Penguin68

It's a matter of intent - I have not infrequently found myself with a pen knife (or pruning knife) in my pocket having gone straight from the garden out shopping - I have no intent to use the knife as a weapon but, if scanned, I would be found with a knife in my pocket. There are many objects, carried entirely innocently, which could be used as, or seen as, weapons. A society which routinely scans individuals for weapons without considering intent creates an unnecessary climate of fear - and this sort of action encourages the police to move from a civilian force, policing with consent, to 'guardians' of the state. Once police become 'them; and not 'us' (they would see the public as 'them' and the police as 'us' of course) we get the possibility that they will act in concert to lie about and bring down a minister of a government they don't like (allegedly). Or fit-up people they are 'sure' are criminals, but just don't have the evidence to hand. Power to the people, yes possibly, but not to the police. Random, mindless, searches without cause, leading to random, mindless, arrests without proven intent - that's what this sort of action tends towards. And that's why the 'if you've got nothing to hide' brigade are honest fools who pave the way to an oppressive state.

This should probably be re-titled 'the plagiarism thread'

what do you think they should do then? stand on the corner handing out pound coins to long suffering motorists? That would be nice, but the point I was making was about consequential loss, a perfectly accepted concept in civil law. If you want a practical suggestion for recompense, then (making a not that bold assumption that the majority of those impacted were / are Southwark Council Tax payers), then some additional pro-bono work from Conways in Southwark (filling some pot-holes perhaps) which would have a general benefit in terms of more council tax money being available for other things would be nice. Because of their poor workmanship originally local people's lives are being additionally made worse (we should be prepared to accept necessary, but not unecessary disruption)

I don't have a protractor with me, but if you look at the original photo, and assume that the people in it are standing upright (what would be at 90 degrees to a flat surface) - then you can work out the slope of the road (steepness of the hill) which should exclude many houses in SE England & Midlands (outwith the very fair point that the photo is directly identified as being in ED). The house (as those opposite Ryedale) is also facing correctly as regards the downward slope.

We recently did some signal improvement works at this junction but the tarmac that was layed has failed. Oh, huge surprise! Conways are therefore rectifying this at their own cost But not taking account of any consequential cost on the long suffering motorist or bus user who once again has to put up with delay and confusion, only seconds, it seems, after the last time.

Does your photo archive indicate the sources of your pictures, or just their descriptions?

AS predicted Bromley council are dead against the extensino going there. LArgely becuase it replaces a fast suburban trains with the same number of smaller slower tube trains Tubes swap speed with frequency. Speed makes sense when journey start times are very predictable (e.g. commuting to and from work) - frequency when start times are unpredictable - if you assume that the biggest use, from Bromley, will be for commuting for work into town (or other predictable, not spur of the moment, journeys), then Bromely's position is entirely rational, and indeed if I lived there I would be supporting it. Of course those places between Bromley and Town may well be seguing from predictable to spur of the moment travel choices, so making the slower, but more frequent (less waiting time when you are not planning your journeys) tubes more attractive. Younger people (this is a huge generalisation) tend to live more in inner city than suburban areas, so their 'go when I want to go' (particularly through the evening and weekends) will make tube frequency more attractive - as does the simple interchanges once in the tube network. The more settled (and dull and boring) you are, the more quick but less frequent travel is desirable. That's Bromley all over! (sorry, Bromely readers, couldn't resist)

and who is more likely to be a quality care giver? a low paid worker in a nursery looking after multiple children versus the child's actual parent on a one-2-one basis? I assume that you also support home-schooling? Most nurseries employ some trained assistants (NNEB or equivalent) who may well be considerably better equipped to look after children than untrained parents. And nurseries offer socialisation opportunities (with other kids, from other backgrounds) which a stay-at-home parent with a single child is more hard-pressed to find. The idea that parents are always and inevitably the best carers is a nice one, but hardly supported by the facts. Some are, and good luck to them, others are better at their jobs than they are at child care.

