Penguin68

brum wrote: I heard that SE London took the brunt of the V1 & V2 attacks because British Intelligence deliberately issued false damage reports making the Germans think they were hitting the docks & central London instead - they didn't know that their rockets were actually falling short of their intended targets. Anyone know if this is true? I believe that this is true, SIS used the 'turned' German spies to report falls of missiles to the North and West of London, causing the aimers to reduce their aim, so that they started to fall to the south and east - hence the damage in SE London, Bromley etc. By 1944 the Luftwaffe was virtually interdicted from English skies, so direct observation from planes wasn't a possibility. Last night on TV Kate Humble learned that her grandfather, a test pilot, had helped prove the fighter that could take on the Flying bombs and shoot them down, downing over 600 if my memory from the programme serves. Tne ballistic missile however moved at supersonic speeds and couldn't be shot down.

Anyone know whether organic snail bait that claims to be safe for cats and dogs etc would be safe to use for our frog? If it's actually bait (i.e. to trap snails/ slugs - such as using beer as a bait) then it should be OK, but if its any type of poison then I suspect that if it kills the slugs it will kill the animals that eat slugs (which cats and dogs in the main don't). I am not sure what 'organic' in this sense means - but often it refers to not using chemical pesticides - but there are many organic (i.e. non-chemical) poisons.

Probably during the last unpleasantness with the Germans

Are you sure they are frogs? Adult toads only stay in ponds during the mating season - otherwise they live in moist areas of gardens, and not just ones with ponds - this is ideal weather for them to be out and about searching for slugs etc. Actually, unless the weather is very hot, frogs also spend a lot of time out of water. If you do have either in your garden, don't put poison down for slugs etc. - the amphibians will eat the poisoned slugs and then die themselves.

Of course, the wonderfully counter-intuitive thing would be to give priority to Underhill Road, not Barry Road (though the buses wouldn't like it). I have never had a visibility problem when in Barry Road about traffic in either leg of Underhill Road (when turning into it, for instance). That's actually what happened along Underhill about 10 or so years ago, when its priority was broken up by giving priority to even more minor roads (and by putting in a mini-roundabout). At the time, as an 'Underhiller' losing my priority seemed irksome, but it certainly also seemed to reduce minor (and not so minor) accidents. So would enforcing a 20 mph limit on Barry, using those warning signs which light-up when you go over the designated speed.

Pechamrose wrote:- Yeah more traffic lights, every single junction preferably, more bumps in between every junction, more and more things to punish the already sensible driver. Or... we could concentrate on the training of drivers and punishing more sensibly those whose driving skills are found wanting and retrain them. Just a thought. Interestingly this is a rehearsal of a Benthamite argument - should we legislate so that factory machinery would have to be fenced - thus stopping child labourers falling into it, or would it be better to set a very high penalty on factory owners if workers were injured, but leave it up to them whether to fence or not (or whether to train people to work carefully, employ others to pull children away from machinery if they looked like falling in etc.) It is one of the fundemental arguments about freedom - whose freedoms should you protect, by taking away the freesom of others? British legislation decided that fencing-in machinery (taking away the factory owners freedom to choose what course of action they should take) was the better option. Putting in traffic calming measures is the equivalent, as opposed to setting high punishments on those who jeopardise life and limb through their driving skills or lack of them. I am not arguing that either way is 'right' - but it is nice to see the same philosophical issues as yet unresolved.

There is a real visibility problem for those travelling on Underhill towards Lordship Lane, particularly when large trucks are parked up looking left as you cross the road. I reckon a well placed traffic mirror might address that problem - although you see those more commonly on the Continent and not here. Additionally it can be quite dangerous when pedestrians decide to cross Underhill Road (on either side) without warning just when a car has committed to cross Barry Road - the car can be stranded in Barry Road unable to exit into Underhill. The 'traffic calming' reduction in road width in Underhill on both sides also makes clearing Barry Road more difficult, as do cars parked up to narrow the road even more. Barry Road and Underhill Road are both very useful rat-runs through ED, as an Underhill resident of 20+ years I welcome the attempts to reduce traffic speeds, but speed through crossings can be quite important. Possibly raised road platforms at that intersection could reduce the speed of Barry Road vehicles - allowing those travelling along Underhill to cross more safely. Barry Road is such a long straight road that it undoubtedly encourages vehicle drivers to forget that it is still very much a local and residential road.

But Domitianus - I fear you're getting your misanthrope mixed up with your misogynist A misanthrope dislikes man (i.e. human) kind in general, a misogynist holds women alone in disdain. So a misanthrope hates almost twice as many people as a misogynist.

