pk

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Moos Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is it not usual to put a large technical > project > > out to tender so that firms can compete to win > the > > business? I'm not sure that Boris meant that > > herds of schoolchildren would be designing them > > using loo rolls and sticky-backed plastic. > > Or am I missing some irony here...it is early, > > after all. > > I agree with you Moos - that's what I read the > term competition to mean. that's not quite how i read it - usually in competitive tender situations you know what you want and you know that a number of people provide it - here as no new routemaster actually exists it's a very different idea to me i don't think that you'd get a large number of companies investing to design a new 'routemaster' (which would take a great deal of investment) only to get the design not taken any further by the client that you designed it for more likely is that (if anything happens at all on this, which i doubt) is that he'll pick someone based on a 'design' that has not actually been built and huge teething problems will follow. it'd also be all but impossible to put an accurate price on it

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ok, so here's what Boris says > (http://www.backboris.com) > > > > Transport: > > I will phase out bendy buses and run a new > competition[!!!! on blue peter?] to find a 21st century Routemaster > that has full disabled access, runs on clean fuel > and has conductors. > I will look again at having an air-conditioned > tube. > I will lobby government for powers to fine utility > companies that run overtime when digging up the > roads. > > I will work with boroughs to improve existing > cycle and walking routes. > I will fight for London's rail commuters and > campaign for longer trains, more frequent services > and Oyster at all stations. > Injured veterans who live in London will be able > to travel free on London buses. > I will lobby for long-term projects that London > needs, including the Oxford Street Tram, East > London Line Phase 2, DLR and Transit extensions > and the Crossrail to Ebbsfleet. > i couldn't help but laugh when i read a politician saying that he'd solve the bus problems by running a competition - he really hasn't a clue that aside not much firm commitment in transport, as an example

iamyamyam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Last night I received a election leaflet from Val > Shawcross,the labour candidate for the Lambeth and > Southwark GLA seat. > > Right on the top it had a graph, apparently from a > MORI poll, showing labour on 41%, Tories on 40% > lib dems on 14 and greens on 6%. The lib- dems > had a massive arrow next to them saying "cant win > here" > > Yet on her website it says "In Lambeth and > Southwark just a 3% swing would see a victory for > the Lib dems" > > http://www.valshawcross.com/index.php?id=378 > > We'll ones wrong and I guess as Southwark council > is run by the lib dems the election leaflet is > trying convince people not to go out and " waste" > a vote on the lib dem's > > Is election advertising treated the same as normal > advertising? Isn't there some form of penalty for > making misleading claims? haven't seen the stuff so obviously don't know what i'm talking about, but perhaps the different stats are referring to different elections (of the three that we're voting on today)?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're not observant and by your logic we've got > Ken forever....not sure if you should have the > vote in all honesty that's not the logical conclusion at all but as you've observed this topic is being discussed elsewhere so i won't go on here

oh right, i shoulda looked there (must've missed them when they were on the main page) admin please feel free to delete

are we allowed to talk about the forthcoming election of mayor of the city we live in (even if it's not strictly ED - there are location elections too)? it seems odd to me that there's not been any discussion of this to kick things off: i'll be voting for ken, he's the only one with anything close to the experience required and any idea of what the job actually involves. a change for the sake of it could be a change for the worse

that isn't really an official list of 'professionals' is it? it's a list of acceptable countersignatories for a passport application, it doesn't even say professional on it does it? for those upset by their absence from the list - a 'person of similar standing in the community' is allowed to sign too so i am sure that you'll find a way to sneak yourselves in

obviously people who work for charities (in admin roles or whatever) get paid - it's their job, without which the charity would not function or would rely on inevitably inefficient volunteers if people don't realise that charities pay their permanent staff they are at best very naive

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BJL Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Interesting reactions to charity fundraisers. > > > It > > > seems that these people are hated almost as > > much > > > as traffic wardens. > > > > > > i agree > > > > these people (paid or not) are trying to raise > > money for a good cause. the reason that they do > so > > on the street is that they get better returns > than > > if the charity just sits back and waits for > people > > to send in money - it's easy to say no if you > > don't want to give so don't really understand > all > > the moaning > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > It's NOT all that easy to say no if you aren't > very assertive, which is what the charities are > depending on. > > You have the choice of appearing rude (ignoring > them or telling them to f*** off or telling them > why you don't want to give to somebody accosting > you in the street) or going along with it. Many > people don't want to appear rude. > > They hook you in by saying they don't want money, > which as someone on this thread has already > pointed out is just not true - they DO want money, > they want you to fill in a direct debit form, > which the charity then hopes you will forget you > ever did, so they will take your money year after > year. > > Of course it's better for the charity - but do you > not realise that there is a reason that these > people are known as chuggers, aka charity muggers? > Because when they approach you there are a lot of > similarities to being mugged (though I don't want > to downplay the trauma of "real" mugging). > > I want to choose at leisure what charities I give > my money to, not be forced to make a default > "choice" through being approached on Lordship Lane > whilst doing my shopping. > > I don't think this is moaning, I think it is a > completely understandable response to people who > are forcing themselves on us without being asked! what charities are focussing on is the fact that most people don't do things unless you make it easy for them of course it's moaning - maybe the first time one 'forces themselves on' you you could be 'hooked' by the 'we don't want money' but surely once bitten, twice shy and a second 'mugging' could be avoided is not the right for charities to raise money for good causes more important than the right for unassertive people to avoid being rude? (and in my experience there're are easy ways to avoid being 'chugged' without being rude e.g. a simple 'no, thank you') surely the only choice being forced is do you stop and talk or not, if you choose not then that does leave you free to choose your charties at leisure

