pk

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ironic. The Labour Party - that was voted out by > the public - tried to cobble together a coalition > with the Lib Dems and the nationalist Parties - > just to stay in power. > > The Lib Dems did exactly the same, but with one > difference, the were successfull. > > of course all major parties where prepared to consider a coalition - that doesn't make is 'the same', the difference is about who you are prepared to do a deal with and how much you our prepared to sell out to be 'successfull' from what simon hughes has said, labour were not keen to sell out at all

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think there much danger of the likes of > him running the country. But being Barking and > Daganham area there's a pretty big danger he might > be running the council. They currently have 15 > council seats of 51, so by tonight they may well > be the largest party on the council, if not in > full control. > > It really doesn't bear thinking about. but you still think that the local kids reacting to (presumably) abuse from racists are 'scum' just as the racists are 'scum'?

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Come on Conseratives, give us a candidate with > enough b@lls and experience to actually give the > other parties a run for their money and the voters > a fair choice.. > yeah, why doesn't Cameron run here?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac asked the question, "What's the most a > person and his/her family can earn and still be > defined as being in poverty?". I've found someone > getting the equivalent of ?50K - and the article > suggests she and her family would still be in > poverty at the ?60K mark. so a sensible answer is probably 'it depends how big the family is'

njc97 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot, genetics can also help your body decide > how many calories it needs to eat, and the hunger > reflex can be very, very strong. There is good > evidence that no amount of exercise > regimes/calorie counting can change your body > weight by more than about 10% for a sustained > period. exactly just as some people are taller and some shorter, some people are born to be fatter and some thinner (and some thin people think that they can eat what they want because they don't put on weight, and then they have a heart attack)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I hate the downgrading/misuse of the word poverty. > The word is 'poor'. > > The Evening Standard recently did a series on 'The > Dispossessed' that included an article about a > woman living 'below the poverty line'. Her > 'income' was ?38,844 tax free which is the > equivalent of of over ?50K in taxed earnings. > But, as she has 11 children, this is defined as > 'in poverty'. where's the misuse? why the hate? poverty means: the condition of being extremely poor (cambridge advanced learner's dictionary) or the state of being extremely poor (oxford english dictionary) in relation to the ?38k, it's not her money - it's the family's (12 people!). it's not like she could chose to keep it all for herself, so surely you have to consider surrounding circumstances (like number of dependents) when considering if someone is poor? cue people moaning about spongers and the fact that people have children that they cannot support without assistance (doesn't mean they're not poor tho)

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >I know my Dad should not be driving, but without a car he > and my Mum would be stuffed. I know he never goes > far but do I 'tell' on him? > if he's potentially a danger to others then i think that it's your duty to tell him (and may be even stop him, as you might stop a friend who'd had a drink too many)

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would they think it is OK to make > a new prosperous life in a place where you don't > speak the language? Hopefully the message has got > through now. what is "the message"?

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apart from the fact that a house costs a few > hundred thousands times more, hasn't been left > 'lying around' and creates slightly more > complicated issues if the borrower doesn't want to > give it back. > > No, its exactly like a football. analogies aren't supposed to be exactly the same, if they were they wouldn't be analogies cars aren't exactly the same as houses either (you can drive them for a start, but i am not going to get into an argument about which of a car or a football is more like a house)

Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > its not like stealing a car though is it. Theyre > not going to sell it on. Its more borrowing.And I > mean that as an analogy by the way. i agree, they're not necessarily going to 'permanently deprive' the owner and they're not going to move it so that the owner can't find it an alternative analogy would be: finding a football in the park with no apparent owner and playing with it in that park but not taking it away, so that the owner is still able to find it and claim it (something that i see often in playgrounds)

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- >PK, what do you think should be done with that > house if not converted into flats? It is > enormous. Do you really think it is suitable for > a single family occupancy? Back in the day a > house like that would have had servants. it's nothing to do with me what's done with it

