Chippy Minton

A couple of British things worth catching if you didn't at the time are Spooks and the first few series of The Hustle (don't bother with the later ones as they were utter crap).

The think most recommend the Danish. It is subtitled, but like most subtitled stuff I think you get over that in the first five mins. This is the version I'm gonna go for. Sopranos > The Wire > (although I've only done series 1). All good stuff though.

Agree with Otta's OP but a few more: 24 and The Shield - both oldies, but goodies and Homeland if you didn't catch it on Channel 4 recently. I've series linked a couple of things recently that you can get on DVD now or pretty soon - Touch: not bad, but gets a bit samey; and Alcatraz: when I saw the trailer I thought it would be good, but after 20 minutes of episode one you realise it is ridiculous. I'm pleased I recorded them both rather than buying the boxsets. The Killing and Borgen are both on my to see list, which I'm expecting good things from. Anyone seen Blue Bloods or Brotherhood? Any good?

Speak to a Southwark Planning Officer on the phone first. They will advise what is or isn't likely to be approved.

Jeez, I am not refusing to consider anything! Going round in circles here so for the last time again, read my posts - I have simply stated LFB is considering making cuts that it thinks will close a quarter of fire stations. If you don't believe this is being considered or if you don't trust the Standard's or BBC's interpretation then fine, we'll just have to wait until the budget propopals are presented in the spring.

Well I guess I'll put more trust in the reports from The Standard and BBC which are based LFB documents and that clearly state they are considering an option that would see a quarter of stations close, rather than your analysis of the "real financial data."

The options are detailed in internal LFB documents so I don't know what the other options are (if the OP is a firefighter maybe they have more info?). However, right on time, today's Evening Standard and the BBC report them: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/one-thousand-london-fire-brigade-jobs-under-threat-in-major-costcutting-shakeup-8175051.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19682622 so I suspect that it is true. "The figures I highlighted were published by the LFS themselves so it makes no sense now for them to claim they would have to cut so many personel and stations based on those figures" - maybe they've spent more than "all of five minutes" looking at "the real financial data" to conclude cutting so many personnel and stations needs to be considered as an option?

MM - no, I am not suggesting anything. Do you actually read my posts or do just see my username and think "ah, here's something for me to disagree with" ? I simply stated it is a fact that the LFB is considering an option that would cut fire fighters, fire engines and close a quarter of London's fire stations.

It is a fact that London Fire Brigade is seeking to save more than ?65 million from its budget over the next two years and it has stated "given the amount we need to save, it would not be possible to achieve all of these savings from 'back office' functions." It is also a fact that it is considering a number of options in order to save this money one of which is to cut 840 posts, 30 fire stations (representing a quarter of London's stations) and 30 fire engines to save ?45 million.

Off at a tangent slightly, but re: liberalconspiracy.org - this is Sunny Hundal's site who is, or rather was, a very well known Lib Dem supporter who's only become a "progressive" since the formation of the coalition. Whether you agree with its politics or not is moot, but it's a well respected site by all of the political sides and IMHO shouldn't be dismissed because of the domain name! Anyway, Moflo - get yourself and as many of your friends, family and colleagues out on A Future That Works demo on 20 October to help send your message to the Tories and the Mayor.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does this crap really belong in the DR? :) No wonder no one comes in here It doesn't really belong on the internet or in real life either does it!

For those who value objectivity and context with regard to Hillsborough - http://www.hfdinfo.com #JFT96

ladywotlunches Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm, as striking isn't going to solve anything here Lazy, tabloid, Nick Ferrari-esque phrase! Why exactly would a strike not "solve anything" ?

When will the 'ignore' facility be back?

Hall of fame beckons.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The obvious inference is > that the majority of that 80%, and therefore a > sizeable majority of NUT members, are not > sufficiently supportive of strike action to have > taken the trouble to vote in favour of it. Eh? You might just as well say the majority of that 80% and therefore a sizeable majority of NUT members are not sufficiently unsupportive of strike action to have taken the trouble to vote against it! You said 80% of the NUT's membership did not vote for a strike - I accept that is a fact. But it is also a fact that less than 5% of the membership voted against it. > The big point is that there is absolutely > no justification for a strike beyond a > plea for preferential treatment compared > to every other poor sod in the country. I assume you mean this in a moral sense rather than a technical sense because a 82% yes vote obviously provides the legal mandate to justify a strike (which BTW, hasn't actually been called so this is all still hypothetical). If that's the case then we just have to disagree. Teachers aren't asking for preferential treatment compared to "every other poor sod" - the big point is that there are millions of other poor sods that are also getting screwed!

Currys and Dixons are owned by the same group (which also includes PC World). Dixons is solely online now and is actually pretty competitive on price. All their old high street shops are now either closed or have been rebranded as Currys.

But you're still trying to imply the 80% are against it which isn't true. If these "sensible teachers" that are the majority are so embarrassed, why did less than 5% of the membership vote against the action?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's your point? They are unions made up of > teachers i.e. "teaching unions", and intended to > distinguish between their more vociferous members, > and teachers who do not belong, or do but did not > vote in favour of the strike i.e. 80% of the NUT's > membership. > You are trying to imply any industrial action is because "the union" wants it but the teachers themselves don't. That just isn't true - 92% voted in favour of action short of a strike and 82.5% voted in favour of strike action in the NUT's ballot.

A few months ago I was in the EDT watching football when a bloke came up to me and demanded know the time and if I was from "round here" - old-skool, football awayday style. I started to tell him to politely go away, but as soon as he heard my accent he quickly changed saying something like "oh yeah, no, I can hear where you're from...sorry mate." He then went on to rant about "all the f@@King film producers that live round here now" before moving onto someone else.

The idea that all teachers have a fantastic pension is a myth - Hutton found the average teacher pension in 2009-10 was ?9,806. BTW, DaveR - the NUT and NASUWT are lay member organisations i.e. it is not "the teaching unions" per se that oppose this, it is the teachers that make up the membership.

I would support the strike and I completely disagree with DaveR and the idea that is easy to get good teachers, especially where we live. This interview is with the headteacher of one of East Dulwich's best primary schools. It is short, but the fundamental point that it is very hard to attract good teachers is clear. I've said this many times, but the "I haven't got it, so why should someone else?" mentality stinks. Making sure we have the best teachers possible is critical and cutting their pensions and eroding their terms and conditions will make it even harder to recruit. They have my full support.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for keeping count for me Chippy. maybe we > should both get a life Haha...yes indeed :) *the internet is not real life* ;-)

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tom Micklewright, get a life How ironic! Tell someone you've never met before to get a life via an internet forum at 10:15pm on a Sunday night and then go on to post seven more times within the next two hours on subjects including consumer rights, the circus and dog poo!