Penguin68

So is it always a scam or are there some/any legit schemes? Unless the charity being supported is one very well known to her (Christian Aid; Oxfam) I would assume that it's always a scam - and I don't know of any reputable charity that does this door-to-door selling. Unfortunately - having already bought she will be identified as a mark for these rogues, and will need a lot of moral courage, and support, to resist them - the effing and blinding they use is meant to be intimidatory - and it works. They often call in the dark - I would suggest her never opening the door after dark unless she can identify the person calling as legitimate - a known friend or relative - I assume she has some way of viewing caller before she opens the door - and only opening the door on a chain is also a good idea, if she is in any way uncertain. The important thing is for her to realise that only a tiny amount of what is given goes to the 'needy' caller, the rest goes to a (to all intents and purposes) criminal - since he is running a fraudulent enterprise posing as a charity.

they're called "knockers" all dodgy They are certainly dodgy - but 'knockers' in my day used to be those people who offered to buy antiques from you 'take this old thing off your hands' - always dreadfully underpriced and sometimes just an excuse to gain entry and steal things. These boys are normally 'run' by someone in a van parked in a side street - they don't even get to keep the money they 'earn' for selling complete tat - so feeling sorry for them and thinking you are giving them something to be charitable isn't even a deal. It all goes back to their gang master - very often a very nasty piece of work.

he has ignored / failed to respond to emails and has not kept to his word I have absolutely no axe to grind on this at all, but the claims as put above suggest that he could be accused of being rude, or lazy, or a liar (I am not suggesting any of these things, by the way) but not ignorant - indeed most of his posts are quite well informed.

The road is now back open

There is an incident in Underhill Road (at Langton Rise, on the south side of Camberwell Old Cemetary) - 4 fire appliances and an ambulance, I think, attending. No sign of fire so most likely it is an RTA. No traffic getting through Underhill at that point at the moment - and no buses. I would suggest a detour.

I very much doubt that Monty's owner encouraged his dog to attack other dogs, but simply couldn't be bothered to train him or deal with his specific breed traits. Had he done so, Monty might have lived his life out happily and Woody would not have had to pay such a high price. Very sad. I doubt if we know (please correct me if I am wrong) the full history of this dog - if it was a legal breed then it could have been a rescue dog, in which case Monty's last owner may not have been responsible for its disposition - as a rescue dog of this type it might have been initially trained as a fighting dog - these are 'given' small dogs by their trainers to practice on (which is what can happen to small breeds which are stolen - dreadful thought). If the dog was later abandoned and 'rescued' it may already have been trained to attack small dogs, and simply have reverted in this dreadful incident. (I don't believe that dogs known to have been trained to fight are put up for rescue, but an abandoned stray without a history might be). I know a number of people with rescue dogs, some of these have led very hard early lives and can be untrainable regarding some habits. My brother-in-law had a dog which had been cruelly treated by children before its rescue and had to be kept very separate from them, - it was a very small breed and thus not particularly dangerous - but it would be very uneasy around 10 year olds - roughly top-end primary - (its tormentors) - babies and older adolescents didn't cause it a problem. It didn't go out to attack children, but would defend itself aggressively if it thought it was cornered by them and couldn't escape. Given its history it couldn't be blamed for that, but its owner had to ensure that it wasn't placed in that position.

pepsi wrote:- Are you inferring that middle class people "value and love" their children more than other people? - 1. I think you mean 'imply', not 'infer' 2. I was being ironic - I had assumed by your use of 'precious babes' that you were suggesting that Alleyn's parents were unreasonably fond and caring of their children - I used a 'reductio ad absurdum' metaphore to point this out. I assume that all reasonable parents care for their children and want to do the best by them, regardless of their social origins or aspirations. 3. I am sorry I missed the fact that your post was light-hearted, clearly however my light-hearted response was as opaque to you.

They shouldn't be using so many cars to take their precious babies to school. They should carpool or how about this - make their children walk/use public transport! Do you have any evidence that (some at least) of 'them' don't do these things? Alleyn's is a very large school, if all parents were just bringing one of their 'precious babes' (I'm glad that you, if you have children of your own, obviously and rightly disdain and despise them, it's just so middle class to value and love your own children) there would be horrendous jams (much more than now) all around the school. As I said in an earlier message (expunged as the message it was replying to was also expunged) it is clear that Gordon Brown's belief that he can win the next election on a class war basis clearly still has some mileage in SE22. I should add that I too believe that the action of these parents in trying to enforce a unilateral chnage of road use is out of order

And what sort of example does this sort of vigilantist trespass set to their nauseating spawn? Looks like Gordon Brown's intent to run the upcoming election on class war grounds has some mileage in SE22. Shame, really.