Because of the way the land was parcelled (in small lots) in Underhill (down, probably, almost as far as Barry) there is a very eclectic range of architectural styles - normally no more than 5-10 houses in a row before they change. So if it is Underhill (I think that's very likely too, and around Rydeale) it should be pretty easy to spot the house as being no more than one or two possibilities (assuming no subsequent bomb damage). If you 'street view' on Google Maps 197 Underhill Road (now split into two) it looks almost exactly right (as do the houses up and down the street - but these have more stuff growing in the front garden which blocks the view somewhat) Edited to say - cross posted with Vik

What evidence there is about early-years care suggests that it is the quality of the care (level of stimulation, reading to children, involvement with them etc. etc.) and not the giver of care which is important. Poor quality care (no stimulation, plonked in front of a TV all day and so on) - whoever gives it, is poor quality. You may wish to believe that a parent is more likely to be a good carer than someone simply paid to do it - my experience is that I have seen and know brilliant professional child care people and some pretty cr*p mothers - as well as vice-versa. If you want to play the 'what's best for the baby' card, it's the care quality, not the care giver, which is key. And it is entirely possibly to bond with and give care to a child additionally when you get back from work (the experience now of many fathers as well as working mothers). As well as at weekends and holidays. The sacrifice those make to do this is 'me' time. All parenting, in the end, demands some sort of sacrifice, for most people.

Agree with Penguin who made my point much better than me! Possibly, and thanks, but less succinctly. It's the second or third time this point has come up on this thread (I think that I'm a dog re-visiting his vomit on this as well) but the point still keeps being missed (by some, at least). To choose to be a stay-at-home parent (SAHP) is really difficult (where that choice exists freely) - not only do you forgo immediate income, but getting off the career ladder for a number of years can bring you back into it well below contemporaries who haven't made that choice. Hence (one) of the reasons why women (the most normal SAHP) frequently report salary levels well below those of contemporary men. Even though formal rewarding of experience (i.e. length of service) is no longer generally allowed - opportunities for advancement come up randomly - and being out of the game for several years can mean that you miss out and arrive back in employment during a time of stagnation and with fewer opportunities. Additionally ageism, whilst illegal, is even more difficult to police than overt sexism and racism. So I absolutely do not belittle the sacrifices made by SAHPs - but then, if we had to pay to compensate for these, they would hardly be sacrifices, would they?

I think the equation is quite simple - if you are working and employing someone to look after your child you are likely to be contributing tax and NI for yourself, and generating tax and NI payments for your employee (certainly that will be so if you benefit from this tax break) so, net, probably more money is going back into the public purse than is being 'contributed' through the tax break. If you assume that the person working in childcare might otherwise have been on benefts themselves this is a real non-zero sum game, with everyone winning (at least economically). This isn't about rewarding motherhood, it is about encouraging employment and economic activity. I can understand that relatively wealthy people who lose a benefit (child allowance) through means testing, but who see some other couples still getting something will be jealous - there are lots of studies showing people are disproportionately envious of others over quite small amounts of value, but, with a limited public purse there are many who are having to live and make do without even one ?60k wage - if my (public) money is going anywhere I would rather see it go to them. If you have the economic choice (many don't) of being a stay at home parent or not (many don't have the choice, can't get work even if they would like it) then you live with the consequences of that choice. The benefits to you of close and dedicated parenting come with an economic penalty (a cost) - to want to have your cake and eat it might be nice, but isn't something I, as a tax payer, really feel I should be funding. There is no 'public purse', no 'govenment money' - it all comes from us or from companies - everything that is spent by the government comes from us, either directly, or as a consequence of the price of things we buy where the seller's profits are mitigated by tax (Starbucks, Google and Apple notwithstanding). Actually, and to be honset, I don't want to pay tax so that someone else can 'have it all'.

