Penguin68

If your laptop is used as a desktop (i.e. mainly in the same place) it is worthwhile getting one of those steel cables that you can tether laptops with - to steal them you need to have bolt-cutters (not all casual thieves do) or so damage the computer that it has no re-sale value. Sending key papers/ pictures to yourself at something like gmail - which offer loads of storage - is also a good way of storing really important documents. If you have portable storage and good housekeeping you can back up pictures etc, to it on a regular basis, but mainly keep it locked away. That way you only lose the most recent stuff. Absolutely none of which is of any use to you in your current predicament of loss. Funnily enough no one steals bound photo albums, or old essays on paper. Technological progress has its downsides.

At this time of year every large wasp you see which you kill (indeed killing any wasp) is killing a queen and subsequent nest, as only queens, in general, over-winter. However worker honey bees do over-winter (some) which is why bees make honey (for winter sustenance). Warm days will also bring out bumble bees from hibernation - but sudden cold-snaps or rain can leave them very vulnerable - ideally if you find a stranded bumble bee move them into the sun so that they can warm up - they can then more easily fly-away. On a window ledge is ideal, as this discourages many birds from swooping down for a snack. Otherwise move them into shelter from the rain.

I know that some Jews in Middle Eastern countries (reasonably observant but not strictly Orthodox) do accept Halal meat.

Although Halal and Kosher meat are slaughtered in the same way, each death requires different religious rituals (and kosher butchers need to be licenced I think by the Beth Din(?) the Jewish religious court. So a strictly observent Jew would not accept Halal meat, I believe, as a substitute for kosher - it meets only some of the religious requirements (right death, wrong words).

In my experience if a builder says that he needs money up front to buy stuff then he is trading on dangerously thin ice, a reputable and solvent builder should be able to fund most builds as far as materials are concerned, particularly as he should be buying on credit and paying later - if he is having to pay up front for stuff himself it's normally because he has a poor credit rating, which should be warning enough. [That may not be true of a local handyman, operating as a one-man band, but then materals costs are normally small for the sort of job he does]. An agreed quotation, with an agreed payment schedule is normal practice - perhaps 10% up front but then in stages following completion of building stages - with a 5% retention at the end for snagging and problems. But Binda appears to have been very plausible, which is why people were prepared to pay him for far more than he had done - if someone appears to be nice, nice people think they are nice.

Directory of kosher butchers in London http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/265_directory_of_kosher_.htm

I would guess that by making Underhill more difficult to get in to and exit (despite the fact that its a significant route, including for buses) this will help speed the traffic on Barry (always a good thing, far too few of our accidents are fatal, if you ask me) whilst making 'clearing' cars into and out of Underhill longer, more difficult, thus increasing the chances of impact. Luckily the only people able to afford to drive shortly will be Tories, so this enforced cull should ensure a LibLab dominance in the local elections. Or am I reading the plan wrongly? The major basis for much of the complaint in this thread has been the speed of cars along Barry and the problems of visibility and access into and out of Underhill. I cannot see how this does anything but exacerbate this situation.

James At the moment the junction is even more hazardous as large lorries supplying the building site (the former wood yard) regularly park at the juntion itself, occupying the whole of the carriageway that enters travelling north into Barry road, forcing drivers leaving Underhill to pull into the opposite lane - thus blocking people trying to get into Underhill from Barry or cross over from the Whately Rd side of Underhill. A couple of days ago a large car was left stuck across Barry waiting for traffic to ease so that he could enter Underhill (he had committed before the carriageway which was his right of way was blocked by traffic pulling out to pass the lorry). Because the Underhill entrance has been considerably reduced as a traffic calming measure the road is even more congested than if Underhill had retained the width of entry into Barry Road that it initially had, when traffic might have passed the parked vehicles mor easily. Sometimes driver's mates do try to control the traffic, but not always. And the whole of the Underhill side along the building site is often parked up with trade vehicles, as well as the juntion entry being parked in.

I assume you hot water boiler is mains fed? If you have had supply disruption recently it is possible that your local (on your own property) pressure is down, either because of dirt/ grit in your supply pipe, or possibly an airlock within your own internal system. Does water coming from the mains (not from your cold water tank if you have one) appear to be flowing slowly, or 'stuttering'? An air lock can be cleared (sometimes) by turning a mains-fed cold-water tap on and blocking it for a time with your hand, then releasing it suddenly. That may clear an air block, it can also shift grit. However, if the grit has got into you hot water boiler system then you may need a plumber (if grit is an issue at all). The fact that your neighbour also has problems may reflect a local supply interruption which effected you both, particularly if you share any pipework coming from the main. Is you neighbour in another house, or in a flat in the same property?

