Penguin68

If you have anything like a good description you should call the police (non emergency number) - it may be that they have attacked someone previously and this will help the police catch them - or that they will attack someone in the future. Having said that, daytime mugging (except in the parks, of school children) is less common than night-time. They may just have been acting threatening for the hell of it.

You do need to be specific about what is being quoted for - a replacement sash window (exactly like for like (single glazed, standard window glass), assuming e.g. sash weights are still there) will cost far less than a double glazed sealed unit with 'sexy' glass - which may require new framing and e.g. sash weights.

Some time ago I posted my 'law of skips' - I still think it holds Some years ago I developed the theory of skip equilibrium (based on personal experiences in the late ?80s in SE Dulwich, and some previous observations in Clapham). This theory does not apply to skips used for builders rubble or garden waste. On day one, the skip is delivered and you fill it with household rubbish. On night one the skip is half emptied by scavengers and a quarter re-filled by surreptitious neighbours. On day two you refill the skip by adding a further 25% skipfulls of your rubbish. On night two it is again half emptied and a quarter refilled. On day 3 you add a further 25%, now having thrown away 150% skipfulls of rubbish into one skip. On night 3 the skip is emptied by only a quarter and refilled again. The skip has now achieved equilibrium; small amounts will disappear and be added until day seven, when someone throws away an old, wet, carpet which covers the (now mounded) skip and discourages either further additions or more scavenging. The skip is now collected. The important point is that the skip being used as a public object actually allows you to throw away more than if it wasn't. The only caveat is that you must fill it quickly with your own rubbish on the first day.

Certainly true of my (Edwardian, 1912) semi-detached house in Underhill Road - very common and quite normal. Sometimes drains for semis are connected (mine actually isn't) so blockage on one side can cause problems on the other. Worth checking.

I should have made it clear this was a motorcyle accident, on I think an orbital road. At speed. Hence the seriousness of the injuries.

The barrier may not have moved, but it did surprise him. Like most people he operates at least partly from a model of the world - we actually percieve (see) a very narrow amount - try holding your arms out to the side at eye level and bringing them round towards your nose - you'll be surprised at how long you have to ait to see your fingers, when you 'think' of the world with virtually 180 degrees of view, and act accordingly to that model. He was driving a route he knew well, his model of that route didn't have a Zil barrier in it, by the time he was aware of that, it was too late to avoid it. We are actually less likely to have accidents in roads we don't know well, when we have to force ourselves to see 'everything'. I wasn't making an excuse for him, but I know him to be a very experienced driver, so I was alerting readers to avoid the mistake he made. But then, I belong to a species which can make mistakes - I am so glad for you that you don't.

A good friend was very severly injured when his bike collided with a newly installed Olypmic 'Zil' lane barrier - he was driving a route he knew well and had not 'registered' the barrier, I suspect only very recently installed. I believe this was a night-time accident, so visibility was possibly also not that good. Do be careful if you are on two wheels (or four) and keep alert to road changes. Edited to say - No, the accident wasn't in ED, but many of us do go outside ED to travel in London; the injured man is local (SE Londoner).

I recall that Jagger wrote: the hardware shop run by a man in brown overalls, and Mr Nee's chemist where Barcelona was (it became a restaurant called La Pharmacia for a while, retaining all the fixtures and fittings - wooden cabinets and large glass apothecary bottles on display). In fact, pre La Pharmacie the restaurant was called Flashman's (25 or so years ago) - an up-market burger and associated joint (very good, as I recall, at the Gourmet Burger Kitchen end of the market) - at much the same time as Sweeney Todd's was in the village - also serving burgers etc. It was in its Flashman's guise that the original Pharmacy premises were extended into the conservatory at the front- throughout the pharmacy fittings have provided an interesting decor to the successor restaurants on that site.

Ok. What did the one on LL become? I went in there once circa 1990. Target Arms closed about 4-5 years ago - prior to that it had effectively been 'by appointment only' for a little time.