Back when I were a lad, there were two people on buses, the clippie, responsible for ensuring 'the rules' were obeyed (about occupancy/ standing etc.), ensuring everyone was a legitimate paid-up traveller etc. and doing 'customer servicy' sorts of things (not that it was called that then). The driver ensured the bus was driven safely and to timetable, and kept aware of mechanical issues. Because the clippie was there the driver only had to stop for loading/ unloading (and not for checking for tickets etc.) which made keeping to timetable easier. I would guess many/ some existing drivers still date back to those days, when their customer facing capability, or lack of it, was never a recruitment or training issue. Possibly 'Nigel' does as well. Nowadays bus drivers have to do far more, whilst still having the safe driving of their vehicle as their key deliverable. It is clear from posts that 'Nigel' is not well suited to the customer service part of the job - and if he dates back to the old style of doing things may resent having to do that part, or not even understand why that part is important in a service industry. That doesn't make people's experience of him any better of course, nor does it excuse overt or unnecessary rudeness, but it may explain why he can be a good technical driver (I don't think anyone has suggested he drives badly) whilst still not being a good driver/conductor, which is what he now has to be. It is the nature of this board that his detractors and his champions each over-egg their arguments, but I suspct that the nature of the combined job that he has to do requires quite diferrent sorts of abilities, and to find experts in both in the same body may be unusual. As a passenger I think I'd prefer a surly but expert driver to a cheery but reckless one, even though I would find surliness when it segues into bullying itself unacceptable.

Pugwash wrote Mum did not know what she was talking about - turns out that she had never received a PIN for this card,and never had PIN for any previous cards, infact she did not understand what a PIN was initially. When explained,said she would never remember a PIN number as her memory was too poor. It is possible to get a bank to issue a debit card which doesn't require a PIN - when it is put into the card reader it instead asks for a signature - this is to take account of those who have poor sight, poor memory etc. - mainly the elderly. This is normally only issued on request and when the bank knows there is a specific problem, but it does allow someone still able to sign, but unsure of what a PIN is/ how it works, or unable to use a PIN to use a debit card. I don't know whether all banks do this, Lloyds TSB certainly does.

The scenario seems very implausible - exposure tends to be a solitary, not a group activity; it is unusual for teenage boys to expose themselves to adults (what they get up to behind what used to be the bike sheds is a different matter) and maintaining an erection in such circumstances might be considered a challenge. Without wishing to denigrate the experience of the poster - who was clearly and properly shocked by the event - might we be looking at a very stupid 'practical' (why are they called that?) joke where some form of fake appendage was being displayed? That (pretending to expose yourself, using a fake willy) seems a much more likely schoolboy prank - possibly even a dare - than actual exposure. It doesn't make the experience any better for the poster, but it might be more likely. Of course, pretending to expose yourself is just as traumatic, unless discovered, as actually exposing yourself, to the one being exposed to, but it displays a different psychology at work. I do recall, from the 1960s, 'humerous' use of uncooked sausages by schoolboys (this was before the days of sex shops with more more realistic simulacra) - if only amongst themselves. Just a thought, but if true we are facing a different sort of peril, and perhaps one slightly less daunting.

Ace77 wrote:- About 2 weeks ago water started steadily dripping through the over flow pipe in my lofts water tank. Could this be connected? This could be being exacerbated by high pressure, but it is most likely a function of a failing ball valve (or other type of valve depending on what is installed). You probably have two tanks in your loft, a water tank fed by the mains that then distributes cold water to upstairs taps, loo etc. and an expansion tank for central heating. In either case you need to get this sorted, and particularly before any chance of winter frost. Whatever the pressure now, once the valve fails to stop water entering the tank once a set level is reached you have a problem. It may be simple to solve - sometimes debris can be blown into pipes when a water main is breached (for instance) and this debris can be jamming the valve - clear the debris and the valve will work again. Or the valve may have failed. Either which way, this is a job for a plumber or competent DIYer.

You will find reference to cats that don't cause allergies here - it's not just the fur actually, but the fur and skin cells which can cause reactions, so hairless cats could be as bad. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5375900.stm

It's not about cyclists weaving. It's about drivers paying attention Surely it's about both? but when you see a white van man accelerating from zero to sixty coming off a roundabout towards the back end of your other half on a dual carriageway - and white van man is doing his paperwork/yakking on his phone etc etc, and there's two inches to spare between life and death This thread started with a discussion about what seems fairly stupid behaviour of an adult cyclist with children in a suburban back street - I recognise it has been nicely turned to address entirely different sets of circumstances, but attempts to say that because, in one set of circumstances, the driver is to blame and the cyclist is innocent does not then mean that that is necessarily true in all cases. And someone else wrote The main difference is if you are in a car you are using a deadly weapon. Cars kill other people. Bikes do not kill other people. This is not strictly true; there is at least one incident of a cyclist hitting an elderly pedestrian who later died, and I have certainly seen nasty bruising caused by careless cyling - although, of course damage caused by cyclists is infinitesimal compared with damage (and very grave and terminal damage) done to cyclists. I have also seen cyclists running into pedestrians who have stupidly stepped off the pavement without seeing them - often both parties are injured, but, following some of the arguments here, one would have to assume (I don't) that the cyclist, being faster moving and on a vehicle, must be to blame.