Thieves also come back as they expect you to have replaced electrical goods etc. stolen, with new items via insurance - it then makes it worth their while to break in again, even where the risk is increased, as they can then steal brand new kit.

The ?0.62p is the total cost of the monarchy to us each, annually. I don't believe that the wedding is a state occasion, so that will be being paid out of existing money, probably Duchy Of Cornwall income. Your tax also go towards the pay of the prime-minister, do you want a say on what he calls his children or who they marry?

Narnia wrote :- Quote: penguin68:Young men and violence are easy bedfollows On what grounds can you possibly justify this statement? If you can't then I won't take anything you write seriously. I think you will find that almost all reported acts of mindless (gang) violence in our streets are associated with young men (there are some girl gangs, but relatively few). I am not saying that all young men are violent, but that when men are young, testosterone fuelled (as young men are) and wanting to make their mark in a sociey, violence is a typical response. Add alcohol as a disinhibiter (and very many do) and you have a recipe for violence. There are some 'young middle aged' violent men (some of the football gangs of the 70s and 80s had 25-35 year old thugs in them) but, in the main, violence is a young man's game. You are violent often when you have nothing much to lose (no family yet to support, often no job worth it's name to risk losing) when you are physically at a peak and when you have over-much energy (it's amazing how a full-time demanding job and full-time demanding children can wear you out). I could refer you, but I won't, to numerous articles by social anthropologists on the links to gang or group violence and late adolesence, and how this normally dissipates over time. And the numerous studies showing how male children have a tendancy to play-act violent confrontations (Cops & Robbers, Cowboys and Indians in my day). Many young (male) animals also 'play-fight' and then, as young adults, really fight over mates etc. The young have two things going for them, physcial vigour and a sense of personal immortality. Without those we wouldn't have the necessary fuel to sustain the wars that older men (politicians) get others to undertake for them.

My point was simply that we made assumptions about who were culprits, and their motivation and background, regarding the Islamic terrorists, that turned out to be wrong. We could well be doing the same here. I am not suggesting that the two types of crime were similar in nature or motivation, my comment was about us, not about the criminals.

Er, irony alert. And I stick by my assertion that speculation in advance of knowledge in this area is silly. Remember how surprised we all were when the Islamic bombers in Glasgow airport turned out to be doctors from stable middle class British born backgrounds, as were the London bombers (British born at least). The chances are that the perpetrators did come from a poor disadvantaged background, they may even have come from fully dysfunctional families, but we simply don't know. And one thing we do know is that people from the same ethnic background (and frequently from the same economic background) form fully rounded and valued members of society.

Doesn't matter what the m3 are as anything along the outrigger is unlawful according to Southwark I don't think this is correct. I think that the problem was that, in order to get a working room height, it would have been necessary to raise the height of your outrigger roof line (in an earlier post I noted that permitted development assumed no change to the roof line). So the problem was not that it was an outrigger, but that it was a relatively low outrigger with insufficient clearance to offer workable room heights. The outrigger roof is clearly separate from the main roof and has its own roof line height. Taller outriggers would have been OK for development, as there would have been no need to raise their height further. I think that, because of its height, anything along your outrigger would have been unlawful. I know this as I have a Certificate of Lawful Development from Southwark on an outrigger extension. But I did have a particularly tall roof line on the outrigger, according to my architect and builder.

The issue here may not be ethnicity but background - for all we know the perpetrators of these crimes may well come from well ordered and managed homes, fully stocked with parents. Until we know the backgrounds of those eventually convicted speculation as to cause is irrelevant. Young men and violence are easy bedfollows - if that wasn't so our armed forces would find recruitment a real problem - they mange to divert an underlying and common urge into something which we find socially useful (as long as the soldiers are somewhere far away, and not knocking around a UK garrison town letting off steam). We have young men who have found a channel for their natural tendencies (possibly) which we find alarming and dreadful - but let's hold back from blaming society and whatever before we know what to blame ourselves for. Oh yes, if society is to blame then, unless we are contactless hermits (and obviously no one on this forum is that), we are that society which needs to shoulder the blame. We (all) create the contexts collectively in which we all live.

As there is no public information about any of those accused of these two crimes (and indeed I am not sure if anyone yet has even been charged, let alone convicted of course, all we have are arrests and police bail at the moment, not the same thing) assertions about the background and circumstances of those who actually are responsible seems wholly misplaced. Until I have knowledge I plan to blame nobody, let alone look for solutions to problems which have not yet been defined.

James I knew this - but that's about devolved/ delegated powers - applications under permitted development would never go to the planning committee (as there is no mechanism for objection, inter alia). And I think that even where planning applications aren't debated they do follow the planning committee timetable (or at least, that's true for another authority which I have had dealings with). The point I was making is that where applications for a Lawful Development Certificate are made the council officers expect to see properly drawn-up plans etc. - so that there 'permitted development' isn't a 'don't care' route to an extension build; the council officers expect to see a professional approach taken. It is possible to 'take a risk' by not involving council officers, but it is a real risk, particularly where a trouble free future sale is contemplated, and Lawful Development Certificate or no, building regs still have to followed, and building inspectors satisfied. And if you don't do that, you may well have to re-instate the build back to where you started.