BJL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting reactions to charity fundraisers. It > seems that these people are hated almost as much > as traffic wardens. i agree these people (paid or not) are trying to raise money for a good cause. the reason that they do so on the street is that they get better returns than if the charity just sits back and waits for people to send in money - it's easy to say no if you don't want to give so don't really understand all the moaning

surely avoiding unnecessary appointments is in the interests of both doctor and patient and could lead to a better service for those attending the surgery?

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No disrespect to Franklins but IMO this cannot be > a serious review - either that or the Grauniad's > journalistic standards have hit rock bottom - > still it did make me smile. > > "...veritable goblets of fine hot coffee that > soothed the soul.." (decaf then ?) > "..the gentlement chefs...busied themselves like > ants; carefully constructing our food..." > "...these Rembrants of the breakfast world.." > "...the grilled tomato did that rare thing of > shedding any vegetable confusion..." > > and best of all > > "...the bacon that tasted as if the pig had slept > under a duvet upon a cloud." > > > Unbelievable thanks for sharing that i particular liked the bit about 'already aware that this could be breakfast history in the making'

georgina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > georgina Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I agree with Ganapati ED Mum's are a > nightmare > > - > > > > > > > and you don't find it inappropriate to make > > sweeping generalisations? > > > Thats neither here nor there - This is a forum and > I was giving my own opinion. oh well, generalise along - any other individual behaviours you've observed that it's your opinion generalise to wider groups?

georgina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with Ganapati ED Mum's are a nightmare - > and you don't find it inappropriate to make sweeping generalisations?

there are selfish mothers as there selfish members of all groups, it's obviously not fair to generalise

it's hard to fault the australian's reasonable take on this in my eyes similarly - if people don't want bookies and amusement arcades they will close and if people do like e.g. black cherry enough they will support it by spending money and it will survive

i also think that there is some sort of challenge around the capacity of the council to sell the property as it was suggested that they do not actually have unfettered ownership rights - rather they hold the property on trust doubt that this'll be successful however

Oglandia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a final whinge from me (so 'Whinga Hatas' please > look the other way) if you pay your fine at the > Council's risibly named "Parking Shop" on Old Kent > Road there is no damn place to park. Anyone been > booked while paying a fine? To quote Ian Curtis > (whose old house I can see as I type) "Where will > it end?" "where will it end?" we're only talking about small penalties for minor traffic offences here

gotta agree with Bob - it's not unfair - the guys are doing their jobs and if a restriction comes in to place at 4 would it not make sense to be in that area to enforce it?

Ladygooner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blackheath, County Hall and Fulham apparently > > > Michael Palaeologus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Apparently they are "opening their fourth > > restaurant in East Dulwich" - which are the > other > > 3 ED restaurants then? i think that the intention of MP's post was to highlight the poor punctuation in the press release which could be read to suggest that this will be their fourth restaurant in east dulwich

Shaggy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm. Interesting. Why so much salt now one > wonders? cos it been freezing at night?

AllyCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HonaloochieB Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > snorky Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > blurgh > > > > > > unispired Italian food > > > > > > I wont be trekking to the green for that.no > > thanks > > > > Thanks for the warning snorky. I'll be taking > my > > business elsewhere too. > > > > ???? How can this be a warning??? It hasn't even > opened yet?! I thought that HonaloochieB's post was pretty funny (and assumed that it was intended to be so)

ontheedge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Q. Who does the Maudsley cater for > A. The local community so that could be anyone of > us. > > pk what do you suggest a fair share of mad people > is. Maybe the Maudsley and it's famous history > have attracted many of the more recent housebuyers > to the area as it is only since the early ninties > that you had to be from the actual area to receive > treatment there prior to that it treated London > wide. by fair share i mean more than a random area - as inevitably the hospital brings people to the immediate vicinity it's not a problem for me

MadWorld74 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was into thinking that asylums were dispanded in > the early 90's due to a new law passed on the > treatment of the 'mentally ill' in 1980. > > Who do the Maudsley actually cater for, tell me > more Snorky? http://www.slam.nhs.uk/services/sitelist.aspx?site=Maudsley+Hospital

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > any evidene that hes done anything bad or touched > anyone ( apart from his brusque attitude of course > ) ? > > I know the bloke you mean - hes never approached > me or seemed threatening - I think the bus stop is > his "manor" > > Just dont want him to be demonised if hes > harmless... i think that you've touched on something - with the Maudsley just up the road ED and Camberwell probably see more than their fair share of 'mad' people, but 'mad' does not necessarily 'bad' (though it might mean socially inappropriate anyway)