The house is double fronted, which narrows things down, and I would guess is set back 20-25 ft from the pavement. This excludes quite a few ED streets. The hill suggestion is supported by the house next door, which looks to be set somewhat higher - the angle is problematical but it looks more like terracing or a semi (are there double fronted semis?) than a detached house.

With all the pedestrian controlled lights between Goose Green and Whately Road the only vehicles during the day that get any chance to accelerate through 20mph are cyclists (and I?m sure nobody will catch them, even as they go through the lights - and yes, I do know there are many law-abiding cyclists as well). Late at night, when there are far fewer pedestrians, and all the lights aren?t always red, then traffic might speed up to the (currently legal) 30mph (though not often) ? of course then there is far less risk to pedestrians ? but I am sure the ?speeding? fines will be a nice little earner from the motorist, the milch cow of greedy councils.

this could mean the Walworth Road is closed or largely closed for several days. Please avoid the area. A building is 'returned' when the fires are damped out completely, when any structural damage which threatens adjacent property/ roads is stablilised and when the necessary forensic examination has taken place. There were reports of possible contamination - those too would need to be sorted out, although the small area which has been evacuated suggests this may have been mis-reported. Unless there is significant structural damage which threatens the road (there may well be), once the appliances have done their jobs and moved on, the road way (or most of it) can be re-opened. However, declaring a building safe as regards its surroundings and being safe internally - for the recovery of any items not burnt - is not the same thing - hence the traffic flow could be restored well before the building is deemed safe for hand-over.

The EDT is a large building - it is mainly the ground floor which is being used commercially (the upstairs for events like the Big Picture and private parties does earn some money, but not loads) A commercial firm will want to sweat its assets, it is having to pay for the whole building (including rates, maintenance etc.) and will want the whole building, if it can, to be revenue earning. Why wouldn't it want that? This proposal is actually less locally disruptive than many others, as I and others have pointed out, offering rooms tends to lead to a quieter use rather than the opposite. Neither does running a B&B create excessive additional amounts of rubbish. If the EDT is only 'taking' ?10k a week then, on a 'reasonable' net return of 12% it is only making ?63k a year - which is not much. I would guess it is probably taking more and making net less than that. If it is only making a net 5% (not uncommon) then it is earning for its owners only only ?26k on ?10k a week takings. As a return on capital employed (ROCE) this is not convincing. Another thread is discussing the possible re-use of the old Grove Tavern (Harvester) which looks to be dropping out of the licenced trade. Pub economics do not look good at the moment.

but pubs are not shutting down in ED Magnolia? Harvester? The former hotel and pub on the corner of Langton & Wood Vale, now flats? And a number have changed hands/ formats, suggesting that the previous tenants/ owners weren't 'getting it right'.

Pubs are shutting every day in England at the moment - the ones that are successful are finding new models of operation, and new sources of revenue. Good B&B accommodation in ED is pretty scarce - certainly - particularly where there are more multi-occupancy houses (with thus fewer 'spare' rooms than previously) - demand for rooms for visitors is rising. At the other end of LL the Harvester has been empty and closed for months, with no obvious tenants in the offing - I would hate the same thing to happen to the EDT if its plans are blocked by those who want to live in a quiet backwater having bought in a commercial area. By all means raise issues about noise and dirt (although actually a noisy B&B isn't one which is going to keep customers, people in 'hotels' quite like to sleep) so that they can be addressed, but don't block for blocking's sake. I used to live in a very lively part of central London on a very vibrant street - yes the noise could at times be noticeable, but I rarely found my sleep disturbed (the rock band that moved in next door and practiced drumming through the night notwithstanding!). And for people worried that their children will be woken - my experience is that once they are asleep a marching band going through their bedrooms wouldn't have roused them (different if they are ill, but then abosolute silence doesn't seem to get them off either).