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the house is still untouched in a year, I'll go > round and deliver a delicious casserole to any > residing squatters. > > Up until then, I feel the benefit of the doubt > should reside with the person who only recently > paid over ?700k for it. i kinda agree with bits of it, but i don't think that the (presumably) rich, (possibly) ruthless property developer really cares about the social side of things - creating homes to take people off the streets, they're in it to line their own pockets and the flats won't be cheap i'm sure (or that (s)he needs the help of those on this board to fight their battles, when they want the squatters out i'm sure they'll get them out) Property developers extending and turning beautiful old housing into flats for the own personal gain are now seen as the good guys and the victims, who woulda thunk it? (i have assumed that the property in question is indeed the one that was recently bought for ?715k and for which planning permission to turn into flats has been sought and granted, if not, i accept that the above might not be relevant)

TheAllSeeingEye Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheAllSeeingEye Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > you have been asked to move on > > > > have they? (other than by people on here, who > it > > really ahsn't got anything to do with?) > > > Yes, they have, as they admitted somewhere above > on the previous pages Im sure. i must've missed that bit seems inconsistent with most of what they've said

TheAllSeeingEye Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you have been asked to move on have they? (other than by people on here, who it really ahsn't got anything to do with?)

goosegreenteam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RIP Guru. sad news, tho i'll admit i thought that it wouldn't register with many on here

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tell you all what my past experiences are. > However, it is doubtful that these are the same > people! now i'm curious, can't you tell us anyway?

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I might pop down and have a look for myself, just to > satisfy myself that these are not some of the same > people as I have had experience of. > what will you do if you're not satified?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What you're really doing is taking it with threats of violence. what a load of nonsense who's been threatened?

brum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Either it's broadband from EDT, Woof, or they can > afford iPhones with all the money they save from > not paying their way! yeah cos there's no way that students could have any other access to the internet is there?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If that is true, it is significant irony that it > is actually the action of squatters that has > ensured that social housing stock is scuppered. > > Hoist and petards sping to mind. but it isn't squatters' action, is it? the scuppering is done by those doing the gutting and it isn't social housing - the 5,500 referred to were privately owned and if anyone's hoisted by their own petards, surely it's the property owner who by gutting property will have made it harder/more expensive for themselve to occupy or sell? cutting, nose, spite, face, springs to my mind

Milo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I took the line, "we will be less reluctant to > cooperate.", as meaning we will be difficult and > drag it out through use of our legal rights, > so did i although what it actually says is (to paraphrase) 'we will be more likely to cooperate' (i.e. less reluctant)

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thought of a loved one being involved in a car > accident is nightmarish to say the least. How to > make matters even worse - have the other party be > uninsured. If this should ever happen to you KK > et al then, trust me, you'll be less laissez-faire > about untaxed drivers (who are inevitably > uninsured). but there is some protection against this via the motor insurance bureau (albeit protection that paying policyholders ultimately fund) so i don't know how difference the experience is in general i'm not one to go telling tales unless i know that there's a real threat to health or property (which failure to pay tax isn't, regardless of whatever else people are saying that untaxed drivers (or abandoners) get up to). i'm also not one to get too worked up by the 'i pay so everybody else should' arguments - i tend to worry about keeping my own affairs in order and accept that in any respect not everyone is perfect so if i allowed myself to get upset whenever anyone else was poorly behaved i'd be upset (or outraged) most of the time as someone else has said it's easy for the dvla/police to track down untaxed owners if they want and they do in fact do this sometimes

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jah Lush Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Who the feck would want to live in a tower > block > > in the Elephant & Castle? I mean really, it's a > no > > brainer. It's shit. > > > Stupid people. They're out there, and rather > worryingly, they're allowed to vote! i used to live there and yeah it was a bit shit but it's a walk from the City, 'the Borough', the South Bank and two mainline rail terminals, it's on two tube lines, numerous train lines, god know how many bus routes so if you wanna get somewhere else it's very easy

we tend to go to myatt's fields for water play and it's fun (though a drive) what is it that people don't like about peckham softplay?

TonyQuinn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another petty observation pk.... eh? i only asked a question as i thought that the facts here had prompted your 'message to all the girls especiall' (i don't know the victims or their gender so i wondered whether there were indeed more women than men)