I had work done on my house - (1) my neighbour had to agree a 'party-wall' agreement before the work could go ahead - as my builder was working (had to work) on 'shared' infrastructure (2) my builder undertook a survey of relevant parts of my neighbour's property to identify its current (pre-building work) state so that it could be clear, if there were claims of consequential damage associated with my works, whether this was pre-existing or not. My neighbour did not 'pay' for this survey (it was part of the cost of my build). So what happened may have been entirely legitimate, if poorly expressed - a survey of your neighbour's house was planned, for which your neighbour would not have to pay. Planning does require that a party-wall agreement be in place; it is in your interests that the pre-existing state of your neighbour's property be recorded, and clearly in undertaking building works your builder needs to know the 'whole' picture in case there are structural problems with shared e.g. walls which are not evident from your side. Planning applications are published by councils; the only thing which is at issue is whether your builder has commissioned this survey - they can tell you that. They should also be indicating, if it is an additional cost to your agreed quotation, what this is. If they haven't commissioned the survey then the firm in question, which clearly has no contractual relationship with you, would not, under law, be able to bill you for any work done, as you have neither instructed them yourself, or agreed any terms directly with them.

seal fireplace with a piece of board cut to correct shape, glue it in with expanding foam then paint/tile to taste. or brcik it up and plaster/paint it. I would strongly advise against sealing the fireplace unless you have ventillation bricks into the chimney (or out of the room) - not only may this encourage damp in the room, but if there are e.g. gas fires it will be extremely dangerous (and illegal). The most effective way to keep out birds/ squirrels is to put some sort of mesh over the chimney pots - this secures but maintains ventilation.

Surely the blue bin is only collected every two weeks anyway - so if this week's collection is 'missed', the next normal collection would anyway be in 2 weeks time. The council can't 'punish' by adding a further week before collection as that would mean collecting a blue bin out-of-sequence? The council does come out to collect 'out-of-sequence' when they have made an error, of course, so perhaps the 'punishment' is one of not making an out of sequence collection. Your blue bin should be collected again when it is due again, in 2 weeks time. The bin men can't just dump an offending article on the ground - they won't anyway know whether it is the only one in the bin and they don't have time to sift the rubbish - and they shouldn't be mixing non-recylable with recylable. It is unfortunate, of course, and an easy error to make, working out what is and isn't recycled isn't obvious, when it comes to plastics but I am not sure what else the bin men could have done. The 'error' comes in assuming the 'ordinary joe' is an expert in material identification as regards the (different in each borough) recyling rules. But that is the price we pay for 'right-on' green-ness I suppose.

It is good that Tessa's constituents (some) will have the torch quite close - agree that the old Velodrome deserved an historical visit at least. It is also good that Tessa's office should have responded as they have. Even for those of us somewhat sangine about the event and its personal impact, the hard work put in by Tessa when she had responsibility, and her successors, shouldn't go unremarked.

Although there is an occasional one now - next show on Thursday (Dr Strangelove). http://www.thebiggerpic.co.uk/

It would be worthwhile reading this thread in conjunction with that on house prices (sanity check) in ED- what posters there are saying is that the demographic in ED is changing - driven by amongst other things the costs of moving here. Hence, perhaps, the apparent fact that Iceland isn't prepared to die in a ditch to retain their Lordship lane store - as the incumbent they had the best opportunity of working with the ground-landlord - but they have chosen not to make that investment. Clearly M&S felt that investing in new ED-ers made more sense for them.

It would be worthwhile reading this thread in conjunction with that on the Iceland/ M&S debate - what posters here are saying is that the demographic in ED is changing - driven by amongst other things the costs of moving here. Hence, perhaps, the apparent fact that Iceland isn't prepared to die in a ditch to retain their Lordship lane store - as the incumbent they had the best opportunity of working with the ground-landlord - but they have chosen not to make that investment. Clearly M&S felt that investing in ED-ers made more sense for them.

Zil lanes were a requirement of the Olympic apparatchiks - flowing from the problems in the (I think) Atlanta games when some athletes couldn't get to the stadia on time. The officals also wanted to be able to speed about London seeing the best events without trouble. Security/ Military (1) have helicopters to get about in and (2) are very able to clear lanes in traffic if they have to get anywhere in a hurry. And they will be out in force anyway.

As I said in an earlier post - it all depends why they are leaving - but a good track record in a challenging school would give a strong CV (possibly) for those who are career minded. Maths and Sciences (in general) fast-tracked some graduates into posts (sometimes city types looking for a different occupation) - it is quite possible that, for some of these, teaching wasn't what they found they wanted/ liked - most teachers have longer courses to find this out! I hope the school is doing proper exit interviews so they know and understand why people are leaving?

