostar-despite-walkout-causing-misery-thousands-commuters.html (yes, I know its the Daily Mail - but the other is the Grauniad - so fair play!)

Rowans will certainly grow into trees (as will, e.g. hazel) - but I have what is definitely still a bush, self sown, in my garden. Some species have bright red berries, others do have orange. Rowans are deciduous (I think all of them are) so if the 'bush' is loosing/ has lost its leaves then it may be that, Cotoneasater is evergreen (see illustration)

Do you mean rowan (mountain ash) trees?

No, this would be Jeremy's choice https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/06/cuba-coffee-peas

Morrisons backed out because they decided to withdraw from all 'convenience' stores - they weren't very good at it - it had nothing to do with this specific location - most recent news suggests that they may go back into this market using their Safeway Brand (which they own) - probably not in good time for this particular site.

I thought I was clear that no new tax is being proposed. I think it's fair to use as a short hand the removal of an exemption/ allowance (and interest charges to be offset against business revenues has always been an exemption) as a 'new' tax. It is certainly a new extension of tax into an area previously un-taxed. I suspect that where the rentier incorporated his/ her business so that the properties belonged to a registered company, then interest charges may still be exempt from taxation - the encouragement for the big beasts would be to do so in an company registered abroad. And of course taxation would be at company tax levels - shortly to be below basic rate (but without the tax-free allowance). If interest rates rise then this would be interesting as a tax position - even where you would be paying both corporation tax and then (presumably) Dividend tax for dividends over the new tax-free limits.

The problem is that tax changes for buy-to-let properties were all about increasing the number of properties available for first-time or buy-to-live households - so benefiting JAMs in a different way. HOWEVER there isn't just one 'buy-to-let' tax. Allowances to offset mortgage interest against income is the most likely tax change making an impact here - the landlord is planning to increase rentals to offset the 'lost' tax allowance for mortgage interest as an allowable expense - the other change is to increase stamp duty on second (and subsequent) properties, but that should impact properties in an existing portfolio. Selling off properties (back into the first-time and buy to live market) is exactly what the policy was intended to stimulate. And note that Osborne belonged to a previous administration not focused (at least in PR terms) on JAMs - so he cannot be blamed (even incorrectly) for instituting a change which might impact a policy not of his making and not part of his remit.

..or for Thali sets - these would work very well, perhaps with some additional thali bowls https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Thali+sets&oq=thali&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59j0l4.3535j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Maybe warning signage about narrowing would help (I don't think it's already there)

Bummi at East Dulwich practice is lovely. My family would confirm that.

Now that the weather is finally changing, and before there are any too sharp winds, those who haven't should catch the autumn colour in Court Lane. There are some very fine trees, particularly maples, which are tremendous - but which will have little more now to give, I fear.

The damage has clearly got worse, and the wall seems now much further 'out of true'. That instability coupled with a high wind (or the continued jolting of heavy vehicles) has clearly added to the danger. If the builders wished to leave the wall, for the moment, then it should have been stabilised with strapping of some kind.

Veolia have been aiming for the first Wednesday in each month for their Dog Kennel Hill Sainsbury's car park collection - from about 10.00. This is a grace and favour offer of car park space from Sainsbury's.

Go away you have nothing of any value to add to this thread. If that were so (I'm not sure it is) that would not put edcam in a minority, as regards posts on this thread. Surely, Admin it is time to close this thread down or Lounge it. It has been off-topic or virtually so for pages.

yes that's exactly what isn't helpful because as I explained it's not a uk .gov list it's something written by people who have no legal basis for their views as such it's almost worthless This is simply rubbish - both articles are excessively referenced, from authoritative sources, and with bibliographies. You judge the quality of Wikipedia articles by the quality of their sources. These are both good. [i write as both a former academic and an historian]. And your view that something published on the (non peer reviewed) government website is somehow more authoritative than other sources is naive. Even for government publications the source of their information is key.

you have confirmed my suspicions that the baker hasn't done anything wrong Are, here you are confusing morality with legality. But then confusion often seems the name of your game. I have already said that context is key in determining whether legal breaches have been made (and moral, for that matter). Screen capture to illustrate a morally doubtful action is very different, in intent, from screen capture to endorse it. As it would also be for an illegal one.

Whilst I would not normally recommend Wikipedia as an authoritative source, these two articles are well referenced and may help those confused or dismissive about traveller populations to gain a better understanding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Travellers

Pop9770/ Fazer wrote Travelers they break the law. NO - some may, as may individuals drawn from almost any sort of grouping you put together, but their nature as travellers is not, in any way, illegal. I know this is trolling, and, frankly, unpleasant, but you should not think that assertions of this displeasing nature will go unnoticed. As far as 'illegal' language is concerned, context can be key, but I would advise you that 'hate crimes' are determined by the responses of those to whom they may be seen to be directed. If a Roma wishes to make the case that the use of the word Gyppo in the context that it is being used is a hate crime, then the police would have to take notice of that.

I use Direct Line - no complaints - they offer cover for most eventualities.

A similar term used by the French for Brits is les Rosbifs. - And also 'Lobsters' because of the red coats worn by the British army.

'Gypsy' - out of interest, is derived from Egyptian, which was believed to be the country of origin of the Roma - now actually believed to be from around the Northern Indus valley, I understand. 'Gyppo' is also a slang word thus for Egyptian, and was used thus by troops in North Africa e.g. during WWII, and indeed Suez. Its usage is not considered appropriate for either group. 'Acceptable' language of course does change. When I was young, referring to someone from the Caribbean, or an African or African American as 'black' was considered offensive. 'Coloured' was the preferred genteel (now PC) term - this has now been entirely stood on its head.

we live right underneath the flight path but in our neighbour's house across the road, it doesn't seem half as bad; you can hardly notice it in their garden. As you said, it may be a psychological thing - when you are at your neighbours' you have other distractions so the aircraft noise may become less important to you - at home you can concentrate on it. I normally only 'hear' the planes (consciously) when I am reading these threads - on other occasions I am oblivious - although I find police helicopters overhead really annoying! Finding ways of diverting your thoughts away from planes ('don't think of pink elephants') may be a solution, but one difficult to achieve. Maybe Mindfulness could help? For us in ED things are actually very different from those recognised to be in the sound shadow much closer to the airport - many here can ignore the planes - which is like trying to ignore a police helicopter just overhead if you are much closer to Heathrow itself.

This is the link to the various options https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/++preview++/environment-leisure/camberwell-new-cemetery-consultation/supporting_documents/Area%20B%20options%20pros%20and%20cons%20summary%20October%202016.pdf The Woodland option has the lowest overall cost, but the highest cost per burial. The 'cons' are listed as follows:- Provides only 1050 burial plots/internment spaces Highest cost per burial Absence of traditional memorials could make it difficult to sell plots Those who want to visit the grave may be unable to identify the exact plot Trees substantially limit the ability to re-use graves Longest time to reach maturity Revenue costs (management of woodland) greater than options 2 & 3 The pros are:- Lowest total cost Trees planted across the site Pond feature added Pedestrian and cycle pathways added from Honor Oak Responds well to consultation by creating a fully wooded area, without traditional memorials The pond and pathways are also pros for the meadow scheme.