When I was young (a very long time ago, it seems, but actually only in the 1950s) the police stopped cyclists, including young people like me, if their bikes didn't have back and front lights - and that was during the day. They sometimes even stopped us to check that they worked. Schools used to train cyclists (cycling proficiency badge, as I recall)and cyclists generally obeyed the highway code, stopped at lights, signalled when turning and so on. A significant number of children used to cycle to school - nowadays I assume smoking amongst schoolchildren must have reduced as there are no cycle sheds behind which to smoke. All of which is meant to suggest that the riding behaviour of cyclists - the fact that in suburban streets children ride haphazardly at dusk and later without lights etc. etc. has made the driver:cyclist relationship much more fraught. Of course drivers must take primary responsibility for cyclist safety - in the sense that they must drive carefully and thoughtfully amongst them - but equally safety is a two-way street - cyclists, and parents of young cyclists, who take, or allow others to take, stupid risks (cycling without lights in poor visibility, without signalling, without care or thought) cannot rely on drivers to make up for their stupidity. I have (on two wheels in London) been hit by cars lurching out of side streets, been side swiped by lorries unaware that in turning the trailer element of an artic can swing out into traffic, so I am aware of the other side of the coin, but the coin does have two sides.

The naming of the road is early - this quote from an article on OS maps - The 1868 map is still quite open, although Lordship Lane and Crystal Palace Road are shown laid out ready for building. So it was not more than 15 years after Crystal Palace was moved before the road was named - I suspect because by then it was a 'popular' local name and would encourage potential buyers to think they were closer to 'attractive' Sydenham Hill than they were - so an early version of esatate agent's spin.

From WikiP After the exhibition, the building was moved to a new park in a high, healthy and wealthy area of London called Sydenham Hill, an area not much changed today from the well-heeled suburb full of large Victorian villas that it was during its Victorian heyday. The Crystal Palace was enlarged and stood from 1854 until 1936, when it was destroyed by fire. It attracted many thousands of visitors from all levels of society. The name Crystal Palace (coined by the satirical magazine Punch)[2] was later used to denote this area of south London and the park that surrounds the site, home of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.

Keef wrote: crystal palace itself was just part of penge wasn't it? This may be part of the huge irony attack which seems to have rushed through the posts in the last 48 hours, but if it isn't then I think what is now 'Crystal Palace' used to be treated as Sydenham rather than Penge.

except I think it was in New York and she was murdered in a stairwell or courtyard overlooked by loads of windows, and none of the neighbours even bothered to call the police, let alone go to help It is worth noting that the incidence of urban foxes mating in New York is I believe low, whereas in East Dulwich it has seemed very high - so night-time screams of a particularly agonizing nature are a commonplace here without causing real fears - listen out for words amongst the screams is my advice, and call the police then. [And I really, really wouldn't like to be a vixen]

these are the actual trees that Dinosaurs would have scratched their 'arrises on Strictly I think the types of trees, since I doubt the ones in Oglander Road are actually 60 million years old!

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 rubish on the first day.

I was at the EDF drinks on Friday, so wonder if i got sneezed on by any of the people from the private school who were infected. Or when i was wandering around LL on Saturday. I doubt whether even the EDF lets in Year 7 pupils as drinking customers.

I walked the dog at about 5pm and there were several picked daffodils strewn around the grass. If your going to pick them at least take them home! Actually, if the daffs are almost 'over' dead-heading them is a good thing - it encourages growth in the bulb - thus leading to flowers next year, rather than allowing the flowers to go to seed -where the effort is put into seed production and the plant is more likely to be 'blind' next spring. So pulled-off heads (even where the stalk is also snapped off), as long as the leaves are there isn't always a sign of anti-social behaviour - particularly where the flowers are withering/ browning. Oh, and it wasn't me doing it and writing to justify my actions!

You can normally tell brown from sea trout (remembering that they are essentially the same fish, but with different habits), as the sea trout tends to have pinker flesh (from its diet of krill) rather than the duller grey/ taupe of the river-caught brown trout. Unless stated I always assume that it is the brown trout that is advertised on menus as 'trout'. The rainbow trout ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_trout ) is a Pacific species but has been introduced to the UK for sport. I assume from the description that what was being served at Hisar was the very rare desert trout (not listed in Wikepedia) and obviously a non-riverine inhabitant of the more arid parts of Anatolia.

Actually, I have caught, and eaten, a trout in the sea (actually in a salt-water loch open to the sea) - it is called, unsurprisingly, the sea trout, and is a close relative, some suggest a variety, of the common brown trout. See link; http://www.atlanticsalmontrust.org/seatrout_facts/seatrout.html