The problems with figures is that, as quoted, they are opaque. Are we talking (40 teachers) actual bodies, or FTE (full time equivalent) - if bodies some may have been part-timers/ fractional posts. Staff will 'leave' if they are contracted cover for staff on maternity leave who are now returning. On the face of it, a turn-over of 32% is very worrying, if it's really 40 FTE out of 125 FTE, for no better reason than continuity of contact - it's quite disruptive if pupils have to build new relationships with teachers each academic year, although quite naturally they will move from one level of teaching to another, which may well mean new teachers. However, if there are really going to be a third new faces in the staff room next year, that will be disconcerting (and not just for the pupils). Of course, there will probably be a multitude of different reasons for staff leaving - good staff may be getting better (more senior) offers in other schools, sad but understandable they would want to take them; bad staff may be being eased out. What will be worrying is staff leaving because they are unhappy - that's what would be a real cause for concern, as it would suggest a fundemental problem. But without knowledge we can only speculate.

My daughter and her friend left their CVs at every shop, restaurant and bar up and down Lordship Lane and surrounds - got offered summer cover jobs - although I don't know what the holiday pattern is likely to be this Olympic year. However this was post A levels, so they were of age - under 18s will be restricted in the range of opportunites (no bar work). One key issue is to wordsmith the CV effectively - to keep it short, to the point and based on skills and achievements, not just a list of activities (things) done (or 'job' titles). Unless they are relevant to job etc. activities, hobbies and likes are irrelevant. 'Enjoys cooking' may be relevant for a short-order chef role, not a librarian.

A few (well a lot more than a few, as will be clear) years ago I friend and I dressed as tramps and lurked around the Temple (in those days lawyers were wealthier than bankers!) saying 'Scuse me gov, do you have sixpence for a cup of tea'. On the inevitable refusal we would then press sixpence on them saying 'Take this, I wouldn't want to see you go without'. It was surprising, or perhaps not, they were lawyers, how many accepted the sixpence! Happy days.

The point I was making, apparently now with some more evidence, is that the only thing that was known to have happened was an attempted offer of a lift. I have never said that the school wasn't right to act with caution, only that the clear and absolute claims of an attempted abduction didn't seem to stand up - as apparently they didn't. And that just because Heber (not a direct party to the event] said it was an attempted abduction didn't necessarily make it so. As it turns out, it would seem that the 'no smoke without fire' brigade were, in this instance, wrong, which doesn't mean that I think we should throw all caution to the winds, but does perhaps mean we should not insist a spade is a mechanised 40 ton digger on the rumour that earth might have been shifted, and without further evidence.

So, if this report is true, the certainty expressed here that it was definitely an attempted abduction because Heber said so.....?

We do not know that they had never 'met' - there are children who live round me that I recognise - and (current climate of course notwithstanding) might have offered a lift to if I saw them walking, perhaps with a heavy bag. Nowadays they would be quite right not to accept that lift. I am sure that everyone's suspicions here are reasonable, in the sense that there was a possible danger; but what I am saying is that, apart from a refused offer of a lift, nothing actually happened. It is of course, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, a real tragedy that the concept of an 'innocent' offer of a lift is no longer possible to contemplate. When a helping hand is automatically assumed to be an abusing hand, we have really got ouselves into quite a nasty place.

Once again, the only thing that appears to have happened is that a boy was offered a lift and refused it - other than an uncorroborated statement by the school, which, I suggest, arises from an inference made about the lift offer, there is no report of any abduction that I have read, or attempted abduction - certainly a lift, if accepted, could have become an abduction, but unless there are reports of attempts to manhandle a boy into a car, or to grab him from a car, then all we have for certain is the offer of a lift, very properly refused. If an adult woman had been offered a lift, and refused it, would we be reporting an 'attempted abduction'- or just something slighly suspicious of which to be wary? Just because Heber says its an abduction doesn't make it so. What Heber said has been properly reported here I am sure, but Heber has no lien on absolute truth. It had suspicions, it raised these with parents. Fine. But I have seen nothing of the actual incident reported which goes beyond 'lift offered; lift refused' If there is more information (rather than inference) on the incident, please share it.