Penguin68

It would be much more comfortable Different cars are optimised around different speeds - ideally you want to be travelling 'normally' in 4th gear - which the car drives most comfortably in (5th is cruising at motorway speeds) - some cars are unhappy about travelling at 20mph in 4th, and would prefer 3rd - which is an accelleration gear, if you see what I mean. Judging speed again is quite difficult, particularly differential speeds. Imagine you are standing still and think how quickly someone walks away from you (normal walking speed) - that's about 4mph - if you are being overtaken, how quickly does the over-taker get away from you - how many multiples of walking speed? And once you are overtaken, do they slow back down to be 'just' outpacing you - in which case they may be no more than walking speed faster once they have decellarated from taking over. I have occasionally (on motorways) been over-taken by a car I imagined was going very fast, but if I speed up to match his pace, I often find it is only 10mph or less faster than my speed when over-taken. Of course, there are speed merchants on residential and local streets, but often the ones you think are speeding may be, but not by that much. Considering average vehicle speeds through London have been 12-15 mph since 1900 (pre car) our perception of urban speed is often clouded by our experience.

Just to be clear, I'm just curious (as I said). Sorry, but I don't give enough of a ?$%^ to engage in this any further. Er...Irony?

I'm just curious as to what motivates first mate And some of us might be curious about why you are curious about first mate? You are insinuating that the interest being shown is somehow suspicious or motivated in non-obvious ways. 'Just asking' may not be a sufficient get-out here.

The Iceland site is an important part of LL - what store, if any, operates from that site will have a significant impact on ED residents - including the possibility of no store at all, if/ when Iceland leaves and there is no store to replace it. A decision has been announced in this forum, but not on any official Southwark site, it appears. Considering the extensive fuss and pother on this thread and many others about the retail future for LL, first mate's concerns do not by any means have to smack of suspicious partiality. We (actual ED residents who use this forum) all have an 'interest' (being ED residents, with some stake in the locality) in this.

Amazing that Southwark cabinet councillors need to be "told" to discuss this and shame on the people who belittle this post 1. Air quality in London has substantially improved over a relatively short time - I too remember the last smog, and I also remember how most surfaces were constantly grimy. Although, obviously, air quality could improve further the low hanging fruit have now all been plucked - a huge expense and disruption would be required to significantly (so we actually noticed) further reduce the problem - over and above the continuing impovement to e.g. reducing car emissions already being planned in to new vehicles. 2. The council cabinet is made up of mainly part-time elected members who already commit a lot of time to discussing stuff - hopefuly stuff where they can reasonably make a difference - it's not clear, worthy as the idea of improving air quality actually is whether that is the best use of the limited resource of their time that we have access to. 3. If they are obliged by this petition to discuss the issue, other than deploring poor quality air, I doubt whether much will come of it - the amount of resources and leverage required to make any noticeable difference are far more than a cash-strapped local council has at their disposal. And the time taken up will (may) mean that something they could actually make a difference about will go undiscussed. So - I do think that this exercise is about political flag waving and not about anything which can be done practically by Southwark council. Frankly, my asthma is triggered by the clouds of rape and other pollens which come blowing in from Kent - perhaps the greens can propose paving over the fields and stopping this nuisance and (indeed) damaging incursion into my life. It is the countryside in spring and summer which blights my breathing, not cars.

The person will only alight the vehicle looking like a pantomime drag artiste anyhow. No, the extraordinary thing is that most frequently the make-up is expertly applied as if the applicator wasn't sitting in a jolting bus (tubes are far smoother, and offer less of a challenge). It's quite amazing to watch, simply as an exhibition of skill. What is quite interesting is the way in which people construct an imaginary bubble around them when they commute, so that their actions no longer form part of a collective, but instead allow them to operate in isolation. Considering how much of a social anaimal we actually are, this ability to shut out other people is quite amazing. I am not sure whether it is peculiarly British (flowing from our 'reserve') or whether it is replicated in other cultures. Some other cultures (Japanese?) certainly seem much more aware of the impact being made on others around them.

Green Goose wrote:- The silent majority would put up with searches every day of the week so long as it helps reduce stabbings and othe crimes committed with weapons. I think Dietrich Bonhoeffer had it right about the 'silent majority' when he wrote:- "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me" There was a 'silent majority' in 1930s Germany (actually, at times quite a vociferous majority, it has to be said) - and things were done and allowed in their name which no one now would support. It is the mark of the libertarian (not the liberal) to argue for freedoms which give their enemies the same freedom they claim for themselves. My 'ilk' as you so charmingly put it would rather see the same rule of law applied to all people, however much we personally despise them, than to see partiality in the law applied against those the state have decreed as enemies. That is the price of a free society, and one well worth paying. I still have a hope that the Supreme Court will determine that the assurances made by Jordan that no evidence obtained through torture will be used are sufficient to return Mr Qatada for trial there. If they don't, however much I don't like it, I will be pleased that we live in a state where the judiciary do not dance to the politicians' piping. The silent majority, in so many states, have sleep-walked into oppression. Indeed, if you want to see oppression at work anywhere, listen out for the self-satisfied baying of the silent majority.

I walked through the gate with my Swiss Army Cyber Tool. For work purposes- it didnt detect it. So, intrusive, oppressive and ineffective - that sounds right.

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'.