Homicide statistics do include crimes in prison (of course). However I would guess that the estimated murders of e.g. Shipman have not been fully counted in, as they were not all confirmed through the courts. The actions of one madman however (or psycho/ sociopath) should not be read-in to determine true changes in levels of violence (neither should acts of terrorism where very large numbers (i.e. 9/11 or 7/7) are murdered by one or two individuals (9/11) or 4 (7/7).

...and this would be paid for by her NICS and Tax and that of the person she's employing to care for her children. Job done, winners all round.

Perhaps you could look outside the ED bubble though? My comments were entirely in the context of the lady being lauded as a reconstructive proctologist in this thread - of course there are many people who need taxpayers' support, and indeed who still actually get it. Support for childcare needs is properly part of our welfare state remit, for those who need it (rather than just would quite like it) - but the mantra of 'to each according to their needs' has the necessary corollary of 'from each according to their abilities'. In general barristers are better paid (in some cases very, very much better paid) than childcare people - to chose a lower paid role is perhaps to duck-out from 'from each according to their abilities' position. We all, governments and families, have to cut our cloth etc. based on the resources we have available - we cannot afford 'the best of all possible worlds' much as we might like to be able to. I am not saying hardship and sacrifice is good, but it has been, and will be, a necessary component, at some level, of the human condition - indeed the need and ability to make difficult choices is what comes with the rations of rational thought. Enough clich?s for now.

simonethebeaver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are lots of reasons a non-'working' parent > might need childcare. They could be a full time > student. They could have health problems that mean > they need childcare support. They might be > volunteering or training to make themselves more > employable. Or, in this case, apparently, they could be a trained barrister choosing to look after their children at home. For a number of the occasions cited above, e.g. full-time student, there is in fact government support to help. And if you have a partner in sufficient paid work to obviate child allowance (as in this case), you are making, whatever you do wih your time, an informed 'career' - or carer - choice, rather than being driven by extreme and uncontrollable forces. The idea that you should expect me (and you, i.e. taxpayers) to fund whatever life choices you choose to make is not one I buy into.

If you go to work and employ someone to look after your child, two people are in work and the government (that is us, the tax payer) is getting NICS and Tax from two people's contributions. From that income we can help support families who need additional money to support working mothers and working childcare people If you stay at home to look after your child, you are depriving us (the tax payer) of tax revenue and NICS from your earning potential and that of someone who could offer childcare. So we have no income to support you in your (lack of) career choice. Whilst childcare is clearly onerous (otherwise it wouldn't be someone's living) many parents relish (take personal benefit from) their contact with their own children. And would chose to sacrifice income for that benefit, particularly where it also saves them, as a family, the cost of buying-in childcare. That's also why some people chose to garden, rather than employing a gardener - they enjoy it and it saves them money. Or does she also think the government should be paying an allowance to those of us lucky enough to have gardens and who chose to do our own gardening? There are those who see having children as a blessing, not a valid income steam.

As I understand it (I didn't do the original research) it was part of a regular 'theatre' event, but one which the king attended. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries (and earlier) torturing animals (bull and bear baiting and so on) whilst often gambled on, were also seen as a spectacle and entertainment, as were public hangings, floggings and so on. I doubt whether tying a cat to a pole and setting light to it and beating it to death with sticks could in anyway be seen either as a show of strength or to put any philosophical thoughts in people's minds - it was just a bit of fun, as boxing matches still are today (although without any veneer of 'skill').

then apparently lectures on possible causes of crime It is a book well worth reading, but Pinker is more interested in changes in underlying psychological behaviour patterns (and the way people respond to violence) than to specific causes of crime. He points out that 18th (or possibly 17th) century French Kings went to the theatre to watch (as part of the entertainment) a live cat being tied to a pole, set alight and then beaten to death with sticks. This was seen, then, as fun - nowadays I doubt we would expect it at the Royal Variety. He wonders why and how our sensibilities have changed in such a very short time. He is not interested (at least in this book) in 'causes of crime' - which tends to be a sociological rather than a psychological interest. He has also written excellent works on the development of language and language structures, building away from Chomsky's views on this.