Loz

I blame the 99%.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz... > > I said... In Non democratic countries voting is > compulsory .... > > I did not say that where voting is compulsary > the country is Non Democratic... You did also say, "It is because we live in a Democratic Country we have the right not to vote." In most non-democratic countries, voting isn't really on the agenda.

woodrot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > woodrot Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Like Ralph Nader back in 2000, the greens > > ensured a fascist got elected. > > > > > The Royals family are parasites > > > > You don't understand the meaning of 'fascist' > > > > You don't understand the meaning of 'parasite'. > > > > You're not doing very well today, are you? > There > > are on-line dictionaries out there to help you, > > you know. > > > as a missing the point tag team, you and MM are > pretty good Have you ever thought of taking an 'improving your writing' course?

woodrot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Like Ralph Nader back in 2000, the greens ensured a fascist got elected. > The Royals family are parasites You don't understand the meaning of 'fascist' You don't understand the meaning of 'parasite'. You're not doing very well today, are you? There are on-line dictionaries out there to help you, you know.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In Non democratic countries voting is compulsory > but there is usually only one person to vote for > if you value your life. Are you saying Australia is a non-democratic country? I'd say it's more democratic than the UK in a number of ways. (Actually, it is not compulsory to vote. It is compulsory to turn up, get you ballot paper/s and put them in the box. There is no imperative to actually make a mark on it.)

I think it was the tax question that finished any hope Ken had. It was just too hypocritical. Who would have thought it would have been Jenny Jones that finally scuppered Ken's chances, when she proposed all candidates release their tax records?

Weird night for the Lib Dems. The BBC analysis said that there was no discernible swing either way for the LibDems, but they seemed to be losing councillors by the truckload. I suppose it is a retreat into traditional strongholds. The other interesting Beeb analysis last night showed the overall Labour lead over the Tories at 8%. They then showed all the mid-term differences back to 1979 and anything up to and including 12% at the mid-term stage swung back to the incumbent government come general election. Labour still have a lot to do yet. I reckon the next election is looming as another coalition, though who will comprise that coalition is anyone's guess.

OK, I did say 'casual racism' originally, and it was on the lower end of the scale (if there is one). Still a bit unnecessary though and used to back up and emphasise a hatred. Doesn't overlook the fact that you made a lame comment, refused to back it up and ran away when pressed, though. And funnily enough, I'm not a 'royalist' as such. In fact, I'm a bit split on the whole matter. Being a dual-nat Australian/British I think the royals are rather good for the UK, but completely irrelevant to Australia. So, come on, chick, let's have a debate. You don't need stats and such - give us a bit more information about why the royals are 'parasites', given that a parasite, according to Google, is "a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return." Start with the Queen: does she do nothing for the UK?

Are you stoned? (?)

Oh dear. When called out to back up his racist and silly comment he runs away. Byeee. Don't let the door hit you on the a*** on the way out.

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No racism intended. And I think you have pulled your figures out of a hat. I didn't have time before, but here's some links... As an example, take the recent royal wedding - it has been estimated that the wedding generated a ?620m consumer spending boost. Plus it reached, it is estimated, a worldwide viewing audience of about two billion people, not to mention front page news on countless newspapers and magazines. What would a tourism advertising campaign have to spend to get that sort of reach? It wouldn't be to hard to show that, whatever the cost to the taxpayer of the wedding, it has more than paid for itself. I believe the total cost of the monarchy, including support staff and other costs is less than ?50m per year. You don't get much of a government department for ?50m - I suspect the costs for any replacement President would exceed that quite easily. So - any figures to back up your assertion, chick? Hmmm? Or have you just pulled your prejudices out of hat?

Ocado. They do home delivery.

You could try Peckham High Street. I've heard that if you go there after dark you are completely f***ed.

Green 0 Conservative 0 UKIP -4 Lib Democrat -5 Labour -7 Independent -7 Looks like I hate them all. Pretty accurate, then. The Guardian had a much better one, as it told you why you agreed with any particular candidate. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2012/apr/27/london-mayor-candidate-chooser

.

Addison Lee drivers or cyclists, uncleglen?

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The biggest benefit parasites in this country are your mates the German sausage munching royal family. Overlooking the casual racism, have you actually done a cost/benefit analysis of that? Don't forget to take into account tourism, business goodwill and the cost of replacing the monarchy with an alternative head of state. As an example, take the recent royal wedding - it has been estimated that the wedding generated a ?620m consumer spending boost. Plus it reached, it is estimated, a worldwide viewing audience of about two billion people, not to mention front page news on countless newspapers and magazines. What would a tourism advertising campaign have to spend to get that sort of reach? It wouldn't be to hard to show that, whatever the cost to the taxpayer of the wedding, it has more than paid for itself. I believe the total cost of the monarchy, including support staff and other costs is less than ?50m per year. You don't get much of a government department for ?50m - I suspect the costs for any replacement President would exceed that quite easily. So - any figures to back up that assertion, chick?

Surely that would be celebrating sewer-side?

A word of advice about Virgin. Get everything - EVERYTHING - in writing. I had a similar problem as Alan Medic - negotiated a great deal on the phone, but when the contract arrived the price agreed was not on there. Spent ages trying to convince them (at 0845 rates), but there was 'no record' of my deal and they refused to pull up the call recording. It was only when I used the cooling-off period to cancel my installation that someone would seriously talk to me and, in the end, had to offer me an even better deal to keep me. At that point I demanded the rep email me the details, which I duly received. Virgin broadband is good. Virgin customer services are just unbelievably appalling.

I thought it was the 'physique of a Greek politician'??

Rents are supply and demand. Rents are high because there is high demand. There are only three ways to counter this: 1) Increase supply 2) Lower demand 3) Introduce some other control. (3) won't happen, even if Ken's 'non-profit agency' gets created. And HB only distorts the market upwards, by pumping cash in and making the problem worse.

I understand that Infinity works by running fibre to the local cabinet, so it is that, rather than the local exchange as such, that needs to be upgraded.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Minicabs in the bus lane would defeat the point of a bus lane (which is to speed up public > transport). It definitely can't be for all. Black cabs are highly regulated and have much higher > standards than mini cabs and are part of the official transport system. All the additional > rules and regulations must come with some benefits otherwise what would be the point of having black > cabs at all-- the entire system could just be unregulated minicabs. As I noted above, minicabs are licensed and regulated by TFL and so, by your argument, are part of the official transport system also. You raise an important question. What is the point of black cabs? Why are they so heavily protected? Minicabs are cheaper, more plentiful and - most importantly - take you where you want to go. If black cabs offer such a great service, why are they so damn scared of competition? But this thread has somewhat changed my view. I used to think minicabs should be given access to bus lanes. I now realise that both minicabs AND black cabs should be banned from bus lanes. It's the only sensible conclusion. By the way... anyone here want to declare any current or past membership of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Cartel Association?

What?? "A formal part of the public transport system". No, they ferry around individual people and small groups of people, not the general public as a whole, from a given start point to a given destination. They are no more part of the 'public transport system' than minicabs are. You do realise both minicab drivers and operators in London are also licenced and regulated by TFL? Does that make you believe they are part of the public transport system (as least as much as black cabs are, anyway). Anyway , I'll believe black cabs are part of the public transport system the day that they honour my TFL-issued 2-zone weekly travelcard.

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you really want an additional 60,000 mini cabs in the bus lanes? I just want a level playing field in business. If, as a result of this, black cabs are excluded from bus lanes that would also be acceptable.