BQC wrote Its all so pointless as the engine only holds a few quid in fuel anyway. Too trivial for the Boys in Blue to bother with either i imagine That's true (perhaps) if we are talking about making the same use for the petrol as the original owner intended, but only a few quids of petrol makes a merry blaze if you want one - and if I was an arsonist (which I'm not) I might choose to (a) steal my combustant rather than buy it (no paper trail) and (b) do so some distance from my intended conflagration. Just a thought.

J Barber wrote Funny old winter. As someone who very well remembers the winter of 62/63 when snow lay on the ground from just after Christmas until March, with no thaw, and that from the Midlands to the South coast (and probably north of that, but that's not so unusual) I find the winter this year quite mild. It's only since about 1850/ 60 that the Little Ice Age has sufficiently eased off that we have begun to assume snow free winters in the south of the country, with snow an exception. Interestingly all the 'warmest since records began' reports we hear nowadays don't bother to mention that most of the records they are referring to weren't started to be kept until just after the Little Ice Age had ended (mid 19th century) - i.e. don't take account of the Medieval Warming, the Roman Warming or the Minoan Warming over the last 3 millenia, but do reflect a natural warming up following an extended (300 year) 'cold snap'. Equally reports of 'unexpected' cold snaps (coldest since records began etc.) ignore the Litte Ice Age, the post Roman dark age cooling, the pre-Roman hegemony cooling (c600BC) etc. etc. The 'records' are not those included in chronicles which reflect different climates (i.e. the Viking occupation of Greenland with close to temporate farming methods, temporary (150 years or so) absence of perma frost in the region etc., productive vinyards in North England) but scientific records using calibrated and 'accurate' instrumentation, together with regular recording of climate measures, which only became widely available in (broadly) Victorian times.

and if you can prove you are a muslim you can have an intrest free loan While overtly this is how a sharia loan works, you pay, in the end, a cost of borrowing; it is just not classed as interest for religious purposes (you just pay back more than you have borrowed). Not only is this posted in the wrong thread, but it also seems wrong-headed as well, and shows no understanding of islamic finances.

Excellent tabloid inspired stoking Actually experience rather than tabloid inspired, but glad you like it.

overwhelmingly it would seem, the students come from the local area too , so why would " hundreds of cars " be needed to replace the coaches ? The sad reality for many (particularly boys) at these schools is that those who walk/ take public transport are regularly the victims of crime - I knew several who were mugged for their phones etc. 3 or 4 times - normally by children their own age or just a little older. Many parents choose door-to-door transport (coaches/ cars) for reasons of security not convenience/ laziness. They are not too posh to travel on public transport, many are simply too frightened, and with good cause. My daughter, walking locally, has been attacked and menaced several times, the last time her phone was so out-of-date it was handed back to her!! Nobody bothers to report it nowadays (unless they are physcially injured and sometimes not even then) there's just too much of it and too little actual remedy (when my daughter did report an attack when she was much younger the police were very good, but after an hour driving round looking for the attackers nothing happened - the one person who had recognised them lived close to them and didn't want to bring down retribution on the head of her family and her). If you come in from Blackheath (or Clapham) that's a long journey of fear twice a day if you rely on school time public transport.

Make Underhill rd a one way street from Barry rd might just be the answer. 1. Not if you live in Underhill Road it isn't 2. Where are you proposing re-routing the bus? And just how inconnvenient for everyone is that likely to be? It just moves the traffic problem to another junction with Barry - which doesn't achieve anything at all.

I meant 'not their fault that they had to use a work round because they weren't issued the right collection lorry' - clearly they did fail to empty the bin, but since one crew went ahead and filled the bins with recycling (in our street) and another then went round emptying them into the back of the lorry they may simply have missed this one, not realising it too had been used as a temporary deposit for the 'wrong' rubbish. And no, I don't now, neither have I ever, worked for the council.

Have just found all of last weeks (Tuesday's) recycling bottles cans etc in our green household waste bin. I'm guessing that this was an oversight/mistake by the crew. Last week the crew coming to us (Mondays) were sent out with the wrong lorry, not the normal recycling one, so they had to use the green waste bins (i.e. the brown ones) to load the recycling so they could use the rear-loader on the lorry - my guess is that they filled yours up but then forgot to empty it. Not their fault - on the other hand it almost certainly means that paper and bottles cans etc. were all mixed together in the normal dust lorry, as this doesn't have separate compartments.