As opposed to the traditional method - employing an Architect and submitting planning App/tender for contractors etc Permitted development is about the amount of space that is being gained - under 50 cubic metres it doesn't need to go before the planning committee (politicians) for a decision, it is based on meeting standard requirements and is agreed by bureaucrats if it does. I went through this route with fully drawn up architect's plans, input from structural engineers etc. - all the work done by my builder that you would need for a planning application - but without the wait for it to go before a planning meeting and without the requirement for neighbours etc. to object (but I did need formal agreement from the neighbour I share a party-wall with before work could commence). If you want to get a Lawful Development Certificate you need to do this (and the planning authority did get me to change the original design as it didn't meet their requirements). If you don't have the certificate you will find selling down the line a problem. So although you can build under 'permitted development' without planning authority (but of course you must still meet building regs) you would be pretty stupid to, if you ever plan to sell your house without a lot of difficulty, as you would need to prove, retrospectively, that it was a lawful permitted development. Having that done up-front is the realistic and sensible route, and for that you need the proper paraphanalia of plans and surveys.

There is a photo-shop in the middle of Lordship Lane (South of the post office, on that side) which used to take passport pictures for you (immediate print) - you got a chance of approving them first, as they were digital snaps. They knew the strange rules about how you had to stand, not smile etc. which are now part of the requirements. I think it's still there.

Pearson wrote And you should always run your proposal past the local authority in the first instance just to cover any issues over questions like this. I would say this is absolutely vital - if you do so, and at a fee, you will be given a Lawful Development Certificate which will confirm to any future buyer that your extension was kosher - which their solicitor will certainly require. Without it, (and the local authority records which support it) if/ when you come to sell your house you could be in real difficulties. One caveat on what Peason said - 'original' doesn't actually mean that - there is a cut-off date (1947 I have just discovered) before which changes to the property are deemed to be 'original' - I had this issue with a 1920s built garage on an Edwardian property - because it appeared in a post-war (1951) Ordinance Survey map (but wasn't in a 1916 map, and we could show that such building had to be pre-war as just post-war all building material was devoted to repair and new build of bombed properties and thus wouldn't have been available for a garage, the garage was deemed to be 'original' for the purposes of permitted development. I quote from an e-mail from the planning department to me:- Although this does not date back to 1947 as legally required, we will accept this as proof of an existing addition for the purposes of your Lawful Development Certificate. Edited for typos

Loft extension over the back of the house (i.e. the outrigger) tends to be much more sympathetic to the property than extensions over the front part, which can look weird and make the roof line unaesthetic. Although permitted developments don't need individual planning permission the planning department can now require certain conditions, including not allowing extensions where the materials planned to be used are seemed to be unsympathetic to the house being built on. And they can be very strict about roof lines. The days of cheap black porter-cabin extensions sitting like black-death boils on the fronts or front sides of Victorian houses are now, thankfully, generally past, although there still are extant 70's versions sadly with us. But black slate clad extensions over houses with existing slate roofs are clearly in sympathy with the original house (and I don't have one of those, in case you feel this is special pleading!).

When Sainsburies were open 24/7 they did not have a 24 hour licence to sell booze, so that section used to be sealed-off, if memory serves.

Permitted development allows an extension to the overall volume of the property up to a given %age limit (with certain caveats, e.g. about not going higher than existing roof-lines etc.). However the'start' size of the property is taken to be the size at (I am guessing here, but it's broadly right) about the war period, perhaps 1950. So any extension work done post this counts towards total permitted development. If there had already been kitchen extension work done (i.e. in the 1980s) that would 'take-up' some of the permitted development allowance. Equally where the 'outrigger' was already large, the amount of 'new' space gained by building over it may also be above the 'permitted' amount. 'Permitted' development simply means that it meets the rules and doesn't therefore need specific planning permission - i.e. to go before the planning committee. You can still apply (through the more cumbersome and costly) planning permission route for your extension. Each house is taken at its own merits, based in part on its previous history of development. You may have been refused 'permitted' development, and someone else allowed, on the same design but with different histories (or cubic footages) being taken into account. There were problems of interpretation when the new rules came in, some councils for instance allowed 'squared off' roofs but wouldn't allow mansard roofs, for no obvious reason - but most of these have now been overcome.

Strange then that at many local (SE London) farmer's markets I always seem to find varieties of olives - I hadn't noticed the massed olive groves out there in Kent.