Loz

McMurphy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 7% of Southwark's population are killed by PM2.5 > air pollution (more are killed by air pollution as > a whole, PM2.5 is only a subset of this). I think you mean 7% of deaths in Southwark can be attributable wholly or in part to air pollution. If any single factor was killing off the population at the rate of 7% a year then population would be deceasing pretty rapidly...!

Hotmail is bad, admittedly. But Gmail is just f'ing atrocious. I'm not sure there could be a more cack-handed way to do email. One sodding big folder and everything 'tagged'. And the added bonus of not actually deleting emails when you access via IMAP (whicjh you use to get away from Gmail stupid web interface), but just hiding them so they still take up space and you have no idea where your 15GB went. The whole damn thing was designed by a masochistic madman with a migraine. (In case you wondered, I'm not a fan).

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I expect that there is greater homophobia in the Tory office (hardly > traditional values) and similarly their backers in the black and red top media. You might 'expect' that, but I believe that the Tories fielded more LGBT candidates than Labour in 2015 and had more gay MPs than Labour until 2015. So, like for female leaders, Labour wrings its hands and frets about identity politics but actually achieves little.

Springer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BBC should be ashamed Anyone know what this is about?

Well, from what I can see: Big winners today: Lib Dems. A major chance for a comeback, if they can get the Remain vote. Big losers today: Momentum. All those plans to deselect 'Blairite' MPs are gone and their talisman will probably be gone by July.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the Lib Dems entered an alliance with the Tories last time they got any votes, and look how > that turned out. Not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'Centrist'. It doesn't mean 'nicer, cuddlier form of Labour'.

uptheworkers! Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why did I use the phrase? Because there's quite a few ill-informed comments on here about this > issue. People have a responsibility to educate themselves before commenting, really "Ill-informed" - people who have the temerity to have an opinion differing from yours. I think I'll sound out the the PONCEY SELF-INDULGENT SELF-OPINIONATED STUPID 'EDUCATE YOURSELF' COMMENT KLAXON every time someone uses it. Should be fun.

uptheworkers! Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People commenting on here who have educated themselves ... PONCEY SELF-INDULGENT COMMENT KLAXON!!! Jeez I hate that phrase. Why do people use it??

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess we should also add that the OP hasn't confirmed this is who she meant so this could be a > complete red herring. She could be an agent of DPG - post a vague complaint message, insinuate (but not say) it is DPG, then wait for someone to say something actionable... Or I've been watching too much ITV3.

Are they connected with Dulwich Estate, RPC?? Just had a look at their website. Obviously, they don't say which are paid staff and which are volunteers, but they list 36 staff. 36!!! And that's not including cafe staff.

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Changing passwords regularly, and insisting on complex > ones, is the easiest, but that won't always work. Mainly because it results in post-it notes with the new, hard-to-remember password plastered somewhere. There are lots of studies into passwords. None of them seem to come up with many useful conclusions. But there is a real move away from regularly changing passwords. Personally, I think two-factor authentication - especially for remote access - is the best. That's where you have a password ("something you know") and some other device ("something you have"). Banks use it these days in the form of card readers and pin-pads. Paypal uses your mobile phone - it sends you a text with a code when you log in.

I think you can safely assume everyone has missed your clue. No one can really comment until we either know who is the 'offending' place or we hear their side of the story. The second one of those isn't going to happen, so it's all up to you. Lynne.

From the play, "The Letter of Last Resort"... [John] The rational thing for you to do Prime Minister, in all matters of world affairs, is to behave in a wayward and dangerous manner. [PM] You can?t be serious. [John] I?m deadly serious. In order to keep the value of a national Nuclear deterrent the rest of the world has to believe that the leadership of that nation is basically ? irrational ? on a knife edge ? ready to go off at any moment ? likely to do berserk things ? they have to look at that nation and believe that its premier is driven by enough psychopathy that they would be willing to see twenty million innocent civilians die for no other reason than sheer revenge. [PM] Right. [John] It?s called the ?crazy? strategy. [PM] The crazy strategy. [John] It?s a strategy which Israel pioneered. Iran has adopted it. America pursues it quite successfully.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What the point of this thread? 'Freedom of speech is good'? Most people believe that. Few actually practice it.

Often they want you to open an attachment - that generally introduces a virus or similar to your network. This can also be done via getting you to click on a link. The other new one is 'spear phishing' - a social engineering attack where they get you to pay a bogus account. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35250678

I think the point you are missing Lynne is that no one knows which institution you are talking about. That is what is making this thread pointless.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting how 'liberal' has become a catch-all put down. Back in the day it would be 'Commie' or > 'Trot', then in more recent times 'Lefty'. Even our very own Louisa is using 'social democrat' as > a put down :) ... I blame the Americans - they've been so very confused about the difference between 'left' and 'liberal' for decades.

The Beeb (which is usually better than this) ran a story earlier in the week, the headline of which was 'Thousands on 50p-a-week housing benefit'. When you read the story, you then discovered this was because they had hit the ?23k cap and housing benefit was the last one on the list.

?If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.? ― Noam Chomsky

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > I don't support KL. I don't actually agree with > > him at all. Hell, I don't actually like him very > > much. > > > > But I do think there is a free speech issue here. > > > You're confusing his right to free speech with > whether he should remain in The Labour Party, a > party which used to make fighting prejudice a key > cornerstone of its existence Well, Labour has never been big on free speech, so you may have a point,

I don't support KL. I don't actually agree with him at all. Hell, I don't actually like him very much. But I do think there is a free speech issue here.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > It's intentionally inflammatory, and his insistence on keeping it up just shows that he is > > > intentionally antagonising people. > > > > I don't think there is any doubt he is being > > intentionally antagonising, my question is whether > > that is a punishable offence. > > Not only ought it be a punishable offence but the media ought to deny him airtime for a long, long > time. Just choke him off. Would you extend that to anyone deemed 'intentionally antagonising'? Or just people you disagree with?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's intentionally inflammatory, and his insistence on keeping it up just shows that he is > intentionally antagonising people. I don't think there is any doubt he is being intentionally antagonising, my question is whether that is a punishable offence.

Doubt Easycar it will work. If I still owned a car, I wouldn't want any old stranger driving it. I do, however, see the advantage of Streetcar and I've been a member for a couple of years now. I know people that have used Air BnB - frankly, when I'm away, the last thing I want to be doing in sitting in someone else's lounge especially while they are still there. But, some people like that sort of thing. As for Uber, you can see them coming on the screen, you know the car reg, have a record of the driver and know the approximate fare. So, over and above the fare differences, it's just a great service. Plus, I've never had an Uber say "Oh, sorry mate, I'm not going in that direction..."

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I hope we do have a workable plan and not a load of nationalist rubbish. How could you possibly think that could ever happen for our 'red, white and blue' Brexit?