Puzzled wrote:- changes DO usually damage labour's prospects, so it is not a matter of perspective or even perception. it is a fact. you, I suspect, are a lib dem, so any change enhances your prospects... in response I believe to my posting. In which case I would like to mention (a) that I am not a lib dem and (b) that 'damaging labour's prospcts' and 'enhancing the democratic rights of individuals to have the same weight of vote in whichever constituency they live' are an issue of perspective. I might assume that those preturnaturally worried about 'damaging labour's prospects' are of that leaning, and that revelling in an unfair distribution of seats across the electorate sits well from a party led by someone who eschews elections like the plague, and who places some of the most powerful of his government inside the un-elected and unaccountable House of Lords. But I won't. (And no, I'm not conservative either)

but the changes do usually damage labour This is only true where (particularly in the inner cities) there are disproportionately small constituencies compared with suburban areas - labour has been graced with a large number of small contituencies - I can't remember the exact number, but it needed far fewer labour voters (i.e. the electorate in these seats is smaller and fewer votes are thus needed to achieve a majority) to elect an MP than conservative (or lib dem). Hence the dominant labour majorities (recently) compared with the share of the national popular vote. Damage is thus very much a matter of perspective - the changing of electoral boundaries is intended to unwind damage to democracy so that each consituency has a similar sized electorate.

Removed the spring completly did'nt help one jot. Then you've done all you can to make your own house deliverable to. Have you thought of leaving a note posted to the door addressed to the postman asking him/ her to deliver fully to you - perhaps noting that the box doesn't have a dangerous spring? Sometimes asking people does help. I'm assuming you are not normally there in the mid to late morning when you probably have your delivery to speak personally. If there was anyone 'in management' in Sylvester Road I'd suggest speaking to them, but I don't believe there is manager based there.

ultrauk wrote :He leaves all the post half sticking out of the letter box EVERY time. Do you have a strong spring on your box? - I believe that there are a significant number of injuries each year to postmen who get fingers trapped by steel letter box flaps when they push letters all the way through - if your postie has been injured like that he may be very wary of being injured again. If you have a strong spring, weaken it so that it is more inviting to him to risk pushing letters all the way through.

NickW wrote No I am afraid I am here all the time. I often read the posts as a casual observer but I felt driven to write this time.. To have been a silent observer from November 24th 2006 until today with all that's has been going on over the years suggests a Trappist mentality and probably deserves a prize of some sort.

The poster calling himself NickW posted 3 submissions in as many days in November 2006, and then went silent. He has now started posting again. That is a strange profile, although NickW may not be the only alias he uses (I say he both because of the aggressive tone now used and the name Nick). Or maybe he's been away. His November 2006 posts were all well mannered (one was a puff).

Loz wrote: But, can I ask a question? Is it standard practice for the driver in these incidents to be arrested? I am happy to stand corrected, but I believe that an 'arrest' has to be made so that an individual can be questioned under caution - this is a protection for the individual as it is for the police - in this case where there has been a fatality the possibility of prosecution must initially be high, until all the facts can be verified. It is important that questioning of the driver be conducted under PACE (and if under 'arrest' the driver would be entitled to legal representation). Being arrested and being charged are two very different conditions. Clearly the driver is very likely to be in shock - so it is very important that he isn't led into saying things that he may later regret - expressing great sorrow may be understood to imply admitting responsibility - which he may not intend to do. "I am so sorry that I hit the child" can be read in two ways. Luckily (what an awful use of that word) there were numbers of witnesses to this terrible event, so it is to be hoped that the truth of it will soon become apparent. The level to which the road works and consequent confusion were contributory factors (whilst not necessarily being the primary cause) will clearly be an issue for the coronor and any subsequent proceedings.

While a number of people (those with prams, with wheel-chairs, with some other disabilities) couldn't benefit, this is precisely the type of junction which used to benefit from a pedestrian bridge - considering the number of school children moving around this area those at least could be protected from (and unimpeded by) the traffic. Although I understand the arguments about not implementing services which cannot be used by all, had there been a bridge, even a temporary one during the road works which made things worse, this could have been avoided (possibly). The only other sensible option is fencing the whole juction off and forcing pedestrian crossing (pelican controlled) down each of the server streets so that pedestrian crossing is over single stretches of road, with no turning traffic. This is clearly inconvenient to pedestrians, but inconvenience may be a reasonable price to pay to avoid injury and worse. The junction itself is pretty important to public and private wheeled vehicles - to seal that off in some way would reqire alternative routings which would force traffic into residential streets. The Danish option (I think it's Danish) would be to remove all traffic controls and street markings, thus forcing caution and more careful driving on motorists; but I'm not sure we're ready for that in ED.